The URL can be used to link to this page

05-18-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1994, ",:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRP CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Landscaping approval for Minnewashta Landings and located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway. 2. *Item Deleted. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Dolphin Development for a sign plan review for Abra and Goodyear located south of Hwy. 5 at 40 and 50 Lake Drive East. 4. Patrick Minger for the rezoning of 8.46 acres from A2. Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat into 17 single family lots and one outlot located at 8221 Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood Estates. 5. Harstad Companies to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38 single family lots located on property zoned RSF. Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, The Oaks at Minnewashta. 6. City Code Section 18-57, Streets,by amending (o.), to include standards for private driveways serving R4, R8, R12, R16 and non-residential uses. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 7. Revised Sign Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Item Deleted 2. Site Plan Review for a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, Marcus Corporation. Deleted for traffic study - rescheduled for June 1, 1994 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Minnewashta Landings Landscaping Plan SUB 94-1 Background The Planning Commission gave preliminary plat approval to the Minnewashta Landings subdivision on March 2, 1994. The Planning Commission recommended that a landscaping plan be reviewed at their next meeting. A landscaping plan was prepared and reviewed by the commission at their March 16, 1994 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the landscaping plan be approved with the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway. 2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11 Block 2. 3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. 4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval by the City Council. Analysis Kevin Keenan, a registered landscape architect, has prepared a landscaping plan for the Minnewashta Landings subdivision. This plan shows existing trees (shaded) as well as the Minnewashta Landings Landscaping May 11, 1994 Page 2 proposed trees. Each lot has a minimum of 3 additional trees. This will account for a total of 70 additional deciduous trees on the lots and are unspecified at this time. Trees will be selected from the city tree list. The landscaping along Highway 7 and the 4 northerly lots on Minnewashta Parkway included 24 deciduous overstory trees, 22 deciduous ornamental trees and 37 evergreen trees for a total of 83 trees along the highway and Minnewashta Parkway. The landscaping plan includes 3 typical sections to give a perspective of the landscaping. Shrubs are also called out on the landscaping plan although their specific numbers are not noted. The berm along Highway 7 will be 10 feet high at the center. A six foot fence will be placed at the highest point of the berm. Streetscape along Highway 7 will be placed between the highway and the fence. The proposed landscaping exceeds the requirements of the city ordinance and addresses the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission on March 16, 1994. 1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway. Finding: Conifers were added to the backs of Lots 2-4. Lot 1, Block 1 will be modified to include one conifer in place of one of the deciduous. 2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11 Block 2. Finding: All lots have a minimum of three trees per lot. 3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. Finding: The wood fence will still require a separate permit. 4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval by the City Council. Finding: The landscaping plan was prepared by a registered landscape architect and upon approval by the Planning Commission the subdivision will be forwarded to the City Council for final plat approval. Minnewashta Landings Landscaping May 11, 1994 Page 3 Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition of one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. Attachments 1. Planning Commission minutes dated March 16, 1994 2. Staff report 3. Landscaping Plan dated May 2, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Okay. Well I support that code amendment and can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that, oh I'm going to need your help on this. I move that we approve the code amendment to require computer generated images for subdivisions and site plans as shown in the attached amendment, attachment. Is that what I want to say? With the addition of provide, you're wanting to provide an undistorted perspective. Farmakes: Provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the code amendment as amended. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Code Amendment for Computer Generated Images for Subdivisions and Site Plans amended to include a statement that it provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Does this have a life after us now? Aanenson: It goes to Council. LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions for staff or comments? Mancino: A couple questions. Kate, where are you, and I'm sorry if I missed it when you gave the report and you talked about the conservation easement. You're going to take that directly to the City Council? Aanenson: That would be part of the conditions. You had asked that's one of the things we 41 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 did...it's not in here but you had asked that that condition be added as one of the conditions of the plat...I didn't list it as a condition but it will be a condition of their plat. Mancino: And have you talked with the applicant about where that conservation easement would be? I mean what area takes in the conservation easement? Because I am very concerned about the shoreline of significant trees on the south side that are on the south of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Minnewashta and those are the ones that, and there may be other areas too. Aanenson: The conservation easement should run along the backs of all these plus these are the other significant trees in this area right through here on the backs of these lots. Mancino: Can you also tell me why we have a variance for Lot 8, and it was because of tree preservation? And why is that? Aanenson: Well, as you recall. They moved this lot line here. There's some significant trees up in this area here if you overlay the two. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Flat lot, this goes back to the flat lot issue. Flag lots for some reason has 20 yard side yard setback from the 30 foot setback once you get inside that. You're supposed to take the setback line from here. So that would push the house even further down. Mancino: Oh okay. I see what you mean. Okay, thank you. And you are suggesting that additional trees be placed in 13 lots where only 1 tree per lot is proposed. They should be on lots, do you have any number? Because I can see the mitigation of 173 trees that were taken down prior to this development. Is there a guideline number that maybe we wish to come up with? Aanenson: Again, I'll leave it up to the applicant to make a proposal to you. Mancino: Okay. So I'll ask the applicant. Okay, thank you. Farmakes: In our current ordinance for shoreline, part of that is the screening process involved as well as other eco reasons. And that just deals with trees but also shrubbery and so on or the natural state of the shoreline. When we're talking about trees, are we also dealing with some of the screening elements that are involved with the natural shoreline. Other than the ones that say trees of a certain caliper. How is that restored or cleared? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Aanenson: As I indicated earlier, anything under the ordinary high water mark...jurisdiction. With this plat, with the tree conservation easement, they shouldn't be below the building, the rear building line. That's where all the significant trees are. There shouldn't be any reason to have...It should be snow fenced and. Ledvina: But they can't go in and prune the underbrush or something? Farmakes: So from the 60 or what is it, 75 feet setback from the shoreline, the underbrush and screening there, I know you're allowed to clear out, I think the DNR allows you to clear out an access or a channel and I know that we've had some arguments in the past about what you're allowed to clear out. Or how much of a path. Whether it's lot line to lot line or whether or not it's a 50 feet situation. I'm just wondering if there have been violations of that there in your opinion from the existing property? Or the way the existing property was prior to the application. Aanenson: Well as I indicated what the ordinance says is...DNR shoreline regulations...What we felt was being removed at the time was less than the 6 inch caliper. Obviously you show clear cutting and that was a concern. At that time the... Farmakes: So if dogwood was cleared out, we're not going to see dogwood replaced. Aanenson: No, I think what we're asking is that they would be replaced with significant species. Something that...overstory trees. Not necessarily ornamental but... Scott: Dave, clarify on the stop work order. You signed it. Hempel: That was placed by the building inspector at that time on the site...activities being done. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Question about the landscape plan. Was this done by a professional landscape architect? Aanenson: You'll have to ask the applicant for his credentials. Scott: Okay, we'll wait for the applicant's report. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Would the applicant or their representative wish to address the Council? Planning Commission. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Kenneth Durr: My name is Kenneth Durr...and I think it's appropriate that I address some of the issues and the accusations that have been leveled that have not been very accurate...I've been a building contractor for 40 years. This was our 40th year. I've had...working with me for over 30 years who was Chief Building Inspector for the City of Minnetonka...In talking to him today, I asked him during his experience with the city of Minnetonka, or previous to that with an architectural firm, Johnson..., whether he had any knowledge of anything permits necessary to cut trees on property. He said no. He had never come across that, nor have I in 40 years. With one exception, we are a builder in the Bear Path, Jack Nickolson...in Eden Prairie there has a tree...and we're well aware of it and it was presented to us and we were made aware of it prior to our doing any work there. But in 40 years we've worked in many, many municipalities. There have been areas where we've had 40 acre sites. Where we have cleared out, I mean clear cut 3 acre parcels out of the center so a large...and there's never been the faintest thought in our mind that permits may be required for that. And we've never experienced that. So when we approached this site, at the time that I put these parcels together, I was not certain whether I was going to build there or sell the property. I had offers on 2 parcels that I first owned. I felt it was necessary to purchase the third because there were lot line discrepancies. Had I not purchased the third piece of the last 30 feet of the parcel that I did own so I went to a lot of expense and legal work to get that cleared up to purchase that. At that time juncture, just as I was purchasing that, there were other people interested to purchase at the same time I was. And my intent in going in there was not necessarily at that point going into it as a development but merely to clean the land up so that it was presentable. Now what we did there, I had a firm come in who's done work for us in the past. They do work for a number of the golf courses in town. Interlachen Country Club being one of them and I trust their judgment as to trees. What is diseased, what is wind damaged, what is good, what is not. And they just go ahead and do their work for us. They do work for municipalities. They do our work on all of our sites because we're very concerned about preserving trees. We're not there to rape the land. We are preservist in what we do. It's only to our advantage to preserve and maintain a good tree cover but it isn't in the best interest to leave wind damaged trees, diseased trees, and that type of thing. Those are the types that were taken off that site. Had we the intent of just going in there and clear cutting with the intent of just coming in behind that and pushing roads in, it's very obvious looking at the property, we would have taken trees down on the hill where we wish to put the road. That was not done. You'll notice the trees that are there are all of the specimen trees. Big umbrellas on the trees. The trees that were taken were mainly trees below 6 inches in diameter, 4 feet up from the base. In looking at the site...something major is 8 inches or 10 inches but 4 feet up is entirely different than what a stump shows. It's 4 feet off the ground, 6 inch diameter. Those are the trees that were taken together with wind damaged trees that were lodged, I have a couple pictures that show just a tangled mess in part of this property. There are old buildings in there that my insurance company said I had to get out of there because they were an attractant nuisance to children. So we removed those at the same time. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Hauled them off the property. But it was a tangled mess. Wind damaged trees. Trees leaning into other trees. We just didn't simply cut some of those down, we cabled up and down the sections and pulled them away from the good trees we were saving. It's very obvious in looking at that site you see good trees. The diseased, the wind damaged, the ones that were blown over and a few trees, when I talked with my tree people, there were some box elders growing under large oaks. Large maples that were stretching for light, growing almost horizontally, coming down touching the ground and then growing up again. Those were the trees, they were larger than 6 inches and those were taken. Growing under the umbrella of the specimen trees but they were junk. And he knew they were junk. So that's the extent. Now we have a house on that property. Better than a year ago the Fire Marshal wanted to use the house and burn it. I objected to it because I said I don't think you can do it and preserve trees. The trees around the house that we wish to preserve. You can check with him and verify this. Now subsequent to that, he has asked me again about it and one of your people even called me...looking at the property and assuring me, yes. We can burn this if we don't damage the tree there. So we have to have absolute certainty that this does not occur because we had a house burn down, it was badly vandalized on the center property. And in that they assured us that they would not damage trees. And a specimen maple was burned to the ground. The fire got away and burned the tree down. I didn't want this to occur again. That house cost me $7,000.00 to have it demolished and hauled out. If I'm looking at the very economics of this thing, I'd say go ahead. Burn the thing down. The heck with the trees because then I'd save $7,000.00. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in preserving the good trees and forget the $7,000.00. I'd rather spend $7,000.00. Take the house down and haul it out rather than risk the burning trees. So these accusations that have come to you people are entirely false. The number of trees may be accurate. It's a 20 acre site. There may be 173 trees that were taken down. But we're not talking big trees. We're talking small trees that were 6 inches and less unless they were wind damaged, the tops out of them or leaning into other trees or a few exceptions of box elders that were growing horizontally...I think the question was raised about whether or not a professional landscaper would be used in this. Very definitely yes. I talked to Herb Baldwin who's a very well recognized name in landscaping. I'm not sure that Herb will be doing all of this. He's done some preliminary work. Kevin Koehnen who is a landscape architect. He does a lot of work for us on upper bracket projects that we do. That involve large acreages, up in the Medina- Orono area, that are very extensive landscape projects. He has looked at the project and has given me some ideas of what to do. I've been put in touch with one of the best people in the area as far as the ponds. As far as what you do with them. How you go about aerating them. We are planning to do both aeration and...getting air pumped into the bottom of these so that they aerate well. He knows what can be done without using chemicals in the ponds to control the growth. And the suggested depths of the ponds, we've gone into things that I feel are very important to the total concept of the project. And so we are not going into it on a shoe string and just trying to get the maximum that we can out of this property. We're 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 hopefully doing an excellent job and that is our goal. We're noted for excellence in what we do and I really resent some of the accusations that have been leveled from, particularly one individual. We are noted in all the communities we build in, as being highly reputable and extremely careful of ecology and tend to spend more money than most in landscaping projects, which will certainly be the case here. What is shown is such an extreme minimal to what we will be doing and we will definitely be using professional people in it. We want this to be a very high test, high class neighborhood. Street of Dreams people are very interested in seeing this developed. Seeing what we've done in the past and we will put everything that we have into it to make it an established appearing community from day one. Are there any other questions that you might have of me that I can hopefully clarify or? Mancino: Well I just have a question. I guess it's Mr. Durr for you and also for Kate. When we ask for a landscape plans to look at and to say yeah or nay to, and they're not final and they're not even, I don't know if this is what you, I don't know what kind of plan you'd call this. Is it a preliminary plan or something? Kenneth Durr: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of evergreens in because they have an impact both winter and summer. And we're searching for large stuff. Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and they're all 6 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see? Kenneth Dun: No. Mancino: Okay. Kenneth Dun: This is. Mancino: So I figure an engineer did this. Kenneth Durr: I'm sorry. Mancino: Did an engineer do this? Okay. Okay. Well I mean I would add to it. Rick Satire: We were trying to represent the numbers. Minimum numbers. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: I just wanted to know what I'm seeing. Kenneth Dun: If there are a number of trees that are called out, and I think there was. Something like, was it 27 or somewhere else I heard 50. Aanenson: Well the ordinance states that you have to place 1 per lot. You also the requirement that you're obligated to do is the streetscape. What we're saying is that, and maybe some additional trees are required and those lots that really don't have any other mature trees on the lots. And this is preliminary. We wanted to see, they did show the tree removal plan. I think that's what the Planning Commission was concerned. They showed... individual lots as far as a count idea. Normally when we do see that, I think that's kind of... If you go back to normal preliminary plat, we don't always see that quite as formulated. That's something you ask us to follow up on. Mancino: But I thought that we usually see more of the streetscape in it's final form, don't we? Aanenson: No. Not necessarily...I think there was concern because of the trees removed and that's kind of been the focus but now that we've got something under preliminary... Mancino: I remember like Rottlund and stuff was from a landscape architect. It was Todd Irvine from Arteka did that so we see it at the point where a landscape architect gets involved. Or we have. Aanenson: It depends. On the...plat, on Lundgren's, there was a condition that the landscaping, the streetscape be in...so it's not always the case. ...I thought you picked up that we were treating this one differently but sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. Normally you give us direction. I think again this one came out of the fact that trees were removed and we wanted to get an idea as to how they were going to... Mancino: Okay. Because I just have the problem is that I wouldn't approve this if this were the landscape plan. I mean it just doesn't meet it for me so. Kenneth Dun: Well again, I may be repeating myself but if there was, as Rick was saying, like 26 but I think. Rick Sathre: That's on the berm. Kenneth Dun: On the berm, oh I see. And Kate was saying about 50 trees. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Aanenson: Right, in total. Yeah that includes the streetscape and the additional landscaping between the neighbor adjacent to Lots 8 and 9...and that's the minimum required. That would be the concern. Kenneth Durr: Well you can be assured we'll...the minimum and if you want a commitment to that, you could name a number of 100 and I'd be very comfortable with that. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you sir. Well this is not a public hearing so I guess we can move on to comments. Nancy. Give me an issue. Mancino: Not right now... Scott: Pardon me. Mancino: Not right now but I will. Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I think the sole purpose of us going forward with the plat, the preliminary plat. One of the strong conditions that and concerns we all had was regarding seeing what the landscaping would be, as Nancy mentioned, and also the tree removal. I see that we do have a plan which does show the lot layout and the trees. I guess there's x's here. Those represent removal as it relates to the road. Trees removed for the road but I don't see what would be anticipated for tree loss with the building pads. I think that's. Aanenson: That was the Attachment #1... Ledvina: So there is a discussion, okay. I'll take that back. Aanenson: ...site grading and the road...And then the additional 21 and... Mancino: It would be much easier to tell if we did some sort of an overlay for us. I mean it's very hard to tell which, you know for us to see which trees per lot actually are going to be removed. . Ledvina: I guess just to wrap up my comments, I would feel more comfortable seeing a more detailed landscaping plan. I think that's really what we were looking for when we discussed this last time... 48 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments other than what's been mentioned. I guess maybe one thing. I hope the city staff still uses some latitude in looking at the issue of the compliance. Whether they were factual or non factual. Use your own discretion with that. If there's a violation in the ordinance, treat it as such. Ignorance of the law, as I'm told, is no excuse and that ordinance I know has been on the books for a fair amount of time so the intent is to protect what tree cover is left in Chanhassen and I think it's a good ordinance with good intent. It's not to say that the applicant premeditatedly clear cut the issue but if there was damage done, particularly in the area adjacent to the shoreline, the effort and the intent is to restore the vegetation so there isn't a lawn down to the lake as you see in some houses that were developed 40 years ago. With the preference, the intent now has been for a fair amount of years, is not to do that. Not to allow that type of development and the State encourages that and ordinances in the city have been there for quite a while so that's it. Mancino: I'd like to add on to what Jeff just said and I think that a lot of times developers say well we've saved the big trees. We've saved the significant, the big ones and they take out all the saplings underneath, which is our next generation of trees for our children and our grandchildren. When those big trees go, we have another, we have trees there that are ready to come up and little trees become big trees. So it is, we are trying to also preserve some of those, most of the saplings underneath big trees also. That they are as important to us and a part of the ecosystem too. So to go in and clear cut, like they did on Lake Susan Hills a little bit, under the bigger trees, is not what we want either. That is part of the woodland area and should remain so. And are for the next generation because those big trees will come down and we have saplings there that are ready to take over. So I think it's as important to keep that under canopy coverage also. Scott: Okay. Ron. Nutting: I guess I just haven't...in terms of we approved pending the submission of the landscaping plan before the plat proceeds to City Council. Is this, I was trying to understand from Kate's comments, is this the normal procedure? Is this on a case by case basis whether we get full landscaping plans at this point versus some point in time down the road. I'm just trying to understand the. Mancino: We don't see it again. Nutting: Okay. So if we approve things at this point it's, we will ever see... Aanenson: Are you asking me? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Nutting: Yes. Aanenson: Normally, as a part of the process, you articulate to the applicant what you want to see. You don't also see maybe landscaping in preliminary plats. Some plats yes, you see it. It's your discretion. What they show is that they met the minimum intent of the ordinance...we'd recommend additional trees, we've left that open. We certainly feel that needs to be evolved by a landscape architect and that's something that normally we follow up on just like the other conditions that we put in the report. Nutting: So is Nancy, you would not be comfortable with even establishing parameters then... or additional guidelines to the. Mancino: Well I don't want to tell them how to do their landscaping. I want them to come back with a good professionally done landscaping proposal. Attorney for Applicant: Would it... Scott: Let me see. I have to ask a procedural question here. Since this isn't a public hearing and the applicant had their, made their presentation and now we're doing our discussion, I know how to handle this from a public hearing standpoint but procedurally, go ahead. Attorney for Applicant: My question is just procedural too and that is, since both the Planning Commission and the City Council get to look at this project again, in the final plat approval process. Aanenson: It only goes to Council for final. So the City Council will see it for preliminary plat and then as it gets approved in whatever phases, they'll come back for final plat. And again, a lot of times the Council doesn't see the final landscaping plan until they come back. They wait until they get approval and then they come back and do the final design. The engineering of the streets and a lot of those kind of issues. So the Council doesn't always see the final landscaping plan until even final plat. There's a lot of final issues. I mean that's up to your call if you want to see it again. Attorney for Applicant: I'm wondering whether that, the next look that you'd like to have can be done in the final approval process. Aanenson: Then the final would come back to them before it goes back? Attorney for Applicant: Exactly. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Kenneth Durr: What we really want to do is spend considerable time in that area. For the planning. It's not something that I just care to rush in just for the sake of coming with a plan. We want to come with a plan that is really special. We want to do this up really exceptionally well. And I don't think that can be done just in a very quick, you know few days or a week. It's something that I think is going to be a process that we do and we refine it and we come with something that I think you're going to find that is going to be exceptional. We're not going to spare dollars on this. It's going to be done very, very well. And if it means that it goes to the Council. If it has to have a special approval with the blessing of this body, that's fine because I'm not concerned at all about what our final result is going to be for submission. But I would hate like everything just to spend dollars and quickly do something that is only mediocre. I want to be special and whatever it takes to do that, we can proceed and come back with something that is special, that's what we're going to do. Scott: Well I guess that's the, Kate. Ledvina: Can we see it again after Council then? Is that possible? Aanenson: Sure. Ledvina: Okay, so that would be a recommendation. Aanenson: Before it goes for final plat that you have a chance to review the plan. Ledvina: Well, the landscaping plan. Scott: Okay. Mancino: That certainly works. Scott: So if I could have a motion. That's one of the luxuries of chairing this body is you don't have to make any motions. Mancino: Let's see. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the final landscape plan after the City Council has seen it? Kate, would you help me. Aanenson: Before final plat approval is given by the City Council. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 Mancino: There you go. And you know that it, and Mr. Durr has said this, but that it be done by a landscape architecture, landscape professional and that there will be some mitigation as Kate has said. Well I want to add the staff's recommendations also 1, 2 and 3. Can I have a second? Ledvina: I'll second it. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway. 2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. 3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. 4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval by the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Kate timing wise, we're looking at a couple of months? Aanenson: It's going to Council on the 28th. Scott: 28th? Whatever happens after that. Okay. Ledvina: You anticipate this development to occur this year? Is that correct? You anticipate that this development's going to occur this year? Okay. Scott: Okay. Thank you very much. 52 CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 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: March 10, 1994 SUBJ: Landscaping Plan for Minnewashta Landings Background At their last meeting on March 2, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Minnewashta Landings subdivision. One of the conditions of approval was that a landscaping plan be approved by the Planning Commission before the preliminary plat proceeds to the City Council. Additional landscaping was requested. The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan as well as a plan showing the tree removal. Analysis At the public hearing, the neighbors were concerned about the amount of tree removal prior to the platting of the subdivision. Tree removal was reported to the city and a stop work order was placed on the property on June 3, 1993. It is the city ordinance, as well as the DNR requirements, not to clear cut trees. The city subdivision ordinance requires placement of one tee per lot being created in addition to streetscape along the collectors, Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has prepared a tree survey. The survey does not show trees prior to the stop work order given in June, 1993. A letter from a neighbor, Charles Zweig, states that he believes that there were 173 trees removed from this property prior to the subdivision submittal. He'States that all trees removed were over 6" in diameter. The ordinance states that for tree preservation, trees are measured at 4' in height and that are 6" in diameter shall be considered for preservation. Mr. Zweig does not state where the diameter was measured. Staff is aware that trees were cut down. At this time, there is only one way the city could resolve Mr. Zweig's concern and that is to cite Mr. Dun for violation of the city code for tree Planning Commission March 10, 1994 Page 2 removal. Rather than take that approach, staff had asked the applicant to provide some additional trees to make a good faith effort to replace some trees taken without city approval. The applicant has provided one tree per lot. The city could waive this requirement if the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree having a maximum diameter of 212" for deciduous and 6' for evergreen. Of the 26 lots in this subdivision, only 13 have no trees. Therefore, a minimum of 13 trees need to be provided. The applicant has provided 26 deciduous/1 per lot, plus 7 evergreens on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 for screening (see tree list attachment). Twenty-six 6' evergreens are proposed on the berm along Hwy. 7. In addition, there will be a 6' wood fence. The fence will require a separate building permit. The applicant proposes no streetscape for Minnewashta Parkway. There are numerous trees left in this area and with the existing grade berming may not be necessary. Staff recommends additional conifers (evergreens) be placed in the back of Lots 1-4, Block 1. The City Attorney has stated that since the tree canopy approach as being proposed in the new ordinance has not yet been adopted, we cannot apply it to this subdivision. Staff did review the canopy approach using the proposed formula and the applicant came fairly close to meeting this criteria of maintaining a canopy coverage. The applicant is proposing to remove a maximum of 35-38 trees and will be replaced with 50. This does not include additional trees along Minnewashta Parkway. If the Planning Commission wishes to cite Mr. Durr for tree removal prior to a proposed subdivision, staff would ask the City Attorney to follow-up on that. Otherwise it may be appropriate to ask the applicant to provide additional landscaping on the 13 lots proposed as they are only providing one tree per lot. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of 4 conifers be placed on Lots 1-4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway. 2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They shall be placed on Lots 6-16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. 3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. Planning Commission March 10, 1994 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Landscaping list. 2. Letter from Charles Zweig. 3. Stop work order. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated March 2, 1994. ATTACHMENT #1 Trees to be Removed with Site Grading 19" cedar 40" maple 28" maple 27" maple 12" cedar 20" cedar 24" spruce 2-6" spruce 34" maple 7" elm 7" apple 8" ash 32" calalpa Subtotal 14 Tree Loss With Home Placement Block 1 Lot 1 (1) 6" elm, (1) 15" spruce and (1) 11" spruce Lot 4 (7-8) 14-20" spruce Block 2 Lot 2 (1) 21" and (1) 34" box elder (possibility to save both) Lot 5 (1) 36" oak and (1) 12" box elder Lot 6 (1) 9" and (1) 11" ash Lot 7 (1) 6" ash • Lot 8 (1) 13"cottonwood Subtotal 21-24 Total Possible Tree Loss 35-38 trees Trees to be Replaced (27) 21" diameter ash and maple 1 tree per lot (26) 6" high spruce or pine (7) 6" spruce or pine 50 Total replacement trees 5. CCITY OF 0:tor CII ANHA SSEN 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 II DATE: May 5, 1994 SUBJ: Sign Plan Review for Abra and Goodyear, Dolphin Development BACKGROUND: On February 8, 1993, the City Council approved: 1) Site Plan Review for Goodyear, 5,397 square foot building; 2) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 3.1634 Acres into 3 lots with an area of 0.939 Acres, 0.778 Acres, and 1.445 Acres; 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auto Service Facility in the BH District. On March 22, 1993, the City Council approved: 1) Site Plan Review for Abra Auto Service Center, 6,494 Square Feet; 2) Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auto Service Facility in the BH District. Both applications were approved with the following conditions relating to signage: 1. A 4 foot variance to achieve a 12 foot high monument sign. This sign which will face Highway 5 shall contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped lot. Planning Commission May 5, 1994 Page 2 2. No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has submitted a sign plan for review and approval. ANALYSIS: The zoning ordinance allows one ground low profile business sign per street frontage, with a maximum of two such signs per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet in display area nor be greater than 8 feet in height. The sign must be located 10 feet from any property line. The ordinance also permits one pylon business sign, not to exceed 64 square feet in display area. Such sign shall be located at least 10 feet from any property line, and shall not exceed 20 feet in height. When the applicant submitted the original application, one monument identification sign was proposed at the north edge of the site facing Highway 5. Staff proposed that if the Goodyear and the Abra signs were combined into one free standing sign, the third parcel located to the south would also be permitted to have signage facing Highway 5. This third sign would be part of the Abra and Goodyear free standing sign. The applicant started working on a design for the free standing sign; however, we believed additional refinement was required. The applicant has submitted more detailed plans. The area of the sign is proposed to be 60 square feet. The ordinance allows 64 square feet in area and a maximum height of 8 feet for monument signs. The sign is designed as a monument and not a pylon due to the height of the sign board above the ground. The applicant requested a height of 12 feet. Considering the fact that the applicant could place a pylon sign with an area of 80 square feet and a height of 20 feet, staff was in favor of granting a 4 foot variance for the height of the monument sign. It is a clear benefit to have one coordinated sign instead of two individual pylon signs. The Planning Commission and City Council concurred with staff and granted the applicant a height variance to allow a 12 foot high sign. The sign ordinance also allows one wall business sign per street frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No individual business sign shall exceed eighty square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal building. Both buildings have two wall mounted illuminated signs along the north and west for Goodyear and north and south for Abra. Staff recommends that all signage facing south be non-illuminated to protect the residential neighborhood located south of Lake Drive East. Goodyear's sign contains approximately 50 square feet of signage. Abra has not identified the square footage of their wall mounted sign, however, the sign description submitted by the applicant (Attachment #1) states that the sign area shall not exceed 80 square feet. Planning Commission May 5, 1994 Page 3 On-premises directional signs are also permitted if they are not larger than 4 square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four unless approved by the city council. Both Abra and Goodyear will utilize directional signs. Goodyear is proposing two directional signs for customers reflecting "Goodyear Entrance" and "Goodyear Office." The sign description reflects an area of 6 square feet per sign. The area must be reduced to 4 square feet to meet the maximum 4 square feet permitted by ordinance. The height of the signs are 4 feet which is in compliance with the ordinance requirements. The Abra directional signs reflecting "ABRA" and ABRA Drive-In Estimates" has an area of 5 square feet, according to the narrative submitted by the applicant, however, the plans reflect a 4 square foot sign. The area must be reduced to meet the maximum 4 square feet permitted by ordinance. The height of the signs are proposed at 4 feet which is in compliance with the sign ordinance requirements. The following shall serve as a guideline for the sign covenants: 1. The monument sign which will face Highway 5 shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. 2. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (80 square feet). 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings." Planning Commission May 5, 1994 Page 4 COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance Abra Goodyear Monument sign Height 8' 12'* 12'* Monument sign Area 80 s.f. 16 s.f. 16 s.f. Monument sign setback 10' 10' 10' Directional sign Height 5' 4' 4' Directional sign Area 4 s.f. 6 s.f.** 5 s.f.** * The Planning Commission and City Council granted a 4 foot variance to allow the height of the sign to be increased to 12 feet. ** The area of the directional signs shall be reduced to meet the 4 square feet required by ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission Adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the sign plans for Abra and Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. The monument sign which will face Highway 5 shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. 2. All businesses built on lots 1, 2, and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (80 square feet). 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. Planning Commission May 5, 1994 Page 5 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings." Attachments: 1. Narrative and sign plans dated April 18, 1994. 2. Landscaping plan showing location of signs dated April 18, 1994. DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. CITY OF CHANHASSEN REC V`D April 18, 1994 j"R 18 ,qqA Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff CHANHASEEN PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Signage for Goodyear & Abra Projects Dear Sharmin: Enclosed is a completed Development Review Application for signage at the Goodyear and Abra projects. Also enclosed is the individual signage requested for the pylon/monument sign, and for both the Goodyear and Abra signage. Summarily, the dimensional enclosures reflect the following: * Pylon/Monument Business Sign reflecting three (3) individually lighted business signs (Goodyear, Abra, and to be determined) . Total square footage of sign display area is sixty (60) square feet per side. This sign shall sit perpendicular to Highway 5 on the Goodyear/Abra property line and ten feet (10 ' ) south of their common north property line. * GOODYEAR Building - - Requested building signage on two (2) elevations (North and West) . Each elevation contains approximately fifty (50) square feet of signage. - Two (2) directional signs for customers reflecting "Goodyear Entrance" and "Goodyear Office" . Each ground low profile illuminated sign shall contain approximately six (6) square feet. The bottom of each sign shall be thirty inches (30") above grade/landscaped level . Although they may ultimately be two (2) sided, initially only one (1) side shall have a sign face. These signs shall be located on the Goodyear site and ten feet (10 ' ) from any property line. 530 West 79th Street • Box 443 • Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 • (612) 934-0472 Sharmin Al-Jaff Goodyear/Abra Page Two * ABRA Building - - Requested building signage on two (2) elevations (North and South) . Each elevation shall contain a maximum of eighty (80) square feet. - Two (2) directional signs for customers reflecting "ABRA" and "ABRA Drive-In Estimates" . Each ground low profile illuminated sign shall contain approximately five (5) square feet. The bottom of each sign shall be four feet (4 ' ) above grade/landscaped level. Although they may ultimately be two (2) sided, initially only one (1) side shall have a sign face. These signs shall be located on the ABRA site and ten feet (10 ' ) from any property line. Please let me know if you have questions or need further information submitted in support of this request. Sincerely, + o-1 R. Harding J' :kct enclosures qa-3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C:TY Q CAN'r;:.�?_`1 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 j ? i E DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLI.ATION.js-., ,. ,:�� , D: APPLICANT: Dolphin Devel.& Const. Co. . Inc . OWNER: Kahnke Bros. . Inc. ADDRESS: 530 l,JPsr 79th Strppr ADDRESS: 18012 Pioneer Trail Chanhassen, 1 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-0472 TELEPHONE: 934-8150 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits X Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Goodyear & Abra Bu-_ldings LOCATION 50 & 40 Lake Drive East LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 & 2 , Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition, Chanhassen, Carver County, MN PRESENT ZONING Business Highway (BH) REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Compliance with Development Agreement for Goodyear and Abra properties. Pylon/monument. building, and directional siLnage, This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before tiling this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. - 4/18/94 Sig - of Applicant Joel R. Iii ding Date -.AP—, I. el- (A 4/18/94 Signat/, off,/e • n:r Jeff Kahnke Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malted to the applicant's address. I3° . E•-'--ef---10i4 • IC . le lug, z° ----al A N si :14 di - 8e comma,AYR)SERVICE I I . . t culibimL 1 ' , p AUTO ✓ @ 'y of g @LAS0 . .1E....• • .1 Aa,.,d__, . i 1L COLOR. . .. ... . "NI .. .. ... . :..: . .r- _ 7= -:::11=(' , • • ••• • ,. .-:f5-ia.Q.. 4-3- LIZtilli... (- Pi-t\iSic 4 -C,2 E. C;TY OF CHANT-Y.:: EN f;ri 1 E IT:.I _EA!::: AS'S,E;.1 'F';: :N^ DFPT. • . CTIY OF CHANHASSEN . • r . . - - - . . . " E.;1 P1.1..t:VNG . . . . GOCD,r20:4:1M . icgk 4 ENTRANCE 'Its" 1 12-1001: “Ti..ttruits, ____ ---- .. 111°ALUM ILLUN.LIMAS _- -...... f. ,,,wa). 1, nossms, ea m- imLmIII I 2't I SICI• sr'a NORTH ELEVATION • • 1 ge X. Mt . i X A) irim.uag ausiwlou eriLeot OM.LII Melt I 1 fl.1:11.li.stitil II 1411411 111114 1441 I II. - .. -11 (la HOW= . 10%1111MIRI NC 11 • '1 r 1 00' dr• i Iri, ••••/ ....• ••••••••=... WEST ELEVATION • 4' O HA="�„I ' G�'1' G. � iANI .,.,, ", "IIIIIII" t ' Ii.7 R n i,-.- , t' t ). ....art ' '"P7--fit.-% IIr. -M�1� U � . balEr „g S‘1i1 • pII1IIIiur:� . 1,•.....44 � --- -- I i I MIS SLAM _ mi___ mom.a f - Al • Rui Ln tkiL 51LSKIPLE _ 5..: . MAX.. 0 .Z LLii A,. • �r�trrrrtrr�rr .. _ 3lrrir1PII,1!.\ . ,►;; # — 1 ■i r Q -5-- - ..norte-- —MOM - - -� _ --- :' :;.. 1 1I I I 0 ._ f Y.�� --- �_=.—iMM.� --------- ----- - --Ma-- 64 sotun SdLA1RL _ S� S., MAX Al ö111 , • t ! li tf } !s• !: -1: Si_ F1- i t ii!i `iI- i ill: i i1 1 .s --;.. 1i 1:= is •" e j ei ;i i -*:e, '' ti: - a►04.44 u5 li i .- i 8t i E. '1 - : : • it, 4ii ?i s I . W i r -i :. - .. . .1:i: - .! .- t -. :im ! :o-.ftii -f • 0 is 'ri (Ii k_ 1 's-i- 4 :,i . f Of ! . • ^-i yf.„ : :Y !�; ' 2.- ..11. iii �Q W= EI`, 11e P'9b ss s =4 :� ` : ;:;1! ii j F3 S11 =1- - x: Ii ii i ^ <9 J I►� 0; fit I' . •j %J j ��\ ni __ _ _ _ _ \ 1\J 1_3_, i ! , 4'Irh I i : : . li 4: ii reriel n : -:qt,„-*,.,511.1 ah�ww ”- - -`1 ' �i' I I W.�' .ot { - .1• li zi ' ,:it '`47 ,16. '11 .9 6 :. -: .i: 'ti d. rc 1 ,!gmF,•fit'&' - re.tfmt sw&t.,,,..\\N„.‘..,,,w,„..i.sii,i'gm,'5. el I • • if .i • ; ' p ' ..:: i er1-1,, 4 v I'f!1, 1st�?te �t i i 1 N.. I a z �!� aRwii 1 .L7 l' W LJ j ev: !1 i Y I:7 3r�� '3 si4f�3� -may- +fr ' �1 I It \4N H.;X+ s illisiiiiir • L. fli S . \ tioi.,,,, El 1 /, 0 .,....... ...,_.... ...ic..... .,. ...) / 40, , \, , \., ...___ .%. „. N-•• :44 1 A �. •I. O „..J CIT' OF CHANN,ZSEN a / ,77 1.. .: 1 L i C'- E-' + (.F';L[R!e= SEPT. 1 i MTr til itr r`` !'i �� r .n _ Uir,i_ila3-1'-'.) .,(7i , 1 I \ - 1- ,, , .. . il , c., r S-C1 - --N Iv( c . 6 .moo C'.-.....7..'..71 :SSE': '� �;t4 i EPT. cJ �A X** V elm~`_ N. - -- ,,,, rz,.". oi , L i:V-- CO fi . 111...1111477619/1i..fr'C' '.:.11* _ . __...r li .\ . cc / / � . • to\ 1 /- 1 f I11\ L. �•� 1,44 ............ cite I %kiii• 3= , ' t% r 1 , /�1 k 6 Amyl. hi., l C .: ft + abilib. r •�UI i1 - 4A‘:-.-14. 4. tin A ,,,-4_ _ _ --....."10"--_,.._ _ __ . ... . 7 Ow"";""giee" Cie-0' •'' - = - - ~I?'Mii2li4 9341. ,Th -2, 1 t t§ I 1 lb 1 6 varaimmg t41 .. I it" ` I L,, • i% ,1 ' ► / 1 \ . k%I ,, . CI • illi' LLI '.1:33 , .0v . leit4e °•LC- 1 1 I 0r,,_..., ,-- c6-- _.\ ,.., 1 t,$) \.- • •- "I. --._ __41; I\ . \ ...4 ,,,,.....--.4...... z t so"� 6 ,o: i ' - i '•..... -... •-• C A . --c co - •} \ ' ........, (-- ,--. - • -- 1 r :•ett.47%- w.„ s Agr 1 , \ x-_...-'7:1"-r1-.— -ifiv ,, Lilo,. , t\-.._\ - - ......1: ._4,-F_ ? .:„ - - 444;- /, w„, r • GOOD OCE"Lag 1,2:., + • ENTRANCE i I . At___ !--1- �..ra. .. i . C!! ! OF CH,",iVi' 12i*2i* b. .,..:._. t ...._...0 0 t(.;... P: dF • _....,_,.\\ 211 ..*. r' • SLLUt.A. . --D I ctcaL•fa tZq 51L.o.1 A 1' Bim; ENTRANCE C!TY Y OF CHAN' .. 7 MI CHZASSEN PLAN I'iiNG DEPT. z Lu.M. . Z.) 5lL&KI A eA_ OPIM11P3 1' EVITIJNIKTES C7C CHANHAS3EN F1:1717:7:VID ti LE:1 E C":..-.•ai'..3S:EN PUNNING DEFT. • C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 5/18/94 \` , cllANHAssEN CC DATE: 6/13/94 CASE #: 93-25 SUB, 94-1 REZ By: Generous:v mia STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval on 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots and rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single- - Family Residential, RSF LOCATION: South of Timberwood Drive on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. A parcel Q lying in the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, VTownship 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota. L1. APPLICANT: Patrick & Karen Minger Q. 8221 Galpin Boulevard Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 470-9137 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 ACREAGE: 8.46 acres DENSITY: gross: 2.01 units per acre net: 2.17 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, Timberwood Estates S - A2, single-family home, and RSF, park site E - RR, Timberwood Estates W - Galpin Boulevard, and PUD, Trotters Ridge Q HWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site currently is densely wooded with,a central hardwood type W forest. There are significant stands of trees scattered throughout the site with the predominate species being oak. A drainage incline traverses the eastern third of the site from north to south emptying into a tributary of Bluff Creek. The only unforested area on the site is along the existing (f) driveway, which follows the northern property line of the site and the area near the existing house. The high point of the site is at elevation 960 and is located approximately 500 feet from the entrance on Galpin Boulevard. Additional high points are located at the termini of each cul-de-sac. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density - Net Density 1.2 to 4.0 units tEV.„ . , .- ,...... v•-,aigii I ' CP ! ,-------7-1--- 1 • , i 6-''''ij-------- •:,:t :.7)c's, ' //4 G:iEE•ci:1F'ARK • -1 L_ 0 __. _r..•-• :.•• _: .....:-..N.''. ' •-••••.......) _...----- i — MEV :.: .- 1.. ' .' . ••••, k-----......_ ,_-.------ I t ••••.. ND . LAKE ANN- - - --'' I 1 4KE ANN .__.. . I ...,) 91 I R it:i..._ . I PARK • i 1 . 1 \------)9 \ c.„. 1 . 1 ___ _, ____AR•'• 8(00L E vA R0 I I I----.... • ., Li / CZ) a."" '----1---. 17-75---5- -------- . -. et- e , • „_ \ ow• ..;,.:_...c...;;;,..-4. :_, f• 1...,'. 1 , • ._- ,.. • __,--"kk--....::Z.:2-._ --I- _ - ----] , \ 1- 1 I- j • - - ( . • , l''''' • 11010,1111•----)1 ",-".- i vitsTERN• •\ - % 111 L.-- ("••11 ,.,•:-• -1 .... . • 111 _._ fz: ,...\„,..--- \s.,„ , _ . Location .,,--‘ , i . . . i z : : - , ,,„F1/4. .., -. LAKE ... • . ..1.../:.:-_•-• ..K . ..... .. . . SUSA t'l.‘: C. P ' , :'•.. LA) ' •— .. \s, ':EMS:,. • _.-larr — *:'•:- PA, : :. -------.:. :--:\,2 •, ,4',fRE.i - ., cc .. 'C? -voqc ..:.-',:).•!..Z1.11A4111111 o ..-- . . .., I - ' --- - — • "1 ,--- ' , 1111116__mr---h, i r------- i -----1 U °girt ' 1--.;"•--. .. ...:-... • '7'113 tat/APAR , Azizcit IO % i•'',‘ Lk?iimigN'Tir a- - Mill 1114- .7* ''c - - -Aro it•'41-1 af tr...*:* .. • thir 41( _., 1 , a ... St: 1 r• '. (3 i - ,lit_ ' - - 74' '. / ,..' ' .wk.illt iblITOAO's:4 A., • , L.-.,--- — /• ,••••.!};1„...7 , lot duill 11, vv: V. •1 i: --. -`•\;‹,\ ' ' \,i, ii,d4ifil!Ellti sat' bst041.„ .1. 46,- ,PARK cr BAH? ._i.k.,.f.-., I • !II f.S '4_,5.1---.--Lis,'-'.-.N..--. (CR 18) • ----;, 4 I . ------- -- BLVD ‘ - , I ' 4..1.1 "..-4'/-r--- -- --- - • -• o o 43,4,02 .;2 o o 4D ... /.. PARK :9._7' :•'-'2?•'•Z IV IV CW la :. '• 8700-1 111‘41111\ .._ - Lity4 . I • _ • . 4,..i.k-. i V_I . iii)T, . Q•+. 8800— .................„/- A , 4 --, N.111.7---, . , . • , 1 - . . 410 ._÷_. . . ..r1;i- ' e 'Ill: ",. -•- .' ' S I if I . J • '••••0. .a ÷.."ii.P •f.. '7 ..f"' 0 i 1 f_r 1 N. I It 4 •_...r. . \ is) \___, , i 1 . I- . 1011)11' MIR.WM "f, el ...v. Ile " '7...1' .... • e di 06 _ 0 . ! , • ., It .di \ 71-" 0...; At. 6, 900:--I LTM 0.71117414_.. 11,,"••": ,IR,. E dar Acct. t • I t Ct it ILA I..Nr4P.;1-111(4.,/ -. g2 I - 9100 n. \ nO I Oy .... ccf i' i ; I i es 9200 1 1 ...... 9300 / / 1 ' 0 N • ctO .... < 9400-- - ---- /1 - - ' . ' -- 9500 ) . . . ....) I ) iA ---. , ; Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the subdivision of an 8.46 acre property into 17 single-family residential lots with a net density of 2.17 units per acre and the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF. The project is located approximately one-half mile south of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Proposed lot sizes vary from 15,000 square feet to 36,280 square feet with an average lot size of 19,669 square feet. There is one outlot that is proposed for dedication to the city for trail purposes. The subdivision is located in a densely wooded area with a predominance of significant oak trees dispersed throughout the site. The preservation of substantial areas of undisturbed trees will be a great amenity for this site as well as the city as a whole. In order to facilitate the preservation of trees, the applicant has proposed the reduction in right-of-way width from 60 to 50 feet. Conceptually, staff can support the use of reduced right-of-way width. However, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification to the right-of-way width reduction. Staff is recommending the roadway alignment be shifted between ten and fifty feet to save additional trees, especially on the easterly cul-de-sac. This realignment will create larger lots around the perimeter of the site, creating a better transition from the large lots in Timberwood Estates and allowing them to establish of tree conservation areas. Additionally, through the reduction of the required front setbacks, which the applicant discussed with staff at a meeting on May 10, 1994, the applicant should be able to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property through the preservation of the existing trees. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the submittal package for the final platting of the development. It should be noted that the lots within Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees on them. The realignment of the streets as recommended in this report may result in the loss of Lot 13. This change would reduce the net density to 2.04 units per acre and raise the average lot size to 20,900 square feet. Staff, while supportive of the general layout and concept of the project, is recommending that this proposal be tabled to allow the developer to address the issues raised by staff as well as revising the preliminary plat to incorporate the changes outlined in this report. We met with the developer, their consultant, the property owner to the south/west, and the home builder on May 10, 1994 and advised them of these concerns and issues. The applicant appeared to agree and will adjust the plans accordingly. Upon receipt of the revised plans, this office will prepare another detailed staff report for consideration. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 3 BACKGROUND This parcel currently contains the home of Pat and Karen Minger which is located in the northeast corner of the site. The property is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision. To the south, parkland has been dedicated to the city as part of the Stone Creek Second Addition. The city cemetery is located just to the north of this plat. STREETS/ACCESS The project will be accessed from Galpin Boulevard which is also known as County Road 19. This roadway is designated as a collector road by the City's Land Use Map. The applicant is proposing the use of fifty foot right-of-ways within the development. The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop driveway. Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments regarding this proposed subdivision. They have indicated that consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access and turn lane. The applicant is proposing 50-foot wide right-of-ways and 50-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs which are below the city's urban standards. City standards require 60-foot wide right-of-ways with 60-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs. However, the City's tree ordinance does provide compromises in the street width and right-of-way if it can be demonstrated that reducing the street width or right-of-way will significantly save vegetation or retain the existing terrain. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate to the city that significant savings of vegetation will occur. Therefore, until the applicant has provided staff with this information, staff supports the 60-foot wide right-of-ways. In any event, staff strongly recommends maintaining a 60- foot radius in the cul-de-sacs to provide adequate turning movements. The applicant has agreed with staff on this and will change the cul-de-sac layout accordingly. The applicant is still proposing to submit 50-foot wide street right-of-ways and demonstrate the tree preservation by the reduced width. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen Galpin Boulevard to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has provided additional easements to the city in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore, additional right-of-way is not needed at this time. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 4 The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to city standards (31-foot wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. Outlot A is proposed for a trail extension to the city park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that future lots from the west will not be able to connect to the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighbor to sell/convey Outlot A and grant a 20-foot wide trail easement to the city centered along the west line of Lot 17. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has provided the first two levels of review for a tree survey of the site: a topographical map of the project with the location, size, and species of significant trees located on the plat. The applicant has been advised and has agreed to provide a canopy cover delineation, to perform the base line canopy coverage calculations, as well as estimate the amount of canopy coverage that will be removed as part of the development, and to incorporate 60 by 60 building pads on the lots. Staff believes that the applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of the subdivision landscaping requirements and that they will meet or exceed the standards provided therein. Conceptually, staff can support the use of reduced right-of-way width as well as reduction to the front setback requirements. Staff is recommending the roadway alignment be shifted between ten and fifty feet to save additional trees, especially on the easterly cul-de-sac. This realignment will create slightly larger lots around the perimeter of the site and allow the creation of tree conservation areas. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification to the right-of-way width reduction. Additionally, through the reduction of the required front setbacks, the applicant should be able to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property through the preservation of the existing trees. It should be noted that the lots within Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees on them. Staff is recommending that a Woodland Management Plan be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) of the City Code. The applicant will also be required to submit a landscaping plan for the development. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. The applicant shall also revegetate with ground cover, trees and bushes the area of the existing driveway to their home upon completion of the roadway to their lot. Also, a Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 5 minimum of one tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot, either existing or new, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. GRADING/DRAINAGE Unfortunately, the grading plan does not indicate the existing trees on the property. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount of tree removal based on this plan submittal. It is recommended that the existing trees be placed on the grading plan to determine exact tree impacts. It appears only grading for the streets and utility improvements and a few of the house pads will be completed at this time. The remaining lots, all of which have trees, will be custom graded at the time the building permits are issued. Staff has meet with the applicant, developer and neighbor at the 12th hour to discuss some of the concerns we had with the street alignment and lot placement adjacent to the significant stands of trees. Staff has recommended that the applicant go back and look again at the roadway alignment and house placement on the site in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree loss. The proposed building pads are only 40' x 60' which is below the city's typical standard. Staff finds that in subdivisions of this nature, a typical house pad would disturb an area of 60' x 60' and, in some cases, more. Staff encourages the applicant to realign the easterly cul-de-sac and shift the lots westerly in an attempt to preserve a buffer of significant oaks along the east plat line between Timberwood Estates and this development. Staff also recommends that a front yard variance be considered on these lots in an attempt to reduce grading limits which in turn reduces tree loss. There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and 12. The drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage on the lots. The final plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area. Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right-of-way on the Dempsey parcel which is immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr. Dempsey to acquire easements and other negotiable items. One such item is for the first southerly cul-de-sac off the main street. At this time, the applicant is requesting to service the four homes via a private driveway within a 50-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to grant an additional 10 feet of right-of-way if the city's current design standards are maintained. This property owner would be required to upgrade the cul-de-sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed this with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that if the property owner to the west (Dempsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be a method of explaining the responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would not be responsible for any assessments of the upgrade. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 6 The plans propose to convey drainage from the front yards and streets into two sets of catch basins and simply discharge into the adjacent property. This method of storm drainage is inadequate in accordance to the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff has been working with the applicant to redesign the storm sewer system to have one single discharge point and pond location. Staff believes the most prudent location is at the low lying pasture land just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. This, however, will require easement dedication from the neighbor (Dempsey). Therefore, at this time, the storm drainage plan is inadequate as well as the grading plan. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional erosion control measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. UTILITIES The city is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this parcel (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and extend them into the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout, some minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal may be necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are performed in conjunction with the plan and specification approval process. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for water. The city has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1) Minger - 18 units = $40,410; 2) Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 lots as estimated by the city. However, some of the lots within the plat are very large and therefore consideration for reduction of one unit may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission or City Council request that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the applicant into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted. Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Dempsey parcel in conjunction with the overall project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight single-family lots. The applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no charge to the neighbor at this time. However, the applicant is requesting the city collect and reimburse them the connection charges when the neighbor utilizes the individual services. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 7 Staff and the applicant will work together in determining the actual dollar amount it takes to provide these services to the Dempsey parcel. This "rebate" program has been done on several occasions on other projects where the city has reimbursed the developer a portion of their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did not want hook ups at that time. The parcel contains an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility construction, which will need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains. Construction of street system and utilities will destroy the current septic drainfields. In addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet of the sewer line be connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another existing home (Dempsey) just off the first cul-de-sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet of the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner and applicant, they request that the city grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic system fails or they sell the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the septic and well sites will not be impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in good operating condition. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Outlot A is being proposed for trail dedication purposes to connect this development to the park site located directly to the south. At a meeting with the developer and the neighboring property owner, it was also discussed that this outlot may be sold to the abutting property owner to help straighten the property boundaries. If this option is used, a twenty foot trail easement will be dedicated along the common property line of Lot 17 and Outlot A. At the time of final platting, the developer will be required to pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance. REZONING The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 8 COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot area Lot width Lot Depth Sq. Ft. Ft. Ft. Code: 15,000 90 125 Proposal Lot: 1 25,030 361 150 2 15,000 100 150 3 15,000 100 150 4 16,950 92.5 150 5 36,280 91.7 150.5 6 15,110 93.4 135.3 7 16,730 157.8 135.3 8 18,790 51.8# 157 9 23,830 99 157.2 10 21,310 67.7# 152.4 11 15,040 100 143.8 12 15,560 101 125.6 13 16,220 101.8 224.4 14 15,510 123 141.2 15 17,940 124.3 141.2 16 31,670 65.5# 161.9 17 18,410 78# 154 Outlot A 7,030* 45* 154 Notes: * does not meet minimum requirements for a developable lot and is intended for dedication as a trail segment; # meets minimum requirement at building setback FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. The applicant is requesting that the city approve variances to the right-of-way width and building setback in order to facilitate the preservation of trees. Staff believes that these methods will save additional trees, but staff is requesting that the applicant clearly demonstrate that significant tree preservation is a direct result of the requested variances prior to approval of the preliminary plat. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 9 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed density of the development is within the parameters established by the comprehensive plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The subdivision should provide an attractive neighborhood for the residents who move into the development. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure as part of the improvements required of the subdivision.. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: While any development of a natural site causes some environmental damage, staff believes that the applicant will have minimized the impact on the site based on the conditions outlined in this report and the revisions to the plan. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Page 10 Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that action on this development be tabled until the concerns, additional information requests, and plan revisions can be addressed. Specifically, staff is requesting that the following be provided: 1. Canopy coverage delineation, base line canopy coverage calculation, and estimated post development canopy coverage. Locate 60 foot by 60 foot building pads on each lot unless actual building pads are provided. 2. Demonstration that the requested modifications to the subdivision requirements for right-of-way and building setback will directly result in the significant preservation of trees. 3. Revised drawings incorporating the realignment of the street right-of-way. 4. Revise the grading/drainage plan to show standard designations for dwellings. 5. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. 6. Incorporate tree survey on the proposed grading plan. Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan 3. Preliminary Plat Grading/Drainage Plan 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated 5/11/94 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated 5/5/94 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated 5/2/94 7. Memo from Bill Weckman dated 4/25/94 8. Letter from Robert Generous to Patrick Minger dated 11/5/93 9. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: q c :c c-KarQ / ;-S OWNER: ( -5 a ADDRESS: 2 Z CR (e7,_ 1? !vd. ADDRESS: C /na w 44 5'3 e. .� i�r �. 5' r? TELEPHONE (Day time) V? o — 9 f 3 7 TELEPHONE: • 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. ?C Rezoning CI) ° 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. i Subdivision $ G sr TOTAL FEE $ - - /11 s A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME )11 --11.1 AIS(:ck D LOCATION SC- of � �1v '. 4- ---r-, ,1) 11-,A-0,0/ c7-. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 e 2 4:4'4f ac,4 to( (Prop. Ow') •rs L ld PRESENT ZONING 4-z /4 •cµt. REQUESTED ZONING RS 4 ReS AS �a•.: 7 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lew Uo vs- - ie z-off_ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION (--O44' 1:7PA^s ,q c�Cos:°7!• REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ter V{ M• 191 a 4`c r 17 sr )(A. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of icant Date 4 /.e rn' Si nature o Fee ner Date 9 Application Received on �7--/ ' Fee Pai //55 Receipt No.`s' 8-3 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. DALP111 i�li�i S�ttl-.l��ll v ,1 I 111 111111g115;1 A 1 �. i \ I i t '.I o 1 9, • \ \ - _ tt . a _- ti�, I' sf I = RI I i I I !f, - \\\\;. --10 1 � �FI'yFi s7�� NW: i i .. f 1 1 ' t i \`�;�►r - I it 1. O I I 1 / /1A 2, ii,Itii ON' I I_ I 1!131 I'--I i 10:;Ili � II�� i'i. _' /' o • .; / 1 Z / ,' .A0 ..:, „ / a r / / / ,....../. ,,,/...riiii i I liiiii',I fi 11 f _-_` ____-_-_--;--1:::" „----,- ice- - -'-//�- - *it.- - / - i - / -mss / - r( �� ' - ____.-__, ---_'//' // i , Qty /1 • ' s c^ a9'alls+---- .- ,g c3 N t i:; Ir 1 1 1 ..az.zfsc-v s2+d I.1,-M ,.04'4.61. 1V/ / ! w ! 1 1 r SYYooz,8-- .pS.6f.;f.7 ,- u� 7 \/ ! . ti 1 / I 1 ” Ili1 1 I I _ ,---r--- ---- ' rift' t---, l t r--.Ti_,„r �t_ 11 \\ -•VPS - - ' _ - -• w1 t \ \ = c: ,; �\\ ( I. ' • .6.'' .... :;: ::::... .- -.412 , •” WA=77,11 MO° \ \ • o \ \ � ••• LC - g \ .-. - .' IM . o — \ \ ♦ --- I ----- _ � / • .. W. ' \ \ 1 1 1 *.\tI\1I\.11 :'///i1rr1r 1rrr 4--,_/-c'o__-.---iq-f, i2 -`ii0rii'r1tf-igr--71,..-1.1'.-%._ 11r0--l-i-1 7 iffl,owi—.,lA l; .3tI. \ 1 //f/ 9� _ 111 //// _ - / ' �� / _''i�'-,.s_ 1 1\ I l r 1 _ / ,,,,,r),' \\‘‘\ ,,,, _I 81-4090ybri ,..,4', MI ', • -....a ,• \1 1 1 'I 1 1\\, ♦\‘\,.;.4,...... ri 1 I / / \ l.:r -_ -\ 1111 I I\ n ••`•. ��-- \ ,b:o1 !__-_ n1m• '`��__ - __�' �� 1 \ \ I /111 1\ \ �_♦ -��wnl �__ - - -- \ � ' \ \ ///�r \\\\ \ •\ ,—_,- \ \S 3•\W \635.13 �, I \I \ �\ K a2'• \ \ / _ ' Ron Krueger & oD N 6 GRADING / DRAINAGE PLAN :_=='. ( Associates, Inc. 1 ! +� 1 I T MINDER ADDITION SQ•-y�. - ' ax, 11ounw/wut wo I \ CHANHASSEN,MN61... 1...... ...... .A.1,__ 5 O 107 000 ex* I=1=1 0;0)01-211011 == OALIS�et".028A1+p s) _–_ –-+'•: -----•-- V T ',loom / / l: ..../r / xi 1 I / I // 11=110 // II 1 I I//I 8 R ME) / ,I � �' If! R / _ I; --4.. - S- . 1 (Th __,/ / / (I)0., wp / ,� -' /' //,/i / vi.mit , 1 / —timo• —..z • ///////1 -�– – / ' \ //i'/'/.'i'�'"/' q /! /i/�/ /' / r ,9.,4,..1_____, .' ,',([q g\ N C41 A' / rY y /'/ l r r ,AZ Zf:St=Q SriS i=l,/ „pS/�'i 6L � �// V /' p // / 1 11 / 9p OOZ,ar—--,�5.6t..t=9' M u� , �' `� � +- .f 1 leer'�, __,\ \, \ e u�; - — Ti— Jy; ---- , O r T - • iilla:�l-lil ill l s \ `` . - _ r,.�` .... . g, ,8 : w l` . rstsj�salFrs`� lr+`� o �`. �. 'a ` �� `� �—S+1'------I 'E I _ j _ _ _iifirj ifi}lli`r.1E10 a \••• _ po ae \------ �maa 1 .. .. ✓ �I \ i'i�III'r``F ia�rsF '-‘,-',,\,• y _ �_J.. —_.---___ _—_, ' / 1876/ . Q— ___ IMO lit(1: rail --• .� ` _�--- `— N 11__k 1-- I '/ I / \ 1.iiiai{s IFli_sI f 1 s‘.....-, 1 _ -- _ — 0 ��/ ' I Fj I 1 111ss:tll: 4.11 � \ 1 1 —_9.-�f— , at, y ; ` I I /' I i '= 1 loo ii.tL1trrli[[ r 1 f1S:1 ///// L- _ //•ig_, ' J;P a'_ _ _a_N\=. ' % ,,' • =__ 1 , 1.i 111 .."';111 sr a rs \ I/// /to /' /' -_-- •,1�1� 1 ill l\�\\\ \ I _1 _ f\ f - --.` _� --y \` \`a ‘•\.'•\‘‘‘.1, 111 1 .fD.\`:,`,..-_________,:, �` 1 I I ct. _^` . \\ \`\ \ 1 1111 j`.\ \. �.`---_— ~� \\ �y_lel _r y, , 1»01 �1''u._�. -N--`_"1" __ 11 !Willi/ /irii I\ ; a.m \ . 1 ., \\ 1 1 1r 1l11� / ` _. k 5r',.V"'' '‘‘. `,.634.13 • / I \I \ I I EI .i fl II wood!STATES • 1 / [ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijll ;111 IIII 1211111111iiiiIIII Li E i.. iI I PRELIMINARY PLAT / UTILITY PLAN Z� I 1 ! Ron Krueger & on j � �=-'=+'•" , . Associates, Inc. 1 / S MINGER ADDMON l .--. —' t ss.°m...�.11■13133 1 1 {101 m0M'0 ' gR1M0D • CHANHASSEN,MN Ml_ [Mk arooa ra• 0133 011-2101 O= CITY QF CHAN' HASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Minger Subdivision LUR File 93-22 GRADING & DRAINAGE Unfortunately the grading plan does not indicate the existing trees on the property. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount of tree removal based on this plan submittal. It is recommended that the existing trees be placed on the grading plan to determine exact tree impacts. It appears only grading for the streets and utility improvements and a few of the house pads will be completed at this time. The remaining lots of which are all treed will be custom graded at the time the building permits are issued. Staff has meet with the applicant,developer and neighbor at the 12th hour to discuss some of the concerns we had with the street alignment and lot placement adjacent to the significant stands of trees. Staff has recommended that the applicant go back and look again at the roadway alignment and house placement on the site in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree loss. The proposed building pads are only 40 x 60 which is below the City's typical standard. Staff finds that in subdivisions of this nature, a typical house pad would disturb an area of 60 x 60 and, in some cases, more. Staff encourages the applicant to realign the easterly cul-de-sac and shift the lots westerly in an attempt to preserve a buffer of significant oaks along the east plat line between Timberwood Estates and this development. Staff also recommends that a front yard variance be considered on these lots in an attempt to reduce grading limits which in turn reduces tree loss. There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and 12. The drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage on the lots. The final plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area. Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right-of-way on the Demsey parcel which is immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr. Demsey to acquire easements and other negotiable items. One such item is for the first southerly cul-de-sac off the main street. At this time, the applicant is requesting to service the four homes via a private driveway within a 50-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to grant an additional 10 feet of right-of-way if the City's current design standards are maintained. This Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 2 property owner would be required to upgrade the cul-de-sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed this with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that if the property owner to the west (Demsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be a method of explaining the responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would not be responsible for any assessments of the upgrade. The plans propose to convey drainage from the front yards and streets into two sets of catch basins and simply discharge into the adjacent property. This method of storm drainage is inadequate in accordance to the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff has been working with the applicant to redesign the storm sewer system to have one single discharge point and pond location. Staff believes the most prudent location is at the low lying pasture land just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. This, however,will require easement dedication from the neighbor(Demsey). Therefore, at this time, the storm drainage plan is inadequate as well as the grading plan. UTILITIES The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this parcel (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and extend them into the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout some minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in accordance with the City's Fire Marshall may be necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are performed in conjunction with the plan and specification approval process. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for water. The City has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1) Minger - 18 units = $40,410; 2) Demsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 lots as estimated by the City. However, some of the lots within the plat are very large and therefore consideration for reduction of one unit may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission or City Council request that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the applicant into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted. Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Demsey parcel in conjunction with the overall project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight single-family lots. The applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no charge to the neighbor at this time. However, the applicant is requesting the City collect and reimburse them the connection charges when the neighbor utilizes the individual services. Staff and the applicant will work together in determining the actual dollar amount it takes to provide these services to the Demsey parcel. This "rebate" program has been done on several occasions on other projects where the City has reimbursed the developer a portion of their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did not want hook ups at that time. Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 3 The parcel does have an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility construction, will need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains. Construction of street system and utilities will destroy the current septic drainfields. In addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet of the sewer line be connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another existing home (Demsey)just off the first cul-de-sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet of the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner and applicant, they request that the City grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic system fails or they sell the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the septic and well sites will not be impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in good operating condition. STREETS The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop driveway. Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments regarding this proposed subdivision. They have indicated that consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access and turn lane. The applicant is proposing 50-foot wide right-of-ways and 50-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs which are below the City's urban standards. City standards require 60-foot wide right-of-ways with 60-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs. However, the City's tree ordinance does provide compromises in the street width and right-of-way if it can be demonstrated that reducing the street width or right-of-way will significantly save vegetation or retain the existing terrain. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate to the City that significant savings of vegetation will occur. Therefore, until the applicant has provided staff with this information, staff supports the 60-foot wide right-of-ways. In any event, staff strongly recommends maintaining a 60- foot radius in the cul-de-sacs to provide adequate turning movements. The applicant has agreed with staff on this and will change the cul-de-sac layout accordingly. The applicant is still proposing to submit 50- foot wide street right-of-ways and demonstrate the tree savings by the reduced width. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen Galpin Boulevard to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has provided additional easements to the City in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore, additional right-of-way is not needed at this time. The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to City standards(31-feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. Outlot A is proposed for a trail extension to the City park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that future lots from the west will not be able to connect to the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighbor to Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 4 sell/convey Outlot A and grant a 20-foot wide trail easement to the City centered along the west line of Lot 17. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional erosion control measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the street right-of-way proposed at 50 feet wide and the lack of storm management facilities, staff is recommending that this item be tabled and brought back to the next available Planning Commission meeting with revised drawings addressing staffs concerns. Staff has met with the applicant and explained the situations to the applicant and the applicant's engineer. The applicant appeared to agree and will adjust the plans accordingly. Upon receipt of the revised plans, this office will prepare another detailed staff report for consideration. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:\eng\lave\pc\mi nger.ppr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner H FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 5, 1994 SUBJ: Timberwood Estates & Galpin Blvd. Planning Case #93-25 SUB I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements: 1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum. 2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of existing street names to minimize confusion in emergency situations. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203. u\sakryNmn9325 CITY aF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -C DATE: May 2, 1994 `'l SUBJ: 93-25 SUB (Minger Addition) I was asked to review the concept plans for the proposed Minger Addition stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; APR 18, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents . Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. Recommendations: 1 . Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. 2. Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3 . Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:,safecy\salt\memos\plan\minger.bgi CITY OF \ . .. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A� DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FL()or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. T11 Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling, WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with tthe basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. • 'StWv' WO F� - � « RLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans arc compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. to., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -KCoo. Jt. i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �� .//‘ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 ` 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025I CHASKA.MINNESOTA 55318 !A'N E S°� COUNTY OF CAI VEQ April 25, 1994 To: Robert Generous, Planner II From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Rezoning Proposal 93-25 SUB The following are comments regarding the rezoning proposal for the property on Galpin Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated April 19, 1994. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) was given a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) designation a few years ago. CSAH 19 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. It would appear that as a minimum, a 100 foot corridor should be established for a potential 4 lane urban roadway. The proposal would need to meet at least that minimum. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed area if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. The proposal includes construction of a new street access. We would assume this will be a City street. Consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection with Galpin Blvd. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer l =C[w Printed on Recycled Paper �� Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste ,`. : 2 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. 7. Reconstruction of this portion of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. A number of the concerns expressed above can be addressed in the reconstruction project if the project proceeds as planned. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning. CITY OF '10:1111ClIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 November 5, 1993 Mr. Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Minger: City staff has performed a preliminary conceptual review of your project. The following list represents areas that will need to be addressed in developing a plan for the site. BUILDING The site appears to contain areas of peat and muck, terrel loam, and Glencoe silty clay loam; all of which are typically unsuitable for buildings or on-site sewage treatment Soil boring tests will need to be performed. Areas on the site may be unsuitable for building pads according to the Carver County Soil Survey. If this is the case, geotechnical reports and/or soil corrections will be required. WETLAND There does not appear to be any wetlands on-site. There is a wetland along the eastern boundary of the site, outside the property. It is recommended that the site be field inspected for wetlands. - - PARKS , A 20 foot trail easement for trail purposes will need to be included in the plan to provide access from this property to the park to the south. Park and trail fees will be assessed at the time of building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The,Current rate is $600.00 per lot for park fees and $200.00 per`lot for trail fees. DRALNAGE AND GRADING A storm sewer plan should be developed to convey storm water runoff from the streets and front yard areas to storm water retention basins. Storm sewer system should be designed for Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 2 a 10-year storm event, 24-hour intensity. The storm water basins should be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP) as well as maintain the predeveloped surface runoff discharge from the site for a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity. It appears the prime location for a NURP basin is on Lots 26 through 28 adjacent to Bluff Creek. The site grading should be designed to limit tree loss and maintain the general rolling terrain by incorporating the existing topography into the site design and minimizing required grading. The applicant may want to consider reducing the cul-de-sac lengths by implementing the use of private driveways to minimize impact on the site. The private driveways, as you are aware, are limited to serve up to four homes. A detailed grading, drainage and development plan will be required with the preliminary plat submittal stage. STREET ACCESS The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared gravel driveway. Expansion of the driveway use into a City street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as the recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen the street to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant should be aware that, in conjunction with subdividing, they will be required to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to arrive at one-half or 50 feet of the necessary 100-foot wide corridor. The street right-of-way for the interior streets will be required to be dedicated with the plat at 60 feet wide consistent with City standards. The street system should be constructed in accordance to City standards (31 feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs. City Code allows up to four homes on the same private driveway. The private driveways shall be constructed 20 feet wide to a 7-ton design within a 30-foot wide easement area. A cross-access or driveway easement will be necessary to ensure access to the 4 lots and spell out the maintenance responsibilities. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street system and drainage system will be required to be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. • The applicant may need to enter into a land exchange with the Dempseys in order to facilitate a relocation of the roadway and to permit the siting of homes on both sides of the proposed road. Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 3 UTILITIES The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Gaipin Boulevard adjacent to this site (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to extend municipal water and sewer into the site to service these lots. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates as a part of final platting. A preliminary utility layout plan shall be submitted with the preliminary plat submission. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 for sanitary sewer and $1,275 for water per unit. The City has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1. Minger - 18 units = $40,410 2. Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715 EROSION CONTROL The site borders on Bluff Creek, thus erosion control measure will have to be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The City will require a Type III erosion control fence adjacent to Bluff Creek where grading or utility work is proposed. TREE PRESERVATION Prior to developing the preliminary plat, the applicant must prepare a tree survey of the site specifying the type and diameter breast height (DBH) measured four and one half feet above ground. All trees six (6) inches or more DBH shall be included in the survey. These trees must be tagged, numbered, and included on a survey of the site. In developing the plat, including road and utility alignments and house pads, tree removal should be minimized. ZONLNG AND LAND USE The property is currently zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District which permits a maximum of one unit per 2.5 acres. The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as low density residential, 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. It would be possible to rezone the property to RSF, Residential Single Family, which permits lots sizes of 15,000 square feet minimum. Minimum lot dimensions in the RSF zone are 90 feet of frontage and 125,feet of depth. The minimum building setbacks are 30 feet front and rear and 10 feet on side yards. SUBDIVISION The subdivision process requires that you initially receive preliminary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. You then have one year to come in for final platting Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 4 approval from the City Council. As part of the subdivision process, conditions and requirements may be imposed on the development beyond what has been specified above. Additional issues and conditions may arise as more information is provided and other City departments or other agencies provide their input. Finally, you will be required to enter into a subdivision development contract with the City as part of the approval. I have enclosed a Development Review Application and Subdivision Requirements summary for your use. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 937-1900, extension 141. Sincerely, Robert Generous Planner II Attachments: Development Application Subdivision Requirements NOTICE OF PUBLIC ,v HEARING LOCATION 701111411%411 PLANNING COMMISSION .� 411r114V t. MEETING • ~`� gr ;,� ' • Wednesday, MAY 18, 1994 = ' �� ` at 7.30 p.m. Loh.Lifilet---.7ki=li City Hall Council Chambers �r, ii. 690 Coulter Drive siim «R » I =v„,"". 1111p.",ve,; 1.'' ' Project: Minger Addition $ I al&--' rww�r 1 Developer: Patrick Minger '.r .l 9 I ► PIP ' Location: South of Timberwood Estates .,00 0 on Galpin Boulevard 0 .,� Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 8.46 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat into 17 single family lots and one outlot located at 8221 Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood Estates. 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 Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 May 5, 1994. HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC. & TROTTERS RIDGE OF MERLE & JANE VOLK CHANHASSEN DENNIS R. & JEAN ROLLINS 941 HILLWIND RD. NE 2765 CASCO POINT RD. 2081 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE STE. 200 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRIDLEY MN 55432 ANDREW & SUSAN RICHARDSON GREGORY & JULIE SORENSON CURTIS & JEAN BEUNING 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. 8121 MAPLEWOOD TER. 2381 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK & NANCY BIELSKI RICHARD & E. LARSON JEFFREY G HEINZ & 8140 PINEWOOD CIR 8141 PINEWOOD CIR. JOAN M. PADRNOS-HEINZ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2071 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRADLEY J. FOLEY & JUDITH A. WERNER ROBERT & NANCY KROCAK DAVE & KAREN MAENKE 2061 TIMBERWOOD DR 2051 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDLE & TERESA CORFMAN WILLIAM & LANA MILLER JAMES & BONITA ROEDER 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 8121 PINEWOOD CIR 8101 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY & BEVERLY GREGORY & JILL PERRILL CRAIG & MARY HARRINGTON VANDERVORSTE 2101 TIMBERWOOD DR 8140 MAPLEWOOD TER 8141 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY TIMOTHY & VICKI DEMPSEY GERALD & LOIS GUSTAFSON 1000 HESSE FARM ROD 8241 GALPIN BLVD 8341 GALPIN BLVD CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER & GAYLEEN SCHMIDT 8301 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: May 18, 1994 ClIANIIASSZN CC DATE: June 13, 1994 Y CASE #: 93-11 SUB : • _ . 2 I • s• STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.83 Acres into 38 Single Family Lots and a Neighborhood Park and Variances to the lot width requirements in the Shoreland District Z Q LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City VLimits a. APPLICANT: Harstad Companies Steve Johnston 2191 Silver Lake Road Loucks and Associates New Brighton, MN 55112 7200 Hemlock Lane Maple Grove, MN 55369 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 35.83 acres (gross) 17.74 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.6 units/acre gross 2.14 units/acre net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family E - RSF, Single Family W - Victoria WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running F- north and south through the center of the plat. There is a (f) significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 3uRjecI L occbt-f i-) ,,,, 7 A =CART AIiT M, NTSSNTA HC/4K aoo I / __ 1 .... .0 I 'v f;RAI _ . All 4 Maw s _ r .114 " �'i, � ;�.��. �::-��/C. ----------�-__-1, �� 1111 '��r.�= c�iliff- aoo ��r4k 1; u\ ��a. G-nth_ 1 - i -- ii • .•• '�_� ��`liih�A.. i _____-:--7.- -----I-- ii�� &''T"321 1�1�. ' :417—AN FIELD Pk" - -► 4 ?7 r. .'"44141/1 ' A.P.1",1 -ci10= mg/I LAKE 1100LAKE rj l bss 11c A MIMNEWASHTA ,.` //I�� ` sYvtiuL 7000 »1111 PARK1111 r �� I �'��y -'ltall"- w�wwiiow` ,„ `-\ c' irirJf ` 1!G' ImlNgt'r7 7200 � �� \\�/ _ 4.kr l., ..r.7- Ai • I ,,,....,..„ rAn 7300 ~ i a/r, ' !r Ili 1 Ala LI.11, M.MlinMaota at' 4 I DA,V ' Li 44F./ 7500 44�J,!I 1Z I :\/1111 Ellititi �� i��\�,\ `'�._ MN /1111 no* i 7700 �'� I c) Mir Witt 44111w; � I 71100 / '_ - - - �wC- row, , ` 7900 - iNk_ 6717r \ . A 11000 (4.-, g • r % ,\WNW 1100 5200 /7 •!.D Tt,[e �jworw I�-I1r4 1300 1400 I 6 •_ ` ''— 11500 \ I J el" 11100 I J LY IAN BLVD LCR 1111 /� N�`�,, I 1 I N Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Harstad Companies is requesting approval to plat 35.38 acres of property into 38 lots a 11 acre park and one outlot. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. Harstad Development proposed a subdivision for 57 lots in February, 1994. This subdivision request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant had requested that the City Council table action on this subdivision request and allow them the opportunity to resolve the design issues with this plat. The new plat dated May 1, 1994 has been substantially revised and to reflect the design issues raised with the previous plats. One of the issues with the previous plat was the location of the park. This subdivision includes a 11 acre park located on the corner of Kings road and Minnewashta Parkway. The staff finds the design of the subdivision superior to the previous one submitted by Harstad Development. The engineer has delineated the wetland and field checked the shoreland jurisdiction line. The line is now located further to the north than the previous plats for this area. Thus, there are more lots with the 20,000 square foot minimum requirement. In addition, the lots proposed to be south of Kings Road are unbuildable based on delineation of the wetland. One issue of concern is the amount of tree loss with the subdivision. Staff is recommending compliance with the new woodland management plan to replace tree loss during construction. Another issue which has been partially resolved is the right-of-way for Kings Road. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way, the additional 10' will be acquired from the south when that property subdivides. Staff is recommending changing the street layouts in the northeast corner of the subdivision. Access needs to be provided to the Hallgren, Wenzel and Headla properties as well as allow the best options for design when they are subdivided in the future. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with minor changes. BACKGROUND - Proposed Plat Harstad Companies is requesting to plat 35.83 acres of property into 38 lots. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 3 eastern property limits. A portion of the Ziegler property is located south of Kings Road. This parcel is 199 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep, and a large portion of this property is undeveloped because of wetlands. The developer's engineer has delineated the wetland edge. Staff finds that this property is unbuildable based on the front yard and wetland setback requirements. All adjacent zoning to this site is RSF except for the land in Victoria which is zoned rural density, or 1 unit per ten acres. There are no wetlands on the site except for the wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe which affects one lot which staff is indicating as unbuildable. There are three large parcels adjacent to this development, the Headla, Hallgren and Wenzel properties. Future access to these parcels needs to be considered as a part of this plat. The site has a varied topography, changing in elevation over 40 feet. The high point of the site runs north and south through the center of the parcel. The site is primarily grass with a few scattered trees. There is a mature stand of trees located on the northwest corner of the site. The subdivision includes 38 building lots, an 11 acre park and an outlot. Outlot A is located south of Kings Road and is unbuildable due to the wetland setback requirements. The 11 acre park is located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of this park includes a stormwater pond. Staff is recommending the land be platted as an outlot. A portion of the park (50 acres) is located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This lake frontage area is not large enough to qualify for a recreational beachlot. The minimum standards for a beachlot are 200 feet of lake frontage with 30,000 square feet of lot area. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that this area be used for swimming only. Lake St. Joe is just to the south of Kings Road. The lake has been designated as a Natural Environmental Lake by the DNR. Compliance with the Shoreland Regulations would mandate that all lots within 1,000 feet of the shoreland must have a minimum of 20,000 square feet with a 125-foot lot width (Sec. 20-477[b]). The RSF standards, which is the underlying zoning, requires all lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a front yard lot width of 90 feet for the front yard. The Shoreland 1000 foot jurisdiction line has been delineated for this subdivision. There are 21 lots that fall within the Shoreland Regulations. All lots meet the Shoreland Regulations. Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the previous subdivision and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is not, the provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should be considered. At this time, Kings Road is proposed to be extended to intersect with Country Oaks Road to act as the local collector street for this subdivision. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 4 LANDSCAPING/I'KEE PRESERVATION There is a significant stand of trees located in the northwest corner of the plat, just south of the Hallgren property. Staff had recommended that a tree survey (Sec. 18-40, [2f]) be submitted with the plat. The survey identifies the majority of the trees are maple and oaks with the largest being 36 inch caliper for each species. There are some ash, box elder, and basswood scattered through the area. The majority of the tree loss will be with the street improvements and the grading of the lots. Fill is required in the western side of the subdivision to provide for sewer flows. Staff is recommending that the Oak Lane cul-de-sac be shortened and the 4 lots at the end of the street be served by private driveways. The private drives will allow the placement of the homes so that less fill is required thus saving more trees. Staff has applied the new woodland management plan to the subdivision section 18.61(d)(2). The total area development (not including park land) of the plat is 24.83 acres. The total canopy cover is approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant base line canopy is 18%. The applicant is required to maintain 25%, therefore, an addition of 7% of canopy is required. This equates to 70 additional trees. Because the subdivision proposes to take out trees that would have met the canopy coverage, the developer is required to prepare a woodland management plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at least 11/ times the removed canopy coverage area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. This results in 60 additional trees to be planted. Staff is recommending that the applicant prepare a woodland management plat. At a minimum of the 130 trees required for replacement, 2 trees per lot should be required. The remaining trees could be placed in a streetscape plan or in a newly created wooded area. Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18-61[5]). The majority of the streetscape will be accomplished with the development of the park. GRADING & DRAINAGE The city half-section maps indicated a 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the city has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snow plowing, grading, etc.) by the city for over six years, the public right-of-way for Kings Road generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land utilized as support for public right-of-way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the city for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 5 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. The existing roadway meanders back and forth within the 33-foot wide strip of proposed right-of-way. At the west end of Kings Road the roadway is entirely outside the 33-foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way north of the existing gravel road (Kings Road) between Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road and 30 feet of right-of-way west of Country Oaks Road to the city limits. Staff has compromised the 60-foot wide right-of-way along Kings Road at this time since the 50-foot wide right-of-way proposed exceeds what would typically be required along a shared or common street. Normally the city would only require dedication of half the right-of-way which would have been 30 feet when the parcels to the south subdivide. At that time, the city can require dedication of the additional 10 feet of right-of-way. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site. Due to the size of the parcel and substandard Kings Road, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with two phases. In conjunction with upgrading Kings Road, the grading appears to extend up 60 feet into the properties located south of Kings Road. Staff recommends that the street grades be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The proposed street grades range from 0.50% to 7.0% which meet the city's requirements. The city has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal. Consideration should be given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impact to the properties to the south. As proposed, slope or construction easements will be necessary from the properties to the south. White Oak Lane is proposed to be filled up to 14 feet to maintain storm drainage to the east. Staff has had discussions with the developer's engineer to redesign this cul-de-sac in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss by use of a private driveway at the end as well as redesigning the sanitary sewer service. This will be analyzed when revised driveways are submitted. DRAINAGE AREAS The site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one quarter of the site draining west into wetlands located within the City of Victoria. These wetlands are part of the Lake St. Joe basin and drain into Lake St. Joe from the west. The city's subdivision ordinance requires the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision be retained at the pre-developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The storm drainage plan should also be analyzed by the applicant's engineer in order to meet the city's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP calls for a sediment and nutrient.pond in the south central portion of the site to pretreat approximately 16.5 acres of runoff (SWMP drainage area LM A7.4). Ponding must meet National Urban Runoff Pollution (NURP) standards before it is discharged off-site. Ponding locations are flexible, however, the city prefers that the number of ponds be kept to a minimum for maintenance purposes. The applicant's engineer has supplied detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event. Storm water calculations for the sediment and nutrient ponds need to be submitted for review and approval Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 6 in conjunction with the final plat submittal. The plans propose a series of catch basins to convey storm water runoff generated from the streets and lots within the development to a regional pond located on the park site. A smaller pond is also proposed on the park site east of the regional pond. This pond is necessary due to elevation differences between the two drainage areas. The final design of both ponding areas shall be determined prior to final platting. The city's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been completed and is in the process of being formally adopted by the city. The applicant is proposing to follow the city's SWMP by constructing a water quality basin in accordance to the city's standards. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a segment of storm sewer in Kings Road which may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water trunk fees. These trunk fees should be applied to this development as outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. UTILITIES The site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. The plans should provide utility stubouts along Kings Road for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north, south and west. There are two existing homes lying south of Kings Road that will be within 150 feet of the proposed sanitary sewer line (Borris & Scott/Morgan). Pursuant to city ordinance, these homes will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer line within 12 months from the time the lines become operational. Staff believes that these homes should be required to connect to the lines in accordance to city ordinance due to environmental reasons and close proximity to Lake St. Joe. These property owners will be required to pay a connection charge to the city of which a portion should be refunded to the applicant for installation of the utilities. The exact amount to be refunded will be determined based on construction bids. Upon quick review of the utility layout, it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be revised. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the city's fire marshal recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced 300 feet apart. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. The street and utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the city has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 7 should be aware that the city will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a draintile system. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and drainage areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The city will also require that all ponding areas be designed to provide access for maintenance equipment. The design shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide minimal erosion control measures (Type I); however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road is proposed to be upgraded to urban standards to adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements (Sec. 18-57[b]). The city's urban standards consist of a 31-foot wide back-to-back bituminous street section with concrete curb and gutter. According to the ordinance, right-of-way shall be 60 feet wide. On Kings Road, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of the normally required right-of-way which is more than the city would normally require under this circumstance. The 33 feet of right-of- way is not acceptable. The site will eventually be connected into existing Country Oaks Road to the north once the Hallgren parcel develops. On the east exists a combination of parcels (Headla/Wenzel) which could be further subdivided. Access to the Headla/Wenzel parcels is being considered at this time through Stratford Lane. However, the Headla parcel which abuts Stratford Lane is only constructed for approximately 250 feet west of Minnewashta Parkway. When Stratford Ridge was platted an Outlot B was created for future extension and deeded to the Stratford Ridge Homeowners Asso:iation versus the city. Ms. Hallgren gains access to her property through/over this outlot. There are a couple of different ways to access the Headla/Wenzel parcels. One option would be to create a "T" intersection on Stratford Lane and loop a future street south to tie back into Country Oaks Road. Another option would be to extend Stratford Lane to Country Oaks Road with a future street/cul-de-sac stubbed south into the Headla parcel (see Attachment #1). The residents in Stratford Ridge have expressed very strong objections to the extension of Stratford Lane to the west. Another option would be to extend White Oak Lane east to the Wenzel parcel with the intention of a cul-de-sac and the Headla Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 8 parcel would have two lots adjacent Stratford Lane and the remaining parcel served via a private driveway. In any event, access to the surrounding parcels should be addressed. Staff has expressed these options to Mr. Headla who preferred the extension of White Oak Lane to the Wenzel parcel. This option also gives the applicant two additional lots in the park south of the easterly extension of White Oak Lane. Approximately one-half of the necessary right-of-way along Stratford Lane is proposed to be dedicated (30 feet). Unless Stratford Lane right-of-way is increased to meet city requirements (60 feet), Lots 1, 2, and 3 must be platted as outlots. The city will not issue building permits for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block 2 until Stratford Lane is constructed to its full width and the entire width (60 feet) of right-of-way has been dedicated to the city. Until this is done, these lots shall be platted as an outlot. Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets versus Kings Road except Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block 1 which is proposed with Phase H. Staff has some concerns with this future phase along Kings Road. Staff's concerns are the cost to upgrade Kings Road to an urban street section. The cost to upgrade the street may exceed the assessable benefit to these lots. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a security escrow to cover their fair share of the construction to upgrade that section of Kings Road lying west of Country Oaks Drive. The cost may be estimated based on the costs of upgrading the portion of Kings Road east of Country Oaks Drive. PARK AND RECREATION On January 25, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the previously proposed Harstad Subdivision proposed for consideration of park and trail development. The northwestern portion of the city had been identified as park deficient by the City's Comprehensive Plan. As the previous applicant's (Heritage) subdivision development evolved, the city retained Hoisington-Koegler Group to draft park studies for three defined areas on the plat. A park site, 10 acres in size, was selected for the southeast corner of the site. This prcpo;al was submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission. At their meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendation: PARK: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the subdivision concept site plan as presented, with the inclusion of acquisition of lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (approximately 1.62 acres) and purchase (approximately 6.5 acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full fee credit is to be granted as a part of these regotiations. TRAIL: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require as a condition of approval of the proposed Harstad Subdivision a 20-foot trail easement connecting to the proposed Country Oaks Drive with the park. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 9 The applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail fees with the remainder of the trail fees to be assessed as per city ordinance. A portion of the property being proposed for park purposes includes property located east of Minnewashta Parkway. This property is approximately .50 acres. The property is very narrow and has approximately 500 feet of shoreline. The Park and Recreation Director, is recommending that this area be included as a part of the park, to be maintained as a small, low impact swimming beach, City Code does not allow the applicant to utilize this area as a recreational beachlot. By taking ownership, both the new development and existing neighbors benefit. The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this most recent subdivision from Harstad at their May 24, 1994 meeting. The commission will also discuss compensation for public improvements along the park frontage of Kings Road. These improvements include street and curb and gutter. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block 1 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20.000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 21,914 160 133 Lot 2 20,136 154 133 Lot 3 20,625 125 164 Lct 4 20,621 125 165 Lot 5 20,436 125 170 Block 1 Lot Area(15,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot 6 31,817 90 178 Lot 7 31,572 90 140 Lot b 15,741 90 155 Lot 9 15,757 105 150 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 10 Block 1 Lot Area(20,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 10 20,000 125 160 Lot 11 20,000 125 160 Lot 12 26,270 113/208 184 Lot 13 21,400 148 151 Lot 14 ; 20,025 134 150 Block 1 � Lot Area(15,000 s.f. Street Frontage Lot Depth required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot :5 15,000 100 150 Lot i6 ! 15,000 100 150 Lot 17 15,040 105 144 Lot 1.8 i 15,021 97 142 Lot 19 j 25,656 90 154 Lot 20 J 27,275 90 154 Lot 21 16,712 l 90 159 Lot 22 15,028 102 144 1—ot 23 1 15,00 100 150 Lot 24 15,000 100 150 Lot 25 15,000 100 150 Lot 26 15,000 100 150 Lot 27 15,144 102 150 Block 2 I Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth i (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 20,387 133 154 Lot 2 I 20,165 131 154 Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 11 Lot 3 20,014 129 154 Lot 4 20,175 125 154 Lot 5 20,571 130 141 Lot 6 20,482 148 138 Lot 7 20,601 159 143 Lot 8 20,080 153 147 Phase II Block 1 Lot Area Street F (20,000 s.f. required) Let l 20,155 113 165 Lot 2 20,881 113 133 Lot 3 21.280 133 133 FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Fimily District lot dimension and area requirements. No variances are being requested. Staff is proposing access via a private drive for four lots off of White Oak Lane. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed density of the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development. The conditions of the staff report should mitigate all vegetation, soil and storm water issues. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 12 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure as part of the improvements required of the subdivision. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: Staff is requesting the applicant provide a woodland management plan. This plan should preserve the integrity of the woodland canopy. 6. The prcposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The prcposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. RECOMMENDATION 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 13 utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 6. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 until the full 60-foot wide right-of-way on Stratford Lane street is dedicated to the City and the street is constr»cted to urban standards. 7. The ant'.icant sha'_' escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. 8. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading and drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. 11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase II. 12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 13. An alternate street access to Headla and Wenzel parcels should be considered in lieu of the Stratford Lane access. 14. A portion of the utility connection fee the City collects from the property owners south of Kings Road shall be refunded to the applicant. The exact refund will be Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 14 determined based on actual construction costs for the installation of the utilities. These property owners will be required to pay a connection charge to the City. 15. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 20 through 24, Block 1. 16. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree removal. Consideration should be given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impacts to the properties to the south. As proposed, slope or construction easements will be necessary from the properties to the south. 17. The developer's engineer shall redesign White Oak Lane in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss by use of a private driveway at the end as well as redesigning the sanitary sewer service. 18. The Boris and Scot:Morgan homes will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer line within 12 months from the time the lines become operations. 19. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water trunk fees. These trunk fees should be applied to this development as outlined in the SWMP and/or madifiei accordingly pending adoption by the City Council. 20. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and utility construction. 21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home construction process. 22. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). 23. T''.e storm ater pond shall be placed in an outlot. 24. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission. 25. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January 21, 1994. Harstad Companies May 18, 1993 Page 15 ATTACHMENTS 1. Option. 2. Canopy coverage. 3. Memorandum from Steve Kirchman dated January 21, 1994. 4. Hearing notice 5. Preliminary plat dated May 1, 1994. =./= ;5 ` \ \,.`_ ...ter' _ V..... v gay /. - 1 i r 1. • ,.i • K c.i 1 t.:•.. C) i; co I-1 a • :"-a t S iG= C _ , Ya<3 r- / r',L.19.ri.00Sc ` P • I • OZ'9t L" '•••• 3.4E,OS.00N 4 'E44 0 I D oil _ n. .061/..Z M.44.44. OS ..., ° 3= Pi - ay .1.. [l i o ,N �S r r ,p: _ii j ... • P. i F O � V M A. G unit. 1 , 1 In 6 S ♦cO n •n 1 R t � — Qe 1 1 i '` A — . 1 R B w, \ .epe Z V — • ( + it : 1 2 a Al A. R Z 1 �g : . .'g - .. �'� A na 1 T' • 1 R - "s \< .' • F a ^_ 1 a 1 w\ .I. - �— R B I I : of _ .� L 1 R 1I Fy _ am as 1 1 .� k 2). 1 LJ t a �--�1 - _ - ... ... \ 1. -. _ 4s .!1 Li � F ;�� ..i11 ♦ i JA ` f. :� y s 1 a "1 gd = 91'908 3.13Z,ZE.00N > cr-C.'z"•:-- y II il CI II 'OW we' . ,t1CCUT..7, I fil , -AI • ID 54c., . 0,1•004- t,, N- 8-.8.0/,O.ca• CV. < 3 Or al 0313 • ' •:',.c. . Al el li•-• Ca m II II GI II I .I.• \' • .....i.*:, ... ..i. ..1,<CLUU I 1 ....„.•'..; *- -•t . ti' . .fir . , . -.. \ ... ' .7; . IIV.: It I • ,.- . r-.. .i: / - . :44 ...• '.•-• V - • -- A \- I ! I . 5 I . •1 . . .. . ( 1.7 ! i --"' ,-----. i 1 Il / ... 1 ..: -..? . '‘I f . `: • ... . .. • G -•. I . * '0 / r: 40 t..iv__ r—,— / i 1417;i 1! .. .. i .\ .._....r.„... • :,:.... 1. ; ,74...,71 . . . ;.--> ----- / i",- f . r,.... . z ., ... \ , -, ‹ ii. s , , ::,..,i \ t ,1„,T9.*P.0 :... \ _ _. -.... / \ . i •'.... ‘ ,. .. . -- -:'%;;-----n \ ... ......' 1' \------. :. • :1T7v I , ':..- N..-.. . N. : • 2 I !:-411 i-it:0 . I -,.. / I I . -------- rl •-iu•-, ' • , . .‘\ • .. • ; - \\ \_-' /I__,!_l_11-J1 b_; ; \ • I.--I-kosixot4—" i.- o....6.. : -. )tt.. 1._..........- ,.-- ... . . ••!..--- -, ,. - / I - i -1 . ) \ ...•--..,---I . I / , , .... ... .-- .- . ..,.... . . ,.. _J . , I ,. . , .,.. ,. . . .... • . ... ......------------_:,...,- ...;„._ , rt (1) / • 7-\ ._. ..___ ,, , ------------- -------. .. - 1 - -j I \ 1 ,. . ... L., . „ , ....•.- ..... , . ,. , . , ... - ... .. ,--..... , \ .../- 4 I , . ........ .. ,....„ . ........._... 1... i ..... / , , ;;;;„->-:-- 7-Z%.>:\ - .-8-.-----:•:::.„..-,.:.,-;--. • „ ... / • .1. 1; , .• . • • • . \ , ij. / .\' ,,,..------.. .: „. A/...... ... . .... ' / \ — •... 2 6 ./„ 1 . ....: ,,-, .- - . . ,4 ( ‘ . ... ..- • .. - , ,...-....„-:,.:..-1"..: ... , \ '••...;,....,.... 1 , -'-' t : - \ i , -•. ---- c, • r-- d \ • \ \ . .—____. ... , .., ` -- ..- I 1 - ... • ......... , z .. . , 0 . .:-.- t 1 ! ..., / - • . . . . i / ... - ...... , teii ;\ •. •-• .." ,,. - ..., ,-, ..... ... 1 . z ..- .. . i . , i ...••-• ... ...--. ..., .1._ - .. ./ , , LI! 1 0 ' -•..• . . , .....,..,....-...." . ••...... i- 1 I I :r- . _F- t!9f. 1.`6", - n..* ,. ............. , ..- - • ...,- A , f- • I ; • ...•- , ."--- , • •••---..-'• ,0 -.. . _ N / 14, d' II i ' '/ 4 -- 1 l /,• "..... . :"...1.•::::-...::•:-••••.... ... ....•_. . ...—..."• • ,.... - - •• •• a li—----• .. I ,. ... •. •.... .. . --.. - . ....;• \ I -- - • ..>• .,1 .._. ... ... E-1- • " f. 4- i ", .... - .• , • -.- , ... ' i ! ,- gi -1-1" 1-r f. - - I . . ....... - • .. r . . • • • 1..-.I...•' ..-'- P 1 hil -f---1 A • •!4-9 - k I ... ... t ... ...7 ----N v 7------- -,-,, -i _. _is...........:.......7... ....,............ .... ....--...... . !.-,. i _1 ! i lig-- / , . .. ... - 1 I i 1 1 fo 1 ,I 1.1 -1' --• . • , , . ._ - - . - -r- / WOOS . 3.6Z,ZE.00N N:... ...).' i ' / CITY QF C IIANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 qb MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official f\ DATE: January 21, 1994 SUBJ: 93-11 SUB (Hardstad Companies) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Locations of the proposed house pads are not shown on the preliminary grading plan. Locations of proposed pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) should be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed house pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Vy,,= .1 A1reA0tCo‘ssiriMf• /t Qnvor rm / ' Ali or■ m u,�■=�- r, LAKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGY IMISk14, Darts /Iii fit+ //i M ! N N E W A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - PLA 1994 MAY 18, Wednesday, 7:30 P.M. — —- Council Chambers a IIIII-- , City Hall Cou 0 ` �� , A V4\ 690 Coulter Drive a c,TJ04 . �:, •y��„� _ —0 _The Oaks at MinnewastaProject: _0oJ'r=rte ., Developer: Harstad Companies I-� ,'"--- Location: of Kings Road, �„�T . Location: N �,�, \ West of Minnewashta _ � ` 1 Parkway al \, '` about a development proposed in public hearing oonto in Notice: You are invited to attend a P to subdivide 35.83 acres of property nd located north Harstad Companies is proposing Single Family your area. 38 zoned RSF, Residential single family lots located on property of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. public hearing is to inform The purpose of this What Happens at the Meeting: ot this request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about is the planning Commission Chair will lead the public you about the developer's 9 project. During the meeting, through the following steps: ro osed project. 1. Staff will give an over view of the on the project. The Developer will present plans 2• public. Comments a1e received from the P discusses project. The 3' is closed and the CommissionCouncil. 4. Public hearingorecommendation to the City Commission will then make a recornm please you want to see the plans before the meeting, Mondayr throughthme tng, If you Questions or Comments: a.m. to 4:30 p.m., office hours, 8:00 wishstop by City Hall eo e this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900, ext. 118. f you comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Dep to talk to someone aboutP ent choose n submit written ff will provide copies to the Commission. in advance of the meeting. 12, 1994. Notice of this has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May '/4 7)144');41'.�.� i I -+--� 1 i rr .le j I s r1 a 2 ; �, 1 N . N, i 1 r ° i lE 11 I I -1 m 1/..-;; I rI. f I + 1 a � I l� L f1 I x.rs.>..00s 00 ch i co • ' ' I F of s>c i ��` ,� .•- Gt A;PS,r9.'OS ii 1 ; '' U • ii Y • i I I 11 • I F I - - - i\ r�iis:i1. 111 j 1 r T C n' - o l/ n 4 • ? Oil Yom, ^ >< I 1 l.,_�j i eF I d., `:. :Y�L M 17Nwa,r 1 I ' °��>, I i•- _ I f n :4 I.,.... I. 11 n� I w• t = ;l AP tall.. . , 4 s 4. Y Q :r Yfy t �\ 1 L • 1C I GARY & NADINE NELSON RALPH & P. KARCZEWSKI WARREN & JANET RIETZ 7048 RED CEDAR COVE 7054 RED CEDAR COVE 7058 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID & A. PRILLAMAN COY & SANDRA SHELBY ROBERT & JUDY ROYER 7064 RED CEDR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN & SARAH MANEY BERNARD & ALYCE FULLER DONALD & B. BTFIERMANN 7078 RED CEDAR COVE 7075 RED CEDAR COVE 7085 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOUIS/LUANN GUTHMUELLER TIMOTHY J. FISHER RED CEDAR COVE TWNHOUSE 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7099 RED CEDAR COVE P.O. BOX 181 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEVIN & CYNTHIS CUDDIHY ALLIN & SHIRLEY KARIS ROBERT & DEBRA PIROLLI 3900 STRATFORD RIDGE 3920 STRATFORD RIDGE 3940 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFREY & JANICE ADAMS W. SCOTT MORROW & BARTON WELLS 3960 STRATFORD RIDGE CYNTIA M. HOUSE 4000 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT TERRY & BONNIE LABATT KEITH & KATHRYN BEDFORD 4001 STRATFORD RIDGE 3981 STRATFORD RIDGE 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM J. MUNIG CHARLES & C. CRUICKSHANK DOUGLAS & JANET REICHERT 6850 STRATFORD RIDGE 3921 STRATFORD RIDGE 3901 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN & ERIN DILLON HAROLD & ELAINE TAYLOR KEVIN & SUELLYN TRITZ 3881 STRATFORD RIDGE 3861 STRATFORD RIDGE 3851 STRATFORD RIDGE RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STRATFORD RIDGE HOA MARK & JULIE GRUBE CRAIG & LINDA MACK C/O KEITH F. BEDFORD 3931 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 3941 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN H. BEAUDOIN BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE 133 SPRII,G VALLEY CIRCLE 4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN L. BENSON & JEROME M. BACH LEE & JUANITA HARVEY BARBARA B. WILSON C/O NORWEST BANK, TRUSTEE 7120 KINGS ROAD 7050 KINGS ROAD 6TH MARQUETTE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479-0046 JEFFRY H. HALLGREN & JENNIFER J. HALLGREN KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD MICHELLE GEORGE 375 HIGHWAY 7 3901 GLENDALE DRIVE 355 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA A SCOTT & LOWELL & J. CARLSON DAVID & MARGARET BORRIS SUSAN E. MORGAN R. l BOX 822A 4071 KINGS ROAD 4031 KINGS ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN P. BAUMTROG STATE OF MINNESOTA DARYL & DEBRA KIRT 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 7600 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 METRO SQUARE BUILDING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST. PAUL MN 55101 MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD CHURCH OF MINNESOTA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 4151 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LEE ANDERSON JOANN HALLGREN JAMES & R. BOYLAN PLEASANT ACRES HOA 6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. RT. 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES & JEFFREY KERTSON KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND RLK ASSOCIATES 6810 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HIGHWAY 7 922 MAIN STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOPKINS MN 55343 ROBERT MOREHOUSE DAVID HEADLA TERRY FORBORD 4410 HIGHWAY 25 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY LUNDGREN BROS. WATERTOWN MN 55388 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. WAYZATA, MN 55391 CITY 4 F lobCHANHASSEN 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 DATE: April 25, 1994 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18-57. Streets, by amending section o, to include Standards for Private Driveways serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16, and Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading. The current private driveway ordinance sets standards for the Residential Single Family District only. A number of the high density residential as well as non-residential use proposals that have been submitted to the city, have been utilizing private driveways. The zoning and subdivision ordinances do not have standards to measure these types of private driveways. Staff is proposing an amendment to the subdivision ordinance, Section 18-57(o) and to the zoning ordinance,Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows: o. Private driveways may be permitted in business, industrial,office, R-8, R-12, and R- 16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private driveway if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 2 If the use of a private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The common sections of a private driveway serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private driveways serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private driveways serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the driveway shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. 2. Private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking on the driveway or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway shall be prohibited. 3. Private driveways that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C). 4. The private driveway must be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a 10 year storm should be included - - ••- • -- - . =- . . -; - - - - engineer. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. 5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private driveway intersects the public right-of-way. 6. The driveway shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 3 7. The private driveway in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private driveways serving R- 8, R-12, R-16, business,industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. 8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. ARTICLE XXIV. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1101. Driveway setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office and multiple family districts. The following controls driveway setbacks and widths in the business, industrial, office, and multiple-family districts: (1) The width shall be measured between driveway edges and shall be as follows: Type of Driveway District Maximum Minimum One-way traffic Business 20 22 42 20 Two-way traffic Business 30 36 34 26 One-way traffic Industrial 20 22 42 20 Two-way traffic Industrial 30 36 24 26 One-way traffic Office 20 22 4- 20 Two-way traffic Office 30 36 34 26 One-way traffic multifamily 22 20 Two-way traffic multifamily 36 24 Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the fire chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 4 "The City Council recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment Sec. 18-57 (o) Design standards for private driveway, and the zoning ordinance Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading to read as follows: o. Private driveways may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R- 16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private driveway if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private driveway will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. If the use of private driveway is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The Common sections of a private driveway serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private driveways serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the fire marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private driveways serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guide lines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the driveway shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. 2. Private driveways must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking on the driveway or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway shall be prohibited. Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 5 3. Private driveways that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C). 4. The private driveway must be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff - - - -- - - - . .- - engineer. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. 5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private driveway intersects the public right-of-way. 6. The driveway shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. 7. The private driveway in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private driveways serving R- 8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. 8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement, shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. ARTICLE XXIV. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1101. Driveway setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office and multiple family districts. The following controls driveway setbacks and widths in the business, industrial, office, and multiple-family districts: (1) The width shall be measured between driveway edges and shall be as follows: Type of Driveway District Maximum Minimum One-way traffic Business 443 22 4-2- 20 Planning Commission April 25, 1994 Page 6 Two-way traffic Business 38 36 34 26 One-way traffic Industrial 22 44 20 Two-way traffic Industrial 30 36 44 26 One-way traffic Office 4.8 22 43 20 Two-way traffic Office 38 36 34 26 One-way traffic multifamily 22 20 Two-way traffic multifamily 36 24 Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the fire chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager CONSIDER APPROVING A NEW TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOCATED ON THE PRESS AND DATASERV PROPERTY. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Mr. Gerhardt, perhaps there might be some people who are going to see this on tape or who are here right now. Why the City of Chanhassen would invest any money in a state ' highway and if you could explain kind of the unique relationship. What Highway 101 really is and why we have to make this investment. Gerhardt: Well State Highway 101 is designated as a minor maintenance highway so they will not stick any dollars into reconstructing it. That means they will go out and fill potholes and provide right turn lanes where traffic warrants are necessary and will not add trails to it unless we would make the overlays with curb and gutter. Impacts on environmental resources, wetlands and lakes. So it's really up to the cities, counties to look at rebuilding this highway. It's got a history where the State is trying to give it over to Hennepin County. Carver County has shown interest in trying to take it over and right now there is a special committee put together by Carver County, City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hennepin County to try to work out an arrangement in reconstructing TH 101 because those are the jurisdictions that are mostly impacted by it. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Farmakes: What is that, I'm curious. How does the DataSery thing work'in the Met Council with the, our local community and our facts and figures for employment. The final figures that are added to Hennepin County. How does that work...? Is this in Carver County or not in Carver County? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Gerhardt: It's in Hennepin County. The tax increment district, it is all in Hennepin County and we've got an opinion from the attorney that says we can take Hennepin County dollars and use those on roadways that come along that jurisdiction. We just can't go out and rebuild half a highway so we...that you could rebuild the entire highway. So we get, we recognize through Met Council those employments figures from the Press and DataSery and Redmond Products and Automated Building Components and I'm going to forget some but several other businesses...are recognized in our employment study. So when we do our survey compared to Met Council, we're fairly close. Farmakes: Yeah. In the one I looked at, I'm talking about projection. The projections were significantly lower here and the response that I got, and that particular issue with that, that's because we have a significant amount of employment figures in Hennepin County and that's part of this. I was just wondering for when we make an investment, or we're using Hennepin County dollars, are we approving something here that's within our scope of view? Obviously we are or we wouldn't be seeing it. Gerhardt: Right. I mean there's no question that upgrading State Highway 101 will benefit all those businesses. Through the truck traffic. Through employees getting to work. To all those facilities. It's going to be safer. Right now TH 101 is a very dangerous highway. It also provides opportunities for installing a trail system that will connect into these areas. Allowing people to bike, walk or other modes of transportation to get to these businesses. So there are some real benefits back to these. We used...Hennepin County dollars to rebuild the TH 101 intersection...in Carver County. All those trucks that are served by Redmond Products, the Press, and that, that had the difficulty of making that U around to that frontage road. And it's sad that we can only go so far. There's no question as Crosstown gets completed to 4 lanes, you're going to have a...4 lane major non-restricted highway into a 2 lane minimum improvement state highway with only 2 lanes. And the right turn lanes along there are not, so people going to work along that highway, if they use Crosstown, and come up onto Town Line, that's going to be completed here fairly soon. You know everybody who may work in Hopkins that works at the Press is going to hop on Crosstown and take TH 101 and then come down to serve those businesses. So they don't have to hit the traffic signals on Highway 5 in Eden Prairie. So we're real concerned with TH 101 as Town Line, Crosstown is completed and funnels down into a 2 lane minimum improvement state highway. So that's our big concern and then of course the neighborhood would also like to see a trail running there. And this is our only opportunity, locally funding this study and try to do something. Scott: Looking at the boundaries of the TIF district, or the proposed TIF district, the question that I've got is as you look out into your crystal ball and see some of the developments that are being proposed. I mean obviously we're going to be talking about an expansion of an 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 existing business in that area. Also potentially another smaller business. What sort of development do you see occurring across the street in the DataSery area? And just basically, what sort of financial benefit do you see when this TIF district is fully developed, based upon what you know of other TIF districts that we've gone through, what sort of tax benefit do you see on an annual basis for the city of Chanhassen from that area? Gerhardt: Right now I think we've estimated to be fully developed about $900,000.00 a year in new taxes. Including the DataSery and the Press expansion. Right now the plans are for two 70,000 square foot office/warehouse type facilities that sit along the frontage road between Highway 5 and Lake Drive in front of DataServ. DataSery is also coming out and going to build at least a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse R & D facility next to their current plant. Their lease runs out in 2 years in their facility in Eden Prairie. Scott: So you're just going to be moving those Eden Prairie employees into Chanhassen. Mancino: So that will be an increase of $900,000.00 you said for taxes? When it comes. Wouldn't we get that $900,000.00 regardless of if it were TIF or not? Gerhardt: Some people question that it might not occur. It might or it might not occur. The development. Farmakes: The development. Gerhardt: Right. Mancino: Oh, the whole development might not occur. Gerhardt: Yeah. The big question is, what's the incentive of the DataSery going on their own property when Chaska has it. Waconia has it. Shakopee has it and they can almost build in those facilities for less money and incentives are for them to do it. And for us to compete with those other cities, we have no other option but to do it. The other up side of it is, is that it gives us opportunities to do other public improvements. You can ask for brick or better on your buildings and say you can use that...say you're going to get assistance from the city. Even if you've got Highway 5 treatments, you're going to see, you want to see some special treatments as people enter the city. Be it entry monuments. Special landscaping treatments. And then public improvements. Right now if Dell Road, the•segment of Dell Road south of Lake Drive was to be constructed. We would have to pull general obligation bonds. Myself, as a taxpayer in Chanhassen would have to pay for that road and I would never use it. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Couldn't we use the property taxes that we're getting from that development to do that? Gerhardt: They go into one large pool, general pool. Farmakes: ...edge of the city. It's in another county. It's, how does that general pool work? Where do those tax dollars go? You're saying that it's going to generate $900,000.00. In whose coffers do they go? Gerhardt: We get, well with the creation. You want to know if the taxes from the district was there or wasn't there? Mancino: Both. Both scenarios. Gerhardt: If the tax increment district is there, we basically capture 50% of those dollars. The other 50% goes to fiscal disparity and that is distributed throughout the metro area to those cities that are commercially and industrially poor. Scott: But don't we get around $900,000.00 a year from fiscal disparities because our existing TIF districts are invisible to the calculation? Fortunately. Gerhardt: We are a beneficiary of fiscal disparity money but in 6 years we will be a major contributor to fiscal disparities. So of that $900,000.00, we will not see those dollars once the district is collapsed. Farmakes: Do you feel that the expansion of this area benefits us in projections with Met Council? Does it benefit our area or does it benefit another area? We still have to provide these areas with fire service, police and so on. Does that benefit our community statistically? Gerhardt: Well yeah, that's the problem with statistics. I mean people sort them around and play with them however they want to make their numbers to work but statistically we count those employees as a part of city of Chanhassen's employment base but do they break out those figures and say they're part of Chanhassen's Hennepin County portion and then you've got Chanhassen's Carver County portion. Well we'd like to, it's still part of Chanhassen so we combine the numbers and I think, or I've seen it where Met Council has broken out each of the two. I do not know if they combine both of them together. But they should show the separation of the two because you're going to have to make that reflection back when they do county statistics on employment. You can't count our portion of Hennepin County employment into Carver County. So I would think that when they show those, I've seen it where Chanhassen, Hennepin County portion, Chanhassen, Carver County portion and they 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 show those figures. Mancino: I had another question about education. What happens when we, first of all before that. Do we have any commercial/industrial development in Chanhassen that isn't in a TIF district? Has all of it come in under TIF dollars pretty much? Gerhardt: We have a small neighborhood retail area up at TH 41 and TH 7 that is not. Gedney Pickle down in, what is looks like it's in Chaska but it's really in Chanhassen, is not. This private property here that's on the map, I did not include what is Ver-sa-til. What was Dexter Magnetic. I don't know who's in there now. Laytec. Automated Building Components. Redmond Products. Those facilities were in a tax increment. Are no longer in a tax increment. All that's included in this new district are vacant lands with the exception of the Press and it's original value of the Press building, when they do the tax calculation, will continue to pay into or outside of the district because the base value needs to be established at the time the district is started. So we're not going to capture any increment off of the Press. So those tax dollars will come back to the community. Mancino: Do any of these tax dollars during the TIF district go into our schools at all? On a regular, consistent basis or do our schools lose out when these come into the TIF district. Gerhardt: The tax dollars from this district go to Eden Prairie schools because they're in the Eden Prairie School District. We do not any residents within Chanhassen that go to Eden Prairie School District so there's no residential in Hennepin County side. We have one house that's in Hennepin County. Mancino: Okay. My last question has to do with, I think it's on page 7. Number 0 which is parcels to be acquired within the TIF district. It is not anticipated that the city will acquire any property within TIF District No. 3-1 except such easements or other interest in properties may be necessary to complete the improvements of Dell Road, TH 101, TH 5 anticipated by this plan. I know that the Highway 5 corridor study, which is involved very much on Highway 5, is very interested in this corner, Dell Road on the north and south side, as a gateway to our city. And design has not been done on either of those parcels of land but it may be that when one is designed, that there may be some easements of land wanting to take into account for our gateway. These are all kind of what ifs and questions that I have right now. Wouldn't it be appropriate to put in this contract something about the gateway concept and what's going to happen? And would there be a right to acquire some easements from both of those parcels? Gerhardt: You, perhaps it would be correct and, however we have not included that in the plan because we do not know how much land we are going to take or if the entry monuments 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 will be completed so until City Council has reviewed those and I think they've got a meeting scheduled to start looking at those, it's tough for me to put a budget in and how much land to take you know and people that own that property see this as you're taking my property and why. And then that puts Council in a predicament to try and answer questions. So until we have a plan in place, we'll come back with a modification and then I'll come back in front of you and modify this plan to say that we are going to acquire land at the intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5. And at that time I'll have a good estimate of what the budget would be for that. Mancino: Great. Because I wouldn't recommend passing this without that caveat. Without that addendum that that area be designed and come back to you with it in here. Gerhardt: Right. And until we have a better idea of you know, are we going to put a large entry monuments that say Chanhassen on them? Are we going to do landscaping? Are we going to do vertical elements? That question hasn't been answered yet. So until we have those answers, we need to come back with a modification. Right now we felt that it was important to get the district in place instead of waiting for that. However we have highlighted in the plan that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway 5 corridor plan and that this plan is recognizing that as a project that we want to undertake with the increment that we have available. So you already are laying the ground work... want to do special treatments along Highway 5 consistent with the Highway 5 corridor plan. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Yeah just looking here at, so basically the Highway 5, for $660,000.00. It says roadway improvements. Because of the state of Highway 5 in that area, which is obviously pretty darn new, how do you envision that money to be invested? Gerhardt: Right now, and I have to put the, the budget is fairly generic. In addition it's a true estimate of what we anticipate based on our zoning ordinance of what we develop here and tax wise. So we laid out what we felt was the best estimate for these public improvements. And that's all they need to be. You know a good estimate. We may end up spending a million dollars in Highway 5 or we may end up spending $300,000.00 on Highway 5 but the key was to get the $2,860,000.00 and dividing out what we felt the priorities were and the magnitude of the projects that would occur. There's no question if you were to take on State Highway 101 that a good 70% of that project would take the money. We felt that the Highway 5 treatments, you know...$680,000.00 and that was about 20%. 10% for the Dell Road improvements, which is just a small segment of roadway. If you look at that roadway now, it's very unsafe over there and the city is at liability in having that roadway in an unsafe alignment. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: As it relates to the upgrading of TH 101. Is there any cost sharing that Eden Prairie will provide as part of that construction? Gerhardt: Yeah. I mean there's no way $2 million is going to pay for the upgrading of TH 101. What we, I kind of mentioned the coalition group that is being created right now between Carver County, Hennepin County, Minnetonka, the city of Eden Prairie, the city of Chanhassen and MnDot in trying to coordinate to restructure this highway. lviinnetonka's concerns are along Town Line. As that roadway comes in, it hits that corner of their city. And of course Eden Prairie on the east side and Chanhassen on the west side. We've looked at several options of looking at how to define this. But the $2 million would be basically our contribution towards that. Ledvina: And the cost sharing? The cost sharing would be worked out at a later date? Gerhardt: Yeah. Ledvina: Who referees? Gerhardt: It would be a joint powers agreement that works out, you know it'd be percentages of benefit from it and how people should contribute. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: What happens, now the life of this district is going to be what, 6 years? Gerhardt: 9. Scott: 9 years. And typically we reinvest, what about. Mancino: I thought it...2000. Scott: I think you're talking about the existing. The existing increment districts end at the year 2000. This one is going to be going until after the year 2000. Just the typical arrangement, at least from what I understand is that the first 3 years of tax'increment typically gets reinvested in the project for assessments, land buy down, etc, etc. So if we had everybody start building today, we basically have, we forego 3 years worth of this. Mancino: The $900,000.00? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: Yeah. So I'm just trying to get an idea from a cashflow standpoint what this will actually generate. I mean I saw the capacity figures and I think basically what you did calculation wise is come up with the capacity figures and then say, well that gives us $3.7 million that we can invest. Is it a situation where we, to maximize the amount of money that we can invest in the infrastructure improvements, is this something where we really need to get people starting to develop, as soon as this is approved, we really need to get people to start developing as soon as possible so that we can get past the 3 years and start receiving some actual dollars we can invest? Gerhardt: We get a 2 year...and then we have at our option not collecting from it for 2 years. So where the city would physically start collecting taxes off of this district wouldn't be until the year '97. So really we'd get basically 2 years. If you want to see the full figure develop, you get 2 years to wait out for buildings to come in. But we don't market Chanhassen to try to bring people out there. We have our own program so we don't go out and call businesses and things like that. Walt Roberts, one of our businesses in the industrial park's here tonight. Walt called me and I sat down with Walt and I explained our program to him. He said, it sounds good to me. I like Chanhassen. It sounds like a good program. There are probably other better deals out there but you know, I like the location and I think we're just finishing up with Walt's program this year. I think it's businesses like Walt's that make this a good program and one to really help the businesses because they're making a transition. I don't know how much new equipment Walt had to buy when he moved into that but it's difficult for these businesses to come out here and to take on the amount of assessments for these streets that are built and to get started and to take on this risk so, all this program is is one to help the businesses pull themselves up by their bootstraps, if I can quote the City Manager. It's not...market businesses to come here. People want to be in Chanhassen because there's usually a reason. You know that they're working with other people in the area. This is their market area. It's close to their home. It's close to their employment base and good highways. Things like that are typically how businesses decide how they want to be here. Market dictates. State of the economy...I don't think we've processed that many industrial, commercial buildings in the last 2 years. I'm expecting the next 2 to 3 years you're going to see quite a few. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission deem the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-1 be consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen. I would further move that the commission approve Resolution No. 94-2 and direct staff to hold a public hearing on May 23, 1994 on the program and plan as required by State Statutes. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Harberts: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staff recommendation on the TIF district. Is there any discussion? Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment and that is that, that there be, in the TIF contract, something having to do with the Highway 5 gateway and that there may be an easement on the two properties, north and south, on Dell Road. And we'll leave that up to the city staff and to figure out and to come back to us. Once it's designed. Gerhardt: I can design in there. Maybe just highlighting that one section where we're not anticipating any acquisition. We can look at, there are the possibility of selling the gateway access easements or land for the gateway treatments to be acquired...but just highlighted in the plan. Is that what you want to see? Mancino: Yeah. To have it in the plan so we can be proactive and so that any development that's going to come in will know about it before hand and won't be surprised and that we thought it through. Harberts: Nancy when you discuss that point, are you looking at just the north side of the road or are you looking at both the north and the south side of the road? Mancino: North and south. Harberts: Okay. Mancino: So it's a whole gateway entry. Thank you. Gerhardt: I would highlight in there the acquisition be consistent with the Highway 5 corridor plan. Scott: With regard to gateway. Mancino: Yeah but it's not specific in the corridor study yet. It hasn't been designed yet see so. Gerhardt: Then I'd really like to keep it out until we have a little more specifics on it. It's not that it's not going to happen. I'm still going to have to come back with a modification... Ledvina: So that would be an amendment? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Gerhardt: ...an amendment, you've got to have a budget figure with it. And so it's not a problem...amendment. Scott: So we're going to see this again as an amendment to the comprehensive plan? Or are you talking about an amendment? Ledvina: To the amendment. Scott: Okay. Speaking of which, of the amendments of the friendly sort, do you accept? Ledvina: Well it would be a recommendation then not to have that in there? Gerhardt: I don't think so at this point. By the time you get to the point where we're going to do the Highway 5 treatments and we have a specific plan and a budget for it, I would include it in at that time. Mancino: But what if those, let's say the north side is already, a development comes in on the north side and they don't know that they may need to give some easement of land up because of, do we want to tie it into the TIF contract and it doesn't happen for 2 months? Gerhardt: Well it's typically done with the site plan approval process and the Highway 5 and the Comp Plan and planners that say that you know, based on the Highway 5 plan you know. Mancino: I'm concerned with timing. Scott: Well especially too if they're going to be looking for TIF assistance. We want to make sure that they, I mean does having that amendment specifically allowing for land acquisition that's consistent with the Highway 5 standard, does that preclude this from moving forward? I mean is this something that's going to get in the way? Harberts: To look at it, yeah. Mancino: Then I would still like to add, in general terms, that there may be land acquisition of those two areas. Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that amendment, yes. Scott: Excuse me, is there any other discussion? Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded that we take staff's recommendation on the TIF district as well as the amendment regarding land acquisition consistent with Highway 5 corridor study. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3- 1 consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen, with the amendment regarding land acquisition consistent with the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commission also approves Resolution #94-2 and directs staff to hold a public hearing on the program and plan on May 23, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, NEUMANN SUBDIVISION. Public Present: Name Address Herb Pfeffer 2850 Tanager Lane Harry D. Peters 18800 Ridgewood Road Ann and Arnold Weimerskirch 2831 Sandpiper Trail Olive Neumann 2841 Sandpiper Trail Art Johnsen 18300 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka Ken Adolf Schoell and Madson, Inc. Laurie Johnson 2731 Piper Ridge Lane Delores Erickson 2762 Piper Ridge Lane Mike & Sue Faulk 2791 Piper Ridge Lane Chuck Rosenberger 2772 Piper Ridge Lane Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: Kate, under the recommendation you outline the issues to be addressed. Has there been a chance to talk with the applicant about those? Aanenson: Yes, and I'm sure they'll speak to some of those too but we are recommending 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 tabling because we feel like the relocation of the pond and if we look at the wetland and where they're mitigating, it may change the configuration of those lots and we thought that was a big enough scope that we want another chance to thoroughly review it before you and get your... Harberts: On one of the items with regard to the redesigning of the lots, because of the variances requested, do you anticipate that you'll be able to bring them into compliance? Aanenson: Well I think we can eliminate a lot of those. Certainly you know like if it saves trees or we can save natural features, that that's certainly a reason to give a variance...maybe not all 9 lots are going to work. Maybe only 8 will fit on there and that's the things we'll look at. Again as stated, that we...alteration to that ponding...so maybe they can get 9 but maybe 8 works best. Harberts: Well I'm just looking at some of the variances that were requested. You know a 17 foot setback. A zero. I guess you know, depending on what the action of the commission is tonight, is trying to, I guess we're looking at what do we gain by considering the variances and what's the benchmark here, especially at 0 and 17. Aanenson: We're not asking. What we're saying at this point is that we're recommending that it be tabled and they go back and try to work out the lot design and maybe we can eliminate a lot of those variances. That's our position too. Obviously there's been a very good effort to try to save the natural features and we do commend the applicant for doing that but we think they could, with a little bit of tinkering, make it even better. That's what we're asking for, for the reason for tabling it. Harberts: Good, thanks. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Mancino: I just have another question for Kate. On page 7, under Water Resources. And I'm thinking about Block 2. The houses on the south side is a wetland and then it goes into Lake Minnewashta. It has under water resources that there can be limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting and pruning. Tell me, on Block 2, those houses. Can they go in in their back yards and put a walkway down to the lake through the wetland? Aanenson: No, that was our understanding in the doing the common beachlot so they wouldn't have to do that. That goes back to the monumentation we just approved. Putting monumentation on this buffer at the buffer setback the natural...maintain the integrity. And that's another reason looking at the variances. They may be warranted. This is a tough site. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 We've got a natural wetland surrounding the entire site plus another wetland on the corner. But again you have to balance those. Is 8 the right number? Is 9 the right number and then work with fitting in the topography so. Mancino: It's a beautiful site. Just a wonderful. Scott: Good. Dave, do you have any comments? Any additional? Hempel: No, I pretty well covered it. Scott: Okay, good. We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please identify yourself and speak into the microphone. Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son-in-law. Mrs. Neumann is here tonight. With her, my wife Ann next to her. Mrs. Neumann is the owner of the property. She has owned that property for 60 years and lived there all that time. My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. And so we've seen Chanhassen go from a very rural community to as the city gradually closes in around us. And about a year ago we decided it was time to develop. But we wanted to make sure that it was developed right because both Mrs. Neumann and my wife and I plan to continue to live there so we want to make sure it's developed properly. So we went to an old family friend, Art Johnsen who is a realtor. He is our representative and he works with his associate Harry Peters. They are...and we went to Schoell and Madson engineering firm and Ken Adolf is here tonight to present our plan in a little bit more detail so I'll turn it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson, engineering... The design of the subdivision was really intended to minimize the amount of grading and...that's going to be necessary so in general what the plan shows is grading in the streets, grading in the necessary storm water basin and some alteration of wetland that was occurring to the grades as shown. I'd like to just cover some of the issues. As far as the tree survey. All of the trees were not located. They're in general the area behind the two existing homes and the lot inbetween those two homes, which is not planned to be built on in the near future. There are no construction planned in that area, removing those trees. And again we're down to the 6 inch size being requested. We will supplement the previous tree survey with that additional information. There's been considerable discussion today about the location of the pond. I've discussed that with Dave Hempel and with the owners and they have agreed to a pond location in the area that Dave had outlined on the plan so I think that will work out okay. The owners really want to retain 9 lots. We'll have to see what can be done with that to retain the 9 lots and still meet the goals that the staff has set forth in their report. One of the things I want to probably let you know that 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 it is eliminated, there will be some wetland alteration just for the street construction. That's where the big, the setback variances is occurring is on the Neumann residence where the street has to be snaked inbetween the residence and the existing wetland. That's the reason that the right-of-way with the 50 feet is being proposed and a significant variance of the front setback. By doing it that way, I think as you can see, the thru street or the proposed street lines up pretty closely with Tanagers Lane to the north. Providing a 30 foot setback up from the Neumann house and a 60 foot right-of-way would have significantly pushed that proposed street into that wetland area. So there will be some mitigation required. The owners would like to retain the existing vegetation. That provides a nice screening on the south side of Sandpiper Lane and we're probably looking at doing any necessary mitigation along the lakeshore probably right adjacent to where the storm water pond is proposed.. as long as there will be some construction activity down in that area anyway. I think that for the most part that covers the main...I'd be happy to address any questions. Scott: Are there any questions for the applicant? Harberts: I have a question maybe for Dave or for the applicant. With regards to that Tanagers Lane and with the new road. Does it line up dead center then or it kind of like slightly off? What I'm seeing, it looks like it's slightly off. Ken Adolf: It is slightly farther east but it's not that significant. I think it comes 10 feet from lining up...to the center line. Hempel: The actual roadway itself I think could probably be adjusted within that 50 foot right-of-way to be more of a center... Harberts: Dead center line. Arnold Weimerskirch: Could I comment on that? The map I look at are somewhat inaccurate in that regard. The map show a rather sharp right angle turn between Sandpiper and Tanagers. In reality that isn't a right angle turn at all. It's a large curve and there's no way of telling where Sandpiper ends and where Tanagers begins. I'm not sure how significant that is but I don't think anybody would look at our driveway as an extension of Sandpiper, or as an extension of Tanager Lane. Then as a matter of fact I would recommend that to me it's more logical to call it an extension of Sandpiper than it is of Tanager. We get quite a number of confused visitors wondering where Tanager is and where Sandpiper is. So to me it would be more likely to call that Sandpiper rather than Tanager. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Arnold Weimerskirch: I do have one other point I would like to bring up. When the sewer lines were put in we, the property was assessed along Sandpiper Lane or Sandpiper Trail. And what is now Lot 27 was assessed 2 units on the premise that there would be 2 houses built fronting onto Sandpiper Trail. That's all wet then. This is 20 years ago when...Those lots of course are not buildable now so it does seem fair to me that those assessments be eliminated now since it is not buildable property. Scott: Can you respond to that? Hempel: We can certainly check with the city's assessment clerk and see what, if any, assessments have been paid on that parcel and if that area is deemed unbuildable due to that wetland and so forth, the applicant probably does have a credit coming back as the parcel, so we will take that under advisement and update you. Arnold Weimerskirch: The assessments haven't been paid. They were deferred based on being a senior citizen so they haven't been paid but they have them. Scott: Okay. Anything else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to speak about this issue, please step forward and identify yourselves and we'll go from there. So would anyone like to speak. Is there anyone here for this particular issue? Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer. I live on the corner of Sandpiper and Tanager and I'm. Harberts: Which side? Herb Pfeffer: It would be on the west side of Tanager...the curve on the lower left hand corner. And I really haven't seen any of the information about the abandonment of the right- of-way of Minnewashta Avenue and since it impacts me, as I am the property owner adjacent to that, I'd like some explanation. Scott: As far as the. Herb Pfeffer: As far as if the roadway is abandoned, what happens to my property that's 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 adjacent to the right-of-way? Scott: So you're located, run that by us again. I see Sandpiper Lane, Tanager Lane and I see just south of, okay. That's what I was thinking. Herb Pfeffer: Right here. If you're going to eliminate Minnewashta Lane...exactly what's all abandoned? Is it from this point further? All the way down or what? Scott: Dave, why don't you speak to that. Hempel: At this point we'd be looking at vacating the, probably the portion west, laying west of Tanagers Lane and reserving a drainage utility easement down to the lake where the city has utility lines down to. Herb Pfeffer: You mean right here? Starting at this point? Abandoning it. Hempel: That's correct. As long as there's no other homes being serviced by that parcel. Herb Pfeffer: Well, then we've got a conflict because we've got a beachlot down here that's. Aanenson: It'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: What's that? Aanenson: Past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: Oh past. It won't be vacated here then? Aanenson: No. We've already approved that. The City Council approved a non-conforming permit for that beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: That's right. Aanenson: Right. So we'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: So will where it be vacated? At what point? Aanenson: Once it starts to take the bend to hear east. Herb Pfeffer: Over here? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Herb Pfeffer: Along the lakeshore? Aanenson: Right. Through their property, yes. Herb Pfeffer: Okay. Then are these going to, you know you don't show that roadway coming down here and I really don't understand it. We're going to have additional, these are lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and so on. Are we going to be building houses down in this area? Scott: No. Herb Pfeffer: No. Okay, so the purpose of the abandonment here is for what? Hempel: To eliminate the unnecessary right-of-way that's essentially in the wetland. It serves no function. Scott: It's more an administrative. Harberts: It doesn't serve a public function in other words? Hempel: No it does not. Aanenson: It's a paper street. Arnold Weimerskirch: It's under water. Herb Pfeffer: It is. It is under water. Harberts: So is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Herb Pfeffer: Yeah a portion, well you don't really. I can't really tell from this map exactly where the lake is or the road is down there but I'm assuming you're going to say it's going to be abandoned right at the water there. Harberts: Kate, and I'm guessing that if the commission decides to table this, that this would be an opportunity to maybe review this in detail so the residents do understand what's being abandoned. I don't know, it might be easier to show it on other maps rather than transparencies that have pictures. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Ken Adolf: The right-of-way proposed to be abandoned is directly behind the Neumann house that's in the section right here. It's really south of where Sandpiper Lane is. Harberts: How far does it go? Ken Adolf: Well most of the street has already been vacated. It's just a small area right in here. It's this area right here. Herb Pfeffer: Just that section there. But how far down does it go? Ken Adolf: Well it used to go all the way around. Arnold Weimerskirch: It goes all the way around. Ken Adolf: So that's already been vacated. Arnold Weimerskirch: The land has been platted in the 1800's. Presumably at a time when...and that plat is there. It is under water. I don't think that's an issue here. We surely don't intend to build...so it would just be vacated. I would presume the city would want to do that because it's a nuisance for it to be on the map when it doesn't exist in reality. The Minnewashta Manor Homeowners do own a lot in the lake. Scott: Sure. I remember seeing that. Arnold Weimerskirch: But they do nevertheless have a right-of-way to that so we have no intention of preserving that. It'd be just to erase the fictious road right-of-way that doesn't exist anyway. Herb Pfeffer: Okay so then that right-of-way will go to your property, be on your property... Arnold Weimerskirch: Well I presume it will but it's wetland. Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at this particular public hearing on this issue? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: Kate, would a wetland alteration permit be required for the construction of the dock. Do we know that? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: It would be required? Aanenson: Well, we've done it on other ones just to make sure. Really all we've done in the past is to say that they...a boardwalk and that's why we're asking more specifics. How it's going to be constructed and looking at that but we've done it on the other ones. We did require a wetland alteration permit and as a technicality we did insure that it's built, a permitting process on other lots that do have wetlands when I think you're impacting it. I think that's, there will be minimum loss but we want to see the type... Ledvina: How would you mitigate that type of scenario? I mean for constructing a dock. Aanenson: What we'd look at is any removal and basically that's why you go over the top. It's just the posts going in... Ledvina: Yeah but I mean if you're restricting the vegetation from coming up, is that altering the wetland? Maybe you're not filling in it but I don't know. Mancino: You've got to put the posts in and there's a lot of work to be done in that area. Ledvina: Right. How do you get in there? Develop wrecking stuff as you're trying to put the thing in. Okay, so that's a specific thing that we'll know about when we have details on the construction of the dock. Aanenson: Right. Ledvina: Okay. Now as it relates to the area that's calculated for the recreational beachlot. Now we're not using any of the area that's wetland, is that correct? Aanenson: No. It'd be upland... Ledvina: Okay, the upland area. Aanenson: But let me make something else clear on that. The ordinance, the beachlot ordinance indicates a grade on that as far as, it doesn't say it has to be upland and staff's ability to interpret that...upland area. Ledvina: I would support that as well. And there's a formula as it relates to the number of docks and the number of boats. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: It's on square footage. Ledvina: Square footage, okay. And that's what's been determined 9 boats with the potential of 3 docks. Okay. Well, I would support the construction of one dock with the 9 slips. I think that's the less intrusive technique for providing that amenity to the beachlot. I certainly want to make sure that we have a good handle on what's going to happen to the wetland as it relates to the construction of that dock and that we take the measures that we need to protect that area and also mitigate, if that's deemed appropriate so. I think that I would support the development and I would agree that the developer's done a good job of trying to be as sensitive as they can to the wetland near Sandpiper Lane and if staff deems it appropriate that the setback on the existing Weimerskirch house is, if we need to compromise that, I would support that. I guess I would like to see it back again so I would support staff's recommendation to table. Scott: Okay. Nancy? Mancino: I would like to ask Mr. Chair if we could ask the applicant how they feel about the one dock with 9 boat slips on it as in the staff report. What their opinion is, etc. Instead of having 3 docks. Having one dock with 9 boat slips on it. Scott: It looks like it's drawn in. Arnold Weimerskirch: We're fine with that. That was our proposal. Mancino: Oh, that was your proposal? Scott: Well it's on the plans that way. Arnold Weimerskirch: Correct. That's what we proposed in our original. Mancino: Okay. My mistake. Thank you. I have nothing new to add. I support staff's recommendation for tabling it and bringing it back with the revisions and the recommendations that they've made. I would like to just add to it that we do perform a tree canopy coverage analysis of the existing tree inventory. And that we be supplied with a tree replacement plan and use our pending new tree preservation ordinance to follow that. And that's it, thank you. Scott: Good, Jeff. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: I support staff recommendations on this. I would clarify 5...stated the seasonal dock. I believe the DNR, if you leave the posts in the water, the support posts in the water, it's no longer considered seasonal. You may want to clarify exactly what kind of dock we're dealing with there. With this dock specification on 5. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would support staff's recommendation to table it. I appreciate what the applicant has done with regard to the trees. The natural amenities here as well as with the dock. I'm sorry I had to step out but I hope that that road issue was resolved or at least the information can be brought forward to the gentleman that lives on the corner there. I would really support trying to eliminate as many variances as possible on the redesign of the subdivision. I don't know, I'm just real uneasy about some of, well at least with some of the variances that are stated right now that exist right now so I would just encourage to eliminate as many, if not all of them. But we'll certainly leave that to staff and the applicant to work out. But I appreciate the responsiveness from the applicant. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: I think the applicant gave us a good proposal. I think staff did a good job of analysis. I'm real impressed and I think our ordinance played real nicely with a sensitive area like this so it's all peaches and cream. I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it for the modifications. Harberts: Just one other thing Mr. Chair. I would just like to draw emphasis to the road system lining up. Tanager Lane and whatever this new road will be called. I know the discussion by the applicant with regard to the curve. Dave, you made the comment that maybe we work within the right-of-way. I think it's very important long term, in terms of circulation, in terms of traffic patterns, that we get it lined up the first time so. Scott: Okay. I support the staff recommendation. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I will recommend that we table the applicant's request so that the plat can be revised to address the following issues. One, relocation of the storm water pond. Two, a more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. Three, elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. Four, a 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. And five, a sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock specifications. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Harberts: I'd like to also add Nancy, if it's okay with regard to the lining up of the Tanager Lane and the new road. I know Jeff had brought up the discussion point about clarifying the dock, seasonal or permanent. Mancino: I think that would be under 5. Farmakes: I think that can be under specifications. It is listed as a seasonal dock. Harberts: Okay. Was there something Matt that you touched on? Ledvina: No. Scott: Do you accept that amendment? Mancino: Yes. I accept number 6 as lining up the Tanager and the new street. Cul-de-sac. Scott: Okay. Is there a second please? Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation with the additional conditions. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the application for the Neumann Subdivision #94-3 so the plat can be revised to address the following issues: 1. Relocation of the storm water pond. 2. A more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. 3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. 4. A 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. • 5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock specifications. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 6. That the applicant try to line of Tanager Lane with the new cul-de-sac. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LUTHERAN CHURCH OF LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,560 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE. Public Present: Name Address Don Wagner Architects Professional Association Jim Dewalter Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Nancy J. Manzey 17229 Round Lake Road, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: Question. The front of the building where the steps go up, is that the part that goes into like the narthex into the church part? Do you know? Aanenson: I'll let the architect. I believe that's the... Harberts: Into the church? I guess my real question here is, does that meet ADA? I mean if someone was in a wheelchair, how do you get them up the steps? Don Wagner: Okay, I'd like to answer that. My name is Don Wagner. I'm the registered architect and I'm representing Architects Professional Association. We're an architectural firm in Eden Prairie and we have been selected as the architects to design this particular addition to this facility. Your question regarding the ADA. What we are providing are, according to ADA rules, we're providing 5 new stalls. Some of them are 5 foot wide. Access spaces on each side. One with an 8 foot wide stall for a van. Two of those spaces are located right down there on each side of the drive. They are intended to serve the lower level. That area's about 4 feet 4 inches higher than the lower level so consequently you would need about 90 feet of a horizontal run to drop to that 4 feet. We have 110 of bituminous surfacing that would go from that area to the new entry that we're providing with 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that. We are providing 3 more stalls in this area. Right up in there. The...that is virtually dead level with a portion of the existing entrance that we are keeping. That would provide the accessibility to the upper level. Now right next to that is an elevator. Harberts: Right next to what? Don Wagner: Right next to that existing entrance that we'll be saving...access to those levels at that point. So if you want to, you can even provide all 5 spaces in...and all could be used in that particular entrance. We thought we'd divide it up. Harberts: Well and I think, certainly with the ADA they certainly outline the minimum requirements that should be met and I just find it of interest with the church. With the population or a congregation that may include ages, all ages, that they're for my point of view, that there isn't a little better access to the church itself directly rather than more of the indirect way. Don Wagner: That was our intent at the beginning until we got the survey to find out how the contours ran, and that's right. So we're very concerned about maintaining a minimal slope for a drive in front of the church. Otherwise we're going to have a bunch of fender benders and cars will be sliding into each other. So it seemed only appropriate that we preserve a portion of the original entrance and that it will be used in perhaps in some December Sundays that may be more popular than the, but it was the contours. The lay of the land that determined those stairs. Jim Dewalter: My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee and I'd like to address your question a little further. I heard it a little differently. What you were asking and that was access from the parking lot into the narthex and the sanctuary and the doors that Don has referenced, those doors right there do come into the same narthex area as the main doors do. So it isn't like they're coming into a second class area or an area that not's got easy into the sanctuary. It's all, it comes into the same room. I think that's what I heard you ask. Harberts: Well that and distance. If you've been on crutches or in a wheelchair, you certainly bring a different perspective. Jim Dewalter: I have. Harberts: So have I. Jim Dewalter: Actually those parking spots, the 3 up on top that he is talking about, that is 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 our current handicap parking and that is closest entrance to our parking. Whether we look at the lower parking in the outlying or the upper parking and this is as convenient as we have ever had. I guess the additional convenience we do offer is the lower entrance he talked about as well as the elevators that were now incorporated into the plan. Harberts: So the elevator's new to the facility then? Jim Dewalter: Yes. Farmakes: Is there still a substantial daycare operation right out of the church? Jim Dewalter: Yes. The daycare operation will continue. Part of this plan includes a new entrance for the daycare which will be the lower entrance and new vestibule down below. Farmakes: How many children are in the care on a daily basis there? Jim Dewalter: That daycare is not part of the church. It's a Chanhassen Development Center I believe. I think, that's why I clarify it's not probably true, I believe they're licensed for 78 children. Something like that and this has no effect on that. Farmakes: They share the parking lot though, correct? They share the facilities? Jim Dewalter: Yes, that's correct. And the most, with regards to the parking lot and daycare, there actually isn't any parking requirements because it's all drop off and pick up. Other than the daycare staff and they're there when of course the church isn't in session. Scott: Any other, since we're now to the applicant section, any other questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Just one more question about the daycare. Where does the, during the week, where does the daycare enter? Don Wagner: Where does the daycare. Mancino: Enter. • Don Wagner: Where do the children enter? Mancino: Yes. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Don Wagner: I believe they're still coming in the front aren't they and down the stairs? Jim Dewalter: Currently the children enter the daycare into what is our existing narthex, which is the doors that I pointed to you where the handicap entrance would be in the future. In this plan they will enter in a new vestibule that we're creating down here. Harberts: Did you say that's a new daycare drop off? Jim Dewalter: It will be one of the areas, yes. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Does the applicant or their representatives have anything else they'd like to add? Okay. I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on this particular issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Jeff, your comments. Farmakes: Just a few. I have concern about the relationship with the development being expanded towards the highway. The parking area... I'm going to temper that though. This is an existing building. It's been there for quite some time...recent conceptual thinking. As churches often are, they're usually pretty pragmatic about how they make their improvements being as they're always short on money. Other than the recommendations made by staff on this issue of dropping off and turn around, I don't have any further comments. I think it's an expansion on this structure as it is and I do have concerns however about that parking lot encroaching on TH 5, although I cannot see another area for it to develop into. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I just have a question for the architect. When I'm looking at this color rendering, I'm looking at a white roof. Is that what it is? Don Wagner: No. Now the existing roof is a brown asphalt shingle and the flat roof is 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 a...and gravel built up roof. Our new flat roof would be a rubber membrane with gravel on it and then the new sloped portions would be metal. Standing seam metal. Mancino: Would you show me where those metal, the metal roof would be? And what color would that be? Don Wagner: We would go with a deep brown or a deep bronze because that would match the aluminum frames that are presently at the entrance. Mancino: Would that match the existing roof'? Don Wagner: Yes. The existing roof is...this is a deeper brown or bronze. Mancino: Okay. Is there any problem with painting the existing block that makes up the church right now? The exterior. Don Wagner: No. There wouldn't be a problem with painting that. Mancino: There's no problem with peeling or weathering or? Don Wagner: As long as you make sure you use the proper paint, that's right. And apply it in strict accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation. If there's a problem, go back to him. Farmakes: But there is a problem perhaps with the Highway 5 ordinance, if that's enacted. I think there's a stipulation there about painting block. Mancino: I know that there is about not painting brick. Aanenson: Right. Well it says no paint over brick. This is going to be the color right here. They're not painting over the new but I think in the fact that it's yellow and they're bringing it into a color that's refined I think is much more palatable to paint over the yellow and to get it to a color we want than... Farmakes: I wasn't taking a position on that. I was just wondering if it was a conflict. Aanenson: You're right. The minimal, that's what the intent is. Not to have it over concrete. Painted concrete but the new stuff, they're not going to...the old for blending I think makes a lot more sense. Try to get it all look the same color and the yellow certainly... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Yeah. It will certainly add more maintenance for you. Don Wagner: The existing exterior material right now serves the material is a textured concrete block...and that's where you see the vertical striping that takes place. So it is a concrete masonry unit, that's right. That's already been painted once or twice already and it will be painted again to match the new. Mancino: ...to see good landscaping plan around the building. I like what's there now and I would hope what you're going to put in is reflective of what's there now. In fact I was there today and saw the transplanting of the crab trees out front so good to see that you're transplanting those. But what I don't see is any landscaping plan for, which I think is very important, for the berming between the parking lot and Highway 5. Now I know that number one, you first need to get approval from MnDot and NSP that you can put a berm there. But what I would like to see in the recommendations is that the city also approve the berming and the landscaping that's on the berming. Because it needs to very much reflect, what we would like it to is to reflect what's in the Highway 5 corridor study and you know it's intent is really to screen parking lots so we would like it landscaped so that there is opacity there between Highway 5 and the parking lot. And I would also like to have a rendering. It certainly doesn't have to be black and color but it could be a perspective of what you will see from Highway 5 as you look at this landscaped berm so that we have a perspective and I'd like to see it from the viewpoint of Highway 5 looking directly at the church and also with plant material that is going to be installed this year. For instance, I don't want to see a berm, a landscape plan with 10 foot tall trees if you're actually just going to put in 4 foot trees. So how do we do that and keep moving it on? Aanenson: Well I think we do have a cross section. We did ask them to provide a berm cross section of TH 5. Don Wagner: There is one on the site plan, yes. Aanenson: Yeah. And then... Don Wagner: We do have a cross section cut through the east bound lane of Highway 5 or this section looking due west and it shows the section to Highway 5 and then crossing it. We did put it on there. Mancino: Kate, what would be your suggestion? I would like to see it after it's gone through MnDot. I don't want to do double work here. Aanenson: ...put back on...at the beginning of the agenda. We did give the recommendations 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that you were looking at...under that easement so really what we need now is the approval from MnDot to get their right-of-way. We'll get that information to the applicant and then... Mancino: Okay. I would appreciate that. Then I would like to recommend us waiting and seeing it again landscaped and getting a perspective from Highway 5. Other than that I have no comments. I think it's a good plan. Don Wagner: Thank you. I would like to add one other comment with regards to the berm that you were addressing. While we're proposing to work with MnDot and NSP on the berming, and we'll gladly work with staff to accommodate the plantings that you're suggesting. One of the concerns and issues that we do have is the location of the berm adjacent to Highway 5 and that many of our plantings in the past all burn out from the snow removal. Mancino: Salt. And salt spray. Don Wagner: And so the concern is that only the cost of the plant material but the fact that we could have a lot of dead materials that would probably not be as attractive as no materials at all. So we'll need to give careful consideration to what all might be put on there. Scott: You know what might help is that we've got a, as part of our landscape ordinance, there's a list of many, many dozen trees and shrubs and basically what it also identifies, the name that you and I would call it, the name that a landscape architect would call it and then it's degree of salt tolerance from very tolerant, which would be suitable for usage in that area, to intolerant and that's easily available by contacting our staff and that is a real good shopping list. Don Wagner: The other advantage that we do have going for us with regards to the concern you have about looking at parking lots off of Highway 5. It's a combination of the elevation of Highway 5 and the angle of Highway 5 as it goes around the on this bridge. And also the elevation of the parking lot. And so if you should drive by there, it's very, very difficult to see the parking lot just because of all those angles fortunately going in our favor in this case, and when we put the berm out here, I think that will offer quite a bit of additional screening. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Good, Diane. Harberts: I think it's a very nice plan for the church. For the addition. Landscaping's nice. I guess with what Nancy had said with the berming and landscaping, I think it's good 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 comments and I think overall it's a nice plan. That's it. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: Are there flat roofs on any of the additions? Don Wagner: Yes. Conrad: Which ones? Don Wagner: This piece here, here and this corner. Conrad: Okay. And the material is what? The roofing material on the flat? Don Wagner: The roofing material will be what we call a single ply membrane. It's a rubber membrane. It would have ballast. Put on ballast. Conrad: No more questions. Scott: Okay. Matt. Mancino: Will there be any rooftop equipment on the roof? Rooftop equipment. Will there be any heating? Any ductwork? Or is that, is it going to be like what we see. Don Wagner: No, we won't be having anything on the roof, to the best of our knowledge at this time. And if we do, we certainly will provide proper screening so you won't be able to see it. Because we understand that's part of the Highway 5 corridor study also. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ledvina: I don't have any further comments and I would support the staff recommendation. Scott: Okay. I just have one quick question for the architect. One of the things that we're wrestling with is a relatively inexpensive means, and this is not directed specifically at your project. We're looking for other visual tools that we can use to help us understand what a particular project's going to look like. This is the first time that I've seen 'something like this. We've seen some photo composites and some more involved things. If you could give us just a rough estimate of what it costs to prepare something like that. This, and the terminology in architect parlance so we can perhaps introduce it because I don't know if the other commissioners, I felt that that's a very good representation of what it's going to look 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 like. So I mean this is kind of a round the corner compliment to you. But what does something like that cost? Just plus or minus $500.00. Don Wagner: I'm going to have to, the general contractor actually did that and I... Scott: That's fine. Don Wagner: I'll find that out. Scott: I support this. Staff's recommendation so if there are no further comments, may I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #94-2 for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ church subject to the plan dated April 5, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number 6, number 7, number 8, number 9 and number 10. I would just like to add that we, the city comes back to the Planning Commission to approve a landscaping plan for the berming adjacent to Highway 5. Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: I second that. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with the modification. Is there any discussion? Conrad: What does that mean Nancy? Your number 10. I know what you asked for but what are you asking the applicant to do? Mancino: To come back, once they get approval from MnDot and NSP, to come back with a landscaping plan for the berming along Highway 5. Conrad: To us? Mancino: To us for approval of that landscaping plan. And I assume that it's going to come back to us if NSP and MnDot do not allow them to put a berm and they have to come up with a secondary plan. Or another option. Aanenson: ...part of the motion. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Okay. I make that part of my motion. Jim Dewalter: Could we have clarification on that in regards to timing? In fact our concern would only be that this would not keep us from going ahead with the immediate project which is the construction having to come back to Planning again with that berm recommendation. Mancino: With the landscaping? How would we work that? Aanenson: Right now the procedure would be that they would go to the City Council and get site plan approval. I think what they're asking for is, if you do have specific concerns, that we separate the landscaping and we would certainly...this commission. If we can't work that out, then we come back and look at the landscaping and what other things we could do but as far as the rest of the site plan itself, that would allow them to go forward and if the City Council approves the plan. Mancino: That's fine with me. Conrad: I think we should. Mancino: I do too. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: I seconded it. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we support staff's recommendation with modifications. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #94-2 for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Church subject to the plans dated April 4, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDot's permit for constructing the berms and landscaping within MnDot's right-of-way. In the event that no•landscaping is approved by MnDot or NSP in the ROW or Power Easement, then the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for final review and approval by the city staff. 2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not necessary with this phase of expansion. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city ordinance with curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. 3. The parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22 foot wide drive aisles and 8 1/2 foot by 18 foot long parking stalls. This can be accomplished by restriping. 4. The applicant shall redesign the drive island drop off area to accommodate proper bus turning movements. 5. Additional landscaping along the proposed berm of Highway 5 as well as the southeastern portion of the property along both sides of the driveway to the church. The landscaping along the driveway shall consist of a mix of 5 conifers and 5 deciduous trees as selected from the city's landscaping list. A landscaped berm be placed in the MnDot ROW. If approval from MnDot and NSP cannot be gained, it is recommended that intensive landscaping for islands in front of the main entrance and outside the utility easement area be designed and submitted for approval by city staff. 6. A staff review be conducted of this parking arrangement annually for the next 2-3 years to monitor parking needs and to require the additional spaces be constructed should the need arise. 7. All conditions as stated in the Building Official's memo dated April 14, 1994. 8. All conditions as stated in the Fire Marshal's memo dated April 21, 1994. 9. Any building lighting improvements shall be made in conformance with the City's Lighting Standards and shall be subject to final review and approval by city staff. 10. The landscaping plan on the berm shall come to back to the Planning Commission for approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAYCARE CENTER IN AN IOP, 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Scott: If you could identify new information. Changes that have been made. You know we've seen this a couple of times already so if you can go that way. Al-Jaff: Sure. I'll try to make it as short as possible. You looked at this application 2 weeks ago. You separated the site plan by moving the Press forward and tabling Kindercare. When this went to the City Council, they recommended that this come back before the Planning Commission and be reviewed as one application. So that's why both the Press and Kindercare are before you again today. There has been some changes since Friday, which is one day after the reports went out. We received a letter from Department of Transportation stating that the original access point...into the daycare facility is located within the Department of Transportation's access control. They basically said move it back north of this line right here. The applicant submitted this application, or this change by moving the access north of the line that Department of Transportation recommended. We received this application at, it says here 1801 so that would be approximately 6:00 and I don't know if Dave has had time to review this. If you have any comments on this particular issue. Hempel: Not thoroughly. Farmakes: So they would be making, U-turning back out to that. As they go north they have to U turn and go south, that's one way correct that you're showing. Al-Jaff: Correct. Right-in, right-out. It's still the same as before with the exception that it has been moved further north. It's approximately 220 feet from the corner of the property line. Versus it used to be 150 feet from the corner. Harberts: So I'm guessing when engineering looks at it, the public safety will look at it too with regards to access with large vehicles. Hempel: Turning radius, yes. Al-Jaff: Another thing that has changed. We overlapped this transparency over the old landscaping plan. We lost 2 trees with this change. Another thing that was requested... Commissioner Mancino was any ordinances, federal regulations regarding the electromagnetic field. We contacted the EPA, the EQB and NSP. We have received some studies. We gave you copies of them. Those studies are inconclusive. Some of them are pro. Others are against magnetic fields. We feel we don't have the expertise here to make a judgment on that. NSP sent their regulations. Those are definitions as well as setbacks that they require. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 It doesn't say that magnetic fields are harmful or, again. It's an inconclusive decision from all agencies that we have contacted and again the materials were received between yesterday and today. That's why we couldn't include it with the staff report when we mailed the copies. One change that we are requesting, the building official going through the report and condition 16 of the site plan approval. Basically states the applicant meet conditions of Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. And the building official requested that these conditions be spelled out. There are only two conditions and they should read, submit a 1/8"=1" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors. And the second condition would be, revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the applications of site plan for both the Kindercare facility and the addition of the Press, a conditional use permit for the Kindercare and the subdivision as outlined in the staff report with the conditions. Thank you. Scott: Okay. Questions or comments for staff please. Mancino: My only comment is, I would like to get staff's, have staff have some time to look at the new entryway because I think one of our concerns has been the egress and ingress of the Kindercare lot. And since we just got this new information I would like to have staff have some time to look it over and make a recommendation. To put it through the process that we usually do. I would also like some time to read through. I know that Kindercare is concerned about the EMF's and the magnetic fields and I don't think any of us are scientist or anything but it would be good information to look through and to get a little knowledge about. To be able to talk intelligently. Scott: Sharmin, was there any, you said they were inconclusive. Was there any sort of an indication as to which side of the fence the studies would go on? Meaning does NSP say it's not a big deal? Do the governmental agencies say not a big deal? But are there independent sources that say maybe there is a big deal? I mean is this just. Al-Jaff: There are studies that support both sides and there are studies that. Scott: Are they related in any way to the being in the power line business? Mancino: A little special interest. Scott: Yeah I, you know. We have a pretty good pile of documentation that we need to go through and I'm just trying to, if it's very parochial, as things tend to be. Al-Jaff: I think the study that was sent by the EQB, but even then they're saying in their 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 document that it does not represent or reflect the Board's opinion because the studies that were submitted, done for the EQB formally with their policies, none of the documents that we have would commit themselves to an opinion. They all give you statistics but that's about it. Farmakes: I read both of the studies and it seems that the only thing that they can give you a conclusive answer on is that there seems to be less of a problem the farther you move away from it. That seems to be about it. There seems, I wonder how much these documents cost because they really don't draw any conclusion and they have to be several taxpayer's dollars long so. I was frustrated reading them. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the applicant. If there's some new information or, please let us hear it. John Dietrich: Thank you. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Again representing the applicant for the Press and Kindercare. We are the site plan designers...engineering and landscape architects of the site. And with me tonight is also John Finnemore of Kindercare and he will be able to address the issues of the placement of the building and provide some additional information on the EMF's frequencies and where some of those issues come from. As Sharmin had indicated, the site plan that is before you is comparable to what has been shown on previous applications. The one change of the site plan has been the location of the driveway and based on obtaining information from MnDot and looking at the site plan closely, I'd like to put up an overhead that identifies a modification of the access. Based on the need to move the driveway back, which also then assists in the cut through traffic issue that was a concern to the Planning Commission, we have looked at the specifics of the location of the access and of the building itself. It is our recommendation that the building site plan shift approximately 15 feet to the west and essentially come about 10 feet off of the existing curb which would still place the building 20 feet off of the property line and well within any setback requirements. It would be proposed it would be a heavy landscaped edge along the western side of the building. That would allow more space on the eastern side of the building and allow the access to Dell Road to have a wider throat and a proper turn radius into the parking lot, onto Dell Road. It would be necessary to have this for control of the speed and access to the lot from the Press and also to move the driveway back to accommodate the access control from MnDot. In addition to the driveway location, we have had discussions with staff in regard to the landscape area south of the parking lot. We will be going to enter into an easement for landscaping purposes to accommodate the street monuments. Landscaping or elements that the Planning Commission and Council decide... Mancino: My question is, have you thought about signage for Kindercare if we use that portion for a monument for the city. I mean where would the signage go for Kindercare if it can't go right there on that main corner? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 John Dietrich: We feel the signage elements would be a flexible element along the... Scott: Are there any other questions or comments for the applicant? Or I mean if you have more people from the development team, sure. John Dietrich: I'd like John Finnemore to discuss the building location and the EMF's. John Finnemore: You can read the articles that were given to you and you definitely won't find anything conclusive. There really isn't any conclusive studies as far as EMF go. This is pretty much what I've read about electromagnetic fields and the majority of the research has been done by the power company because they have the biggest stake in the matter. Sweden and France have passed laws on electromagnet fields and they're enforcing with their power companies, which happen to public. They're not private. They're publicly owned. They're relocating lines. They're doing things to reduce electromagnet fields. Whether our country ever adopts any type of standards or not is definitely, the jury's out on that. The EPA has done a lot of studies themselves but like any other governmental EPA study, you can read it and then say, why did we spend money on this study? It doesn't say anything. Another thing too. I've purchased what they call a guastmeter. These little old looking Texas Instrument calculator costs $550.00 to measure electromagnetic fields and what is mentioned a lot of these documents is, you measure electromagnet fields and you give it a measure called milogaust. And they've used 2.0 as the level where they perceive problems possibly arising. And there had been talk, in fact I guess they were close to introducing a bill that was saying that schools and other sort of uses need to be at a level of 2.0 or lower but that is, all went away. Nothing has went to apply that law or bill. So we as a company, just knowing that that may happen or could happen or that's been determined to be a level, is the level we've adopted as what we try to keep playgrounds and children away from. So that's what we've done here is you know, I went out and paced off at a point where I got a reading of 2.0 lower on my meter and that's where we said it would be back from. The problem with taking measurements like that is they vary. You can go out there 7 days a week and get 7 readings at different, not drastically but you're, the key time to take a reading is in the hottest months of the year because that's when the major amount of electricity is going through the lines. But even at that, those are transmission lines. I meant here's times when they literally shut them off. You just don't know. I mean they're on a big grid system. The different power companies are connected. It's a tough thing to get a good reading on so we've just adopted the 2.0 and that's what we're going with. Really the biggest thing I've got out of all these studies was Carnegie Millen University did a study and a situation like this you can really do two things. Something like an electromagnetic field. You can just ignore it and say it's not a problem. Or you can just completely over react and you know move all the houses and everything you know 300 feet away from a power line. Or you can adopt a practice which, the term is prudence avoidance. Basically it just means that. You do things that are 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 prudent and economic and that you can do, you can do now which in our case, that is setting our building back. Now we do have centers that are much closer to power lines. We built them years ago before we ever heard of the term electromagnetic field. Now, if we took the step of the drastic step of just you know closing the center down, that would be taking a drastic step. But the center's already there. We built it. We built it before we knew there was a problem. Now in the case I've got a center in Illinois where there's a power line very close to the playground. The city owns their own power company. They're so concerned about the issue, they happen to own the property next to us. They have a well site there. They're going to trade us 6,000 square feet of their property for widening of the easements so that we can move our playground farther away from the power lines and put it onto their property. That's how concerned they are about it. It's called prudence avoidance. That's what you try to do. We try to avoid, where it's economical and it makes sense, you try to avoid it and that's really what we're trying to do here. And I mean you can read, I've got an article here. I'll be glad to make copies and send it in. It's a real lengthy article from the New Yorker that basically this very article. But you can read just as many articles and put it in studies, scientific studies put out by the power companies that will tell you, I wouldn't worry about it. It's very inconclusive. But we feel that we need, as a company, to set a precedence for our own well being and set back from it. A lot of people are now becoming concerned with this. When you do an environmental study of the site now, part of the study is where they test for asbestos and all the chemicals, they give you electromagnetic field readings because people are concerned about it. Everybody's starting to buy these little meters. I mean who ever's making these is making a killing because if this is worth $550.00 you know, I mean I'd like to be selling them but you just can't buy them any cheaper than this at this point. So it's, you know it's, we don't know if it's a real problem but we need to address it. You can't just ignore it because it could become a problem and someday legislation could be passed. Other countries have passed it and have significant concerns about it. Mancino: John, on your buildings that are already existing, where they are close to the power lines and it's just something back in the early 80's or something that you built it and this information hadn't come up. Are those still running at full capacity? John Finnemore: The one that I'm the most aware of is this one in the Illinois area and parents were raising concerns about it as they read the articles in the paper and asked, actually the city even came to us before we went to them with the proposed solution. I'm not really aware of any other ones that I can. In fact I know of a site in St. Louis where we were, actually we owned land and we decided not to build on it because of the proximity of the power lines and now we're trying to sell that property. I don't know of any other specific ones but I know we have. And those are the two I'm aware of and we're not building on the one because it's so close. We're selling the land. We had permits. We were ready to build. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 We've got major investment into the property and we're now selling it because we don't feel that we should be putting a childcare center there. Mancino: Sharmin, do we have, I mean we have power lines going through the city right now. I mean in residential areas. South of Highway 5 that parallel the railroad, etc. Do we have those either residences or commercial establishments concerned about it right now? Is there a concern in the city? Have people come to staff or to the City Hall asking about that? Al-Jaff: We're not aware of any such case. Aanenson: ...based on the other application we had last Planning Commission meeting, we also checked on residential issues because they were saying they were having a hard time with financing. As a note...some FHA requirements an additional 10 feet. We did call HUD and we did call just some mortgage brokers to find out if they have concern lending and what we found out is, most standard...depending on who's underwriting it. Maybe insurance companies that said it's too close to the power line, they will not underwrite it. So there is some, for residential and maybe some issues that they do look at. Some mortgage lenders will look at that...power lines. Mancino: Is that multi-family or is that single family? Aanenson: Both. Mancino: Both? Okay. So it's probably on the secondary market because they're going to sell their mortgages to a secondary. Aanenson: Right. Yeah, and that's the issue. Depending on who's doing the financing, that may be an issue to them. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant or if the applicant has any other information? John Dietrich: I'd just like to make mention that we do have some materials for the Kindercare site that are comparable to the plan that you have previously been provided and I'd like to just quickly identify some on the site plan. That we are proposing. That it would be able to incorporate all the site conditions that you have previously mentioned. In addition to adding more evergreen trees as was suggested and a sidewalk going into that parking stall so that we would be in conformance with ADA requirements. This plan does not show the realigned access onto Dell Road and we would incorporate that into the plan. And in addition, we have provided a site elevation perspective that would be approximately drawn from, if you 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 were in your car heading west at about the location of the property line between the Kindercare and the Press facility. This is an actual perspective of what you would see as you were looking towards the Press with the existing berm that is out there and the existing walking/running trail that is on the north side of the road. The existing conifer trees that are on the berm and then the additional trees that we had lighten in for the proposed trees that will be going through the parking lot and finally the little bit darker elevations on the Press that would be going through the site. So the perspective of the building would be dying into the berm. And we anticipate this berm even coming up higher and being incorporated into the enhancement element of County Road 5 and Dell Road. Or State Highway 5. Mancino: John, can you talk a little bit about your point of view of the Press is very much of a, what do I want to say, you know an industrial, commercial type building. The Kindercare is a little homier. Has a different look. Can you talk a little bit about the compatibility between the Kindercare architectural style fitting in the IOP area? I mean we've got industrial commercial in that whole area. Whether you look at Ver-sa-til and the other things that are going on in there. And then all of a sudden Kindercare has kind of a different look going on. How does that fit in, from your perspective? John Dietrich: From my perspective I feel Kindercare has an opportunity to really enhance the corner. It pulls the scale of the large industrial buildings down to more of a human scale at the corner of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which I think will be a complimentary element to an entry feeling. A green element coming into Chanhassen. There's residential properties both on the south side of Dell Road as we move into Eden Prairie and beyond the DataSery property. And I feel this is a transition from industrial and still would be a strong and good compatible land use. Scott: Any other comments or any other information from the applicant? Good, thank you. This is a public hearing and if anyone from the public would like to speak, please come up and identify yourself. Is there anyone who would like to speak? Well seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Actually we didn't open it in the first place. Let's open the public hearing and then we'll close it. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Let the record show that no one wishes to speak at the public hearing so can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I'll pass. Scott: You'll pass? Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I wasn't around for much of the discussions so I just have to backtrack just a little bit. Bear with me. A key issue for me is impervious surface on this property and I don't understand the staff's report given, I just don't understand why we can't pull it into compliance so could you tell me why we can't. Al-Jaff: City ordinance states that as long as they are improving or, improving an existing non-conforming. Conrad: Okay, yeah I saw that. They're adding 14,000 and 40,000. Now I guess what I don't understand is. Aanenson: You're not changing the impervious surface. You're expanding the building. We're looking at strict interpretation of impervious and the building... Conrad: Right, so what is, where they are expanding the building was parking before? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Okay. And the lots, the other lots do not count because this was a lot of record? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And for some reason we allowed a 79% impervious surface. Aanenson: It was zoned PUD then and that's probably one of the things that...impervious surface. It was at one time PUD. Mancino: Ladd, you were here. Conrad: Yeah, I'm the only one that I can blame. That's real irritating. Al-Jaff: There wasn't a staff report explaining this impervious surface. We went through all 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 the history. Conrad: I think 70% has pretty much been our standard as long as my memory serves. Okay. The roadway, basically the right-in/right-out off of Dell. Dave, let me talk to you about this, and I'm not even going to talk about that one. Is it basically your feeling that this Kindercare should be served via that road, that internal road? And the Press simply because we're not trying to encourage U turns. I'm trying to figure out, that just is a lousy way of servicing Kindercare here. Bringing them down an internal road like that. But is that basically the rationale that we won't force the U turns on Dell coming in from Highway 5 and circling around back? Hempel: Certainly that's the thought but we all know that U turns are going to happen. It's the shortest route, even with the proper traffic signage. Unless enforcement is there everyday, you're going to have U turns. Conrad: Is it staff recommendation to have that internal road like that or was it pretty much the applicant's recommendation? Hempel: Well, it probably was a little of both. This is a difficult site to serve. I guess if you look at other industrial parks and so forth, you don't have the major collector...two boundaries actually. Trunk Highway 5 and Dell. So it kind of services the interior service road system similar to the shopping center. Conrad: Okay. Couldn't make a curb cut or couldn't make any kind of a cut halfway through that Dell. So we could service the north and the south part of this parcel? Hempel: I had conversation with the City Engineer... Conrad: Can't do? Hempel: Weren't real comfortable with it. Conrad: Basically, huh. So what's going to be the access to that north lot? What's going to happen up there sometime Dave? Is it just going to be another, is there going to be a, is your forecast a curb cut coming out of that or right out? Hempel: That would be one of the access points as well as another interior access point for the service drive. Conrad: Okay. On a grade of 1 to 10, what would you rate this traffic system Dave? Less 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 than 5? Never mind. Never mind. That's just a facetious comment on my part. Got a lot of issues. I guess I'm not, I don't have a problem with the Press and some of the things. I think everything looks okay there. I like the elevations. I think the Press looks fine. I'm really bothered by the impervious surface. It really bothers me that we have some land and it's probably my fault from many, many years ago. Don't have a clue why we did that but that's just such a basic standard. It just sort of hurts that this is happening here. I think the Press is doing a good job of expansion. They're a hell of a good company. They're terrific to have in town. But this is just, and I'm going to stop talking because I don't see the solution right now. I really did want to flip flop. I really wanted to move this playground and stuff to the south and I have a hard time doing that right now. I guess I will keep it the way it's located with the playgrounds and what have you away from the power lines, although I would have loved to have moved it forward. It was sort of a neater way to say welcome to Chanhassen. Even though I personally don't believe this is the entrance to Chanhassen. The entrance and the monument to Chanhassen will be the bridge when it goes up. That will be, in my mind, to say the statement saying, you are here. Whether they allow our maple leaf on there or our name. You know I'm not totally convinced that this is really that key an access point. I think people will feel they're in Chanhassen when they get to the walk bridge. So that doesn't bother me. I like the transition of Kindercare there to the industrial. I think that's, as the applicant spokesperson said, I think that's okay. I'm going to let the rest of you talk about some of the issues because I know you care about that but I think the traffic is just, I don't have a solution to my two problems. I don't have a solution to the impervious surface that I think we can enforce or do and I just don't like the traffic circulation but I tell you, I don't see without a curb cut or a median cut, I can't find a solution so I'm stuck folks. Those are my comments. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: My comments are still pretty much the same as they were this last meeting. I don't have a problem with the proposed expansion. I understand the issue of impervious surface and the criteria that was used so I'm going to argue with that. I'm going to vote to deny this for the following reasons. The foremost reason and that is that I don't think this conditional use should be enacted upon until the Highway 5 issue is completed, because it is a development along the highway. It is the eastern gate. I think that the type of development that we're seeing in the conditional use of the Kindercare is a typical use that we see where the parking lot is shoved up next to the highway as close as you can get it. The discussion we had at the last meeting I think when we were discussing buffers. I think pointing out the road median and I don't think an 8 inch curb would be considered a sufficient buffer. Anyway, the people that spent, community and business leaders that spent considerable amount of time and input on the Highway 5 issue, and I think 3 of the people here on this commission. This simply does not conform to what we worked on. And it's in a pivotal area 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 of the city and whether it's the entrance per se, it's still very much a part of what was discussed in buffering TH 5 from, parking lots from exposed industrial areas. The fact of the matter is that obviously anybody who owns property wants to maximize it's full capacity. Property costs a lot of money in Chanhassen and it's understandable that the applicant wants to maximize out the potential of the property. However there are other issues involved as well in that park...I think are community interests. But however if the city is serious about this, these particular types of pieces of property at intersections of main roads and so on, the city's going to have to look at the potential of acquiring 100 feet here or 100 feet there. To get any type of true massing going on where you're bringing some relief, it's more than just building one ditch and a row of trees. If you look at some of the stuff that Morrish did, part of that has different types of massings and significant portions of landscaping, and I don't think that this qualifies for that. The next issue is a safety issue. The traffic. This latest development. Even is more bizarre. Basically make a U turn out to the lane going in the opposite direction. You go north to go south. I'm not sure what the shuttle bus type of use for something like this is but I would assume that they would have to block both lanes making the turn. This makes no sense to me. The issue of safety, these power line reports are really ridiculous. They don't say a thing and they come to no conclusion. It's sort of like looking at a cigarette report back in the 70's. I do not have a problem if this particular type of development went to the north site. I think that would alleviate considerable amount of traffic. It would be a considerable distance away from the power lines. But I don't see a proposal here on that or a conceptual issue on that so I'm going to vote to deny this. Mancino: I really have no new comments. I agree with Jeff in the Highway 5 in it's not in keeping with the corridor plan and I also agree with Ladd and traffic flow and that gets into a public safety issue for me. Having cars going through a parking lot where kids are getting out and going to cars, etc. I would also like, I don't know if I'd deny it or table it. I would like to get Dave's written comments in a staff report on the new access point which you have not had time to do. And I'd like to read your words of wisdom and whether buses, etc, trucks, etc, can get in there. Other than that the only other comment is that we also talked about a reduction of parking spaces for Kindercare. That there should be 33 and I don't see anything. That hasn't been changed either. So I would, my suggestion would be to table it until staff has had some time to look at the traffic issues. Circulation issues. Scott: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: Well I would also agree with Jeff's comments and Nancy's comments regarding the site plan and Highway 5 standards. Traffic. Certainly concerns that haven't been addressed or at least evaluated properly at this point. I would like to get some input from the applicant as to what type of action they would like to see, if I were to vote for it, specifically I would vote for denial. But I could also vote for a table if the applicant felt that they would like to 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 do that and come back. Okay. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. I really don't have any new comments. I was going to ask for your impression. I'd like to see that. That seems to be a real pivotal issue and my guess is Dave, is that if it's not possible based upon the setbacks and the MnDot requirement of easement, that could potentially have a significant impact on the developability of that particular parcel. A question that I have just a simple question for the applicant. Is the ownership of that lot behind the one that you're proposing, is that owned by the same group of people as the corner lot? John Dietrich: Yes. The lot is currently, the entire property is currently owned by the Press and they have indicated that they would sell the southeast parcel to Kindercare and it is their intent to hold onto that northern parcel to maintain for future rights of development. Scott: Future expansion from their standpoint. So that basically would preclude the movement of the Kindercare project to that northerly lot? Okay. I don't have any further comments. Mancino: I have a question. Did we get a perspective from, excuse me John. This perspective, it doesn't show Kindercare at all. John Dietrich: No it does not. In fact it was again taken approximately on Highway 5 looking at the property line. Mancino: Looking that way? John Dietrich: Yes. Mancino: So we haven't seen a perspective from in front of Kindercare where that parking lot and what has to. John Dietrich: No we do not. I would be willing to say from the roadway, the berm continues to come up. We have approximately 70 feet of landscape area in the front from the south property line that is going to be completely screened unless you were off on the east side of. Mancino: And it's screened all year round or there's deciduous trees? John Dietrich: The requirement is 3 to 4 foot berms and with the elevation of the road would 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 be down approximately 4 feet below general elevation. I see the berms being anywhere from 6 to 7 feet above the roadway elevation. Mancino: You know Kate, I think that that's a good thing to ask for every single development on Highway 5, especially when we're so close to the road. To make sure that we get a perspective from right in front. What that will look like and again, with the landscaping, the massing of trees planted that year. Not in 10 years. What it will look like. But what it will look like in a present day sense and to ask for that for every one of them on TH 5. And the other part of that is, I think it's important for the opacity, not seeing the parking lot but also making sure that we landscape the berm on this side of Highway 5 so we just don't see this grass berm on one side. A question I have procedurally for us as a Planning Commission and that is, all of us have talked about having some problems with the traffic circulation, etc. Scott: Can I ask a question that's really going to throw a curve ball on this one? Mancino: Okay. Scott: John, could you put that overhead that shows the expansion of the Press. The one that you just had. It's just that view from above that you put up for the site plan. Yeah, it was that that. That one right there. Could you put that up. Something just struck me. What happens to this. Let's say that the Press decides that they want to expand and they end up going, let's say they put another 50,000 square foot expansion. How are they going to get to that parking lot? I mean I'm just trying, I'm trying to look out from a land use standpoint and trying to figure out what's going to happen. Let's say they build that thing all the way across. How are they going to get to the parking? Are they going to be, probably have to sneak in through that and cut, because you've got your playground there. John Dietrich: You're talking in this area here? Scott: Yeah. Or you're thinking it would be just like a stand alone facility? John Dietrich: It could be a storage facility. If that's where the expansion is going on because of all the technical equipment that is in there. Perhaps it could be another free standing operation for the Press that they wish to buy. Or it could be potentially... Scott: It could be another company or something? Okay. John Dietrich: But we anticipate it will be of an industrial manufacturing type facility or support for that type of facility. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: Okay, good. I was, something just popped into my mind. Any other? Mancino: Well my comment's just procedurally. When a developer comes in at the last minute with some revisions, how do we feel as a commission when it hasn't gone through staff and staff hasn't made a recommendation to us. And if we table it, it goes ahead to City Council without staff's input. Scott: We could deny it. It would go to City Council without staff input. Mancino: And if you table it, it comes back. Scott: It comes back to us. Mancino: After staff has reviewed it. Farmakes: I think to a certain extent that would depend somewhat if you thought it was safe to do with the operation. Scott: Yeah, and we were kind of iffy on the public safety. Ledvina: This is the third time we've seen it. Scott: Yeah but it's like new, significant things keep popping up. Ledvina: Yeah, but other things haven't been changed that we've discussed. Mancino: But we can't, I mean I take it that the responsibility is to give City Council, to go over everything and to weigh everything and I can't really weigh this new entrance because I haven't. I don't know if a truck can turn in there. I don't know if a bus can use it. I don't have any of those things which David would tell us. So that hasn't been thought through is what I'm saying. And it hasn't been thought through before it goes to City Council. Scott: And if they can, if we had two lanes coming in, we've got turning radius and. Ledvina: I see that as an important issue but I don't see that as the overriding issue that would tell us that, if it was okay would you approve the thing tonight? Farmakes: I understand what you're saying but, as far as my vote goes, it was unsafe to begin with. Not a logical...of traffic. This new addition just makes it worst so I see what you're saying. Getting an evaluation of that but it won't affect my vote so. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Scott: Are we ready for a motion? Farmakes: That's just me. Mancino: Any other comments on what I brought up? Ladd? Conrad: I don't want to see it anymore. I think City Council will have their perspective. I think we've gotten the issues out. Yeah, it could come back. I don't see you changing your vote. But the issue is there and we have at least one Council member here. We used to have two. The issues are there Nancy. I think the applicant's going to want to approve it. In terms of traffic and I think they're motivated to show the Council whether it can or can't work and I don't know that it needs to come back. Mancino: But I also, we can add that to a recommendation. A condition that it be reviewed by staff before it goes to City Council and you add your thoughts to that new entrance. Conrad: Absolutely. That's a good thought. John Dietrich: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. John Dietrich: I would just like to, the changes to the access, we were notified of that condition of the controlled access on Monday by city staff so we tried to turn that around as quickly as we could in order to show a modification and a modification of that basically, that has access in was presented to staff when we first started the process and it was determined to go with the straight access so. Mancino: I didn't mean to say any negligence on your part. John Dietrich: But we're trying to, as the conditions change, we try to... Scott: Okay. Any other discussion? Can I have a motion please? Don't everybody talk at once. Conrad: Point of clarification Mr. Chairman. The motion that was passed to the City Council in favor of the site plan review, huh. Has anybody seen any changes to that motion? 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Where are you looking? Ledvina: From the last time? Conrad: From the last time, yeah. Farmakes: It was my understanding on this piece, but you can ask the staff. It was all or nothing on this piece. Is that correct? Scott: That's the way it's being presented. I know that the outcome of the City Council meeting was that due to a technicality with regard to conditional use permits, the City Council cannot act on a conditional use permit until two things happen. One, a recommendation of denial or approval is made to the City Council. Number two, is a 60 day time frame to where if we don't make a recommendation, they can act on it. So the reason why it came back didn't have really anything to do with what we had recommended vis a vis passing the Press expansion ahead and tabling the Kindercare. It was the fact that they were not able to act on the conditional use permit without a recommendation from us so that without the conditional use permit, the Kindercare facility can't be constructed. Farmakes: Okay, so we don't have to revote on those other issues. We didn't violate anything at the time that that was done. Scott: No. The opinion from the City Attorney was that there were no ordinances that specifically said we could split a project. There were no ordinances that said that we couldn't. So that particular point became moot and he focused on the very accessible conditional use permit time frame and that was what he gravitated to. So basically it was not remanded to us. They couldn't act upon it anyway because of ordinance. Farmakes: So if we vote to deny it simply, or approve, we're just dealing with the conditional use permit... Scott: Well what we had, we're all clear on what we had passed on. It was tabling conditional use. Changing the. Farmakes: We voted on everything but that. • Mancino: Well no because on this site plan review. Scott: No, there were 3 motions. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: No, I understand it was part of the conditional use and part of the site plan. It's hard to separate the one from the other in regards to, essentially that's one lot right? Scott: Yeah. At least the way we proposed it. Outlot A I believe. Farmakes: I can't see how you can approve the site plan without approving the conditional use. Scott: Yeah because it's worthless if the conditional use permit isn't approved or passed on, yeah. Ledvina: I think it's just the other way around. I think you, if you don't pass the site plan, you can't have a conditional use permit. Because you can build the building. It's just, can you put people in it or whatever. Scott: Can it be a daycare center in an IOP? Ledvina: Right. Right. Farmakes: I wasn't, when I made the comment a moment ago I wasn't dealing with the order that it was coming in. The content overall. Mancino: But I still don't have any problem with the Press and the Kindercare I still have a problem with traffic, etc. So one I would say okay and the other one I would deny for a site plan review. Farmakes: As I understand it, we voted did we not? Scott: Well yeah. Mancino: But we voted yes on the Press but not on Kindercare. Scott: Correct. We tabled everything else, right. Ledvina: Right, because it's one site plan. Scott: Well no. No. Mancino: Now they're two site plans. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Conrad: I think we can. Aanenson: There are two site plans. You recommended approval of the site plan request and the subdivision. You didn't make any action on the site plan and conditional use for the Kindercare. So that's what's still before you. Your other motion can still stand but what you have to address is the site plan for the Kindercare site and the conditional use. Mancino: So I suggest that we keep, except that Sharmin has our original site plan for the Press we passed two weeks ago. I recommend that we keep it with the addition of the building code? Al-Jaff: The building official's conditions be spelled out as, I'm sure Nann got the verbiage but I can go through the conditions again for you. Conrad: That was point number 16? Al-Jaff: Yes. Conrad: Okay. They can figure that out. Mancino: So we use what we've had before and just add that to it. Okay? Conrad: Well, are you making a motion? Did you make a motion? Mancino: Yes. I move that we go ahead and approve the site plan that we, Site Plan Review #94-1 that we approved on April 13th, 1994, which is subject to the following conditions and it is on page 4 of our staff report. Number 1 thru 19 with the addition of number 20 being conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. Conrad: Number 20? You changed number 16, right? Mancino: No. I'm on page 4. This is the original site plan review. Conrad: I think the motion that the staff has in front of us is on page 8. Mancino: But I don't agree with that one because that approves both the Kindercare and the press in one site plan and I'm not recommending that we approve Kindercare site plan. Does that make sense? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: How do you define that? They're both #94-1. Conrad: How can Kindercare be considered in the site plan for the Press? Aanenson: She just separated them. Mancino: I've just separated them. I approve that we recommend approval of the Press site plan that we recommended on April 13th, 1994 on page 4 of the staff report which is numbers 1 thru 19 with the addition of number 20 which reads, conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. And that approval is for only the Press site review. Okay? Scott: Is there a second? Conrad: I second that. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994: 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. 20. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994: 1) Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors. 2) Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion carried. Farmakes: Should that be given a number of reference? Aanenson: Yeah...site plan review. Scott: #94-1-A, I don't know but I think the verbiage is clear as to what's going on. Mancino: Now the site plan for. Scott: Okay. Can I have another motion please? If, do we want to have that as the extent of our motion? Okay. Conrad: Keep going. Motion. Scott: Oh, I was just going to say, let's give some more time and. Conrad: This is confusing Joe. Scott: Well see I don't have to make the motion. That's why I can say it. But sure, we'll take as much time as you need to. Mancino: The next thing that we need to do is recommend, or I recommend denial of the Kindercare site plan. Aanenson: I think what's left is on the subdivision. When you subdivide it, depending on whatever you do with the Kindercare...the subdivision along the line move to further to the 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 east for the Press expansion. You left the remaining of that property all in an outlot. So if, whatever you do with the Kindercare, you need to...split that lot. Mancino: So we should do that first? Aanenson: Well I... Scott: That was one of the motions that we had last time was to. Aanenson: Yeah, but you left it all as one outlot. You didn't want Kindercare to go in so whatever you do. Scott: And your motion is? Conrad: Well you're just, Nancy you just want to deny the subdivision. You don't need to say anything about Kindercare. You want to deny the subdivision because of traffic and all these things. I'm not making the motion. Scott: Or based upon Dave's information, do you want to see that before we pass it on? Mancino: No, that would be fine if he puts a report in before it gets to City Council. I want to deny the subdivision? Conrad: I think you do. Mancino: I think I want to deny the Kindercare site review. Can I have some help from staff? Al-Jaff: Basically right now, if you deny the Kindercare, the subdivision would be done administratively because we're only moving a property line. We're not going to give them any additional. Aanenson: Yeah but it doesn't., it keeps that as one lot though. So it would have to be split again so it prevents that other lot from being split which would allow the Kindercare...So if you left your motion as it stands, everything...to the Press expansion is still on an outlot. Mancino: Which is what we had before. Scott: Which is Lot 1, Oudot A I think is what you said. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Correct. Yeah. Mancino: And we've already approved the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions. And this is on page 6 of the staff report which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Any second to that motion? Farmakes: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. That we, it's been moved with a second, this really is discussion. No discussion? Ledvina: Hold on. Is this a repeat of essentially the previous motion? Scott: A repeat but getting. Ledvina: But getting the outlot in there. Identifying the outlot. Aanenson: You did that before. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Scott: Would you restate that motion so I understand what you're saying. Mancino: I'm repeating the motion that we made 2 weeks ago on April 13th on page 6 of the staff report which is I'm recommending approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions. Number 1 in it's entirety. Number 2 in it's entirety. Number 3 in it's entirety. Number 4 in it's entirety. Number 5 in it's entirety. And number 6 in it's entirety. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. " 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the 56 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion carried. Scott: Can I have another motion? Mancino: What other motion do we have to pass? Conditional use? Ledvina: No, we don't want that. This relates to the site plan for Kindercare, right? Scott: Well now there's an outlot so it hasn't been, it hasn't been subdivided for that particular parcel so, does that preclude us from then doing anything with regard to the Kindercare site plan and the conditional use permit now because there's no lot for it? Aanenson: There's no lot, yeah. Ledvina: So is that it? Scott: Now, if someone wants to make any additional motions. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: Well, what message are you sending? Mancino: Yeah, that's the important part. What message, what are we sending to the City Council to make sure that they understand why we are denying this? That's what's important to me. Farmakes: It's barely an issue of lot lines... Scott: Or direction to the applicant. I mean there's a situation where, I think what we need to do is to say well, obviously we've got some issues with public safety, etc, etc. Maybe we need to do some if then. I don't know, I'm throwing that out. But right now it's, the conditional use doesn't go on. The Kindercare site plan does not go on. Basically we're sending them the Press again. Is that what you want to do? Conrad: That's okay. Scott: Okay. If that's what we want to do, then we don't need any other motions. Conrad: I guess I'm real confused. Now Nancy, your last motion recommended approval of the plat for the subdivision. Scott: The Press expansion. Mancino: So I want to make sure that the Press is subdivided into that lot. Scott: So basically it just sends forward the Press expansion and the necessary lot line movement to handle it. And that's because the original plat included the existing Press facility. It did not include where the expansion is going, correct? So we had to replat to make room for the expansion and then send the site plan along for the expansion so. Conrad: The original plat did not have on it. Ledvina: This is what we did. This is what they wanted and we took this line out. Essentially. They wanted Lots 1 and 2 here and we just made it Outlot A, or whatever, so we took that out. So we said that would have to be the entire piece then. • Scott: So basically the signal or the message that we're sending is that the same thing all over again. Press expansion is fine. There's still some additional issues. Now just the next question then. If Dave comes back next time and says hey. This works just fine. Are there 58 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 some other things because I think what we want to do is give the applicant some very specific direction and say hey, if you do this, then because I don't want to just have this kind of fluffy thing going on. Mancino: Jeff, articulate this. Scott: If it's a parking lot in back. Farmakes: I think we're just repeating ourselves...several times. In listening to the applicant, both here and at City Council, it seems to me that they're. Scott: They don't want to change. Farmakes: That they have a pretty concise idea of what was necessary to move that forward and...They chose not to deal with that so Ladd's right. Deny it and send it forward. Mancino: And the issues are Highway 5 which Jeff eloquently said and. Scott: Okay, so we're. Mancino: And traffic circulation and no staff report on the new entrance. Scott: So are we all satisfied that the motions that we passed indicate the direction we want? Yes? Ledvina: Yes. Farmakes: I'm comfortable. Scott: You're fine. Ladd? Conrad: Sure. Aanenson: Can I have a clarification on that then. Because you didn't act on it, we have to pass the 60 days. The Kindercare is still... Scott: Yeah. Aanenson: So the Press is going forward but the Kindercare stays here? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: I would be comfortable denying it and sending it on. Aanenson: Well you have to have a motion... Scott: And that 60 day time period will be, since it's the commission we're talking June 4th? Because we got it on April 4th. June 4th? Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Okay. So one way or the other the conditional use permit's going to be able to be acted on by the City Council. Aanenson: Right, but if you want to put it on your next agenda, that's fine. Otherwise it will just sit in holding until you... Scott: Yeah, I mean I'd like to hear what you have to say. Because that's real important. Public safety is an important issue. Mancino: So we have to make a motion? Scott: No we don't. Aanenson: ...unless you want to put it back on. Scott: Okay. Item 5 was deleted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: ...was given final plat approval. ...Heritage plat that you recommended denial and the City Council did also. What we found out with this plat is the extension of that street will... run north/south along the eastern border of Timberwood. As we find out what that plat...so we had to work to get that resolved and...The Council did approve a design charette for the Bluff Creek corridor and as I mentioned before, we were able to get Bill Morrish to participate in that so that's scheduled for May 26th. We would like one representative of the Planning Commission to make themselves available for that meeting. And what we'll do after that, this is just to give us some design framework because we feel as a staff, we don't 60 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 have the tools in place to...It's such a sensitive area. This kind of gives us a starting point and we're hoping that we can get some...and eventually an ordinance. We would also work with this granting of that place...The Council did approve the first reading of the, the first time it went through they tabled it for lot line information which we thought we'd let you know about...they had approved the first reading so... Scott: Can I just ask a quick question? What did. Aanenson: That was... Scott: Good, thanks. Aanenson: ...I'll contact him and find out what exactly we get with the price and you know it's funny, after that Council meeting we wanted a list of vendors so we...about 7 vendors now as far as the different types of technology. Mancino: Even what we saw tonight? I wish it would have had color though. Aanenson: Well that was part of it. I think we could have worked... Mancino: Because I couldn't see the roof. , Aanenson: ...we can work to get more representative of what's out there. Scott: Yeah and I think one thing we can do with isometrics is one of the problems with isometric drawings is that how you choose your vanishing points. So I think if we can get an isometric drawing that has vanishing points that make more sense to what it's really going to look like, that may be a rather inexpensive tool that we can use. Okay. Aanenson: They approved the second reading of the wetland ordinance. The reason they held out on that was...mitigation so they did approve that. Second reading. They approved the buffer monumentation. The question on that was they wanted to see the monumentation. It looks really nice and it will be... Scott: I know Matt, I don't know if you saw that but I mean, I know that was one of your issues is what's it going to look like and they're 20 feet tall and they're blaze orange. No. Do you want to tell him what they are? Aanenson: They're on a gray post. They're 3 inches wide by 24 inches high and they're on gray posts and they'll be...wetland logo on the top. And the intent for that is again so people 61 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 know that that's the edge. They shouldn't be mowing. Ledvina: Is there any letters or anything on it or just a wetland? Aanenson: No, it says Wetland Buffer Edge. And again, it will be one corner of your lot so it won't be on both corners so every other lot corner so you don't have to have it blocking your view. Mancino: And isn't the lettering gray or brown? Aanenson: It's brown with like a light tan lettering. So it's subtle. And when you have the tall grass...We're putting those in place right now. As all new developments come in, we'll be...catching those and...As to number 6. Kindercare...First reading of the landscaping and tree preservation. I think the City Council was pretty excited about the work that went into that and we got real positive results so that will be on the second reading at the next meeting. And then hopefully we'll be able to, after that there's a publication requirement and so we'll be starting to enforce that... Mancino: What I think was exciting is to actually have two City Council people you know say, that was just a tremendous ordinance. I mean you don't hear that too many times. Aanenson: ...we are trying to do some different things so I think...I just want to talk to you about our PUD process. You know we're frustrated. You're frustrated. So what I put in here is a different approach and I just wanted to run this past you and see what you think. What we do is we get the concept. You know when you know it's single family and it's going to stay single family but we're just looking at the lots I think it's not quite as complex but we...it's a big complex issue and how do we get a starting point and what's everybody's comfort level to move to the next and that's what we're having a downfall on. Staff included. We spend a lot of time on the staff report. Make them bump out a significant period of time before they can get on an agenda and then to get here and we're not getting you the right information and so what I was thinking is that, we have a public hearing requirement so what we do is go ahead and just give a 2 or 3 week, enough to meet the notification and just let the applicant give you...a generalized site plan. We put these at the end of the agenda and...we sit down. Dave would stick around. They bring their professionals in and we just try to flush out the main issues. These are some sensitive things and you give them some direction as to what to come back for the concept. So it's kind of a pre-concept. I think it would serve everybody's time a lot better and if it's okay with you, I'd like to try that for the next one. Now the concept one that you...last time, CCC is coming back. They're coming back. You gave them direction to come back with all industrial or multi-family. Kind of a mix... 62 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: The zero lot line. Aanenson: Right. So what I did ask them to give a couple perspectives through the site. Some site elevations showing how they're going to address the topography. Apply some different perspectives so hopefully again that will help us just a little bit more...would have been I think helpful to...what information you need and give that to them so we're not wasting everybody's time doing a detailed report that doesn't get us anywhere. Scott: Yeah. Well you know there's something that crossed my mind is I know whenever I've been in a situation where I've had to sell to a committee, which in effect is what someone's doing when they're coming to the Planning Commission. The best way to increase your chances of success is to call some of the people on the committee, or get in contact with them and I think this would be a good opportunity before a lot of expense is undertaken. Just to say, and then they can find all the hot buttons and go, ooh geez you know. And then react to it and yeah. Aanenson: Yeah. If you guys aren't interested in that high density, let's before we start doing more perspectives, just if you're not interested in that at all let's say, hey we just don't think it's going to work on this site. Let's get that on the table right away so I think if we can just say, or you say maybe it would work and these are the things that you need to do to make sure that we can make it palatable. And I think that would be good. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: And if you feel comfortable with that, then we'll try it on the next one. Conrad: Let me just kick that around a little bit. On the one hand I don't want staff off the hook, and I'm not sure. You know when you do that, you're taking away certain responsibilities, and I don't know what you know, if you're giving that away. You're taking them over from Kate basically. So you've got to be comfortable you're taking those, and we're not talking specific issues but the challenge is, and I wasn't here. Didn't hear this. If you don't have a PUD ordinance, what we're going to do is have a. Aanenson: It's a pre-concept. • Conrad: Where we take over the needs that we would like in a PUD. And I guess just on the surface I don't understand. If we're not getting what we want, then we should be changing the PUD ordinance. So I don't understand why it's loosey goosey. Let's bring it in and see what we all. Let's take pot shots at it. Unless we can't get the ordinance any better. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 If the ordinance is pretty general and we don't like it, then you're doing the right thing. I tell you, you have to make staff accountable. When they're negotiating, that's their job. For negotiating trade-off's or recommending that it be a PUD. What I hear here is, you want to take over some of the stuff so, and I'm not, you know somebody has to persuade me that that's right. But right now I don't feel real good about it. Again, there has to be some absolutes in requirements of a PUD. I can't believe that we can't fine tune what we want in a predictable fashion. Farmakes: Well I think there's a duplication of effort going on in regards to taking a PUD. Combining it with the Highway 5 objectives. It's not necessarily a directive onto themselves but you combine the two together and you look at the issue...as an example. I'm not sure if you were, I don't believe you were here at that meeting but the issues that we were looking at were the same typical ones that we discuss on this Highway 5 issue about how close do the units come up? How many are there packed and how close are they to the highway? And the issue, if you go to something like zero lot line, you can get some space between the highway and the units, that's... Conrad: But Kate knows what you have in the Highway, it's not in concrete yet so it's not ordinance. We can't enforce it so we're talking persuasion right now and you're telling me that Kate can't tell the developer what we're looking for? Farmakes: They were sensing some frustration in the meeting, as I recall. Maybe can elaborate on this, that they were spending a considerable amount of money in presentation materials and didn't feel that they were getting a clear direction in regards to not only land use but concept. Mancino: Yeah. I mean what we're talking about is concept, not PUD but what is the expectation at the concept stage. Whether it's a PUD or whatever it is at the concept stage. What should be in a concept? I mean these people wanted just to know land use. Well there's a lot of other things that need to be talked about during the concept stage just besides land use. There needs to be natural resources. How the, conceptually this plan treats the natural resources. Circulation. Etc. Ledvina: Except those are all tied together. Because they will dictate the land use on a properly designed development. Mancino: Exactly. Farmakes: And there can be buffer areas where you have more than one use to consider. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Next to a school. Next to an environmentally sensitive area. Look what we did with the Arboretum in discussing a PUD up on TH 41 and TH 4. Scott: And I think the way staff can work this too is that there are ordinances and then there is stuff that is going to be ordinances and then there's the intent that I think you guys have picked up on from working with us where we have certain hot buttons and things that we zero right in on and although it might not, well I'm not going to tell what your place is, because that still is in flux a little bit now, but I guess some of the things that I think would really help the developer is you can take a look at something like with the Heritage. Here are 19 things that we think are just really off base. It's almost, I think you're doing everybody a favor saying well, I know the Planning Commission and when I look through and I see these 7 things. The Planning Commission's going to non-linear when they see these. It's probably better use of your time to change what you're going to be presenting to do a better job of addressing these before you go in front of them because one of the things that I had a conversation with John Dobbs afterwards and he was you know, he was pretty frustrated but I do have to give him credit. He used his frustration to kind of come out and say, well how do we do this differently next time? My suggestion to him was, is to, now that you know what the Planning Commission likes and the things that we focus in on, is take those really seriously and one of the things that I mentioned to him is that personally when I saw the staff report and I saw the comments of the large amount of things that needed work, I had a really hard time listening objectively because I'm going boy. This development really needs a lot of work. So maybe the thing that you can do on everybody's behalf is to highlight the environmental things. You know what they all are. Highway 5, etc, etc. You say hey, if you want to have smooth sailing, these are the kinds of things that you need to do. Aanenson: That's what we do and that's... Conrad: They have to do that. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. Scott: Yeah, but then when we see it. Aanenson: When we load it up with conditions, that's at a concept level, that's where we're saying, listen. You're a specific...these are your marching orders and if takes 100 things, we try to. I mean the problem is I think we've given them too much details. Specifically we want to see this, this and this. I mean that's why those lists get so long and I know that makes you nervous. You think oh, they're so far off the mark but we feel like, look at all the things we caught. You know, these are all the things that. We don't want to see you back until. Mancino: You should charge for doing their plan for them. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: ...because we look at it as, look at all the issues we think you still need to do and you're looking at it like it's not close but why would they be recommending approval. Scott: I'd agree with that. I think that's the way I look at that. I go whoa, this is a really basket case. We've got to send them back. So I think that's maybe something that I'm not. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. How do we get past that because I think that is a problem existing and I...with all these issues. And what we're saying, if they come back the next round and address these, then we'll feel pretty comfortable. Scott: You know what it's like, it's right now this is really a tight, it's something that's been beat up because I guess. Aanenson: And that's what it is Joe. That's a good way to put it. That's... Scott: I view our role as somewhat quality control because we're, when you think about all the commissions that send stuff into the City Council, there's no way that they can, although sometimes they do get into levels of detail that we think, or I think anything are, we've already been through that. But I view part of our job is to really, you beat stuff up before we see it and we beat it up before the City Council sees it so they have maybe more manageable issues to deal with. But if they want to go into more detail, that's their prerogative. Farmakes: It seems that the more money that is spent on development presentations, the more untractable they get to changing anything. Aanenson: The what? Farmakes: The more untractable they get in changing anything. They seem to be committed to it. When we start talking about move this here or there and then it seems that they'll cut you very little. Aanenson: Exactly and that's why we always felt the concept should really be, it's not as the ordinance says, it doesn't give us any legal binding. All we're saying is, you know we could live with this if. And that's what we're saying, if. Give them the list. Or we say, you know we just plain don't like it. There's just, we don't think it's appropriate...What you're doing is you're creating the shelving where you're going to tell how it's going to function. If you don't like it, deny it. Deny the zoning. If you do like but they have to do the following things, then you recommend it that way. Or if you need specific information like you know, I think that's fine. Elevations, perspectives. You want to see more about the type of products you're talking about. I think they were all very appropriate things to say. Let's 66 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 table to look at that. But for some reason I think we haven't been able to, I want to give you the information that you need. I want to give the developer the information he needs and right now I feel like, we're not doing that effectively. Scott: Are you saying that perhaps what we need to do is to, instead of seeing, tabling something and say fix these conditions that staff has made us aware of before we pass it on, are you saying, well let's pass it on with these recommendations to the City Council and then when it wanders through the process again, we want to make sure that they've addressed those? Aanenson: ...but if you don't feel comfortable saying you know, I think what the staff's identified is a good thing. I thought..but you know, I'm not sure that whatever. That they've done a sensitive job with the wetland. I want to see more. I want to hear more what you're going to do about that. Or I want to see more what you're going to do with Bluff Creek. What is your vision? Or I want to see the type of...what kind of materials. Table it. Ask for that more information. Scott: Yeah, well I think Jeff's comment's real important because if we were to take, let's say the Heritage. If we would have taken that and passed it on with all those conditions, they probably would have pumped more money into it to get ready for City Council. Then when it comes back around. Aanenson: I think they would have pumped more money into it. I think they're just trying to figure out. Scott: Well, I'm thinking they're kind of like what, they're going to interpret, oh great. Okay this is the plan, let's go. Conrad: I've got to figure out what the issues are here because it's not that I'm against what maybe we wanted or the process but I guess I'm, you know Kate leverages our opinion on those developers. She knows where we stand and she can say, well it's not going to go through unless you do this. Now if we're up front, I'm not sure if we're helping the process, seriously. She can be saying well, she's negotiating behind the scenes all the time on this stuff so what I see the process doing is, she's not involved. They come in here immediately and we sort of take at it without very much of a presentation. Huh. Hey,•I don't like that. I know that there are some things, you know we've got some issues and the Highway 5 is an issue because it's not cast in concrete and we're trying to leverage the developers ourselves because she can't but that's not a reason to change the process, because we're going to say please. Could you please do that because we can't make you do it but would you please do 67 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that. Now she can leverage our opinion because she's making some trade-offs before she comes in. So I never mind concept stuff coming here Kate. I like that. I like what we did, when do we have the concept or the sketch plan? What is it when we get the concept coming in? Is it for a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: So we've always done that. We've always had some, what do you think? Here it is. Here's some drawings. Here's some architectural. So what you're doing is a pre- concept. You're saying before they even do the drawings let's come in. I tell you, I'm not sure I want to be there. Mancino: Okay, okay, okay, but here's where I still have a problem. I mean I agree with you but when I see the concept, their original one, then I see staff recommendations and it's 45 recommendations, because you guys have done a great job. No question. I mean it's in depth. It's right on but it's kind of like maybe I'm such a visual person that then I need to see those recommendations, I can't, I need to see them out in front of me to have the visual contact because I can't tell you how much I rely on I mean the whole process. The visual and the verbiage. Conrad: Well that should be part of the requirements. The specs. Mancino: But I don't see it with the concept plans that are coming in. I see the verbiage because they've made all the recommendations but I don't see the visually... Ledvina: Change the specs in the ordinance. Conrad: Let's change the specs. Yeah, absolutely. Ledvina: That's where it needs to go. I think we need to know about, we need to tell them about natural features. We need to tell them about traffic circulation all working together with land use and I don't think it says that right now. Aanenson: You're right, it's very general. Ledvina: Okay. Well that's where we need to, that's the nail. We've got the hammer. Mancino: And surrounding land use relationship. Just the written objectives of the development and also just character of the development. I mean what's going to be some of the construction details, I mean etc. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: It seems like every time I see a PUD, and I've made this comment in the last one that I saw, and you see in a concept. You see the property maximized out again and there's 10 feet of green space around each factory and there's nothing but homes from one end of the property to the next and the density is I forget what it is, 8 to a unit or 8 to a acre or something. It frightens me to look at that kind of thing when we're looking at it as a concept because it's so. Mancino: But that's before the revisions. That's before the staff recommendations. Farmakes: But even so. What I'm saying is, if that information came out of a horse trading session and that drawing came forward, there's an interest of the developer on how to do this and every time it seems to follow on TH 5 for some reason. I don't know if it's because we've created sort of a high density corridor or what it is and that's not really what we want there. But what we're seeing is, if it's a PUD and it's wall to wall houses, what are we getting for the PUD. Conrad: Well now you're talking about the real issues. Farmakes: Right, that's what I'm saying. Conrad: Well, okay. That's different than what we've been talking about. Scott: That's like what I point blank asked the developer. I'm saying what is the City of Chanhassen getting out of this PUD. It's like we're paying to move this thing. You're packing stuff in tight. You're encroaching on the wetland. What's the deal? And then you get words. You get verbiage. Farmakes: The counter back then is, well we're building affordable housing. You can't buy an acre of property for under 40 G's in Chanhassen. Well, that's a no win solution unless somebody subsidizes the purchase. Or you build 8 units on an acre. Scott: Yeah, or you do something with the density. Farmakes: Correct. And somebody subsidizes something. So I mean with that achievable goal of creating some affordable housing and you're looking at 300 units and you're thinking gee, this isn't exactly scattered site housing here for affordable housing is it? I mean boom, right there. And it's really not what we're trying to achieve, at least as I understand it. Mancino: Kate, after going to the HRA joint meeting with the City Council, we're not going to have any low affordable housing by private industry anyway that comes in. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: I don't think so. We did meet with this applicant again and we did talk about what the dollar amount would be for affordable development. We put in the staff report, and this goes back in, this is where I need direction from you on because that property is zoned single family... Now, this was direction given by the previous director that maybe high density multi-family is more palatable than industrial based on the fact that if you look at the higher uses. Residential is less intrusive than industrial but as you heard from the residents, they felt maybe...industrial might be more palatable than high density. Mancino: Well especially from what Jeff just said on the north side of Highway 5. The Highway 5 corridor study suggests that it be multi-family. Aanenson: Except we know what's going in there. Really there's not going to be that many pieces of high density multi-family. There's going to be twin home projects. There really isn't high density. From what we know, it's been tied up. I'll be happy to share that with you when we talk about Highway 5. There isn't going to be that much high density. But anyway, back to where we did...We put in that recommendation that we did feel it was appropriate for the high density...never felt comfortable with that and we did recommend that but we did think, if for some reason they did go with some sort of subsidized housing or moderate priced housing, and that may be a reason under the PUD, which it does say in PUD if you're getting that sort of housing product, that that may be a reason to give it. Scott: Well one thing we need to do is, I mean this affordable. Okay, one of the things that we, at least see what you other folks think of when you say affordable housing. The next thing in the parenthesis should say, as defined by the formula recommended by the State of Minnesota which is. Aanenson: We've got the formula. Scott: That baby's got to be right in the ordinance because the, I mean Terry Forbord has got a different idea of what affordable housing is. Aanenson: You're right. We were missing that. I think that would be the reason we felt if you did want to go with the higher density, that would be one way and that's with the PUD because you're getting affordable housing. Scott: And then define affordable housing. Aanenson: But if you don't feel comfortable with that. Farmakes: I'll tell you what I would like to see is some forms at public hearings going on in 70 Planning Commission Meeting - :,.ay 4, 1994 some regard to getting public opinion in regards to subsidized housing. I haven't seen any informational meetings. I haven't seen any educational. Maybe putting something in the newsletter. City newsletter and clarifying that this is a problem and soliciting thoughts as to how we solve this problem. I hate to see this problem solved politically from the State level on down with this group home thing. Leaving holes in it. Leaving lack of subsidization. Financing. Having political ends benefitting other areas where these houses are not going into, i.e. Minneapolis as usage for very low income percentage level based on all their precinct meetings back and in several of their precincts they have no low income housing. I think that there's a lot of metropolitan silliness going on in trying to determine what that is and I think the end goal is not necessarily affordable housing but a distribution of social service... Scott: By relocating the consumers. Farmakes: Without quantifying and qualifying these issues, I don't think we're being responsible getting that information out to the public and having them respond to their elected officials as to how we deal with this type of stuff. I don't want to see, and be extremely disappointed if it's like the group home issue which does solve some necessary social things but also omits several issues. Fortunately we haven't had that problem here yet but that that hole is there. The door is open for that. And I hope we can solve that issue from the ground up rather than coming down and to quote the...it's a done deal. There's nothing we can do about it. The State's making us do it and then we all kind of look around what are we doing here, but. Conrad: That's a good point. I wish we knew how we handled affordable housing here. If we handled it, we haven't handled it very well. Scott: Well I could be willing to be that any sort of subsidy is going to have to come, I don't know whether you'd have to have a TIF. Aanenson: Well that's...trade offs because they get higher densities and they spread a few units out just like...and that's the trade off for the high density and that's where they have to make the pitch to you to say, you give us this, we will do this. Conrad: But the trade off is, you're trading density off but you don't want to trade the quality of facility off. But they're pyridoxic. You know it's like we're going to force you to spend money on that building because we don't want it falling down. Brick or better but we'll reduce, we'll give you 3 more units an acre. So I don't have a clue. That's a really good point Jeff. Rather than somebody telling us how to do it, we're going to have to do it but I don't know how you do that and really make it work. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: I'd like to point out a couple of areas where the city. Mancino: There is no, you can't make it privately funded because of the 1986 tax laws, etc so that's what they talked about in HRA. It will be publically funded but privately managed for real low income. Not affordable but I'm talking low income. Farmakes: The federal government defines it as low, very low, very, very low and they've got an entire list that they use now for qualifications for the medical care. I believe it's a standard throughout defined by income and so on. I'm not sure that the State is using that as a guide and I'm not sure that the city or the county is using that as a guide. But if we look at some other issues where federal monies or state monies have followed this problem, there have been some gross mismanagements and terrible developments. Cedar-Riverside for instance. There's an example of federal money that built an idiotic development. Concentrated. Poorly managed. Nobody wants to live there that lives there and my point to that is, when there's a financial incentive, either the developer or of the area. Hey, it's federal money being spent in our account, you lose this motivation that is out there for a community to...to maintain it. To build it. To contribute to the community and I think you lose some of that when you get these false...going on. Conrad: So is it possible to say, what is affordable housing look like in Chanhassen? Every time we zone high density, everybody can't wait to reduce the density. You know our feeble attempt to bring in affordable housing in here is that we get little pockets down here that we've zoned 8 to 12 units per acre and that's it. That's high density. That's affordable housing but boy you come, a developer comes in with 4 units or 2 units per acre, we can't wait to change it. You know everybody says smile, says boy that's great. Now we're, and you know I love open spaces but you know, so here we've zoned it. We've got it but we're not doing anything with it. Jeff, how do we handle those pockets? How do we design affordable housing for those areas so we have control rather than somebody else? Farmakes: I think the first thing to do is ask the community to define what the philosophy and the intent, the objective is. And that may be defined for us in St. Paul. I'm not sure we know. I use here the term over and over again, affordable housing, both from the applicants, staff and ourselves. It's a catch word. When we hear this and we talk about densities, so many of the times we're looking at apartment buildings here that are a quarter of a million dollars. Just because it happens to be high density and apartment buildings doesn't mean it's affordable housing and just because it says it's affordable housing or the lowest affordable housing, let's say Mission Hills. $80,000.00, $70,000.00 units. A few years back a New Horizon home, the four plexes were the same prices. It basically, as I understand, you can't build anything with 2 bedrooms that's standing in modem code requirements for less than 70 72 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 grand. So if we're going to, the motivation for this is for assembly type work out here. They're talking about the intent is some of the owners of these companies would like to have the people who work in their companies live out here so they didn't have the transportation problems and they have access to lower cost labor. I don't know if that's a pristine objective and if you're dealing with some of the philosophical issues of this city with no boundaries and so on, the intent that you have a classless society and that you have say for instance on the Song development over there. The Song property. You have the million dollar house and then you have the $40,000.00 next to it. From a practical standpoint does that happen. Is that going to happen. Do we specify on the Song development, hey. You can have $20 million houses here and then 3% of them have to this affordable. Subsidized type. Or Lundgren development. I don't think the finances of those type of developments work that way. What I see as the type of PUD thing that we have coming in that are 40% -50%. Somewhere in there is a subsidized. Substandard amount. And then we qualify it as that's affordable so we're being good. But I don't think that those numbers translate into what's considered very low income housing in Minneapolis or what Orfield's using as criteria. So it's not something where I can sit here and say, this is our objective. I think the concern is to have our community come forward and say, this is what the majority of us feel that we would like to proceed in zoning this issue and achieving these goals. Whatever they are. And maybe the State government supersedes municipal government so... Conrad: What do you think we should do? Should we forward on at some point in time a recommendation to the City Council that they form a task force? Farmakes: I believe the City staff has been working on this issue off and on in regards with some of the employers. Mancino: And there's a report being created. Conrad: Oh, okay. Scott: So the purpose for the affordable housing is to supply workers for industry and this housing will be subsidized by the general public? So it's in the interest of the employers. Well Jeff and I had this discussion last week. You know who benefits? Obviously the residents, the new residents benefit. Mancino: TIF districts. Scott: Well yeah, anyway. So our direction on this is. Aanenson: I get an idea of what you want in the PUD and I can go through that and modify 73 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 the concept to make sure we've got conditions in there that we want... Scott: And in PUD, when they talk about natural features and so forth, I really like what you did on Highway 5. This, not this. I mean that's very, very simple. But that will cut through a lot of the stuff that you guys have to deal with if the ordinance is more specific. Aanenson: Let me just talk about a couple of things I had on here. Administrative approvals. As you recall when we approved the expansion to the hotel, we went through the facade that went over that part of the Frontier Building...they're having it signed but they a...signs. We've been really quick to...and we just approved the sign package for the Frontier Building as a general...We are policing the facade so we can get the new signs up there. So just to let you know, we did approve...similar that matches the whole Frontier Building and it will tie into what we have there. Also just for your information, May 18th the City Council will be holding a workshop before your Planning Commission meeting. They'll be starting at 5:30. If you're frustrated about Highway 5, you can imagine my frustration. I did get the Council to move forward on it and we do have, I did get a hold of Bill Morrish and he will be speaking for a few minutes. Trying to light a fire. I'll spend a little bit of time talking about what the Task Force did and what the Planning Commission has done and then Barry Warner, the consultant is going to take as much time as they need to get through the whole document. We want to get it adopted. There's the overlay zone. That's one portion but in the implementation section, there's a lot of work for other people to do. The HRA needs to get going on the gateway treatments. I mean there's a lot of things that need to happen as a part of this document and the work task for everybody to make all this come to fruition and I hope we can get the Council excited about... And also just an order of business. You've been asking to see landscaping plans back but what I'd like to do is...just a landscaping issue. One will be back is the Minnewashta Landings will be back on because they want to be on the next Council so what I'd like to do, because these should be pretty straight forward. I mean we're specifically looking at landscaping, is that I will be putting those on first because I haven't noticed those. Is this an opportunity for you to look at so we get those people in and out of here and that way...and when the church one comes back. I did step out in the hall and we talked about, if they can't work out the berm, come back and talk about what we can do as an alternate...we'll put those people on at the beginning so you don't have to, even though it's old business. And one other comment, next week is a huge agenda. I've done my best to try to knock people off and I think what we're probably going to have to do, you do want to put the sign ordinance back on, we've pretty much made all the revisions. We've got some great slides. Talking about some of the issues that you did and that's critical. Another critical ordinance that we have in place. Unfortunately those things get bumped to the end and everybody's tired. You've been beat up a little bit and I don't know how to accommodate that but you do have a lot that needs action. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Can we throw some people off and do the sign ordinance? Aanenson: I'd like to. Mancino: Because that's as important as Highway 5. Farmakes: Can we do another work session? Come in early. Scott: I know the Chamber of Commerce was very active on that. Aanenson: Right, and when we get this revision we'll get that over to them too. The problem is that on the 18th is that we do have the Highway 5 and I want to let you know, in case any of you wanted to come and listen...or just refresh your memory. I'd like to have a work session on that. Maybe I'll give you a call Joe and show you what's on and if we want to talk about it. A couple of them, we have the sign for Abra-Goodyear. We tabled this. I'm not sure if they're going to be able to get it back on. We've got a couple others. Mission Hills. A big PUD. Preliminary. A big complex plan. Mancino: I thought we already approved that. Aanenson: That was concept. Now it's preliminary...what we do with the extension of TH 101. Where we are with that so we've got a meeting with Fred and maybe there's some issues there that's just not quite ready. We don't have enough knowledge in having TH 101 go forward. We are kind of in peak development so the next agendas are going to be...but there's just some staff stuff we want to take care of too. Some ordinance revisions. Farmakes: I have a quick procedural question. The City Council, especially Mr. Mason was pretty perplexed when this issue that we just discussed on the Press came up, as to why it was split or why we split it or why we came forward and approved the Press site and not the conditional use. He expressed that it's highly unusual, da, da, da and we had some confusion here dealing with this as it was really one approval but it wasn't one approval. It was three approvals and admitted that it took us quite a while to figure out how to approve that thing. Is it their option to bring that forward as three proposals or one proposal or one proposal with two subsections or? Aanenson: Sure. You can handle them separately. I mean what we've always done is give the applicant. If he wants to keep it as one in the next arena and say you know, I want to see them both together but certainly they can both fly on their own merits. The Press can act independently of Kindercare if it wants to. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: Why then would we group them together? That it's all or nothing. Aanenson: That's something we talked about. We looked at Abra Goodyear together. We can certainly go with one applicant and...it's the same thing with the PUD when you're looking at industrial residential. You've got 3 applicants on that. Farmakes: In that case then, I don't think we should be proactive. I mean that's my opinion. We should just approve or deny it like they requested it at City Hall and Council. And I didn't see a problem with the Press, but hey. If that's what they want, that's their time. Aanenson: Well it's not going forward because technically again you haven't had the 60 days so the only thing that's going forward is the Press and the subdivision. Farmakes: Right, but we spent a fair amount of time on that and really clouded the issue of approving the Press expansion. So I mean it may be constructive in providing information as to why we didn't approve it or why we did approve it. But it kind of, to me I saw a Council that was confused when. Mancino: Very confused. Farmakes: As to why it was coming up to them with this approval. Aanenson: I'm assuming that the Kindercare is on your next agenda and Dave's going to look at the traffic things. You still have an opportunity to forward that recommendation. That's my understanding. Scott: Well I think there was a miss, I haven't talked to Mike Mason about this but it appeared when I was there that they were confused. Some of the Council members thought that we had something that we weren't supposed to when it was very clear Roger did a very nice job of saying, it doesn't say you can. It doesn't say you can't. So that was a moot point. So that was rather interesting. Aanenson: Yeah, normally just out of courtesy if the applicant wants to keep them both together, we keep them both together. He wanted those both considered together and they both came back. Farmakes: It was clear to me that Mike considered that to be some procedural tactic on approval or denial and it had nothing to do with that. Scott: No, and he also made a comment that, to the effect, and for those of you who were 76 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 also there, this is what I thought. Is that there was somehow something personal about, remember when he, he was very, I mean he was very concerned and was a bit irritated that we had done this and then he had made the comment that he had hoped that the reason why we were doing that was nothing personal against the applicant and I just kind of sat back. Plus the fact, they didn't ask, we were sitting right there. There were four of us. The City Council didn't ask. They asked to talk to the developer. But now I supposed we could have raised our hand and could have gotten up but they did not ask for any input from us. Perhaps they didn't want any but so I mean it was a rather interesting thing. I'm glad we were able to go there. The four of us were able to be there. Farmakes: It's the first time that it's happened that I know, since I've been here, and Ladd's been here a lot longer. I haven't encountered that before where it was split up and approved the one and then somehow it was considered to be highly irregular. Scott: It made sense. Conrad: I think it makes sense. I wasn't there. I didn't vote on it but I think it made sense to me. Mancino: I just don't think the developer liked it so the developer didn't like it and got to City Council. Conrad: Theoretically when you have some common driveways and stuff, years ago things came in split and wait a second. You say, staff. Why did you split these up. We don't understand. Show them all together because they've got shared... So now it isn't to our benefit to see things coming in together and you see how they relate. You see how the traffic relates so it's real valid. I love to have it come in together but I also think it's real valid. I think the whole thing could have been tabled for the problem. The developer chose to bring it together. It was our prerogative. It was your prerogative to table the whole thing. You were being kind to send the Press through. They don't want it. That's really what you were doing. Hey, let's show some good will. Let's get the Press going. Mancino: But the City Council didn't see that and secondly, not only did they not see that, but the only reason that they didn't deal with it was procedural. It was not in respect for what the Planning Commission had done, which was even worse. And I don't know why. Farmakes: It was perceived I think, because there were several comments made about timing. Timing and delaying. That somehow this was being pigeon holed or delayed to achieve some purpose and for the life of me I can't imagine what. I mean that wasn't the situation at all. In fact I believe we asked the applicant in the discussion process, how to address the issue 77 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 and when he stood up at City Council and said that we asked them to approve or deny. We didn't want this at all. I don't remember them coming forward and saying, please don't do this in the meeting. Scott: Well, and then there's also the comment too of, well if we don't get, if you guys don't approve this by such and such a date, well geez we're not going to be able to build this and then fall's coming up. It's like their time line, you know anybody can sit down and take a look at what the time line is and if you're prudent and you're representing your landowners, etc, etc, you're going to go well, worst case scenario is it's going to take us this many months to get this thing going. So worst case scenario, do we want to push it for this year or are we looking for next year. So I get pretty irritated when it's kind of like, well this is our time frame and you better follow it because we've got a building to build. Give me a break. Conrad: But as long as we have valid reasons for delaying something, that's just, hey there's no problem. Staff has an obligation to get things to us and we have an obligation to do a good job. Period. And I think we can be turning things. Yeah we could have turned the Press down. I think one flat statement saying, hey. How you make an impact on the City Council. I'm not sure we do it when we have 30 pages of notes. Seriously. I think the motion, how do they get a consensus out of 30 pages. Jeff talks and they know where Jeff's at. And Nancy's talks and she's different. So what's the consensus of opinion. I think when you make one flat statement, one motion saying we turned this down for these three reasons, that is more of a, and if it's a 6 to nothing or 7, 6 to 1 vote on it, that's a real flat statement so it's a simple way to come to a conclusion. I don't know how the City Council really understands where we're at because we do change during the course of a discussion. You know somebody could be very vehemently against something but votes for it. If you look at our Minutes you know so how do they know. How important was that issue that you were vehemently against because all of a sudden you voted for the whole thing? But I'm not sure we're, I don't know. Impact wise, that's what, you've really got to send clear signals to the City Council and I'm not, I've never been convinced that our Minutes do a good job. I think when we're in attendance they get a good feel. They get a good feel for where we are and I think our motions typically work well when they really show a unanimous perspective of something and turn downs work a great deal. You know you can struggle to make a positive statement but you can make, you know we approve this with these 48 exceptions. Well, you can really make it a lot easier if you turn it down because the developer gets it. The developer doesn't want it turned down. • Farmakes: It didn't work with Market. It didn't work with Charlie's property. Conrad: Yeah, you're right. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: Well there's I think two ways to do that. One is the role of the Chairperson that after a motion is passed to be able to say, okay so basically what we're, the message we're sending to the City Council is dot, dot, dot, dot. And then the person who is attending the City Council meeting gets up at the appropriate time during the public hearing and just says, this is the reason why we did what we did and in your minutes on page such and such. If I can just point this out to you... And so it's partially the role of the Chairperson and then the role of the person who is at the, who goes to the Council meeting. Farmakes: ...got important issue that that person that's representing won't mind doing that, that that would be helpful. Or even in some cases maybe we should send a letter forward to the elected people so if we feel it's an important issue, sometimes looking at 20 pages of dialogue. Aanenson: We always try to do a Planning Commission update and I think Joe's on the right track. If there's something, we always try to raise issues that were maybe addressed... specific. Or something that was a hot button for you but I think you're on the right track. We do a Planning Commission update and then we revise the conditions or put the additional conditions that you've done so they can clearly see what was added by you. But I think your recommendation Joe is pretty good. If you wanted to at the end make sure that we put in that update specific points because we put that right before they see the recommendation. Planning Commission update. On this date they heard and these seemed to be the big issues and we've added 6 more conditions. But if you want to do something like that so they see it right there. Scott: Yeah, well I get their packet and you know we're one of several commissions that they have to deal with so I mean, everybody wants to quick read and I think that's something that we need to do for them so they can get our intent in a very short period of time. Aanenson: Right the Minutes, they're verbatim. Mancino: But it would be helpful for the Planning Commissioner who's going to that City Council meeting, to get the packet and look through it and say you know, to get up and to give a short summary of what we decided at the meeting from the Minutes. Scott: Now that we've beaten that to death. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson 79 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 80 4 CITY of CHANHASSEN rz_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 41 FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Attached please find the revised sign ordinance draft. Staff has made changes as requested by the commission. This is not on your agenda tonight but staff wanted to give you extra time to review the document before our work session on June 1. At this June 1 meeting, staff has prepared a slide presentation of window signs as well as slides representing each of the different types of signs in the ordinance. Please review and keep this document for our June 1 meeting. • ti 1 ra rwiz Lrs• l ((ILI ARTI rJ CLE XXVI. SIGNS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. A. Purpose The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: (1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise; (2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; (3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. (4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; (5) preserve and protect property values; (6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with the principal structures; (7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. B. Findings The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds: 1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the image of the community; 2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community; 3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions must be established; 4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention of drivers; 5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service; 6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth; 7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information. Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees. Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution. 2 Sec. 20-1253. Variances. The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed with the Planning Department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for variances in Section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full City Council. Sec. 20-1254. Permit generally. (a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the city. (b) The following information for a sign permit shall be supplied by an applicant if requested by the city: (1) Name, address and telephone number of person making application. (2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features. (3) Plans, location, specifications, materials, method of construction and attachment to the buildings or placement method in the ground. (4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations. (5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to be erected. (6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign. (7) Such other information as the city shall require to show full compliance with this chapter and all other laws and ordinances of the city. Information may include such items as color and material samples. (8) Receipt of sign permit fee. 3 (9) The Planning Director, upon the filing of any application for a permit, shall examine such plans, specifications, and other data. If the proposed sign complies with this article and other applicable ordinances, the city shall issue a sign permit unless City Council approval is required. If City Council approval is required, the matter shall be promptly referred to the council for action. Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit. The following signs are allowed without a permit: (1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted according to the following: a. The size and height allowed shall be consistent with the underlying zoning district. b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. c. Such signs shall remain for no longer than ninety (90) days in any calendar year. d. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way. e. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B. f. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph. (2) Directional signs. a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the Ciy Council. b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be 4 inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be approved by the City Council. c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the site from public right-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council. (3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, national, state or local holiday or event and no other matter, and which are displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year. (4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign display area of the sign. (5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and does not include multi-tenant names. (6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign area. (7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational signs erected by a governmental entity or agency, including safety signs (O.S.H.A.),directional signs to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. • (8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two (2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet. Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city 5 shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming this paragraph. The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign removed by the city. (9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling or promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted subject to the following regulations: a. Not more than two (2) such signs shall be allowed per project. b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access to the project site. c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any property line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. d. No such sign shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from an existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a part of the project being so advertised. e. Such signs shall not be located closer than 4we one hundred 100) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. i. Sian display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is one hundred (100) percent completed. In no case shall such signs be permitted to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the percentage of project completion shall be determined by dividing the number of dwelling units sold in the residential project by the total number of units allowed in the approved development plan; and by dividing the number of buildings constructed in non-residential projects by the total number of building sites in the approved development plan. (10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate subject to the following conditions: a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which the sign is located. 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage. 6 2. Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet per sign on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty- two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten (10) or more acres. 3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be located less than ten (10) feet from any property line. 4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following sale, lease, or rental of the property. b. Off`premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of business and industrial buildings: 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building. 2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or development as the building being advertised. 3. Such signs shall not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. 4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. 5. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising, or within twelve (12) months from the date a permit is issued, whichever comes first. 6. Provide written permission of property owner. c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction to new residential developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development, to familiarize the public with the new development. 1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1) sign per development shall be permitted. Signs shall not be located in any 7 site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. 3. Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet and the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet. 4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. 5. Provide written permission of property owner to locate directional sign on their property. 6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free materials and be non-illuminated. 7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) months after the sign has been erected and developer may not apply for a second off-premises directional sign permit. 8. Sign copy shall include the name of the subdivision and a direction arrow only. Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc. Temporary signs are permitted as follows: 1. Banners shall not exceed 100 square feet and portable signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and shall meet the following standards: a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a business may display a banner on three occasions per calendar year with a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. Businesses within a shopping center shall be limited one display per center and not one display per business. • b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non- commercial message; and 8 c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased by the business which the sign is advertising. Non-profit and governmental event banners are excluded from this provision. d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of- way. e. sign permit issued by city. 2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following: a. for each site or center, two occasions per calendar year,with each occasion not to exceed seven (7) days; b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be submitted with the sign permit application. c. sign permit issued by city. d. maximum height of the inflatable shall be 25 feet. e. if located on the roof of a structure, the height of the inflatable and the building shall not exceed the building height permitted in the zoning district. 3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted. 4. The use of searchlights shall be limited to two days per permit period. The use of searchlights shall be controlled in such a way so as not to become a nuisance. Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action. If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of construction; or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following receipt of said notice: (1) Such signs shall be deemed to be nuisance and may be abated by the city in proceeding taken under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, and the cost of 9 abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;or (2) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: (1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or permanent basis. (2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231 through 20-237). (3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance. (4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimneys, and provided: a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the building over which they are constructed and erected. b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof. (5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company symbols. (6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256. (7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public right-of-way. 10 Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs. When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. Excluding normal maintenance and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not be moved, altered (including face changes) or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign regulations. Within 45 calendar days after vacation of an existing business, any on-site nonconforming signs must be removed or brought into compliance by the property owner. An abandoned sign may not regain any legal nonconforming status later, even if the original business reoccupies the property. Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions. (a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half(1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. (b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard property lines. (c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public street, right-of-way or public easement, or project over public property. (d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. (e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. 11 (g) Window signs are prohibited shall not cover more than 33 percent of the total window area in which they are located. Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair. Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands immediately upon notification by the city. Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc. All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Signage shall use individual, channelized letters, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building. Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech. Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards. (a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that if the faces are not back to back, then they shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. ortK (b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed, and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet. The exposed uprights, 12 superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color such as light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design of the sign. t.Ectc: 6,73.1,D (SZ6CP114.\ 1 r f 1 base (c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be underground. (d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official. Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance. (e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a sign or groups of signs shall not exceed lfi foot candle in brightness as measured at the property line. Sec. 20-1277. Cemetery signage. Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use permit in all districts. DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED LN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts. The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and residential PUD districts: (1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 13 (2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet nor be more than five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business and Office & Institutional Districts. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any 01 or BN Districts: 1. Multi Tenant Building 1. (a) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 2. (b) Wall business signs. One (1} Wall business signs shall be permitted p on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. A Wall business signs shall not be mounted upon the wall of any building which faces any adjoining residential district without an intervening public street. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 14 3. (c) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include tenant identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or any combination of the three. 2. Freestanding Tenant e. or institutional sign not exceeding twenty four (24) —square feet of sign (b) Wall business sign. One (1) well business sign shall be permitted per individual business shall exeeed twenty four (24) square feet in sign Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, CBD or BF District: The following table lists the standards for freestanding and monument signs in the BH, BG, CBD, or BF zone. PYLON MONUMENT Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.) 50,000 sq. ft. 20 80 10 80 or Greater 4-4);(410 Less than 4-8-15 64 —144 8 64 50,000 sq. ft. 100,000 10,000 15 64- -S07000 15 15 36 -- 8 24 10,000 1. Pylon business sign. Pylon Signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted. This sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. One (1)Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: 4. Menu Board. One menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive- through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than 8 feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in the Zoning District. Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 16 A wall business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal building. Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District: 1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. One (1)Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 17 • e - •- - - - . through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square €eet-i size nor greater than 8 feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition te-ahy ether sign permitted in Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved. Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS Sign means any object, devil. , display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product, service, event o, location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, pictures, illumination or projected images. Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover that projects from the wall of a building, and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building. Awning may extend in any required yard setback a maximum of five (5) feet. (2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations) Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency, affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners. Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises where the sign is located. Sign, Business Directory means a sign which ( 1= identifies the names of sr.ecific businesses [ 11 located in a shopping center, medical center and professional office and which is located on I IL the premises of the shopping center so identified. u nMU0MUU'', 18 Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election. Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a projection or extension of a building or structure of a building, erected in such as manner as to provide a shelter or cover over the approach to I I I any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. plastic, or structural protective cover over a door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area. Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. Sign, Construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or project. Sign, Development Identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identifies a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the premises of the development which it identifies. ' T EA.sT Jar Sign, Directional means a sign erected on j-- ice"'• tCe' private property for the purpose of directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic .*EST uor onto or about the property upon which such ---:Eirocieiradavg sign is located, including signs marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas. Sign, Display Area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits sHG4 or the actual sign message surface, including any structural elements outside the limits of each sign forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single facing. - Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or banner constructed of cloth, canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole. The flag/banner shall contain no •'- 19 advertising except for cultural events, special holidays/seasons, etc. Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are subject to removal upon complaint. Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever. Sign,Freestanding/PolelPylon,means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation. Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation. • Sign, Ground low profile business means a 1 ThE business sign affixed directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not greater than two (2) feet above the ground. Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday. Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign. Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed towards the sign. Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc. Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution of the site where the sign is located. Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as to be an integral portion of the building of which it forms a part. '—'-- = —� Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign 20 erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a normal roof _ trra structure of any design, such that no part - _— of the sign extends vertically above the ,�� _ _.:— highest portion of the roof and such that LLD E.L L. 1 lullno part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building. Sign, Menu Board means a sign that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food restaurant. Sign, Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation. Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or premises. Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance. Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or services not related to the premises on which it is located. Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located. Sign, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations. Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show. Sign,Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building. 21 Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the premises, on which the sign is located. ..c4. Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or which is wholly ,11111 dependent upon a building for support and j ,which projects above the roof line of a i II''•. building with a flat roof, the eave line =,'.li of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip I •j roof or the deck line of a building with a • 1,11, I mansard roof. , R Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or A ` intended to be displayed for a short period of time. This includes items such as banners, pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or balloons or other air or gas filled figures. 111111 mosaimuigimilmamml Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or . structure with the exposed face of the ____ _ ___ sign in a plane approximately parallel i Ear asrz•i 4 to the face of the wall, and which does not project more than twelve (12) 1 �,;___-�:��.0�..) inches from such building or structure. Wall signs shall not include product ro advertising. Wall signs shall include '- _ "C" •tenant identification, tenant logo, center ©®�® �, i i name, or any combination of the three. �'~ Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, _ I business, commodity, event, sale or service, 1. 1 _ that is placed inside a window or upon the — window panes or glass and is visible from 7 the exterior of the window. \ 1 12 �nv4/8\s94 ora 5/10/94 22 CITY O F -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, Planning Director DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Report from Director At the May 9, 1994, meeting, the City Council took the following actions: 1. The Meadows at Longacres (Johnson-Turner-Dolejsi) final plat was approved on the consent agenda. 2. Amendment to City Code requirement to submit computer aided graphics or models for site plan reviews and subdivision was given final reading. 3. Amendment to City Code regarding landscaping and tree preservation was given final reading. 4. A summary ordinance of the wetland ordinance amendment was given approval for publications. The city council reviewed entry monuments for the city. They felt that they should focus on the intersections which were the old Taco Shop site, the intersection of Market Boulevard and Hwy. 5 and County Road 17 and Hwy. 5. The council is not sure whether or not they want to see wall or sign monuments. This item will be discussed at the HRA meeting on May 19, 1994.