The URL can be used to link to this page

02-2-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1994, 7:30 P.M. FILE CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING 1. Harstad Companies to subdivide 37 acres of property into 57 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. 2. *Item Deleted 3. Andrew Hiscox to replat part of Lots 14, 15 and all of Lot 16, Auditor's Subdivision #2 into 3 single family lots and vacation of right-of-way on property zoned RSF and located at 7500 Erie Avenue, Hiscox Addition. 4. City of Chanhassen is proposing to mitigate a wetland for water quality improvements located at the intersection of Yuma Drive and Preakness Lane. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 5. Group Homes 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. Hi-Way 5 Partnership for conceptual PUD for 121 acres of Industrial Office Park, multi-family and single family development located south of Hwy. 5, east of Timberwood off of Audubon Road, Chanhassen Corporate Center, Hi-Way 5 Partnership. I � 1 1 1 CITY O F PC DATE: Feb. 2, 1994 CHSG CC DATE: Feb. 28, 1994 Y CASE #: 93-11 SUB By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 37 Acres into 57 Single Family Lots ZZ LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City Limits _Q 2 APPLICANT: Harstad Companies Robert B. Morehouse 2191 Silver Lake Road 4410 Highway 25 New Brighton, MN 55112 Watertown, MN 55388 CL Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 37 acres (gross)/34.2 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.7 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF, Single Family E - RSF, Single Family W - Victoria Q ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has a varied topography with the high point running 1—" north and south through the center of the plat. There is a ._ significant stand of trees in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Harstad Companies is requesting approval to plat 37 acres of property into 57 lots and 3 outlots. 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. This identical subdivision was proposed by Heritage Development and appeared before the Planning Commission on July 21, 1993. At that time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the subdivision. The subdivision was subsequently withdrawn and never appeared before the City Council. There are several major areas of concern that staff still has with this subdivision as proposed. The Kings Road right-of-way was never conveyed to the city and the only right to use is based on the city's past maintenance practices. Based on a staff field check it appears that the gravel road use is 20 to 23 feet wide. The developer has surveyed the road and located the existing Kings Road right-of-way. They have provided additional property to create a 33 foot right-of-way for the access road. In order to make this road meet city design standards, a 60 foot right-of-way is required. The Parks and Recreation Commission meeting held on January 25, 1994 reaffirmed the recommendation that was made at their June 22, 1993 meeting recommending the location of 1.7+ acres of land at the northeast corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has chosen to ignore this recommendation and proposes a 2.4-acre park in the northwest corner of the site. There is a significant stand of trees in this area the city would recommend a tree survey be completed. Other concerns that staff has with the plat is that there are 20 lots that are deficient in lot area or frontage requirements, 3 lots have access on to Minnewashta Parkway, which is against city code (Sec. 18-57[1]); and provisions for storm water retention is deficient. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision only if all conditions can be met. To date, the applicant has been completely unwilling to address any of the concerns. BACKGROUND - Proposed Plat Harstad Companies is requesting to plat 37 acres of property into 57 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 Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 3 Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the 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. 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. There are two large parcels adjacent to this development, the Headla's and the Hallgren's property. 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. This area is currently proposed on the plat as a 2.4 acre park to be dedicated to the city. Access to the park site is proposed via a 21-foot wide 160-foot long trail. The subdivision includes 57 building lots with 3 outlots. Outlot A is located at the intersection of Kings Road and Street "B." This lot is being proposed for a storm water pond. Outlot B is the remaining portion of the Ziegler property south of Kings Road. This 1.5 acres will be landlocked by the creation of a lot on the front portion of the parcel. Outlot B is also part of a large wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe. Outlot C is less than one-half acre (19,439 square feet) and is located adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway. This lake front 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. This property has insufficient lot area. Therefore, the property does not qualify for a beachlot. 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 1000 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. Lots 1-3, Block 2 have direct access onto a collector street. This is against the city's subdivision regulations (Sec. 18-57[1]). There are 20 lots identified in the compliance table that do not meet the minimum square footage requirements or lot width requirements. The plat will have to be modified to ensure that all lots meet the subdivision regulations. Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the site plan and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is not, the Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 4 provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should be considered. Staff is recommending that Kings Road be extended to act as the collector street for this subdivision. LANDSCAPINGITREE PRESERVATION There is a significant stand of trees shown on the proposed park dedication property, just south of the Hallgren property. The developer proposed to develop this as park. This area is not acceptable for a park and the area will need to be platted into lots and blocks. This area will likely be platted when the park is moved. Staff is recommending that a tree survey (Sec. 18-40, [2f]) be done. This information will help to determine the best lot layout in order to preserve the trees. Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road (Sec. 18-61[5]). 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 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. Construction of the full roadway width will require acquisition of temporary and permanent easements for street, utility and drainage purposes by the applicant. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in order to complete the overall development. In conjunction with upgrading Kings Road the grading appears to extend between 50 and 100 feet into the Carlson, Borris and Scott properties located south of Kings Road. This is excessive from an engineering standpoint and 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 grade (8%) on Kings Road in front of the Carlson property exceeds the City's ordinance (0.50% to 7.0%). Staff believes the grades should be adjusted to meet the City's requirements. Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 5 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 of- oximately 16.5 acres of runoff (SWMP drainage area LM A7.4). Ponding must meet Nation:.: 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 should supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's ordinance for review and approval. There are three areas of concern on the proposed drainage plan that should be addressed. 1. Approximately 12 feet of fill material at lot 1, block 3 lying south of Kings Road adjacent to Lake St. Joe to make it a buildable lot. It appears that the storm sewer proposed along the west side of this lot does not pretreat the runoff from Kings Road to NURP standards prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe. The grading plan shall be revised showing adequate on-site retention ponds to meet or exceed the City's water quality and quantity standards in accordance with the SWMP. 2. The proposed grading plan will increase the amount of contributing drainage area to the City of Victoria by approximately 2.1 acres. This will increase the required down gradient ponding facilities in Victoria. It is required to retain runoff at the pre- developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm before it is discharged off site. 3. The storm sewer plan proposes a series of catch basins to collect storm water runoff generated from the street and lots. The runoff will be directed to two discharge points. One point is on lots 2 and 3, block 5 which drains west into Victoria as discussed in number 2 above. The other point is a small retention pond on Outlot A. the small retention pond on Outlot A will then overflow through a culvert system underneath Kings Road and discharge into Lake St. Joe. It is recommended that an additional storm sewer line be proposed to collect backyard drainage along lots 14 through 17, block 2. Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 6 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 for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north, south and west. 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's 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 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 fmancial 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 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 Ill. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road will need 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 Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 7 and gutter. According to the ordinance right-of-way shall be 60 feet wide. On Kings Road the applicant is proposing to dedicate 33 feet of the normally required right-of-way. 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 should be considered at this time. The Headla parcel abuts Stratford Lane which 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 Association 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 "C" street. Another option would be to extend Stratford Lane to "E" street with a future street/cul-de-sac stubbed south into the Headla parcel. The residents in Stratford Ridge have expressed objections to the extension of Stratford Lane to the west. Another option would be to extend "C" street east to the Wenzel parcel with the intention of a cul-de- - sac and the Headla 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. Approximately one-half of the necessary right-of-way along Street "E" is proposed to be dedicated (27 feet). Unless Street "E" 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 1 until Street "E" 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. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 face Minnewashta Parkway and staff anticipates these lots propose access from the Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway is classified as a collector street. The subdivision ordinance prohibits direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such streets or roadways (Sec. 18-57[1]). PARK AND RECREATION The subdivision proposed a 2.4-acre park located on the northwest corner of the site. This area has a significant stand of trees. The city had considered acquiring the Hallgren property for park purposes. As this subdivision evolved, and through the comprehensive park planning process, it was determined that a more suitable location for a neighborhood park for this area was adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway. Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 8 On January 25, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed Harstad Subdivision 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 proposal 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 2 acres) and purchase (approximately 8 acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full fee credit is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. TRAIL: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require as a condition of approval of the proposed Heritage Subdivision a 20-foot trail easement connecting to the proposed cul-de-sac north of the park, in addition to the construction of such a trail segment from the cul-se-sac to the park. The applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail fees at a rate of $12.00 per lineal foot. The remainder of the trail fees to be assessed equally among the proposed 43 lots. This motion was carried unanimously. The Park and Recreation Commission revised this plat under the Heritage Subdivision on June 22, 1993. The applicant was made aware of the fact that the recommendation from the commission. The applicant has decided to submit a plat that they feel meets the park dedication requirements of approximately 2 acres. This park area is located in the northwest - corner of the plat. Staff has informed the applicant that a plat that does not have staff support or carry forward the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation which is to locate the park north of Kings Road and just west of Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of the property being proposed for park purposes includes Outlot C which is approximately 480 + feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. This property is very narrow, being separated from the main proposed park site by Minnewashta Parkway. The area is 19,439 sq. ft. This property wasn't included in the applicant's concept plan of the park. Todd Hoffman, 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. Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 9 Park and Recreation therefore would not support this plat as submitted, and would recommend that the plat be revised to show the approximate 2 acre park at the northwest corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block 1 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (95' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 15,021 118 127 Lot 2 15,021 118 127 Lot 3 15,021 118 127 Lot 4 15,049 118 127 Lot 5 15,039 100 150 Lot 6 15,000 100 150 Lot 7 15,000 100 150 Lot 8 15,000 100 150 Lot 9 15,000 100 150 Lot 10 15,000 100 150 Lot 11 15,000 100 150 Lot 12 15,000 100 150 Lot 13 15,496 49/70* 150 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 23,084 184 127 Lot 2 20,987 124* 149 Lot 3 27,387 169 184 Lot 4 23,359 105/195 147 Lot 5 22,382 156 147 Lot 6 23,440 116* 203 Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 10 Lot 7 21,421 139 153 Lot 8 21,690 150 143 Lot 9 23,256 44/112* 152 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 10 20,609 99* 212 Lot 11 20,029 95* 211 Lot 12 20,949 100* 212 Lot 13 21,072 127 173 Lot 14 20,932 130 162 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot 15 15,067 93 162 Lot 16 15,040 93 161.5 Outlot A 21,146 226 88** Lot 17 16,661 90 136 Block 3 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 29,567 199 149 Block 4 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) (125' Required) Lot 1 22,456 116* 199 Lot 2 20,263 127 180 Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 11 Lot 3 21,960 127 196 Lot 4 19,901* 90* 218 Lot 5 20,264 90* 225 Lot 6 20,250 90* 225 Lot 7 20,250 90* 225 Lot 8 22,592 110* 197 Lot 9 29,541 83/174 222 Lot 10 23,016 67/98* 194 Lot 11 23,582 69/96* 191 Lot 12 20,792 120 165 Lot 13 16,200* 90* 180 Lot 14 16,200* 90* 180 Lot 15 15,067 90 141 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 16 14,940* 90 166 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 17 14,940* 90* 166 Lot 18 20,003 121* 166 Lot 19 20,067 119* 166 Block 5 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) (125' Required) Lot 1 20,030 126 161 Lot 2 15,145 92 162.5 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 3 15,007 92 163.5 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 4 15,070 92 (15,000 required) (90' required) Harstad Companies Feb. 21, 1993 Page 12 Lot 5 15,002 91 168 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 6 15,085 44/70 154 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 7 18,245 30*(flag) 148 * Lot is deficient in minimum square footage or minimum lot depth or width RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the request for Harstad Companies Subdivision #93-11 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the following Zoning Ordinances: a. Chapter 20, Article VII Shoreland Overlay District, Sections 20-476 and 18-60-- There are 20 lots that are deficient in lot area or frontage requirements. b. Section 18-57(1)--Three (3) lots have direct access on to a collector street. c. Section 18-57--Kings Road and Street "E" are not consistent with the city's Street Design Standards. d. Section 18-63--The drainage plan is inadequate to accommodate runoff generated from the subdivision. e. Sections 18-40 and 18-61--The applicant has provided insufficient data to review the adequacy of the subdivision; specifically,for determination of tree preservation and potential environmental damages. f. Section 18-79--Parkland Dedication--The applicant has ignored the city's Park and Recreation Commission recommendation for parkland dedication. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated January 26, 1994. 2. Memorandum form Steve Kirchman dated January 21, 1994. 3. Letters from Dave Headla dated July 8, 1992, and JoAnn Hallgren dated July 10, 1993. 4. Letter from Jim Walston dated July 13, 1993. CITY TF CHANHASSEN � \ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 " (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /g Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DI DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review - Minnewashta Subdivision LUR 94-2 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 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. Construction of the full roadway width will require acquisition of temporary and permanent easements for street, utility and drainage purposes by the applicant. The City did receive an inquiry from the applicant to perform a 429 public improvement project to construct Kings Road. However, nothing has proceeded at this time. Staff is waiting to meet with the applicant to discuss the issues involved in performing a 429 project to upgrade Kings Road. A 429 public improvement project requires a feasibility study, public hearing and authorization by the City Council to commence condemnation proceedings which would take a minimum of 90 days after the project was ordered. Depending on exactly where the existing roadway (Kings Road) is located in relation to the property line of the development will determine how much additional right-of-way would be necessary from the property owners to the south. If the existing roadway lies on the adjacent parcel to the south, Kate Aanenson January 24, 1994 Page 2 then it will only he necessary for the applicant to dedicate with this plat the necessary right-of- way to arrive at a 60-foot wide corridor. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in order to complete the overall development. In conjunction with upgrading Kings Road the grading appears to extend between 50 and 100 feet into the Carlson, Borris and Scott properties located south of Kings Road. This seems excessive from an engineering standpoint and staff recommends that the street grades be further reviewed 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 grade (8%) on Kings Road in front of the Carlson property exceeds the City's ordinance (0.50% to 7.0%). A variance would be required. Staff believes the grades could be adjusted to meet the City's requirements. 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 should supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's ordinance for review and approval. There are three areas of concern on the proposed drainage plan that should be addressed. 1. Approximately 12 feet of fill material at lot 1, block 3 lying south of Kings Road adjacent to Lake St. Joe to make it a buildable lot. It appears that the storm sewer proposed along the west side of this lot does not pretreat the runoff from Kings Road to NURP standards prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe. It is recommended that the grading plan be revised showing adequate on-site retention ponds to meet or exceed the City's water quality and quantity standards in accordance with the SWMP. 2. The proposed grading plan will increase the amount of contributing drainage area to the City of Victoria by approximately 2.1 acres. This will increase the required down Kate Aanenson January 24, 1994 Page 3 gradient ponding facilities in Victoria. It is required to retain runoff at the pre-developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm before it is discharged off site. 3. The storm sewer plan proposes a series of catch basins to collect storm water runoff generated from the street and lots. The runoff will be directed to two discharge points. One point is on lots 2 and 3, block 5 which drains west into Victoria as discussed in number 2 above. The other point is a small retention pond on Outlot A. the small retention pond on Outlot A will then overflow through a culvert system underneath Kings Road and discharge into Lake St. Joe. It is recommended that an additional storm sewer line be proposed to collect backyard drainage along lots 14 through 17, block 2. 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 for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north, south and west. If the applicant installs the utilities in Kings Road they could request the City reimburse them for a portion of the utility costs along Kings Road as the adjacent parcel connects to the utility system by means of a connection charge. This would require City Council approval. 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's 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 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 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 ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of Kate Aanenson January 24, 1994 Page 4 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. STREETS Access to the development is proposed via Kings Road which is a narrow gravel roadway between 20 to 23 feet wide. Kings Road will need to be upgraded to urban standards to adequately address traffic and ordinance requirements. 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 which the plans propose. On Kings Road the applicant is proposing to dedicate 33 feet of the normally required right-of-way. The City would be required to acquire the additional 27 feet by condemnation proceeding in conjunction with a 429 improvement project. If the City Council does not order the project then the applicant would not be able to proceed unless they acquired the necessary right-of-way from the adjacent parcels to the south of Kings Road or the applicant could rearrange their plat to dedicate the entire 60 feet of right-of-way on their parcel and install the necessary street and utility improvements. 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 should be considered at this time. The Headla parcel abuts Stratford Lane which 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 Association 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 "C" street. Another option would be to extend Stratford Lane to "E" street with a future street/cul-de-sac stubbed south into the Headla parcel. The residents in Stratford Ridge have expressed objections to the extension of Stratford Lane to the west. Another option would be to extend "C" street east to the Wenzel parcel with the intention of a cul-de-sac and the Headla 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. Kate Aanenson January 24, 1994 Page 5 Approximately one-half of the necessary right-of-way along Street "F' is proposed to be dedicated (27 feet). This should be increased to 30 feet. The applicant should be aware building permits will not be issued for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 until Street "E" is constructed to its full width and the entire width (60 feet) of right-of-way has been dedicated to the City. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 face Minnewashta Parkway and staff anticipates these lots propose access from the Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway is classified as a collector street. The subdivision ordinance prohibits direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such streets or roadways. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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 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. The right-of-way for Street E should be increased to 30 feet. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 until the full 60-foot wide right-of-way on "E" street is dedicated to the City and the street is constructed to urban standards Kate Aanenson January 24, 1994 Page 6 7. The applicant shall provide 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 approve. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. In addition, the grading plan shall include lot and block numbers as well as house dwelling type with lowest floor and garage floor elevations. 8. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 9. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review. 10. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be prohibited to take direct access from Minnewashta Parkway. These lots should be reconfigured to access an interior street or Kings Road. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall submit plat drawings signed by a professional engineer in the State of Minnesota. 13. Access to Headla and Wenzel parcels should be considered. 14. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon upgrading Kings Road to urban standards. The applicant may dedicate the full 60-foot wide right-of-way and construct Kings Road or formally submit a petition to the City requesting the City to conduct a 429 improvement project. However, if the City fails to authorize the project, then the plat should be denied. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer File No. 93-15 LUR g:leng'Jaye'harstad ppr - :a 01:11 CITY QF ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 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. Dear Kate Aanenson: July 8, 1993 City Planner City of Chanhassen This letter is in reference to the Heritage development plan on Minnewashta Parkway and the extension of Stratford Lane to the west. First of all let me say that expressing my opinion has been somewhat difficult for it adversely affects my three neighbors. They have been a positive addition to the neighborhood and one of them probably has been responsible for the nesting of bluebirds this year. The problem, I believe, is an area that previously was designated as an outlot (that is 50 feet wide and extends from Stratford Lane west to the Hallgren property) . The neighbors have been using most of it as lawn, which means it has been very well maintained. I feel it is in the best interest for the City of Chanhassen and the immediate area to have Stratford Lane extend from Minnewashta Parkway on the east to the Hallgren property on the west, connecting to the appropriate road design used in developing all 49 acres. Rationale for my opinion is: 1. A few years ago when Stratford was being planned, the city planning department had a study completed to layout the entire area. The plan was submitted to the Planning Commission and the Council. All three groups agreed that that was a good plan and the results were documented. That plan had a road coming down from the north, Kings Road fed the development from the south, and Stratford Lane would service the 49 acres from the east. Part of the considerations, as I remember, were there would be way too much traffic coming off of Kings Road onto the Parkway if Stratford Lane did not go through. As far as I know, no new information has come up and nothing has changed. Why should we not have Stratford Lane go through as planned? Why should we pay for studies, go through deliberate planning, have the appropriate groups agree on the direction, and then later arbitrarily change direction? 2. I remember reading through the abstract several years ago on this area. The 12 acres owned by Ms. Hallgren, has an easement across the Stratford outlot. Now if Stratford Lane doesn't go all the way through, and the Hallgren property is developed, all the lot owners from the Hallgren property have access to the outlot. The result being I have a semi—private alley on my northside. One that no one is responsible to maintain, but used by the area residents. Currently, people other than Ms. Hallgren are using this outlot, but I believe Ms. Hallgren is maintaining the road. 3. I have lived here for over 30 years and plan on staying here for many more years. The point being I have a definite long term interest in how this area is developed. I want this area in ten years to look like a pleasant, well organized place to live. Having a 50 foot wide Stratford Lane that is only 100 yards long, neck down to a gravel dead end alley is not positive aesthetics. That certainly would have a negative effect particularily on my home as well as other homes near by. Would any of you feel comfortable with an alley going along side the length of your property? 4. On a pratical matter, there can be a very real problem in the winter after a large snowfall. The gravel road is maybe 15 feet wide, and immediately on the south side of the road I have a chainlink fence just inside my property. On the northside of the gravel road, there is lawn and some parking places. Ms. Hallgren has been very considerate in not blowing snow my way, for it would bring down the fence as the snow settles. However, if the snow goes to the north, it goes on the parking places and lawn. A 50 foot wide street has adequate room for snow placement. Ms. Hallgren would like to see Stratford Lane extended to the west and I _ hope she indicates her position in a letter. I believe looking at the site would be of great benefit and I welcome any calls for any of you to come over and look at the road extension and see what it does to my neighbors. Thank You. Sincerely, David R. Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway (its shaping up) Excelsior, MN 55331 474-7269 cc: Hallgren 2 July 10, 1993 • Kathryn Aanenson -Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear Ms . Aanenson: This letter is to support the Planning Commission' s original plan to extend STRATFORD LANE westward to my property. . . . giving access to my 12 acres and also access to the western portion of the Headla property and on to the rest of the Heritage Development acreage . When Stratford Ridge was first developed , I had just lost my husband , and I felt vulnerable . Any change that would affect my property made me feel threatened and I was opposed to the extension of Stratford Lane . Now , 6 years later , I feel the extension of Stratford Lane as originally planned would be very beneficial for the future development of not only my acreage , but for the acres that are south of me . I am definitely IN FAVOR of this road concept . Sincerely, JoAnn i allgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior , MN 55331 '* 474-8315 I • - •t-1 . i N 1� CA 1 PBFLL, KNUTSON:, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Ott, rn.�. .ii L.,,. F.., 1v121 452•;:•5; l: .. . ' July 13, 1993 Mr. Dave Hempel City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: City of Chanhassen - Kings Road Our File No. 12668_7292 Dear Dave: Enclosed please find correspondence from Carver County Abstract & Title Company, Inc. dated July 7, 1993 regarding the status of Kings Road lying westerly of Minnewashta Parkway. Please note that the Abstract Company searched the records for any conveyances creating easement rights in the name of the City of Chanhassen and were unable to locate any such conveyances. In a case such as this, the public's right-of-way for Kings Road is generally limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder and any lands utilized as support for the public right-of-way. After you have received this correspondence, please contact me to discuss this matter further. CITY OF CHANHASSEN Very truly yours, " ati Z CAMPBELL, KNU :• , S T JUL 1 4 195 & FUCHS, • •` ENGIHEERIN; DEPT. `'� James R. alston JR4:: rlt Enclosure t-� • L. _ ::'.:.pit Office C entl'r • I SSC Corpor,tte Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • (6112) 237.1200 i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION OWNER Robert B. Morehouse, Agent for owners APPLICANT; Har tad — ADDRESS: 4410 H . 25 ADDRESS: 2 New Brighton, MN 55112 Watertown, 55388 TELEPHONE (Day time) 636-3751 TELEPHONE: 446-1991 �, � " 1,�.,_ Comprehensivehenstve Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision�•..•- 2 _ Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements ti3. Grading/Excavauan Permit 13, Valance 4, Interim Use permit 14. Wetland Afteratton Permit 6, 16. Zoning Appeal� Notification Signa \, w 6. Planned Unit Development 16, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17, Fling Fees/Attorney Cost • ed( ;of hate k Sign Permits 1y 16. _ Consultant Fees ---J g,_ Sign Plan Review TOTAL FEE $222_415._:____ f0, Site Plan Review1 A list of eft property owners within 6CrO feet of the boundaries of the property mune included with the •ppiIcatIon. 1 Twenty-slx full sire jet copies of the plans must be submitted. . V e •, 81/2' X 11' Reduced copy of transparency for with Ph shut. - • NOTE :When muitipie applications era pro:Assad, th.-appropriate fee shall be charged fo'each application. PROJECT NAME Minnewashta Subdivision LOCATION Kin.s Road and Minnewasta Parkwa LEGAL DESCRIPTION Attached • PRESENT ZONING Residential Single Family REQUESTED ZONING No change — PRESENT LAND USE DESiGNATION Open grass sand, ruidentiaL��_ :JESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Resilient-Lai REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Preliminary plat application for 57 lot Single Family Development This application must be Completed in full and be typewritten or dearly 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 ce' Ify that I am making application for the described action by the Cky and that I am responsible for compiying w;.t) ali City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of c-- •_~,p (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or i am the a.sthcr;:';1 person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I --.yself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further unders:i.%. 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 Cfty Hall Records. /ti-'4/1„_]:;; December 6, 1993 Signature of Applican4 Date Signiiture of Fe= Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This app!ica'ion wily b0 cons'PcSered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeal; on �i■p diva ), / 44--4) �� Q�ow an it upir sm. NOTICE OF PtiBLIC HEARING —11 �LY�! / I OAKS RY I:: �.Sy ROAD ,,,:ka•;,•PAI lt. Al / N N E WA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Wednesday, February 2, 1994 7.30 P.M. sc3x a ,t\ _ — City Hall Council Chambers poi 690 Coulter Driveo ilU PA CAKE • FL. \\ Project: Minnewashta Subdivision > roM 'ST✓oE,� • �' � vololinam Developer: Harstad Companies �� Location: North of Kings Road, ~ 0 SgTR Ii�� ; °/ — West of Minnewashta Parkway Kra- 4 Ft Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Harstad Companies is proposing to subdivide 37 acres of property into 57 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 20, 1994. ,9� 47, 3sp 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. BITTERMANN -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 & NSTYON V. ERLLD 3960 STRATFORD RIDGE CYNTIA M. HOUSE 4000 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3980 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _NICHOLAS & DEB JACQUEZ 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 9OUGLAS & JANET REICHERT 6850 STRATFORD RIDGE 3921 STRATFORD RIDGE 8707 KILBIRNIE TER. EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 STEPHEN & ERIN KILON 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 SPRING 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. 1 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 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 2/2/94 G \ � CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 2/28/94 CASE #: 87-31 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to replat parts of Lots 14, 15, and 16, Auditor's Subdivision Number 2 and Lot 7, Block 4, South Lotus Lake fAddition into three (3) single-family lots and vacation of a 33 foot right-of-way. Q LOCATION: 7500 Erie Avenue APPLICANT: Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue QChanhassen, MN 55317 • PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) ACREAGE: 2.86 acres DENSITY: 1.05 units per acre ADJACENT ZONLNG AND LAND USE: N - Lotus Lake S - RSF, single family E - PUD-R, South Lotus Lake Addition W - RSF, single family W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Site contains severe topography toward the lake. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) , • - -,..) •,..t- MI* se / vie own , %ID, , Ulm% .N;„.,44•. 41 • ra?. .A.4. ft, RSI . , Als . wii4ig. A 111 EP*r-I aq I' ItVir 117.? COURT I 46 taIstA c i 6 Mirginiii.).** 4. /) ‘i . -. 8:-'1\ cAtitter, -A. 41WA• flaill PR _'d'ii,A it -: kW 111:"34-4 P4k '-44 (// 4f#-.1•14111 1 /,, VS i -R 41, mslimon litMou .„--/ . -- -, ,;-, . _ _ 7( i Ar2-1'' 4 tiiipilPn% % ft ii 44VA 1 #0'.. •44,w,, Elplitala ca, r -08( .., ,e_ • - . Liz lte. W.% ull. )i RD "IRE tai - .( ,_4(4231141C iil t.onAge.4 sir•••-mirily,. ‘;:;-.-: '‘:tra. . illilleim (V% - 69( T. pp 1 fizramnr4.4 Ittirc,R ', L orus rg----- -„- . -449A as -:::.-- Aft 4 zian unt_w 7-,411Jiii. ,L ' inhirpa. ...qui Anralisror,x;,,r,.41 we i-24x Allire" ti . *rail UD-R ,. . mom ‘ 1\ ,0 . tr.'k' 0/ "0 op kille —NO( il 140.Ais Ni L., 4.4iamik "I et. gAilw 1111111 (2') ra••, 000 , .,rerori. ..„, ---7 ). . ia\lpi ' //j 1.1111.11 _ • D I \ LAtE7 . 1Z - 11k 1E 2ST0O• i.- !beim.' finfitilp,ft , ---_— IR ' 111 ramma 11.111jalttkVidr ' 7400 I : rilatirzy7r1-4-301117.1i...0. .111L 111.111 Ro 1 2 ? R 1 \' A --4 vi• z-041t.if!gw ple ' Pi- it 4 V "k"- all p_.za'.414 tifv;.--jk:iilf 1 . Arie . 11... 8 -7 i - • ""iiitir- m•,,,,--; err Ti-. '' 1114te A -. --. ..........., ......., .......... .,... ,— . _. -I.u.4.--i•iir-xialcast Ent r 1111.14- 0 .1 . 0 i " R 1 2 01 API 25 CP imi 111.- r FX12 \4 *; ' x .111Ft MIN Mil IMim pi •.4.• ; crj i on M =ea Moll IIIIP: im.gi WAIN .--#' ' __ t...• °r.1. __or/ 6. c Illim IMP 111168;81111FAII 1234,41:Iiii ; It' •."-:..:-j# MEI II • - -. -111Pli •••'-i -oialfri.--—ail :, „..--:. ,-...--• - . el . c F.- I.aziaili movidiajha ...se 11111 1111111111111 Ellams..' Lill Illwe - - - TN S T —3I BG pits - II ni c 4 iit I'lliiIIOPPP : I. BD i'a - imp ---- ,... _ • ,.., .. amigo Ria , .44,1L-1_011LT. --.,- -- -- 17111k ' ii 1111107 1.04. . , 4---i 4N gilirraii 3 I( --- --,--- , 4„.„ , . , ia ,a,e,.. ..„.— P • .. , 1112 MI 4* • WA - Fl - -oo• __..., . ... -- . i 4 C &lit.. : %., _ ..„ ws. vi, tti .1404 a- ! IGiouk I 4111M1-7-4*1# a au- a. i a 10P 1 01 Ar..._ ,i)o- . - t..,,,• -0, • ,,, .....06 m.... ib... , I c Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the replatting of portions of three lots from parcels in two subdivisions in order to create three waterfront lots on Lotus Lake which meet all the City Code requirements. The proposed lot sizes exceed the minimum requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance for lots on recreational development lakes. The proposed lot widths equal or exceed the 75 foot minimum lake frontage requirement. Lot width requirements at the cul-de-sac are also met. This subdivision will create a lot for one additional home at the end of the cul-de-sac. The applicant is also proposing the vacation of a 33 foot roadway easement extending from the Erie Avenue cul-de-sac to Lotus Lake. The site contains extreme topography from the edge of the tree line which begins at approximately the 958 contour. The first one-third of the site is somewhat flatter and, therefore, the proposed building pad is located in this area in front of the existing wooded area. Erosion control for Lot 2 is indicated on the preliminary plat at approximately the 958 contour. The Shoreland Ordinance prohibits the clearcutting of vegetation within the shoreland area of a recreational lake. Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures is permitted. Therefore, it is recommended that a tree removal plan be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions contained in this report. BACKGROUND The initial proposal for this subdivision began in August 1987. However, the applicant withdrew the application prior to a final decision on the preliminary plat by City Council. This withdrawal was to permit the completion of the Torrens proceedings for the property. The subject parcel is composed of two parcels from two existing subdivisions. The existing home on the eastern portion of the site, proposed Lot 3, is described as Lot 7, Block 4, South Lotus Lake Addition, which was platted concurrent with the approval of the South Lotus Lake plat. The western portion of the site, proposed Lots 1 and 2, is described as a part of Auditor's Subdivision Number 2. An Auditor's Subdivision means that the Carver County Auditor proceeded to plat properties because of the confusion created by numerous metes and bounds descriptions. The original owner of the lots in Auditor's Subdivision Number 2 conveyed a number of metes and bounds splits which have caused confusion as to lots line locations and property descriptions. Further complicating the description of the property is the existence of a "ghost" plat that was prepared in 1957 but was never filed at the Carver County Recorder's Office. L 7 Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 3 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The northerly portion of the lots contain steep slopes and a variety of trees. The Shcreland Ordinance prohibits the clearcutting of vegetation within the shoreland area of a recreational lake. Limited vegetative clearing, cutting, pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings,picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures is permitted. Therefore, it is recommended that a tree removal plan be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. The two spruce trees located in the front yard of proposed Lot 2 meet the subdivision requirements for landscaping and, if preserved, no additional trees will be required. GRADING/DRAINAGE The property is located on the south side of Lotus Lake, east of Frontier Trail and north of Erie Avenue. According to the City's Wetland Inventory, this site does not contain wetlands, therefore, a wetland alteration permit application is not necessary. The proposed lots of which two are already constructed on (Lots 1 and 3) are situated so the drainage pattern flows over land from Erie Avenue to Lotus Lake. Lot 2 is proposed to accommodate a walkout-type structure which is best suited for the lot. Only minimal grading is anticipated to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Staff recommends drainage swales be constructed around both sides of the proposed dwelling to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel. The house pad for Lot 2 is proposed to be lower than Erie Avenue. Thus, the drainage from the proposed driveway will have to be diverted away from the building at the garage entrance. The driveway should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Erosion control fence is proposed along the downstream side of the proposed house footprint. Staff recommends Type I erosion control fence be employed during construction of the dwelling. Due to the steep slopes, the site should be restored as soon as possible after construction with either sod or erosion control blanket to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A second set of erosion control fencing may be necessary at the toe of the slope if weather conditions are conducive to high runoff rates into Lotus Lake. The northerly portion of the lots contain steep slopes and a variety of trees. In a previous subdivision, i.e. South Lotus Lake Addition, the City required dedication of a slope/preservation or conservation easement over much of the wooded slopes to maintain vegetation and prevent erosion problems. This type of preservation easement would also be a benefit on this parcel. - UTILITIES/EASEMENTS Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Erie Avenue. The existing homes on Lots 1 and 3 are already connected to municipal sewer and water. Currently, no sewer or Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 4 water service stub is available to Lot 2. However, the City would extend a sewer and water service to the property line from Erie Avenue after issuance of a building permit and payment of the applicable connection and hookup fees. These fees are calculated and adjusted yearly by the City's Finance Department. According to the survey, an existing overhead power line intersects Lots 1 and 2. It may be prudent at this time to relocate this power line underground along the common property within a dedicated utility and drainage easement to resolve the current situation on Lot 1 and avoid future problems on Lot 2. A 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement exists through the northerly portion of Lots 1,2 and 3. Staff recommends that the final plat dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing 15-foot wide sewer easement to provide sufficient room for maintenance. The typical 5-foot side and 10-foot front and rear drainage and utility easement should also be dedicated on the final plat. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION A proposed ten foot trail easement is provided across Lot 1 to provide access for the beach lot located to the north of this site. However, this trail is something that the developer is providing for the homeowners association and is not being required by the city. Therefore, no trail fee credits shall be provided. Park and trail fees shall be as established by city ordinance. One-third ('/a) of such fees shall be payable at the time of final platting. Park and trail fees shall be payable at the time of building permit application at the rate in force at that time, less any fees paid at the time of platting. STREETS/ACCESS The plat is serviced by Erie Avenue which is constructed to city urban standards. Erie Avenue is a local street consisting of a cul-de-sac approximately 1,100 feet in length. MISCELLANEOUS A development contract will not be necessary for final plat approval. The applicant should however provide a cash escrow of $400.00 to the city for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 5 COMPLIANCE TABLE REQUIRED BY CODE PROPOSED Lots Area 20,000 sq ft 37,250 - 46,750 sq ft Frontage 90 feet 90 - 125 ft at building setback Depth 125 feet 133.72 - 396 ft Setbacks Front 30 ft 30 ft Rear 30 ft 30 ft Sides 10 ft 10 ft Shoreland 75 ft 130 ft FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 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. — 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. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 6 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Drainage swales should be constructed to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed building to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel. 2. Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to construction and maintained until the site is fully revegetated. 3. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection hookup fees, the city will extend the sewer and water service to the southerly property line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to. 4. An existing overhead power line should be relocated underground along the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedicated drainage and utility easement. 5. Final plat shall dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the — existing 15-foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. The final plat shall dedicate 5-foot wide side yard and 10-foot front and rear drainage and utility easements on each lot. 6. The applicant shall provide the city with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. Additionally, a development Hiscox Subdivision January 27, 1994 Page 7 contract containing these conditions shall be entered into between the developer and the city and be recorded with the final plat. 7. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for city approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for access to the lake. 8. Limited vegetative clearing,cutting,pruning, and trimming to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures is permitted below the 958 contour. 9. The house pad shall be limited to an area above the 958 contour. 10. Park and trail fees are required of this development. One-third ('is) of such fees shall be payable at the time of final platting. Park and trail fees shall be payable at the time of building permit application at the rate in force at that time, less any fees paid at the time of platting." Attachments: 1. Project Location Map 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Preliminary Plat 4. Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated 1/18/94 5. Letter from Robert C. Obermeyer dated 12/20/93 6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List ........\. ... ; 104.1 .41:•-;_,P c:iiimpliS sl: 01 P Y Wa0 I 0` � V. o W •a Y. Cr iW O2ZY CCi CC 0 /0110111W Ili I am „—_ _ / ak p \7 ~ 0 \)5 -- ?feefecel, Aloe„,,r,,I,,,0 s 1 • , . ,.. ibr''s0 dC ♦09d '19 x9 !+� • h a39N33 ist1Sh'W41'33 :�sem `'1SI`r ” ' 1 ' f :— / $ : � 3/117 ---,- 74741111 �3 �zs Y11C • / T0011 1 1 1 1 � \ \ 1 IN r 0, O N // N o zd W O Z ed O 4m J ; O vr LLH fQIkOloill, 0 a OGI : , co 0 0 ti N N m o s 1I iA cCN i IL LO C0 — W Z a z0 O .11 na•ii \ I Cr) O 0 — 09 Q O �g ti`7 r- a J f l £11 111 � f 1 Cr , w 2_G n et 0 `t• a n n /w I— CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ar - -- 4-t e SLc� OWNER: Ar,c:C r€2.3 1-11‘S( ADDRESS: 75C0 ER l e taVE ADDRESS: `75 e2 r 4Ati N ASS t✓N M Ai SS KI 14-P SS En/ Mn.) SS 3r 7- TELEPHONE (Day time) 3�- 2 SDI) ( H) TELEPHONE: S - 'e- 3bc(- 2 no C v�) 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision 2. Condrtionat Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading,/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing FeeslAttomey Cost - (Collected after approval of Rem) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ • 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. - �� i_ • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.le PROJECT NAME 7 i CC-0 X A L o I 7-1 O n/ LOCATION 4f` ' 2 ty-la a-( E/r e 4ie. , ;nc/ti,4 r-15 7S00 9 75D1 Erie. 'Mx_ - LEGAL DESCRIPTION e rr.1 ej-ct A • PRESENT ZONING 7c--s rcie-rrh.ck( S 1.)10 I e- rcken; t- (2,s F) _ REQUESTED ZONING RS F • PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RS - REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R S� REASON FOR THIS REQUEST S+/Joel I J w6 i ^� 'r O pee-4-9 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 tot 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. =ture of Applicant Date Sig V ►��-s� - Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 12^6 —�3 Fee Paid \ , Receipt No. L675O • 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. A-OQch r ,e•-d A PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR REGISTRATION Revised 1216193 That part of Lots 14, 15 and 16, "AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA" according to the recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees •33 minutes 02 seconds East, along the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and along the east line of said Lot 16, a distance of 1666.52 feet, to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 26 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 201.73 feet; thence North 0 degrees 08 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 158.65 feet, thence North 43 degrees 39 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 20.52 feet, thence North 0 degrees 38 minutes 36 seconds' East a distance of 204.35 feet, to the north line of said Lot 14; thence South 84 degrees 46 minutes 09 seconds East, along said north line, a distance of 95.96 feet, to the northeast corner of Lot 14; thence North 7 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 15, a distance of 169.10 feet; thence 57 degrees 53 minutes 37 seconds West about 30 feet to the shoreline of Lotus Lake; thence southeasterly along said shoreline, to the east line of said Lot 15; thence South 0 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds West, along said east line, about 405 feet, to the point of beginning. Except that part which lies within the circumference of circle having a radius c: 60.00 feet. The center of said circle is a point on the west line of the East 19.00 feet of Government Lot 4, Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian distant 368.00 feet northerly from the south line of said Government Lot 4, according to the plat of Auditor's Subdivision number 2 on file and of record in office of Register of Deeds, per Document No. 85495, Carver County, Minnesota. Lot 7, Block 4, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. — u m 'A < D o 0 3 fl 0 F D •A m _D • m D rn 8 0 A 0 Z u v , D 1 A mcm A m i N i D m I N '< --4 A A 0 ? 2 cTc p ,c r T p T1 r C 1 D 0 D fL 0 m x n • Z 0 o A Q x) ; 0 O m 71oo O N H a U Z b m 0 m ' N L A 0 1 ti a 3 0 = 0 ro .1 ' m z 0 Z r m W PI _ A 0 _- b 4 -o -0 y1 0 b .< m e y F 8 L . u D 2 nr '4 .o � •y � � m (n 0 0 o L •• E \14: F0.. , I ' Il II I I I I Oslo ts . — ` 1 1 : I III I +�i1 . — - ,F1 ,11-_ , if O'38WE' VL__ -- La/ a ' r 1 . ET 204 -•, a i ' c,'�' w n • -- — . • ',,,,. Kislt• fit I VAA113' i 1 •>z y �. lit a tA,>NO✓� r I .r��-¢/ i ' +� i :� / ,,,o- I I / y ra za 4W' Q4j ��' $ `.1 'si v . / 11c / / , ' 7 /-; '' . �. • 4( 4. os tr, A iE-AZIP*14rOf 4 D 70ik i L...-4114.1;j; ' i f /g1 , r. : .... .14 ^1666.52_--�, (� 1 e �� . e Y 405 7' / / / -+.1_4_.1 I.1 i s'' ' ',d � 04 2 , . "▪ 'l / e I— , . JJ ,� / / MNO�, Y i ti'll c''' 1 /// /61/ / / j //-/ l— ' — 7 502 / /.4, 233'[L�E jY/ j�f� / / !li Q1 X °0 ?• � / /7 <,<' '% h N W C . / • W y : I t o 1, ill p e °i R N ' . s ,•• 0, 8pvg !!!:!!!!!!:mi no I _ ; ; ; q., ;_,_ .z.• r. § .sarx: /'02 ,:,▪22;:4 ig ___ , . , , ir..- 0, ,,,,i , oil ; : , Alpp,,,kraltA, , S i•re ....v. g • 2E:g5 t,t1bifill;!=i ,g1 kek• .- 4:11**01r-1.-- -; ;if; .," er,....._, ..,., ,t..i.! tta,,nro. 1,1 'HHUtQIitIt 1::,Q.,0o zf. r ��2y O 101407 • -8 . f_ .1:!, - 2.a:° , n Dlar A. i °o 3 ,,, 2 0 — . sir'i g6.--zi g . . 2 .. Z ' 111AvtVenD,WItej 1C� pp gg g ! [ s a..ad p j n a Y4,4 i vaa i%I.,4, $ bs a — ttno ■I -- - S • ICt Tia-ii PRELIMINARY PLAT j o N CF + HISCOX ADDITION �`s,� . . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planning Department -444---- FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /6 Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: January 18, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Hiscox Addition LUR 91-3 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated August 15, 1996, revised December 6, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING & DRAINAGE Property is located on the south side of Lotus Lake, east of Frontier Trail and north of Erie Avenue. According to the City's Wetland Inventory, this site does not contain wetlands, therefore, a wetland alteration permit application is not necessary. The proposed lots of which two are already constructed on (Lots 1 and 3) are situated so the drainage pattern flows over land from Erie Avenue to Lotus Lake. Lot 2 is proposed to accommodate a walkout-type structure which is best suited for the lot. Only minimal grading is anticipated to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Staff recommends drainage swales be constructed around both sides of the proposed dwelling to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel. The house pad for Lot 2 is proposed to be lower than Erie Avenue. Thus, the drainage from the proposed driveway will have to be diverted away from the building at the garage entrance. The driveway should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. • Erosion control fence is proposed along the downstream side of the proposed house footprint. Staff recommends Type I erosion control fence be employed during construction of the dwelling. Due to the steep slopes, the site should be restored as soon as possible after construction with either sod or erosion control blanket to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A second set of erosion control fencing may be necessary at the toe of the slope if weather conditions are conducive to high runoff rates into Lotus Lake. - a Bob Generous January 18, 1994 Page 2 The northerly portion of the lots contain steep slopes and a variety of trees. In a previous subdivision, i.e. South Lotus Lake Addition, the City required dedication of a slope/preservation or conservation easement over much of the wooded slopes to maintain vegetation and prevent erosion problems. This type of preservation easement would also be a benefit on this parcel. UTILII IES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Erie Avenue. The existing homes on Lots 1 and 3 are already connected to municipal sewer and water. Currently, no sewer or water service stub is available to Lot 2. However, the City would extend a sewer and water service to the property line from Erie Avenue after issuance of a building permit and payment of the applicable connection and hookup fees. These fees are calculated and adjusted yearly by the City's Finance Department. According to the survey, an existing overhead power line intersects Lots 1 and 2. It may be prudent at this time to relocate this power line underground along the common property within a dedicated utility and drainage easement to resolve the current situation on Lot 1 and avoid future problems on Lot 2. A 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement exists through the northerly portion of Lots 1,2 and 3. Staff recommends that the final plat dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing 15-foot wide sewer easement to provide sufficient room for maintenance. ACCESS The plat is serviced by Erie Avenue which is constructed to city urban standards. MISCELLANEOUS The typical 5-foot side and 10-foot front and rear drainage and utility easement should also be dedicated on the final plat. Since no public improvements are proposed, a development contract will not be necessary for final plat approval. The applicant should however provide a cash escrow of $400.00 to the City for review and recording of the final plat by the City attorney's office. tie Bob Generous January 18, 1994 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The driveway access to Lot 2 should be constructed to direct runoff away from the building. Drainage swales should be constructed to convey runoff around both sides of the proposed building to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the parcel. 2. Type I erosion control should be installed on Lot 2 prior to construction and maintained until the site is fully revegetated. 3. Upon issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 and payment of the applicable connection hookup fees, the City will extend the sewer and water service to the southerly property line for the applicant or property owner to connect on to. 4. An existing overhead power line should be relocated underground along the common property line between Lots 1 and 2 within the dedicated drainage and utility easement. 5. Final plat shall dedicate a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing 15-foot wide sanitary easement through Lots 1, 2 and 3. 6. The final plat shall dedicate 5-foot wide sideyard and 10-foot front and rear drainage and utility easements on each lot. 7. The applicant shall provide the City with a $400.00 cash escrow account for review and recording of the final plat by the City attorney's office. jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer ri- 111A Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District ...,,,,, Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. _ I C ti.. y'WFC ti,of 8300 Norman Center Drive /�� Suite 300 eMinneapolis,MN 55437 51A 832-2600 — •' D Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street — Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 December 20, 1993 Ms. Sharmin Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Hiscox Addition in Chanhassen. The District does not require permits for land alteration less than one acre in surface area, however in this situation, the District's policy of requiring that the lowest floor elevation for the structure be set a minimum of two feet above the calculated flood elevation of Lotus Lake applies. The District has established a flood elevation of 899 M.S.L. for Lotus Lake. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 832-2600. _ _Sincerely, '''- JF;,/(2772:12 obert C. Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company Engineer's for the District RCO/kmh c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr 23\27\053\JOANN.LTR RECEIVED _. Au . _. 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN LAKE i - ‘, xl - - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING UI ki ■111P.A.rfnly371 �4. � MR' • GD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING \ 4( Wednesday, February 2, 1994 ?m o f PP- 7:30 P.M. ,swift 110 ► • N . ,__F City Hall Council Chambers 1P!1- a/ 7 ' c 690 Coulter Drive �r�� I.. •, IDI int i Project: Hiscox Addition i � =It 1��:; . �� `j Developer: Andrew Hiscox z ! i -' r1d "WI:PI nig..— lt1tI,11 "'i:;�l ��::111 Location: 7500 Erie Avenue •n�� , :I 6:117.! cam ,.. giSTM'II . ■ :Ill 111P1� ' w. r ��. .111111 • nu - - _ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Andrew Hiscox is proposing to replat part of Lots 14, 15 and all of Lot 16, Auditor's Subdivision #2 into 3 single family lots and vacation of right-of-way on property zoned RSF and located at 7500 Erie Avenue, Hiscox Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the 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. 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 January 20, 1994. ,q l' _IN:Jul Robert Blad Richard Corwine & Stephen J. Blaha 7602 Erie Ave. Roxanne Keyes-Corwine 7606 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 7600 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas Pauly & Richard & Salerno & Frontier Trail Assn. Lynn Kor Katherine Schuler c% William Kirkvold 7604 Erie Ave. 222 W. 77th Street 201 Frontier Ct Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Earl McAllister Anthony & Mary Doppler Ted Harvey Delancey — 7510 Erie Ave. 7508 Erie Ave. P. 0. Box 24 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William & Peter Dahl Charles Schwartz Dianne L. Needham Katherine Wagner 7417 Frontier Trail 7415 Frontier Trail - 220 Frontier CtChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Roger & M. Karjalahti Forcier et al Jogesh & Menaka Warrior 7413 Frontier Trail P. 0. Box 67 7423 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Bradley & M. Johnson Susan C. Hoff William & Ivy Kirkvold 7425 Frontier Trail 221 Frontier Ct. 201 Frontier Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gregory & Debalee Cray Kenneth & Deborah Ellsworth Colony Point Homeowners - 200 Frontier Ct. Rt 1 Box 68D c/o William Kirkvold Chanhassen, MN 55317 Couderay, WI 54828 201 Frontier Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bemad & K Raidt Christopher Buck II & Douglas & Christy Revsbeck 7603 Erie Ave. Emma Carlin 7591 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 7601 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & Deann Hubert James & Roseanne Boyum Louise Fenger 7561 Erie Ave. 5006 29th Ave. S. P. 0. Box 396 — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 17321 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55417 1 - Philip & Karen Long Robert Crees & Janice Aimli Chris & N. Neuharth 7660 South Shore Drive 7656 South Shore Drive 7652 South Shore Drive � Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 . Perry & M. Ryan Roland & Cynthia Potter Thomas & Pamela Devine 545 W. 77th Street 7644 South Shore Drive P. 0. Box 714 P. 0. Box 730 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David Denny Thomas & S. Henry 7636 South Shore Drive 7632 South Shore Drive -- Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • • tie • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. - MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY ORDINANCE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED AT THE HEARING. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS OF THE PLAN. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DECISION. Public Present: Name Address Peter Olin Mn Landscape Arboretum Frank Clemmens Camiros, Chicago, IL Joyce Levine Camiros, Minneapolis Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd. Paul Paulson 3160 West 92nd Street, Chaska Steve Schwauke RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins John Dobbs Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D, Little Canada James Unruh Barton-Aschman Assoc Barry Warner Barton-Aschman Assoc Deborah Porter Barton-Aschman Assoc Lee & Pat Kerber Chanhassen Charles & Susan Markert Chanhassen Caroline Watson DataServ, Inc. Don Honeck DataServ, Inc. Jim Paulet DataServ, Inc. Lisa & Ray Notermann Chanhassen Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge Mike Mason 829 Woodhill Betty & Larry VanDeVeire 4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane Michele Foster Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Mpls. — John Uban DSU/Gateway Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Robert L. Hoffman Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Peter Beck 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report along with the planning consultants, Barry Warner, John Unruh and Deborah Porter from Barton-Aschman to outline the work that has been done on the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North Highway 5 Access Boulevard and the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zone. Chairman Scott then called the public hearing to order and opened up the floor for public comment. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata, Minnesota. If it's okay, I'll use the visuals that are provided to you from the consultants. Some of you may know that Lundgren Bros has approximately a 200 acre neighborhood community not very far north of Highway 5, located between Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. It's been commonly referred to, through the preliminary plat process as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner and Song property. Now as a part of that land holding, Lundgren Bros has an interest in a piece of property that comes down to and abuts and is contiguous to Highway 5. And that property is the property that I'm depicting with my pointer here. Scott: Could you do that again please? Terry Forbord: It's commonly known as the Jay Dolejsi property, which you probably will recognize the name Dolejsi as it was a part of our preliminary plat approval. One of them anyway. Lundgren Bros obviously has an interest in what you're all talking about in regards to this property. I'm going to talk to you specifically about the road and the land use. We have volunteered to participate in this process and unfortunately our participation was not accepted. But being now that the formal public hearings have started before the Planning Commission, I'm here to share our feelings with you. I know, I'm a little confused in that the land use that's described in this document and on the exhibits and the color are a little different than what I hear people talk about. It's our understanding from looking on the colored map here that the land use in this general area was to be medium and high density. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 However Commissioner Mancino I believe was talking about some of this area being single family. I'd like to tell you as a provider of housing, I would love to be able to share with you that that should be residential single family housing, because that's what I do. But from a planning perspective, these would be horrendous parcels of property to locate detached single family, private ownership housing in this particular area. And the reason is because the topography in that area is generally high where Alternative #1 is and it lowers down to Highway 5 approximately I'm guessing 60 to 65 feet. And I don't know very many people that are going to buy homes at the price that homes go for in Chanhassen and have them abutting Highway 5. At least for detached single family type of homes. And because of the elevation, it's going to be very difficult to berm that and even if you...on top of that berm, you're not going to be able to screen the impact of either the view or certainly providing the... for the sound of the highway traffic in general. So from purely a planning standpoint, I believe that these areas that would be just north of the highway should be either multi-family ownership or rental or apartment buildings or something along that line. Now, let me just editorialize a little bit about why I believe that. Before the task force was commenced with it's undertaking on the project, I think that it was clear that the City Council mentioned where they were concerned about what it would look like, not only when it was built but 20 years from now. If you put low priced, and that's what would be there. I mean I don't know how you achieve that with the land prices in Chanhassen but if they were less expensive homes, you're not going to end up seeing what I believe that the city hopes to see in that corridor... within the highway. So I think you should just think about that before you make any decisions. Now again I'm a little confused whether it is given to medium density or high density or single family because I've got some conflicting information. As it relates to the roadway alternatives, I believe that Alternative #1 generally is the appropriate location. I'm just talking from a layout and if you're familiar with the site and you've spent any time out there. However I do believe that probably, and I know this is general and it's not cast in concrete. At least that's my understanding. I believe that it's probably a little more appropriate to move that road maybe 100 yards south. I don't understand why it needs to go through the trees. I think you could bring that out into the open a little bit. The way I look at that, when I look at a transition zone from highway to higher density to lower density, I use that road as part of the buffer. That road actually becomes a transition zone in itself between lower density housing and higher density housing so, and given that there's a stand of trees that's kind of goes in this general area, I believe this road could be actually coming down to the south here and it creates an area of an upland area, kind of like a peninsula, that protrudes out into that wetland area. So for the record I wanted to enter those comments and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those either today or at a later date. Thank you. Scott: Terry, let me just ask you a quick question. From my recollection you're the first land owner or land owner representative that has preferred Alternative #1 even though it 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 pretty much cuts your property in half. And could you give us some comments on that. Is it because it's a buffering? Is it because you'd have to build one through there anyway to - service the parcel? Terry Forbord: No. I don't like collector roads ever going through our property because they create problems but they also can be a necessity. I look at it like I say from a land use. I always give every piece of property that I'm developing the would I live there test. Or if I did live there, how would I want it to be. I run it through that test myself. So I mean whether I was living in a townhome or an apartment or single family dwelling, how would I put them on this property given the physical constraints that exist around and on the property, how would I do it? So when I look at this, I realized that it would probably make some sense to have that collector road there. So where would you put it where it would have the least impact on the site. It will provide for a reasonable layout of the land to accommodate the various uses. Now again from my perspective I think there should be more than one use on that site because I don't think this portion is good for single family detached private ownership housing. Who'd want to live there? One of us have to do that test when you make that decision. But I think it's a great site for apartments or rental housing, and that's not a bad thing. Just because they're rental or apartments doesn't mean it's bad. They certainly do a very good job with those types of housing products. Scott: Paul that's, I mean according to this, that's medium density south of, okay. Terry Forbord: In the exhibit I see, I believe it's medium and I'm not sure if it's high because these two colors are so close. Scott: There's really only one high density area, as far as I understand it and that is the area that is just to the east of Powers Boulevard. Correct? Are there any other high density areas? That's the only one that I, okay. So basically what we have is we have medium density south of Alternative #1 and then we have low density or RSF, residential single family up above, so. So you concur with, okay. Farmakes: I think some of the confusion came from what Nancy mentioned. Rather than list it as residential, it said single family. Aanenson: Right. If you read the supporting text that follows it, it mentions that that was one of...summary of the recommendations... Terry Forbord: As it relates to that text, under potential uses in the second paragraph, should that be west instead of east? I was a little confused. Multi-family residential appropriate for along Highway 5, blah, blah, blah, uses east of Galpin. Should that be west? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: It's both. Terry Forbord: Or both, east and west. That's what I was. Aanenson: Yeah. It's both. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Thank you very much. Scott: Okay, thanks Terry. Anyone else? Jim Paulet: Planning Commission. My name is Jim Paulet. I'm the facility's manager at DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East which is the far east end of the project. We're not even on the map here. Southeast corner of the far east of the project. We are the new owners of that site. We recently purchased that site from Sunlink, which is the real estate arm of our parent company. And our plan at this time, we currently have 315 employees there. We've been there since 1988. And our plan at this time is to move an additional 350 employees from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen in 1996. And at this time, I have a letter with me that I guess is addressed to Paul Krauss. We met with Paul yesterday and Todd Gerhardt and at this time we'd like to express our opposition to the approval of the Highway 5 corridor use study until we have had a chance to conduct our own land use study. We believe that it's possible that some of the restrictions, the setback restrictions, the design restrictions, could greatly impact the developability or salability of our land. And until we have a chance to do our own study, we just don't feel we're in a position to approve this plan, or we would like to see this plan approved. So we're just asking for time to conduct our own land use study. We are brand new owners of the land and we intend to commence our study as soon as possible, which they're looking already for architectural engineering firm to do that for us. Thank you. Any questions? Mancino: What property? Jim Paulet: This would be the former CPT site. Scott: Is that the Sunlink that was right on the corner of Dell Road and Highway 5? Harberts: East side? Krauss: This entire site right here. Jim Paulet: Approximately 55 acres of land. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Are you opposed necessarily to a particular or you're not sure at this time whether you are or aren't? So you can study the issue. Jim Paulet: ...until we've had a chance to do our own study. Scott: And of the 350 employees, are you going to be moving out of, you have a facility in Eden Prairie? You'll be moving out of that and closing that facility or whatever and relocating all of your employees? Jim Paulet: Our current lease terminates in 1996. The intention at this time is to move those individuals or those employees to the Chanhassen site. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for Jim? Okay, thank you. Michele Foster: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michele Foster. I'm - Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I'll be brief this evening. I know that we had talked about the Opus Corporation property at Highway 5 and 41 many times before. This month celebrates the 2 year anniversary of our getting involved with this property and we hope we're starting to make some progress on developing...in what happens to this property. I know that at one of your last meetings John Uban of the firm of DSU presented to you some of the land use changes that are now considering and actually are now proposing for the property which are summarized both in a previous meeting and by Kate Aanenson of your staff. I will not go into details. Those are summarized here in this letter and in order to respect your agenda this evening I won't go into those in great detail. What I'd like to direct your attention to specifically is on page 3 which is our specific request regarding the...some of which may be more appropriate for the City Council but several of which are obviously appropriate this evening. Our first request, probably one of those is more appropriately directed to the City Council but we are asking that the City explore all possible sources of State and Federal funding for this south access road which as I understand, would also benefit the north access road and we only ask to be treated equally as far as that road. Our second request is with respect to the land use plan. We have obviously a number of objections to the land use plan as it's currently proposed in the task force study but the task force study did prompt us and our consultants to make a number of modifications to our land use plan, which as I mentioned before have been summarized for you. That would basically result in the IOP classification being retained for all of the property with the exception of the one multi-family site on the west side of TH 41. We think that that addresses a number of concerns that were addressed by the Highway 5 task force, by the Arboretum, by a number of the interest groups that have looked at our property and we would strongly request that the land use plan, as we are now proposing it, be incorporated into the final recommendations in the study. Our third request has to do with the parks and open 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 space issue and I can maybe clarify a little bit the question that was raised about that. We had originally proposed in our concept plan for the park a significant passive park area that would be dedicated as a part of the planning process. A good part of that property is wetland area but another significant area is also upland and wooded and would provide for a very nice passive park. As we understand it, the Park and Recreation Commission is now in concurrence with that proposal and again that is something that evolved throughout this process and we would request that the final recommendation by the Planning Commission incorporate the passive park element of the Gateway Business Park. The fourth item that we would draw your attention to are a couple of the design standards that are included within the overlay district. The setback in the task force report is recommending to use 70 feet and we would request that that be reduced to 50 feet. We feel that a 50 foot setback is more than adequate in combination with the variety of other components of the overlay district that are also being incorporated such as no parking on the Highway 5 side. The request and the desire for high design standards. We think a 70 foot setback is excessive and we would request that it be recommended to be 50. And the other objective that we have, and is really a more subjective standard is the requirement for significant visual relief being provided for industrial buildings. We understand what the objective of the design standard is but we also need to respect the fact that industrial programs have certain functional requirements that may not always be able to be met through steps in the building or architectural components of the building and we think that this needs to be at least modified or tailored so that we can provide architectural relief through a variety of different components but not necessarily through stepping of the building or major elements of the building being...The fifth item is, I believe a little bit of reservation because it isn't perfectly clear to us what importance this particular element of the task force study has but our fifth recommendation or request has to do with Figure 8.21 in the task force study which is referred to as the parcel site analysis. There are numerous architectural design objectives stated for the property that we are involved in and we feel very strongly that should all of these be required of this development, there will be a significant taking of the property. There are requests and I go into this earlier in the letter but we are providing a number of or meeting a number of those objectives already in the plan that we've proposed for the park but if we need to provide new...provide major view corridors, resource corridors, wetland preservation, there's just so many objectives that if you actually look at that particular figure in the task force report, you get dramatic impacts on the developability of this property. So all we ask is that there be some clarification that these objectives for the property have to take into consideration the economic viability of being able to develop this property in a reasonable manner, and that perhaps not all of the multitude objectives that are being stated for this property can be met simultaneously. So with that I'll conclude my comments. I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. John Uban is also here this evening from DSU. Certainly our most important objective have to do with the land use component for this property and we hope you'll take our request under consideration. Thank you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: A question I guess I have of Paul. Number one...is the city at this time exploring possible State and Federal funding for the south access road? Krauss: No, we have not. When we originally entered into discussions with MnDot on this, they expressed a desire to work with us on the north side. Not only because of the continuity between Highway 41 and 101. The south side road we think is important and necessary but it's discontinuous because it's broken into 5 or 6 segments. So MnDot initially expressed on behalf of themselves and...the desire to work with us on the north side. Now in fact that north side in cooperation needs to become problematic because they're pushing they're construction horizons so far away that it's inevitable that we're going to need parts of the road prior to their ability to...There are some things that we've been discussing with Opus and Michele and I and that has more to do with establishment of a tax increment district and devoting some of those funds to offsetting some of the development costs. We need to further those discussions. It's not clear exactly yet what would be funded by those tax increment proceeds. But that's probably the only source of revenue... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. Conrad: A quick one Paul. The sketch from Opus that we saw last week and the road alignments there. Because you worked with Opus, or they responded to some of our concerns in the previous meeting. I'm not sure if the concern with the road is a response to a previous plan or is concerned as we kind of saw it last week and as our plan states. Maybe that's confusing what I just said. Aanenson: No, I think they're two separate issues. I think they're just concerned about the cost of putting that whole segment of road project and participation on the north segment. Krauss: Relative to the other design issues? Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: These things don't, I mean we're not working in vacuums. These are kind of ongoing processes. The plans, the concept plans that are in the Highway 5 plans are just that. I mean they are not hard and fast. Thou shalt design your project this way. Their goals, design goals that we wanted to adhere to, we could take a look to see if, in light of the most recent proposal which we have, they're uncomfortable with, that we should go back and tinker with that. But again it's a concept and I think we decided at our last meeting when John Uban gave his presentation that we believe that we went into this process about a year ago now with 14-15 outstanding design items on this project and we seem to have resolved the wide share of them with their revised plan. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: I came out of that meeting last week thinking that the north/south road alignment seemed to start fitting together much better. I didn't hear any concerns from Opus about how that was fitting. I didn't hear any concern with the east/west at that point in time so I'm really kind of, I'm not sure. I hear one, or I read something that you're very concerned about it and I hear Paul saying that we can tinker with it a little bit. Now I don't know what the issue is. Obviously it's a plan and things are going to change but based on the sketch that we saw a week ago, I didn't go away from that meeting thinking things were out of whack. Michele Foster: What we think we are here this evening talking about though is the official document that's in front of you that is at divergence with where the process has evolved to...and all that we are asking is that we have a problem with what is in the official study that — is being considered this evening and we would like to have incorporated in the most recent processes that we have gone through because you're right. Today we're in a much different place even than when the task force report was done. So we're just asking that it be brought to you. Conrad: I understand. Krauss: You know it may be beneficial but I think this is a concern that's going to occur _ whenever we did one of these things and we did 7 or 8 of them, that when we look on...well where Chapter 8 starts where we go into a description of what the development concepts are, that we make clear that these are just that. Conceptual studies not meant for construction purposes and...express concerns and issues that we have...is one way of dealing with that. Relative to Opus' specific concerns, we could go back and tinker with those. We said that the 100%...everybody's in agreement with it, I suppose you could... For example, the road that they proposed is kind of an amalgamum of what we're proposing here and what they had originally proposed and I think it works better than either one of those two original suggestions so, I think that's a normal process. Scott: What kind of dialogue? It was interesting I think when Mr. Uban showed the eastern side of their project and moved the boulevard and said, oh by the way the people from Centex can just move their buildings over here. I was taken aback by that but I assume that there has been some dialogue inbetween city staff, Centex and Opus or is this just another example of well we don't really care too much about our neighbor over here. We're just — going to stick it here. What's the process? Krauss: Part of our job is to make sure that the pieces fit together. Scott: Okay, because that didn't' fit. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Well, we raised the, but it didn't fit but in our conversations with Opus, we thought that it was a better proposal for everybody and Centex would have seen...but a point in fact, we received notice last week that Centex is not going forward with that project anyway. Scott: So it doesn't matter. Aanenson: So the next person we can then communicate that. Scott: Okay. So then basically that road is going to be set by the Opus development. Okay. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Lee Kerber: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Lee Kerber and I have several questions. One of them is, why don't we get our map upgraded here so it's proper? You're about 45 feet off and it goes right back to the creek line back here. I brought it to someone's attention a few years ago...well, if it takes as long to change the map, it takes that long to run me out of town, I'll be happy. By that time I'll probably be dead anyway. I'm one of the few original natives of Chanhassen. I don't know if there's anyone else in the room here that was born in this area or not. I'm quite concerned about why you're staying this far away from Highway 5 and then all of a sudden you get right back next to it here with that frontage road. You've got 145 feet between the highway right-of-way and my gardens and then you've got 20-30 feet of garden. You've got another 20-30 feet of house, and then you plan to come right on the north edge of my house. I particularly don't see any reason why that's necessary. Also, at the present time if you brought a frontage road up to your park property, your park driveway, that would make a lot of sense. There's a lot of traffic having problems getting in and out of the park every day throughout the summer. If you put your frontage road up to the park property, you would eliminate a lot of the possibility that they could take the frontage road and go up to CR 17. They'd have no problems getting across. It'd make a lot more sense in my opinion to do it that way. Then another question. What's the time frame when they think about going all the way out to Highway 41? Does anyone know? Does anyone have any kind of an idea what I'm supposed to prepare for? Krauss: Yeah, that's a real valid concern and any time you're looking at buying somebody's house for something like this, it's obviously where the road...is a big issue. Two years ago when we started this, MnDot was telling us that they had the money to go ahead with this thing in 2-3 years. They now tell us it's 6 years and what's leading, what this is leading us to believe is that certainly between Powers and Galpin this is going to, it has to be a project that is done by the city in conjunction with whoever develops property. So I can't give you a definitive date. Probably until, what we've been talking about in-house is the road needs to be built up to the park entrance 2 years ago. That needs to be done right away. Other stretches of it are going to be contingent upon when development occurs. I think at your last 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 meeting you heard that there's one development proposal in the near offing on the Conway property that is coming into this area from the west. And potentially a golf course or something else, a golf course with something else inbetween. We're doing the same thing on the south side. The road's being built in pieces as development occurs. One of the issues that's going to have to be brought up to the City Council, and I don't have an answer for this but it is a concern. We're having the same question on Highway 101 where the ultimate alignment for improving Highway 101 south of Highway 5 seems to need to take 2 houses. Is that we need to go to the City Council and say these people have legitimate concerns here. You can't hold somebody hostage for some unlimited period of time without knowledge of how this is going to come about. If the city's going to define a roadway corridor, then we have some kind of an obligation to work with the property owner to try to say if you're looking for an early buyout, maybe we can arrange something. If the road's going to be built on a delayed timeframe, they need to know what it is. I don't have a good answer for that right now but it is something we need to carry forward to the City Council. Lee Kerber: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I could live with being between the highway property and my house. It could be bermed. It could go next to the highway along here instead of taking the old house where I was born. You're not just taking my home. You're not just taking a place I built to live in for a little while. I was born on that property. You're taking my whole life away as far as a place, it's not just a house. It's home. If you can come back next to the highway here, why can't you do it here. Mancino: Mr. Kerber, can I see your solution? Lee Kerber: Pardon? Mancino: I couldn't see you. I couldn't see what you were pointing to. Could you show me what you are suggesting? Lee Kerber: This piece right here, the red property is mine. And you could come down here through your tree farm. Those trees are going to be replanted anyway. All along here you're talking about all kinds of trees. Save the trees. I've got trees that are 25-30 feet in tall and there's some of them this big in diameter. You're going to have to cut them down if you go through my house. The tree farm over here, those are little trees that are an inch and a half, two inches in diameter. They're going to be moved anyway. I think that's something that could be considered. Krauss: There is a design reason for that but there's also potentially an issue that needs to be looked at. This was raised with the task force. The reason the road has to bump up over there is if there's going to be an intersection of Audubon Road, for safety sake you need to 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 offset it from Highway 5. We've done the same thing with 78th Street which is where we just kinked it up and moved it back away from Highway 5. There are those on the task force who question whether or not you need the north leg of that intersection of Audubon. If in fact this connection is necessary at all. That if Audubon Road stays the way it is today as a 3 way intersection, there would not be the need from a design standpoint to bump that road up to the north. This was the recommendation of the task force I think was to keep it like this but that was certainly an issue that I recall being discussed and something the Planning Commission members counted on. Now James, is there anything...that you wanted to add to that? James Unruh: You said it. You said it just right Paul. The only other comment Paul that you'd want to make is that the new lanes of Highway 5 are going to be north of the existing lanes as well. So you'd be squeezing 2 more lanes of Highway 5 on the north side of the lanes and then a frontage road. So it would still gets awfully tight but what you just said Paul about Audubon Road is right. It needs to be determined whether we really do need an- intersection there or not. Lee Kerber: Well, if you delay it for about 10 years I might be gone anyway. Scott: I kind of wonder too then if we have development, I think that the Gorra property and some other property, how would, with no access onto Highway 5, because I know MnDot is... to add any more access points so we'd still end up in a situation where you'd have to get out somehow. Krauss: You're going to have intersections onto Galpin and Powers which will be the signalized intersections on Highway 5. That's probably sufficient to handle what's going to happen. Then after all, I mean we also questioned on the south side. When MnDot first laid out this highway 20 years ago it all went through corn and soybean fields and they said okay, you can have intersections inbetween every major street that have in Chanhassen. In today's world, looking at a town of 35,000 people at some point in time, we didn't think that that was all that good an idea. That we wanted to eliminate some of those and there's been concerns raised by any number, by the City Council on down about the number of traffic signals that would result. As an outcome of that, this entire area. Here's the school site over here and here's McGlynn. This entire area basically is going to be served off of that access boulevard = down here. This is going to be a right-in/right-out only. If that. Onto Highway 5. And that serves, I would suspect, as much if not more development than would occur between the park and Galpin. Scott: And isn't the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 planned to be signalized in '94? In advance of the school opening? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Yeah, in advance of the school. Mancino: They could use it now. Scott: Okay. Conrad: Let me, I want to track something for Mr. Kerber here. Paul, basically what you just said was, there's a reason to put a road through to the park. The rest of this property will, the roadway will go in when developed. Krauss: When development occurs, yes. But development is occurring so fast that. Conrad: Well I think, I'm trying to relate that to Mr. Kerber. There's not a plan to come in and put this road in that we're doing other than maybe to the park. Where you live, somebody's going to have to come in and buy the, not the city. Lee Kerber: You mean I can negotiate with them? I'd prefer that. Krauss: You know, I agree with you and I hope it would turn out that way but there may be a need. If everything occurs west of Mr. Kerber's property, there may be a public need to finish that road and make the connection through there. And if that's the case, then the city would have to become involved. Otherwise we'd prefer to wait for development to do it as well. Farmakes: Irregardless, this is still the blueprint. Krauss: Yes. Conrad: I guess for you to know what we're saying is, we're going to, we have some preferences so when something happens there, whether you develop it or somebody buys the land from you or to the west, they're going to have to have a road and we're going to say where we'd like that road to go. We're saying that right now so people can anticipate that but we're not putting that in at the current time. Lee Kerber: Well I've developed the way I want it. I spent 35 years doing it. I just completed about a year and a half ago putting heat in my shop. The reason I didn't do it sooner, I spend the money after I get it and I've got it the way I want it now. Where do I go from here? Then I'm sitting on the fence, don't know which way I'm going to fall off. If you're my age, I don't have time to develop another place. It took me 35 years to get where I am after I had the house built and I don't know if I've got 35 weeks or 35 months. It's 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 kind of a touchy situation as far as I'm concerned. Scott: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I've got the 140 acres to the south and southwest of Lake Ann. Harberts: Could you show us please on the map? Mike Gorra: This piece here. I think most of you have heard what I've had to say before so I'll keep I brief. Just keep this for the record. I look at that plan of that road there and to me it just doesn't look right. You've got two roads. One you've already got there. It's either 4 lanes now or it will be 4 lanes in the near future and that's Highway 5. And a very short distance to the north, not a half a mile, not two miles you've got this frontage road. They're both going to the same place. The frontage road, it's going to be expensive. I can't see where it's going to serve any useful purpose except maybe to collect more stop signs. It's going to be, you're going to have to put two bridges down there because you've got two creeks to cross. They're not going to be cheap. And it's going to be destructive. You're going to go through people's homes and you're going to go through undeveloped property and you're going to go through businesses. For what purpose? What's that road going to do that Highway 5 can't do and Highway 5 can do it better. There's not going to be as many stop signs on Highway 5. It's going to be 55 mph. With that frontage road, it's going to be even without stop signs, it's not going to be 55 mph. And if Chanhassen follows through to the true to course, they're going to have a stop sign every 200-300 feet anyway. You're going to have about 28 to 35 stop signs on that mile and a half road. And who's going to take that road? Wouldn't they just rather drop down to Highway 5 and coast into Chanhassen on a 55 mph road than go 15 or average 15-20 mph? Not only that but you're going to, by putting that road through there, you're going to pre-determine what kind of development you're going to have there. It's a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Any intelligent developer or development would want to take into consideration what you're going to do there first and then decide where the roads are going to go. I don't know if anybody here has ever built a home, but maybe someone has bought a lot to build a home on. Is the first thing that you did was to put your driveway through the center of the lot and then go to the architect and say hey, design me a home for this lot? Or did you go to him and say, put the home in the best place and then decide where the driveway's going to be? Well that's what you're doing here only a much bigger, more destructive scale. I kind of agree with what Mr. Kerber says that if you want a road to your park, that's fine. That's not going to disturb any of the property to the west. I know it will probably take a lot of traffic off of Highway 5 of people going to and from the park. As far as the rest of the property to the west, they have access to CR 117. That's why CR 117 was put there years ago. The State 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 puts roads every so often for collector streets and then they let the development decide where the rest of the roads will go. If they wanted roads through there, they would put roads every half a block or every half a mile. As far as I'm concerned, I already talked with the State a year ago and their representative, I think it was Evan Green said that they had already planned to stub access from Audubon Road into my property so I wouldn't have to worry about access to Highway 5. I have been working on a development for my property for 2 1/2 to 3 years now and I think you saw the plan last time I was up here. It was a golf course and I don't think I have to tell you what a road through the center of a golf course could do. You just wouldn't be able to build a golf course with something like that there. And even if I didn't build a golf course, and I decided to put other types of development in there, I am a developer. I did purchase most of this property 20 years ago just for that purpose but I held it out of construction just because I thought it was a pretty nice, unique piece of property being that it's on the lake and it has a little creek running through it and has access to Highway 5. I thought it deserved a little more than a boiler plate type development that you can find in Richfield or even Fridley. Multiply next to the highway and then maybe a couple...and then getting single family farther away from the highway closer to the lake. I think something else could be done with this property that would best serve the developer and the city both. And I think that would most likely be a golf course at this time. I know you talked about mapping this road through so future developers would have an idea of where you want this road but I don't think that's going to do any good in my case because I can't imagine any development that I would put on this 140 acres that would utilize the road going right through the center of it. And the only reason why is because if I develop this property, I want it to be a success. I guess that's about all I have to say. Mancino: Mike, might I add a comment on land use. You said that you could see it as a golf course. What other land use designation were you thinking about? For instance, single family north of the access boulevard and multi-family south? Mike Gorra: Well that's the land use I didn't want to see. Mancino: Okay, what did you want to see? Mike Gorra: I want to see it one chunk of property without a road running through it so whatever I decided I could determine where the access, where the roads would be after I decided what would go in there. For example, even a higher end single family development, an estate type single family development, you wouldn't want a road running right through that. That's just one example. But no matter what, like I said before, I've been a developer for 30 years and I've always stayed away from a piece of property that had a heavily traveled road on both sides of it because it's been my experience that anything that's been developed inbetween two heavily traveled streets or roads or highways, has always been somewhat of a 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 second rate type development. The land usually sells cheaper. It's usually a commercial or an industrial type development and that would take away the flexibility if anybody, myself or if I did sell the property, take away the flexibility of determining what would go on that piece of property and Chanhassen would ultimately suffer too. If you don't have the flexibility on a piece that big. Especially when it's right on Highway 5. Everybody leaving the town or coming into the town will see what's on that property. What would you rather have them see a nice green golf course or a road running through it with multiple dwellings and industrial on one side and low end single family housing on the other side. That's the choice we have to make. It's as simple as that. Once you put a road through a piece of property, the flexibility's gone. Scott: Any questions for Mr. Gorra? Thank you. Yes sir. Morris Conway. Morris Conway, 4952 Fremont...I wasn't going to talk this morning, or this evening but I just agree with everything Mike has to say. And just on the point of view of roads. I think that there was a vision, as I went to some of the early meetings, about the road coming in and maintaining a sense of what Chanhassen, or I remember seeing photos of German villages you know and coming into a village and the gateway concept. And I think that's a noble position. When I, you know in looking at, just taking a step back and looking at other visions. You know I remember going after some trips to Italy let's say and you come to these beautiful towns and you think what a wonderful city. You know you take your bikes right in and you have this beautiful city. And then I go to Minneapolis and I cross this moat of Interstate 94 and it's like it chops the city right in half. You know there's no walking sense that we've got a city here. Well you're putting a road, as I see it, you're going to create little islands here. You know you're going to create these medium and high density islands between Highway 5 and this other road. And I just don't, I think you're going to be creating the types of things that I was asking Brad Johnson there, what is that like Cedar Riverside. You know in Minneapolis there you've got these areas where you've got these intersecting highway areas. You're isolating people into these high fragmented, urbanized areas and then it's not a, I think that you can create bad situations and I think having people, creating a situation where you're going to force people to live within this band between these two roads, is going to be a mistake. And I don't see any really good reason for it. I just wanted to speak to that. And I think it's a very important time for you guys to really sit here too and say, does it make sense. To step back and really decide, for you to decide, does it make sense as opposed to just go along with the process. Farmakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live? Morris Conway: Yeah, I'm right next to Mike. Oh, on this map as far as where I live. I do own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Morris Conway right here. But I didn't intend to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 speak, as I say. And I've talked with different people as far as what would work out better in terms of development or not and I don't know what will sell better or worse in terms of development. Whether high density will sell better or worse, but I do think some things strike me as being dumb and part of this strikes me as being dumb. I just don't like to see dumb things done. John Pryzmus: I just want, my name is John Pryzmus and I have the property here on Galpin Boulevard that's the driving range and miniature golf course. And I guess I don't understand, I mentioned it at the task force meeting that this property all can be developed without these roads. You've got a major intersection that's going to come in here that can service this and this. My parcel and Larry VanDeVeire's can both be serviced from CR 117. As Mike said, he don't need this road for his development here and so what you're creating is really, an expensive, expensive road that we're all going to have to pay for as taxpayers. And besides that, the City of Chan just spent like $2 1/2 million to put in a park right over here on this corner. Now you want to take and tear out my park that I put in and paid for myself with no qualms. Don't worry about the money it's going to cost you. Just put a road through there. Design it and I don't know that anybody ever came to my property and took soil tests. I don't remember ever shutting it down. Down through here you'll find a...that comes down into a low area. If you're saving my parcel, would do if you ever did put a road in. But there's really no need other than coming to Lake Ann to, for any of this road to ever be done to develop the north side. Like Mike said, when I do sell that property some day, it can be serviced from CR 117. There's no problem. The same with Larry VanDeVeire's. You're cutting his property right in half and making it practically useless. It just don't make sense at all. Thank you. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Morris Conway as a developer for his parcel and as I've mentioned in the past, I live at 7245 Frontier Trail. We are in the process of developing his parcel and taking both your input relative to this plan and also in our feelings as to what should go there and then taking it to, I guess one step farther than the fellow over on the east side of town. We've taken it to professional engineers that have advised us as to how to develop the site, which I have with me. But before I go into that, I have two other concerns as a resident of Chanhassen. I know that in your proposed plan of the Ward property and at least the, what I'll call the triangle area, it's not recommended to be 100% retail. We would be concerned about that as a retail developer in town because we feel that to have successful retail you need additional massing to attract more people so that our businesses are successful and we certainly object...Ward's but object to that as a developer of other parcels in town. We feel we're short on retail land. Secondly, I concur that we do need a way to get to the park, because we have a baseball program that I sponsor here. There probably is a reason Paul and I'm not going to, but like Park Drive was not the major interchange as I always thought it was going to be and probably the distances, we should 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have...which would solve the problem for Mr. Kerber. We do need access to that. I doubt very much that people are going to enjoy driving over to CR 117, which is a fairly significant turn now to stop there and try to turn. Or all the way out to Galpin to get into the park. So maybe Audubon is the best choice but you're going to make it significantly difficult to get there but I do agree that that interchange today should be closed because it is dangerous. Relative to Mr. Conway's property, we hope to be in, and that is located as I guess he pointed out, right here. We hope to be back to you soon with the development for that parcel and as we mentioned last meeting, we're trying to deal with sort of a moving target with a time line that says we'd like to come in and get this all done with this year. Recognizing that you will be in the process and the City Council will be in the process of trying to determine exactly what you're going to do. We perceive there probably is a need for a collector road, certainly out of our property and over to Galpin. Inevitably we need a collector road someplace. We have a golf course proposed currently, or at least in the planning stages according to our neighbor, to the east and so that limits our site as far as road systems within there. Mike has assured me that he's very serious about developing the golf course and at the minimum, I know if that would not work, he is oriented towards an executive kind of home, which we do not have in Chanhassen other than on the lakes, and that would be I would guess in the $400,000.00 to $600,000.00, sort of estate type of house. I think that's how he perceives that, as I listen to you, that's how he perceives that development to proceed. Given the fact that that is not there and we can...thinking about doing, we presented that to the planners and we have come up with basically a system of handling that and the only reason this affects you is that we do not want to have to deal with the Hennessy property at this time in our own plan because that would require the city taking it. In other words, if you came in and said we had to put a road in and the road went nowhere, then you'd have to purchase the Hennessy property, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me at this time because he's quite happy with that. By the way, we have checked with all the landowners in our area. The Hennessy's, the VanDeVeire's, and Gorra and they all kind of agree that this plan would be acceptable to them. I'm sure it's acceptable to Rottlund who's to the north because it happens to connect directly and looks just like what they're doing to the north of us. Now the issues then are what? Well...alternate #1 which is coming through about right here and require that, it's very defundling how today, or at least until you take the Hennessy property and agree that Gorra can't build his golf course, we should put a main road through the center of this property. Mainly because it's just difficult to develop. Secondly I'm talking, I won't say it's going to look like Cedar Riverside over here if we do it that way but in talking to developers, there's a very big concern about splitting communities and types of housing by a road. And by using the Alternate #2 up here, that would be sort of devastating. Secondly, I have heard that you are trying to seek government, or State assistance for the development of the service road, and if I recall correctly the reason that they were willing to give you assistance is that that road, for a year or two, would be Highway 5. Right? And they were going to close Highway 5 and then use this road. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Let's be clear on this Brad. The reason they were willing to participate in this is it eliminated a series of access points onto Highway 5. That's their long range purpose. It also supported local trips without going onto Highway 5. They also thought yes. If they could put mainline traffic onto it say for a period of a year, year and a half, they could substantially cut, I think cut in half the time it took to build the highway. And for all of those of you who have lived through Highway 5 construction and it drags on for year after year after year, that may be worth a short term disruption. Brad Johnson: Yes, and that was proposed to the HRA I don't know who funded your study but they approved that based upon that was going to take and construction was going to start this year. We're now being told that's, and I had no problem with that at the time because that seemed logical. There was nothing there. We're not being told that that particular situation will not happen for 6 years, maybe the year 2000 or so but as highways go, at that time I think they will have fairly, at least I know Lundgren's will be developed. You're just going to have development over there and basically it's a fairly good threat to say to somebody that we're going to put a road through the middle of all these properties and that, by the way, in order for us to fund it so maybe...and I understood the reason that the Highway 5, the State was willing to fund that was for that purpose and I was at a number of the meetings when Mr. Ashworth, when he prepared the statements like that and it was presented in that way and that was the idea and I think we all went along with that. So I'm going to say that I don't think this road will ever be used as an alternate for Highway 5 if there's any development here in the next 5 to 10 years, because the neighbors will be in here you know, then we'll have neighbors. Right now we don't. What we have done on our proposal is recommend if you're going to have a corridor, and if you're going to map this corridor, we'll go along with it if it's on the south side. And with our current plan we would use Alternate C to cross, our planners have said this is the proper place to cross it. To cross Bluff Creek and they've used the road through VanDeVeire's property and ultimately as our access point for...road on the south portion of the property. So the only major changes that we need to see, then we'd be willing to dedicate the normal amount of roadway that we would be required to if you mapped it so it would cost you nothing. If we just stayed down in this area. We have gone north a little bit so that we can cross at this point which is the same point I think that they were crossing. What happens is we don't necessarily represent VanDeVeire's but this is one way that that could be accomplished. And we end up with then, zoning or a proposed use as you have recommended. We have high density here but a minimum of high density. There's only been about, of rental property, maybe 2.2 acres developed in the city of Chanhassen since I've lived here. We currently have under development another 8 acres of high density. It's just not a high absorption kind of thing. I don't think you need a lot of it but we'd be comfortable with about 4 acres here and we'd anticipate that would be developed over the next 5 to 10 years. But that is about as soon as that could be done, and about the time the road would go through. And then the rest would 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 be medium density and then homes here that would go onto the proposed golf course. If there's no proposed golf course, we're very comfortable if Mr. Gorra was to develop a high class development over there. So our recommendation to you is that you amend the recommendation of the task force. Select if possible Alternate #2. Stay with crossing at C with a minor deviation at that point because we have an adequate buffer. And we too agree with the folks from Lundgren. That is you cannot put single family homes on a highway. With this type of road coming through here, this is a two family home developer. Medium density and the prices are $150-$200,000.00 per unit. He would feel comfortable but he would not build up against the highway...and that's where we're at. We're willing to cooperate. We're willing to work with the process. Come back with a road that you know that would fit whatever you, and dedicate our normal required width for your use. All we're asking is a minor modification of the plan for Alternate #2 and thus the elimination of your recommendation or to vote against the recommendation of the other people on Alternate #1. I think that works much better with Mr. Gorra because that leaves him to have the ability to develop his site that he wants. In the case of Mr. Kerber, you're going to have to deal with Audubon sometime I guess down the line. But certainly not until Mr. Gorra gets around to developing or there's a real problem with Lake Ann. Any questions? As I said, we'll be in with this plan sometime in February. We're more than happy to work with it and we don't have a cost evaluation... Robert Hoffman: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Robert Hoffman, 1500 Northwestern Financial Center. I'm here this evening on behalf of two property owners. One, Dr. Conway who was up here a couple minutes ago and then Fleet Farm. Mills Fleet Farm. And I'm going to just review briefly some of the issues as it relates to both the Conway and the Mills Fleet Farm properties. And then specifically discuss a couple of aspects with Fleet Farm, because you've already heard from Brad and the doctor as to the specifics on his piece of property. When Paul Krauss made his introduction, he categorized the plan as a forward thinking concept. And I would certainly agree with him. The consultants you've had working on it, whether it's Bill Morrish or Joyce Levine or Barry Warner, all certainly have reputations of forward thinking in this metropolitan area and other parts of the country and I've worked with most of them over the years on a number of projects. With most forward thinking concepts, at least it's been my experience that you can achieve most of your objectives but probably have to do some modifications as to what may come from the initial concept that the forward thinkers come up with. And in the two cases of the property owners that we represent, they're really asking for some modifications. And you've heard discussions on Dr. Conway and that is a preference for the south line in order to better develop that particular piece of property. As I listen this evening, I know you certainly were aware of the considerably restraints that a planner must deal with. But those are also the considerable restraints the property owner must deal with. And whether they are landscaping or topography or wetlands or tree cover, or colors of buildings or use of materials 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 or setbacks or traffic considerations, they all start to impact the ability to develop a piece of property in the way the city would like to have it developed, or the way the property owners would like to have it developed. And neither of us are free today to do just what we'd like to do. That's the system. And as I listen to the significant list of constraints over the past year that have been addressed, I'd ask you to then think of the property owner also with those similar constraints and then at least in the case of the two that I'm talking about, asking for some modifications in order to assist them on the development. I noted that in, I think it was James' presentation, in suggesting the location of the access boulevard as it related to the park. It was pushed as close to TH 5 as possible to preserve the park. I didn't hear that same comment as it related to several of the private property owners. And that perhaps was a serious consideration but I've heard several property owners suggest a movement of that to preserve their property uses and I heard that being a very significant factor for a public use. But I didn't hear that, at least as yet, as to a private use. As you proceed with the prospect of actually building a road, which has been described by Barry as the most difficult task of locating it and Paul indicating that the funds are not readily available, and then looking at piecemeal development because that's what you will get as you work with individual property owners. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described, the economic aspects of that particular forward thinking concept. And as you proceed with the suggestion that perhaps now, that perhaps maybe Federal and State funding may not be available, for as available as you would like them, that the property owners will then bear the cost of that development. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described as access for sub-regional and regional trips on the access boulevards. As compared to just serving the abutting property owners and therefore again I would suggest that if you can look at some compromise, if you can find the property owners who will say yes. I will preserve the wetlands. Yes, I will preserve the trees. Yes, I'll work within that topography. Yes, I will dedicate land for this right-of-way. In fact maybe pay for it. If you move it in a way that I can now develop my property in order to afford those, that that is something at least I would suggest the city look at. Because as you're talking about access boulevards, or sub-regional trips, you're not talking about, at least in Minnesota as yet, facilities that the property owner has to pay for. Those are community wide or region wide issues. That the community or the region pays for. But not the immediate property owners. The immediate property owner is required, at least currently under law, to pay for that part of the roadway that the current property owner causes in the capacity to be needed. Not boulevards or trails or landscaping, that is not absolutely needed. Those are all desired from the standpoint that you get the economics of it. I think you're going to be faced with that so again I'm suggesting that, if at all possible, if you can work out this system which is definitely forward thinking, and you don't have a ready source of funds to do it in one fell swoop, then perhaps working with some of these property owners, and in particular the two that we represent, would help facilitate that. Specifically then as to the Mills Fleet Farm piece of property, which is on State Highways 41 and 5. As you know they acquired that several years ago. They first of 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 all have asked and will continue to ask for a land use different than is proposed. The land uses proposed is neighborhood commercial, medium or higher density and then single family density as you go to the north. Obviously Mills Fleet Farm would like to build a Mills Fleet Farm facility at that particular intersection. I think earlier the discussion of big box uses was discussed and as big box uses like to be near higher arterials, and TH 5 and TH 41 are two of the higher use arterials that you have at least in the city. Therefore, as to a use, land use, we have in the past where we continue to request that the land use be considered for a Mills Fleet Farm facility. And the previous, not previous but the two studies, the Highway 5 corridor land use study on page 33, Figure 5.1 and the Environmental Assessment boulevard document on Figure 6.1 appeared to put this roadway either on or very close to the northern edge of Fleet Farm. And when we asked then for the legal description of that right-of-way, it showed this configuration which was basically through the middle. Therefore the preliminary study documents suggested that roadway be on the north edge of the...and so apart from the land use, Mills Fleet Farm would certainly accept a northerly designation or location of that particular roadway. Or a southerly designation of that roadway. But the problem it's going virtually right through the middle. And as I listen to Terry Forbord discussing with you the inability from a marketing sense, to have single family next to high density arterial, then again I wonder from a land use when you have an existing high use arterial with TH 41 and the suggestion is that single family be the land use next to that. So our request is, from these two property owners. One is to consider the modification of the location of the roadways. You haven't either of them say they're opposed to the roadway. I think both of them have indicated that they would, certainly Mills Fleet Farm is interested in preserving the wetlands. Is interested in preserving the wetlands if it can develop the property in a reasonable way and is interested in paying it's fair share for such a facility. I think Dr. Conway has indicated the same. If it's located so they can develop their property. If you have any questions I'd be - pleased to answer them. Mancino: I just have a real quick on. I want to make sure I'm tracking with you Mr. Hoffman. You said that Mills Fleet Farm was fine with the northern route. Robert Hoffman: The northern route that was shown on the previous two studies. Not the northern route that is now Alternative #1. Mancino: Okay. Robert Hoffman: That's why I made reference to the three, at least I'll call them conceptual designs of the roadway, seem to hug the northern edge of the property. Mancino: Even more than the one that we are seeing right now as Alternative #1? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Robert Hoffman: Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay, we're going to take about a 5 minute break. We can all probably use it and we'll reconvene, well let's reconvene at 10:00 sharp. (There was a short break at this point in the meeting.) Scott: We'll reconvene the Planning Commission. Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum and also a member of the team that worked on this plan. There's been a lot of comments about the plan and I would like to say we think it's pretty good, as coming from the team and I think there's some good recommendations. I think one of the things that we saw when we looked at this was the fact that there was an opportunity to get away from the old standard of putting the frontage road, and there's a need for a frontage road right along the side of Highway 5, on either side, creating a huge swath of pavement. The idea was to move it back a ways so that you've seen in some places that creates some pieces of land which aren't really very buildable. So the idea again then was to move it over further to make parcels of land and I think we've got 500 to 700 feet of land between the frontage road or what we hope would become a city street rather than just a frontage road and create another main, continuation of main street in Chanhassen. So there's buildable parcels between there. Exactly types of land use, I think the planners were in some agreement and we agreed with them that it could be a higher density use but single family would probably be the best use in that. I think that we did try to look at all the uses there and in fact if you looked at that road, instead of cutting these parcels in half that is serving them, it is a different point of view and it makes those parcels of land very developable. Perhaps a golf course obviously would not work but then we don't know whether that's going to happen or not. But I think we asked the same question. Is that golf course going in there, and since you don't know, this would be a better location for a roadway. I think my only concern I would have with the plan is that some question came up about the Arboretum as being a buffer and I would like to say that we feel that the buffer is a cultural, education and research institution. It's not a buffer but perhaps does need a bit of buffering. We have a national and perhaps international reputation and we are very concerned about development in our city at this point in time. As I've expressed at various points throughout this process. I think the reputation of the 30 acres on the west side of Highway 5 that we suggested be a residential use, is a little easier on us than the industrial commercial use. But I did want to get up and say that a lot of time went in. A lot of thinking. We did listen to all the folks that are here tonight and tried to make some judgments that we felt would fit the town as well as the developers as they came through. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Any comments for Peter? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the Planning Commission? Susan Markert: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I would like to really question. Scott: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record please? Susan Markert: Oh, Susan Marken. 9461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm wondering, I heard the gentlemen speak about the Fleet Farm and how he wished that the city would take into consideration all the restraints and so on and the placement of the road specifically. But you know he's saying that for certain things that you know if you could kind of loosen up on but when we're getting right down to the nitty gritty, when we're talking about the overlay. The standards. The building standards that were set forth. I'm looking through here piece by piece and I'm really not seeing very much and I don't see where you can get hardly anything that the building, that I've seen the Fleet Farm put up, would meet. Okay, I mean they want, and I'll just go through here as quick as I can. They want you know parking lots along Highway 5 so people can see parking lots that you know look like there's a nice viable business there. The architectural style, it's what I would consider, from what I've seen of the Fleet Farm store so far, it's totally incompatible with what we've set forth for the other buildings and developments that we have in Chanhassen. And according to this each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. I've never seen, I don't think, a pitched roof element there. They'd have to change that. And there are not to be any exposed cement or cinder blocks. I believe they might use that. Fabricated metal or pole construction structures. I believe that that's something that might pertain to that exterior...but that's a possibility. Experimental materials possible. A solid wall relieved by architectural detailing. That isn't for sure. The materials and construction methods used for one aspect or a portion...significant lower in quality. You know I can just keep going on. Also with the fencing, that it says screening of service yards and I think it might be like the lumber yards that... The screening of service yards. You know you can't have a chain linked fence and I did specifically hear them mention that they would buffer our house from them by you know - volunteering to put the road right at the very, you know where it just abuts our property, which I believe they already have an 80 foot easement built into that. And they were going to put up a chain link fence that would buffer us from them. Mancino: Susan, could you point to where your property is. Susan Markert: We're right here. And this is you know where the proposed northerly route would go but from what I could get from the gentleman that was speaking for the Fleet Farm, he was asking that we would move this road right up here because I've already heard this... 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 before. You know. That way that can give them more room to build and then they might even want to designate this property right here as a natural, that wetland or pond or whatever. Which would move that building you know closer to our property and totally disrupt the look of, we planned the entire road, which I believe was a good plan. The northerly route because it's very scenic and I've walked it with Nancy. And we took the time and it was very well done. It's very beautiful back there and we did not want, you know like a service road. So according to the plan, it looks nice but then when you get the corner of TH 5 and TH 41, I think that they're wishing that that road would just kind of like go right up there and just ruin everything you know basically that we've planned and I would have an absolute total objection to that. That if that's what they would want to do, then we would not wish to live there or do our home occupation there any longer and that's the whole thing. You know with...but I really don't want to see that. As a person that lives there, I enjoy it and we're there because we like it. We preserve things. We take care of things. People that are absentee landowners have a totally different view. I like, I've used the word bastardizing the corner and I just kind of think that that might be what happen, what could happen to it if Chanhassen doesn't really hold to the design standards that were set forth. Because I believe that we're you know a very high class community and that we should keep going forward with the plan that we've developed and I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good, thanks. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Larry VanDeVeire: Hi. I'm Larry VanDeVeire and I own the property on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. Right here, and I'd just like to make a comment for the record that, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that if all the landowners have been listened to throughout this process, the only landowner that would be getting what they want is the city through the Lake Ann parcel. And like I say, correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the people that have been here, and have either objected to or suggested changes in the way the road alignment is planned. And I guess if that's listening to the landowners, then I don't know. I'm missing something. If there's any type of input because there's quite a few of us. And like I say, the only landowner that isn't objecting the city themselves I think. Scott: Well Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros was the first person who spoke was in favor of the alignment and asked us some questions about zoning and so forth. He's probably the only one that I've heard from that was in favor of it. Larry VanDeVeire: But he still suggested some changes. Scott: He had a little bit of a, he was a little bit confused as to what the colors meant because the difference between medium density and low density. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Larry VanDeVeire: Wasn't he suggesting that it be pulled south towards the road though? Scott: No. Mancino: No. Conrad: A little bit. Mancino: 100 feet south. Larry VanDeVeire: Well, 100 feet would be pretty significant on my property. Maybe not on his but 100 feet is 100 feet. Harberts: Larry, can you outline how much is your property? Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. 13 acres. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Larry VanDeVeire: And I guess what I'm getting at is he eluded to, I don't know how developable some of the properties are, and I'd just like to state for the record that I have my concerns also as far as how it's going to be developed. What it's going to look like all the way through. I guess a property that I think of that isn't the same right across from the high school in Minnetonka. Right across from Minnetonka High School. There's a non-developed piece of property there that it splits off into a Y and you can call it, it's been for sale from time to time. I don't know what could be put there. Right now it's natural but I don't know if that looks, is attractive either. Mancino: Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from. If I know your property. It doesn't matter, in fact if we take the preferred route, the recommendation the Highway 5 task force made, unless the road, access boulevard goes through your property, less roadway goes through your property if we take the recommendation from the Highway 5 task force. Larry VanDeVeire: I guess my concern is the supposed inflexibility of the road where Terry Forbord was...right now you have it going through the tree line and I'm not so sure that's good for me or good for the city of Chanhassen. _ Mancino: So how would you change it? . 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Larry VanDeVeire: I don't know. I'm just suggesting that I'd like some flexibility and that there should be some flexibility through this according to development rather than stamp the road in place and then say now, try to make something fit. I just don't know that that's the way it should be done. And I realize that something has to be done as far as guiding it but I still think there should be some flexibility allowed and still meeting what you people want too. And I guess like I say, and I think, I forget who said it but oh, it was Mike I think with the driveway. No one builds a house around a driveway and that's basically what you're looking at here. Trying to make stuff fit with what's left and that's why I suggested the property across from Eden Prairie High School. I don't know what they're going to do with that. It's for sale from time to time but nothing, you know it's a pie shaped lot and it isn't real wide and not that this is what this will turn into but I do think that you limit what can be done with it when you all at once you set restrictions. And then again with the wider setbacks, all of the other restraints that Chanhassen would like to see, it further limits what can be used. I guess that's it. Thank you. Scott: Would anybody else like to address the commission? Peter Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'd just like to briefly reiterate the request I made at the workshop last week. That the Commission adopt the recommendation of the task force and guide the Eckankar facility portion of the Eckankar property for institutional uses. As I mentioned, the Temple is one integrated site. It will never be subdivided or sold or built into any multiple family residential use so we request the addition...And I don't intend to belabor the point any more...answer any questions and to address that issue in greater detail. Scott: Okay. Go ahead Sue. Susan Markers: Susan Marken speaking again. As I sat down I realized, people, any time there's a change people get afraid and this is real obscure. You know you see a road coming through our town. And for 2 years I've dreaded the thought and I've, you know I've actually gotten sick over it when I'd have to come to these meetings and try to make a conscientious decision for the city. And it became a process where I kind of became desensitized to it but I'm still very sensitive. So as a landowner, I can speak from both sides. As a landowner I would prefer not to have any roads and have the rolling hills and all the beauty forever. As a person that came up here to plan for the development of Chanhassen, I say that we definitely need a plan and this is what has been implemented and we're not putting the cart before the horse. We're not putting the driveway in before the house. We're putting a plan so there can be good development developed off the plan. If there was no road and we allow people to put their driveways in and whatever they wanted to do, we'd have a mish mosh and then we'd have like a can of worms that nobody would know what the heck was going on. It 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 certainly wouldn't follow any plan whatsoever so what I'm saying is I really do believe we need the road. I would love to you know go down this road without getting onto Highway 5 because I was one of the biggest complainers of trying to make a left onto Highway 5 out of TH 41 with people getting very angry before they did have that turn lane. And also, if we did not have that road in there, I have gone to Galpin Boulevard. I had left something at ABC Daycare Center, which is I think what is it, Lake Drive or something? Scott: Yeah. Susan Markert: It should only be like a minute away but you know like at night when the traffic was coming, it took me 15 minutes to go down to Galpin Blvd and make a turn to come back to get to ABC Daycare Center to get what I needed to get so you know. Somehow if we would have had this road I believe I could have done that quicker and much more safely. So I do believe that we need the road no matter what a lot of other people think. It's just, it's progress and that's what you're paying for and it's better to have a plan than not to have a plan. That's just the way it is. Scott: Good. Thank you Susan. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development Company. I would like to speak just briefly to page 7 of the memorandum handed out this evening, and specifically to the following land use issues still need to be resolved. The fifth one down, that Heritage Development West. Harberts: Wait, wait, wait. Where are you? Scott: We've got to get there. Conrad: Page 7 of the staff report. Harberts: Thank you. John Dobbs: Fifth one down. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek, south of frontage road, multi-family should be considered as an option with industrial. I would like to say that I would like to concur that we would like that as an option very much. We currently, we are the owners of the residential property south of the frontage road east of Galpin. Next to Timberwood Estates. We also own, and I believe this comment speaks to a piece of property that we own on the east side of Bluff Creek. We currently I think McGlynn Bakery is there and also to the north it's proposed to be industrial. We are proposing and we are very 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 tentatively scheduled on February 2nd to bring in a multi-family and single family detached concept for your approval and I'd just like to say that we believe that it is a transition zone _ between existing industrial and what will be single family detached residential. I recognize that there are a number of issues associated with this particular piece of property in that there's the Bluff Creek corridor and industrial on one side and residential on the other and that transition needs to be dealt with sensitively and we are in the process of looking at a variety of options to do that. But as it's slated on this plan and...we'd like to see that. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing no other members of the public who are interested in addressing the Planning Commission. Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Because of the complex nature of what we have to deal with, I'm certainly open for suggestions but it appears that the least controversial thing we have to do is to pass the EA document onto the City Council. Are you? Aanenson: Except part of that is to select an alternative of the road. Scott: Okay. I guess I'd be open for suggestions as to how we can, perhaps instead of having general comments on everything from the Planning Commission at the same time, perhaps focus on specific pieces. Now what those specific pieces are and in the order which it seems like the land use kind of drives the alternative for the access boulevard. Conrad: What are we recommending for passage here? Scott: Well, according to the staff report we've got the EA document, which has the. Let's see the EA document has got the alternative associated with it. And then the corridor study has got land use and the architectural standards. Farmakes: Are we going to do all three or are we going to separate them? Scott: I'm just trying to think so we can perhaps focus. I don't know, maybe we can't focus on one particular aspect. Do you want to go at this as just making general comments? Harberts: Well I have a question. What's the desire of the commission here to look at some of these issues in which the commission is not in concurrence with the task force recommendations as outlined on page 7? Do we need to have some kind of basis? Do we 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 want to have some kind of basis of concurrence? Scott: In my mind that'd be probably the easiest thing to get started on because it is pretty concrete. Mancino: Yeah. And we've had some more input tonight so maybe we will come to some resolution of some of the areas that we weren't before. Makes you look at those again. Scott: Because these are basically all land use. Harberts: Well, except it's going to impact development in the future of Chan. Scott: Well why don't we start with the first topic with regard to how large should the commercial zoning extend, which I guess is do we have our central business district, a retail district cross Highway 5 to the south? Mancino: Which specifically is the Ward property. Scott: Ward property, right. — Krauss: Which and Brad was talking about...not recommended. What the plan showed was the possibility for commercial along the first, I think about 20-25 acres. Aanenson: Predeveloped. Mancino: Actually that is in Figure in your chapter 8. Figure 8.13-8.14-8.15. Scott: Perhaps the philosophical question is you know, do we believe that you need to have retail across Highway 5 from what is known as our central business district? Farmakes: Is this open discussion? Scott: Yeah. I think we can have open discussion. Farmakes: My feelings about it, again I think we discussed this in the study group. I'm open to extending retail. I don't see a compelling reason. I am told from a marketing standpoint that it would help. I think Brad made the comment that more retail development is good for all retail, although the last retail development that we had in here he wasn't in concurrence with that. We really are looking at two issues it seems to me. One is do we serve Chanhassen with retail. Or do we look outside of that to the sub-region issue? And if so, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 how much additional space do we look at? I'm not sure that there's a compelling reason outside the half a million square feet that you said for retail space that we need to expand that. I think it's important that it would be in the central district. That we don't have a bunch of malls going off all over in our community. I don't see any compelling reason not to bring it down below the highway but I'm not sure we need the additional service. I haven't seen any information in our study group that has compelling, that says that we definitely need that other than to have a developer come forward and say that we need more retail property. They happen to be in the business of doing, developing retail property so that would make sense that they would say that but I'm not sure the community needs that. Scott: Okay, so your position is, you could go either way but you were not presented with a compelling reason why. Farmakes: I'm looking for a compelling reason that would serve the community good. Scott: Okay. Alright. Personally I don't see that need either, and I've always been a proponent of a very concentrated central business district. I will continue to oppose, as most of us would, any sort of major retail development anywhere outside of the central business district. And I would look very carefully at any sort of strip mall save a neighborhood business in an area that was fairly heavily developed. So I don't see a need for retail space south of Highway 5 either. Anybody else like to comment on that? Conrad: But then you do think that office space is essential? Scott: Well, having. Conrad: Which we have a fair amount of so. Scott: Well, you know having just expanded our business and looking for office space, there is, you know I haven't and I've checked into the buildings. I don't sense that there's a lot of vacant office space in town. I don't have any statistics but if it's anything like our rental, we have about a less than a 5% rental property vacancy right now in Chanhassen from an apartment standpoint and my sense is that the office space is fairly tight as well. But I personally don't see the need to go across the highway with retail. Conrad: That's not what I've heard but you and I are not experts in the business. Scott: No... 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: So I won't even push that. It's a matter of, it's sort of a gut feel. Right now I don't know but I think we need retail space. We're out of it, period. It's like, it's a decision. And I'm not sure that you know, I made some points the last time. Or now that we've got the traffic, should we do something to convert that traffic into retail sales. We don't really have the land to really do that so the verbiage and the time we spend on this right now is probably not worth a whole lot. We don't have much and unless we'd be committed to really getting out of the downtown area, I don't think we have a chance to really tap into the, it's really a resource. A traffic resources coming to Byerly's and Target. We really won't utilize maybe as much as we can. And I think the city of Chanhassen, the residents that I've talked to, they're comfortable with that. On the other hand, on the flip side of that coin, I see that the downtown doesn't have any more area for retail and therefore the Ward property looks to me to be the right place to put any kind of retail space. Mancino: What do you mean there isn't any more retail area? What about behind the Frontier? There's that whole vacant land that a huge retail development could go back there. It could also go where the bowling alley is at this point. Conrad: I guess a little bit of it, yeah. Mancino: I think there's a lot of space there for retail. Conrad: I think you could pick that up but a finite, there's a limited amount. You know how many people do we have in Chan right now, 12,000? And what are we going to grow to, 35? Mancino: 35, yeah. Conrad: That's triple. And I'm saying as we grow, there's probably different needs that we may need in 5 years and really you've got one parcel behind the Dinner Theatre that's owned by one person. They can develop it the way they want and I guess I'd like to have some flexibility in town to think that maybe we have some other parcels. Sooner or later it's going to, there's a limit. You know we're limiting retail in Chanhassen. Where you see red and that's it. There ain't going to be no more and I think that's fine. I think that's what I've been around for is to make sure that we keep it in one place. But I'm just saying, right now it appears to me in a gut feel that we need retail space just to satisfy maybe some of the needs of the residents that could be here the next 20 years. As we sell out in Chanhassen and I'd like to have that opportunity to do that. Farmakes: What I question with that kind of thing, and I agree with almost everything that you said. But what I question is, is how many liquor stores do we need? How many mail box type operations do we need and how many, when you transcend into soft goods retail and , 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 you come into stores that are selling clothes, we don't support that type of foot traffic and destination, the specialty type shops. It's more of a service to a suburban community and how many duplications do we have? Conrad: Well let me just throw that back. And they're good questions. How many places do you have to put a restaurant in Chanhassen? How many restaurants do we have? How many do we need? Probably more than we do today. Probably is such a nice supporting feature to a population of 35,000. Where are we going to put them? Mancino: 212? Farmakes: Actually per capita we probably have the largest restaurant space in the United States I would guess, short of Manhattan. Conrad: But that's just one. You put restaurants in places like what I'm talking about. That's where, and where do they go? They could go behind the Dinner Theatre but that's one spot. Farmakes: Two of them over by Target. Conrad: Yeah. My guess would be, and I'm not an expert in the field but if you have 35,000 people, you don't have enough space to put a restaurant. A couple more that might give us a variety of options other than some fast food you know. And maybe that's what we're going to get anyway after we program some more space. We may end up getting more fast food. Scott: So you're for expanding the retail south of Highway 5? Conrad: Yep. Scott: Okay. Conrad: Thanks. Scott: Should I start down here since you... Mancino: Well I don't know. I like having, I mean the unique part of Chanhassen to me right now is that we have a centralized downtown. Centralized retail right there and I like that. I mean I can go shopping anywhere, but I can't get a sense of community any other place. And I like it in one area. I can go to malls anyplace, anywhere, anytime and I still 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 don't get a downtown feel like I get when I go to Chan and I'd like to keep that. So I would not like to see the retail go over across. I'd like to keep it over here. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I would also be in favor of maintaining it north of Highway 5. I think if it is located in that area, that that fragments what we call the downtown. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I think I'm torn. I think you can stand on either side of this issue. I guess looking at it broadly, I like everything on the north side because it would I guess hopefully induce more of a higher concentration that pedestrian oriented type of development that everybody in Chanhassen seems to want. But on the other hand I certainly support competition and when you have that free enterprise, the competition, it's good for the community. I guess I'm concerned about are we just envisioning like another strip mall in terms of if something happens on the Ward property or would there be something of desire for the community in terms of retail. I guess my biggest concern is, do we have 3 more dry cleaners or something like that or will we get something in there that actually will benefit the community? I like you know just myself as a resident, I certainly like to run down to the corner store or whatever and pick up whatever I need. So I guess I, I have mixed feelings in terms of one way or the other because I think there's issues on both, there's support on both sides. I - don't, you know when you look at the fact that the Ward's is probably the last piece of opportunity and if staff has the, oh I don't know what you'd call it. It's not really the control but has the opportunity perhaps to in a sense put something in there or help ensure something - goes in there that's going to benefit the community rather than just be another fourth liquor store or dry cleaners, I would certainly be in favor of seeing that Ward's property develop in that way. Mancino: But we have no control over that. We can't tell you what in 5 years is going, you know how that's going to change hands. Harberts: I don't know that, yeah. Scott: Is that part of the Rosemount TIF district or does that stop at TH 101? Krauss: It's part of the downtown TIF district. So is Rosemount and... Harberts: So would you say you have that opportunity to...? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: In the next few years you do have the ability to...financial support. Scott: That's until '97? Krauss: Well, it's until 2001 I think. 2000. But the program has been to do 3 years of increment and you know it's 1994 right now so as time goes on, there's less ability to do something. But in terms of tools, that's the whole purpose of this exercise. The plan you're looking at, the ordinance is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you that you get a...book store or something like that. But then again, you're not going to have...I think it's inevitable that if you provide a little more opportunity, you're going to get a little better mix. Exactly what that mix is going to, there's no way I can tell you and we don't operate in an environment... Scott: Well I know we're talking we're going to be building a pedestrian bridge across _ Highway 5. If you think about why people would want to cross Highway 5, they're probably not going to have as much of a need to do that if, our central business district and the services and so forth is the draw to pull people across Highway 5, why would we stick more retail down here which would kind of short circuit the reason that they would use the bridge. Harberts: Which way are they crossing? North to south or south to north? Scott: Probably coming from a residential area into the central business district I would think. Rather than going from residential to CBD and back again. But I don't know. I don't know if I could be convinced otherwise like that. But by my scientific calculations here we've got 2 who are leaning strongly towards adding more retail south of Highway 5 and 4 who are quite strongly leaning the opposite directly so do we need more discussion on this particular item? Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's a mix. Aanenson: It's a mix, right. What we're saying is do you want to take commercial that's already... Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you don't want retail, you've got to take it out. Mancino: So it'd just be office\institutional without retail. Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Now is that office retail or... Mancino: What's high tech industrial? Krauss: ...high tech industrial kind of walks like an office building, talks like an office building but if you go inside it could be warehouse and manufacturing...high tech buildings, you know along 494 in Minnetonka that...Pond project on one side and. Scott: There's Baker Industrial Park. Mancino: Those are high tech buildings? Krauss: Those are high tech buildings. They're glass fronts. They look like offices from the street frontage and a lot of them are 70-80% office but the interiors are flexible. And there's loading docks...in the back. Mancino: ...and that would come under office, high tech industrial? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: Just think Nancy how nice a retail center this could be. Where you have wetlands and you have some character that we're striving for in downtown that everybody wants but is not really there. Here's an area that might just be something with some character. Farmakes: Well the issue of office, where we say office, use it as a word for a zone. I always get a little cross eyed at that. The issue of the two developments that we have down here that are office, the bottom floors are retail. Would that use then be acceptable in this if it's office? Krauss: I don't think so but it depends on how you do it. The Comp Plan, the '91 Comp Plan actually has one area, it's on the Ward property that's shown only for office uses. Solely for office uses which I suppose means that it would be zoned office institutional is the only use that can go there. In that district that's all you can do. Then again if somebody came in as a PUD, which the last 25% of the uses could be something else, it is possible to get a mix. I agree with you and I know, I remember the conversation very well with Brad where the line gets real blurry. Are these retail buildings or are they office buildings? I think you can be more specific than that. But again... Scott: Well if we, I'm just kind of looking across old Highway 101 from that area. If we're talking about putting some sort of a hotel, park and ride kind of a complex over there, it is 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 conceivable he said we're going to have, it looks like that hotel development will probably be a little bit more substantial than Country Suites, maybe? Yes? No? Might there be small retail associated with that project? I suppose anything's possible but I'm just thinking. Krauss: That's a project that hasn't coalesced yet. We're still working on that. If it did happen in it's current incarnation, there's already a little strip mall there right now, and it provides a nice mix. The only other additional retail that was thought of is a restaurant, free standing or attached in conjunction with the hotel/motel. Scott: Okay. Well, on this particular issue do we go with the staff recommendation or do we remove commercial, which I would understand, would we remove retail? If we remove commercial designation from here, that remains retail? Aanenson: Except as Paul mentioned, if they came forward with a PUD. Scott: With a PUD it could be 25% but then that would give us the opportunity to look at the plan in it's entirety and if we felt at that point in time that some small retail would be appropriate, maybe that's the bottom line. Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that? Mancino: Works for me. Scott: Works for you? Ledvina: That's acceptable for me. Scott: Matt. What do you think Diane? Harberts: Yeah, it works for me. I think that enables more of an influence by the city and community. Scott: Okay. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: No. Scott: It stinks. It still stinks. Conrad: Yeah, you know. My position would be, I'd really like to see some nice retail go in there. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: What's nice retail? Conrad: Well we've got to get moving along but we don't have a lot of control on that. I just, really my bottom line is, I don't think you can afford to take retail out of, we need some retail space and I'm not convinced we need the other space that you're zoning it for. That's really my bottom line. Scott: Alright. Are we. Farmakes: Is that property in or out of the TIF district? Krauss: It's in and it was included, at least part of it. Farmakes: So the odds are we would probably be seeing the PUD no matter what anyway on this particular piece of property? Krauss: Again, if something happened... Harberts: Ladd, are you maybe hedging that you'd rather see most of this retail rather than the office? Conrad: I like the mixed use and I'd like to see a real nice. To tell you the truth, I'd like to see a real nice retail shopping center there. Harberts: Versus high tech office? Conrad: But what are the chances that, the chances are minimal that we'd get it so. Scott: Yeah, on 7 acres. I mean if we went with a 25% PUD, we would get probably 4 or 5 acres of retail. Let's say 4 acres of retail versus 7 acres, which is obviously about 75% more. . Mancino: Ladd, you could just as easily get a discount store there. Scott: Can you get big box retail on 7 acres? Conrad: Can you? Scott: That's, we don't want. I mean I don't want that. Target's 10? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Target's on 10...we'll have to check. Scott: Yeah, so I mean so it's conceivable. Personally I don't want to see these big box retails but. Mancino: K-Mart. Wal-Mart. Scott: I don't want it. I don't want that there. Conrad: Just a clarification though. Based on the current zoning, a discount store could go. Or based on the map that we looked at, a discount store could go in. Krauss: You're right. Conrad: And maybe it's better what you're doing. Scott: Okay, are you okay? Mancino: We're all in agreement. Scott: Anyway, so we're done with the Ward property. Harberts: What about the Fleet Farm? Mancino: It's not a very clear recommendation so the City Council knows. Farmakes: Well, which one are we on right now? Scott: Still the first item. So anyway. Basically what they're, the zoning that we're going to recommend is all office. We call it office, IOP. Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Office institutional and that is, in the vernacular of planningese that is what? OI? Krauss: That would be one of the zones in the appropriate. Scott: Yeah, and what would you call it? OI, office industrial? ( 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Okay. Office institutional. That's for the whole thing. Farmakes: How long does that remain in TIF by the way? Is it the end of the decade? Does TIF run out, is it 2000? Conrad: 2001. Krauss: There's also an industrial. Mancino: Just office institutional. Not office industrial institutional. Krauss: Oh, if you consider changing two things. Mancino: Well there was never office industrial on here. _ Scott: Yeah, because we've got office institutional. Krauss: That's one with the stripes. Mancino: Oh, I'm looking again at this site plan. Scott: Well, because I'm looking at I think maybe the same thing. At least according to this Figure 8.14. The 7 acre parcel was retail office, high tech industrial and what we want this whole thing to be is office institutional. Two different things, right? Mancino: Yes. Pink and blue. Scott: So we nailed down our recommendation is that we want to see the entire property, the land use office institutional. Aanenson: You're eliminating the high tech type, smaller footprint industrial? That was one of the uses... Harberts: I think, it was my understanding the only thing we're doing is removing commercial out of the staff recommendation. Am I right on that? Scott: Okay, so we're removing commercial. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Did you get that? Krauss: You wanted to clarify in the text to say that. Scott: No commercial zoning on the Ward property. Harberts: Period. Krauss: No, that's not what you said though. As a part of a PUD it could possibly have some. Mancino: That's true. Farmakes: ...have to say that is that a PUD allows for... Aanenson: If you turn to page 21 in the document and it talks about... Scott: Which document? Aanenson: It says it's the Ward property. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: Potential uses. — Scott: Yep. Aanenson: We're eliminating retail commercial but we're saying office industrial and add institutional. And then you say PUD...may be considered under a PUD. Scott: Would we agree with that? Why don't you restate that? That was good. Aanenson: Okay. Under the potential use...the first one will be retail commercial. Scott: So we strike that. Aanenson: Strike that out. Scott: Okay, that's out of there. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Residential...and office industrial/institutional. Scott: Okay, because it does mention institutional in the text but you want to have it all office industrial/institutional. Aanenson: Right. And then say commercial may be permitted under the PUD. May be considered. Scott: Yeah, may be considered. Yep, that's important. May be considered. Okay. Is everybody clear on what we've done? Farmakes: We're eliminating industrial. Scott: Ah no. We're eliminating, for a potential use retail and commercial. It's going to be all office industrial/institutional and commercial may be considered as part of a PUD. Not to exceed 25% but I guess that's the PUD ordinance so. Okay. Have we finished that item to everyone's satisfaction? I'll say yes. Farmakes: Yes. Mancino: Yes. Scott: Okay. What about the Opus? Mancino: I have some notes. Scott: Oh okay. These issues affect the option for commercial zoning on the Ward property. Which I understand, and the VanDeVeire. Okay, let's talk about that. Mancino: What are we talking about? Scott: How does this affect the option for VanDeVeire? Aanenson: These are the other commercial pieces that you're looking at. This portion of Fleet Farm and the question that we talked about, potentially including in a park. And the other one is the VanDeVeire piece which...so that ties back into...and if there should be some ancillary to service the neighborhood. And support commercial. Scott: Let's talk about for VanDeVeire. Right now we have what? Let me see with the Song/Carlson property and some of the Lundgren developments, if we add all that stuff 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 together with the existing people living in that area, we're looking at 400-500 single family houses. I'm just trying to get an idea. Mancino: No. 200 Lundgren. Krauss: If you're looking at a service area for neighborhood commercial, add the 144 homes in the Hans Hagen and the 70 homes in...but they're not turning the same corner. So I think... we think that's where your trade is. Scott: So we have the same question on that property. Is that something that, I guess Diane, how do you see that particular corner? Do you see that as a general commercial or something like a neighborhood business kind of...? Mancino: ...is that what it is? Farmakes: Is that the property? Harberts: Is that what he has and then he has that commercial? What's this commercial proposed as neighborhood or...something else? Krauss: At this particular time... Conrad: I think it should stay neighborhood. Harberts: Ditto. Scott: Neighborhood commercial? Conrad: Yes. Scott: What is the zoning classification on that? Neighborhood. Harberts: That's what that represents now. Krauss: Actually we've shown it as a mix. Neighborhood commercial, medium family residential and I believe... Mancino: ...I don't have a big deal with the way and I like the three suggestions. The medium density, multi-family, the neighborhood commercial and I think we even said on the task force open space. You know it's across from the school. It's surrounded by the Bluff 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Creek corridor, which I think is an amenity to that whole area, and so I think it's important where we do have that corridor amenity there, that we do have families living around it that can use it and not to put either institutional right up to this wonderful nature trail and corridor that people don't use it, or to put a lot of commercial around it. Because I think that homeowners and family members will use it so much more. So that's kind of my concern and I know we're just getting started to work on the Bluff Creek corridor so I'm concerned about that. I'm also a little concerned about having commercial across the street from a school but it also serves neighborhoods in that area too. So I don't have a big concern either way. Farmakes: That's one of the properties that I thought, at least next to the creek there that I thought that the city should try and acquire some of that. The development that I saw up here tonight goes right up to the limited borders of that creek and if it is a multi, I don't think you're going to see much of that creek from the highway. To be honest with you. I'm fine with some limited commercial, neighborhood commercial. I guess from a planning standpoint, I guess any of these other uses that were listed are also fine. I do think though that that's another one of the areas that does have some wooded areas or it's adjacent to wooded areas. That we should try and preserve that. Scott: So do we have a consensus on neighborhood business, multi-family, open space. So there would be no change there. Okay. Are we okay with that? No change on the VanDeVeire? Okay. Okay, how about the westerly piece of the Fleet Farm site adjacent to the limited access road? I was going to ask, what page is that on? We've got these great maps here. Harberts: It's got to be on TH 41 there where the TH 41 and TH 5. Aanenson: On page 48 of this. Ledvina: Can you point out what's done on the westerly part of that? Mancino: Look to your 8.7 and 8.8. Aanenson: Easterly. Is that the one we're looking at tying with the park? As we stated, we're not sure that that will be a full intersection at that...We're having Opus doing a traffic study and stated that that may just be a free right only. It may not be a full intersection. Harberts: So, that would make a difference. Scott: Yeah. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Well when we went out there and drove it, if this is what happens with the road system. I don't know, I thought I kind of liked it. Mancino: Which part? Farmakes: Like it is? Harberts: Yeah. At least from what I've seen. Mancino: You can't have that west city road go up north? Harberts: Well with the development or potential development there, with those access. Mancino: I think this northern part between Galpin and TH 41, and I said it earlier to Ladd, absolutely gorgeous land. I mean it's got these wonderful wetlands and you look up north there, just beautiful, beautiful land and rolling hills. Farmakes: I'm fine with the uses being proposed for those two smaller parcels. Obviously I'm not for the Mills section. Conrad: Would you be though if there's not a road there? Farmakes: For large scale commercial? Aanenson: Look at the development parcels. We're looking at really three 3 to 5 acre parcels on either side of that road. I think the reason that got raised...go back and look at the site analysis, and in the development design that was done for both parcels, commercial was never mentioned on the easterly portion or evolved from this plan... Farmakes: What I see here on the map is 3 acres to the east that says office institutional and then 2.5 acres to the west that says alternative land uses. Office institutional, neighborhood retail. Those are the two parcels that we're discussing right now? Or are you expanding that out to the entire area? Aanenson: I was looking at... Krauss: Well yeah, you've got 3 questions on there. Two of which we raised in here and one which was raised in the... Farmakes: Right. I'm just wondering what, you know are we going to discuss them as a 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 group or are we going to discuss them each as a, it seems to me that they're, from my standpoint anyway, a couple of those uses are fine. And some of the alternative uses that were being discussed by Mr. Hoffman here...that's a different animal. Scott: Well the size of the parcels obviously could change depending upon if that west city street actually becomes a full intersection and the street goes up and intersects with the access boulevard. Because then we'd have what, a fairly large parcel. Aanenson: It'd still be just a free right to get in there and then come back out. And then if you wanted to proceed, a free right to get onto the frontage road and then come back out on TH 41, but that may not be a full intersection is what I'm saying. Scott: But whether or not that street's there will have a lot to do with what happens on that property. Farmakes: Sure. But that might be 10 years from now. Scott: So do we have any, do we want to guide that for something else or are we comfortable with the? Ledvina: That's okay. Harberts: I think generally it was okay. The issue is going to surround with the, what type of intersection, if any, as I understand it. Will the city be able to consider? They won't have that information at the time this is moved ahead so it's just one of those transition pieces. Is that correct? Or this goes ahead until that traffic study's completed. Krauss: You know the traffic study is going to tell us whether or not Opus needs an access out onto Highway 5 at that point. Whether or not that should be signalized. It's not going to tell us whether or not we need the north leg. It's the same kind of a thing I was talking about on Audubon. Realistically this road is perfectly adequate to service that entire area without that intersection on the north side. Scott: Yeah. That's so close to TH 41. I can see where the traffic study of ingress and egress from the development but not for that other... Krauss: Whereas Opus needs it from a traffic standpoint...is to their probably benefit by not having it. You're not chopping up parcels. You're keeping neighborhoods together. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Well maybe we should consider, at least consider it as a contiguous piece of 7 to 8 acres...and look at it that way. So how does that, does that change anybody's thoughts as to the applicability of the zone guiding on it? Harberts: I guess I don't, I'm not against what you're saying Joe. I'd like to, let's just leave the road system in until the traffic study's done. - Krauss: Maybe there should be some language in there because the only reason why there was a commercial use in there is because there may be an intersection. No intersection, there's no reason for a commercial use there. Mancino: So then having an alternative if there isn't a road, I would go ahead and continue the multi-family. Aanenson: Or the park option. Scott: Okay. So okay. So if there's no extension. So if then if there's no extension of the west city street, then it's multi-family park? If there is an extension, then it's neighborhood business? What's the second piece here really? Harberts: Well I was under the impression that if there is no road extension, that the commercial element is just removed as an option. Scott: Which would make sense. Harberts: The other option is park. Krauss: The...would be like a church site. Harberts: Right. The other option would be a park and then was there a third option for that piece? No, guess not. Aanenson: Multi-family. Harberts: Multi-family, so there's three options. Scott: I think we're through now with the first piece. Opus site should be left IOP except for the most northerly portion. Get your maps out. The most northerly portion west of Highway 41 which shall be left medium family residential. That's up against the 10 acre 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 parcel that's a single family home? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Now where's medium family again? Aanenson: It's right here. Mancino: The piece behind? Aanenson: All of this will be zoned IOP. And we've always stated that commercial will not be permitted at this corner. That commercial under a PUD, if they have 25% and if they were to put it in...down in this corner and not on this side of the street. And the PUD would guide this to be office type uses...design, the lighting be compatible with the acreage. Scott: And then multi-family would abut the 10 acre parcel. Aanenson: Where the wetland is adjacent to the house? Scott: Yeah. That kind of, the wetland kind of bisects that parcel. Let me ask a question. It says the PAD. Aanenson: That should say PUD. Scott: That's kind of what I thought. Another acronym I didn't know. Okay. What do we feel about that? Conrad: It's perfect. Mancino: Not for me. Scott: It doesn't work for you? Mancino: I would still like to see all the, the land that touches the Arboretum multi-family. I went and looked at a land use map and looked through the city and looked at our city parks and what kind of land use was around you know Lake Ann, Meadow Green Park, Greenwood Shores Park. You know all of our parks are surrounded, except for Lake Susan Park, but most of our parks we have tried to, at least from what I can see that predecessor's have done, 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have tried to put them in those green spaces in single family or multi-family areas. Scott: From my big packet, that's a park deficiency thing. Mancino: And I think that's done for a reason. I think that there are green spaces. If you look at that map that's up in front of us, besides Lake Ann Park, if it weren't for the Arboretum, there wouldn't be a lot of big chunks of green open space. And I'm very concerned about what we do around those big green open spaces. To preserve them. To keep them as a place where people want to go and walk and see vegetation, etc. And so I would like to see medium family surrounding the Arboretum. Scott: Well isn't the trailhead for the Chaska trail system is actually right across from what is now...as IOP, right? And if we brought multi-family all the way down, that might make. Mancino: Which is what they've done in Chaska, and what abuts the Arboretum in Chaska is single family. Scott: Yes. Along with the road coming in. Now correct me if I'm wrong. Everybody... that actually the folks at the Arboretum would prefer industrial office because of the activity being predominantly 8:00 to 5:00 and nothing going on on the weekends and so forth when there'd be people at the Arboretum versus multi-family. The times that the multi-family are going to be the most active would be when the Arboretum's most active? Krauss: I talked with Peter Olin on that after our last meeting. No, that is not his position. I think it was the position of the people, the residents in the area, who are Chaska residents... Aanenson: That's what Peter Olin spoke tonight... Scott: Yeah, I heard that and that didn't make sense to me. Aanenson: Just to go back to the park issue. One of the most successful parks we have in the city is in an industrial park and I think Todd's preference is, is his desire to have the park in an industrial parks. Scott: Lake Susan? Aanenson: Lake Susan is a good example and for scheduling and then the traffic. It works better than trying to impact things on the neighbors who are concerned about lighting and traffic through the neighborhood and it's been very successful. That's why he was pushing so hard to get it into the Opus site. Where it benefits both large industrial users where they 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have a place to go on their lunch hour, after work or...organized activities. Scott: Do the customers or does Todd think his customers for Lake Ann, or Lake Susan Park, is there a lot of activity from the leagues from Rosemount, Roberts? Krauss: A tremendous amount. Scott: Okay, so his view is that it's something that kind of suddenly dawned on me is that this could be basically you're putting the park where your customers are. For organized. Their vision of the park is active, scheduled type stuff where we tend to lean more towards the passive, wetland. Okay. Anyway, what do we all think about having multi, bringing multi-family all the way down to West 86th Street? Aanenson: 82nd. Scott: 82nd Street. And having a multi-family strip there instead of IOP down there on 82nd. We know what Nancy thinks. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: I think it's nice. Farmakes: I've never seen a compelling reason to bring industrial across the highway. But tempered with what comments I have heard from the Arboretum, I'm open to whatever the residents that abut that property would like. From a planning perspective, this is like really kind of a back closet in Chanhassen. It's a corner and it's, I think it's an issue of buffered use at this point. It's not really a planning issue. I'm open to vote either way on that particular item. Scott: Okay, good. What do you think? Conrad: I think we're treating this like it's an access park. You can't, your multi-family folks can't go into the Arboretum. That's trespassing. Mancino: Sure they can. Conrad: But you made some parallels between other parks and that doesn't count. They can't go there. I think, the issue is buffering the Arboretum. Flat out, that's the issue. My perspective, and the second issue is doing what the local residents who have single family care about. Single family folks would rather put the office institutional in there is what my feeling was when I heard them talk. In fact, my feeling is, the best buffer, the best visual control we have is putting in. Making it IO in that area. I think we could just do a terrific 50 '- Y Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 job for the Arboretum in terms of visual impact if we left it IOP. Because we've got control. We've just got a ton of control. We can put some, we can do so many things that just make it unobtrusive to the Arboretum. Maybe you could make the same comment about putting in multi-family but multi-family is real, I'll tell you. If you put multi-family in there, it doesn't, it's like you're putting it in the middle of where? You've got office. You've got industrial to the south. You've got industrial IOP to the east. It is kind of nice to put it up against a park but they can't use the park. Mancino: Sure they can. They can walk to the. Conrad: You can't walk through. Mancino: It's right there. But you also have single family right south of them. Conrad: It goes south but not in the park. Mancino: No, but there's single family. The Chaska zoning is single family. Conrad: But anyway, bottom line for me is, I think the residents would rather have it the way, the IOP. Ledvina: Well, can I just try to recollect my thoughts on that? I think they were thinking that if we were going to be doing multi-family there, they'd rather have the IO, the industrial thing application. But we had it set up here as a recommendation for single family and that's consistent with what they have. Am I right there? Aanenson: Well the way it's shown here, a portion of it's single family and a portion of it's strictly office. Scott: But is that square that's single family, that's one single family home. Aanenson: No. It's 30 acres. Farmakes: There is an existing single family home. Ledvina: So I think in comparison to multi-family and industrial, light industrial, they'd rather have the industrial but I think for single family, I don't think they would object to single family as well. I mean given the hierarchy of land use. Farmakes: The single family though were looking at developing the property. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: Right. Farmakes: As industrial. Ledvina: So whatever. I guess overall I'm pretty comfortable with how the staff has laid it — all there. The parcel to the east, that's pink there on the map. The reality of that chunk is that there is a very large wetland on the northern part of that that buffers the Arboretum and I don't know what, even if you could possibly do anything with that single family orange, — industrial so I'm not, I'm pretty indifferent to any classification on that. So I'm comfortable with it the way it is. _ Scott: Okay, so what you're saying is single family up above, multi-family on 82nd or IOP on 82nd? _ Krauss: I think if you look at Figure 8.21, you have that recommendation. It shows medium density, office and medium density down on the street. _ Ledvina: Okay, so it isn't single family? Aanenson: No. Ledvina: I guess considering that, I would agree with Ladd then. Kind of flip flopping but I _ thought that was, right along 82nd there was single family on our maps but that's incorrect. Scott: It's IOP. — Aanenson: No, it's shown as... Harberts: It splits. Farmakes: Industrial, medium density residential. — Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I guess I'm comfortable with the way the staff has laid it out. Scott: You're not. Jeff's kind of. Mancino: Well I'm comfortable with the Highway 5 task force recommendation, which is _ medium density in that. 52 — Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Adjacent to the Arboretum and then office... Harberts: I support that staff recommendation. Mancino: Which? Harberts: Medium. Conrad: Which is the task force? Harberts: Yeah. Aanenson: The modified...? Harberts: The modified. Medium density. Aanenson: With the rest all IOP. Harberts: Yep. Scott: Yeah, I would agree with that as well. Okay. So we're clear. Are you guys clear on what. Aanenson: So was there consensus on that? A show of hands? Scott: 4 of us liked it as indicated. Jeff was. Farmakes: I'm comfortable as it's written. Scott: Okay. And then Nancy you wanted to see multi-family brought down to the, you're snickering. What are you snickering about? Okay. You got that? Aanenson: Yep. Scott: Okay. Eckankar property. The owners are requesting that in addition to the multi- family, that institutional be listed as a permitted use. Diane. Harberts: Now as I understood from our work session, that the multi-family would be the underlying designation in the event something happened to the current owners. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: So your concern is, it's okay to have it institutional but if something happens to the institutional use, it would revert back to multi-family? Harberts: Right. Now the only question that I have, what's their current, how is it currently guided? Krauss: I think it's medium and high. Harberts: Okay, so we're not changing it. Aanenson: You wouldn't rezone it. Krauss: The only proposal in here was that, I think it covers both bases because basically you leave that yellow up there... Harberts: Okay. Aanenson: The zoning would still remain the same. Harberts: Yeah, and as I said at the work session, I don't have any problem with it. I thought it was fine. Ledvina: Well I didn't attend the work session but I think that's a reasonable way of amending it. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Perfect. Scott: Jeff. You're okay? Okay. Okay, so am I. Okay, so that's a yes. Okay, about what? Farmakes: Well we discussed the parcels next to it, I'm wondering about the issue of commercial scale on the corner of TH 5 and TH 41. Scott: But recommending an access boulevard alternative do we, and then also recommending the design standards, doesn't that take care of the Fleet Farm use on that corner? Farmakes: Well yeah, I'm sure it will be brought up to the City Council and I'm wondering if philosophically. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: You're looking for a statement. Farmakes: A statement and the issue of expanding large scale commercial outside the business district. Scott: Oh, well. I think we can take care of that. I mean I stated my opinion but I guess, we'll take just a quick, actually sort of a detour but as Jeff is stating, as I understand it, that as Planning Commission I think we may need to make a very specific statement about the use for the property on the Mills Fleet Farm property. And your thoughts are? Farmakes: My thoughts are that the large scale commercial use would be inappropriate in that area. Scott: Okay, I would agree with that. Nancy? Mancino: I agree. Scott: Ladd. Diane. Ledvina: I agree. Scott: Okay so just for the matter of record, the Planning Commission is unanimously opposed to any large scale commercial use of the property northeast on the intersection of — Highway 41 and Highway 5. Otherwise known as the Mills property. Okay. J.P. Links, which is 15-20 acres may be considered as a park site. Aanenson: ...another option. Scott: Fine, fine? Okay. That's a yes there. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek. South of the frontage road. Multi-family should be considered as an option with the industrial. What do you think Ladd? Aanenson: That was the piece we were just talking about. Scott: With Mr. Dobbs, correct? Okay, Dobbs? John Dobbs: That's correct. Conrad: I think that's fine. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 — Scott: Fine. Nancy. Mancino: No problem. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: No problem. Harberts: Fine. Scott: Just because of it's proximity to the Bluff Creek corridor, obviously this is coming in _ as a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. — Scott: Okay. Mancino: Is it going to be industrial on the outside and multi-family on the inside? Farmakes: Sounds like a candy bar. — Scott: And crunchy too. Conrad: How many acres are we talking about right there? Aanenson: 120. We'll have three different ones. Single family, multi-family and industrial. — Conrad: Okay. Good. So by doing what we just did, giving them the option, how many — acres are we taking out of? Aanenson: You're taking it out of the industrial. — Conrad: How many acres would we be taking out? — Aanenson: We're not taking it out. We're saying... Conrad: It could be but more than likely... Scott: And then we'll be able to, we're going to see it anyway so. _ 56 i4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: My only point is, you know industrial's a high value. Do we have enough of it? Krauss: You have to remember that's also a flood plain. Scott: Okay. Possible locations of a 15-20 acre park of the easterly portion of the Fleet Farm property. Aanenson: We talked about that already. Mancino: I actually think it would be a wonderful viewpoint into that area, into the wetlands that are north of that. Scott: Okay, that's a big yes on that one. Okay. Now we move on into development and design standards issues. Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts, the central business district (HC-1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers on the west. And that was something that just came out of our discussion at the work session. Krauss: That was something that when we expanded the CBD district... Scott: Which will definitely impact the DataSery looks. Krauss: I think it gets to a lot of the...I don't know what the concern is but that was one of the things we discussed. Scott: But that's the gate, the eastern gateway to the city and I think it's appropriate that we do something. So we're all in favor of that? Okay. Now here's a big item that we'll be debating for a long time. Application of these standards for public transit, is there flexibility? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay. Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added. So that's. Aanenson: We'll put that in there...we asked for 3 different typicals...Not all pitched roofs depending on the same of the building...so different applications. Scott: Okay. Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logos. Aanenson: That was raised by Jeff. Scott: Yes we will. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: You want to put that in there? Scott: Yeah, I think so. Conrad: Why? Harberts: Yeah. Scott: Well, because we talked about accent colors and that we want to have accent colors to break up the monotony but I don't consider a Hardee's sign an accent color. So it can't be part signage. Ledvina: What I'm thinking of, what if they have an admiral blue as part of their, one of their logo colors. They can't use that? Scott: Well, I think what we're trying to get away from is someone saying we're breaking up the monotony on our building by using our signage. Krauss: I think Rapid Oil is a good example where they have their red barreling as part of their logo. Or Burger King which has a neon orange stripe around the building. If that's an accent color... Scott: Yeah, we're looking more at architectural elements and not signage. Aanenson: I think what we did is put it in context. Ledvina: You're telling them not to use their color. Scott: No, no. They can't include the color as, see if we're asking them to break up the monotony of a surface on their building or their structure by using accent colors, generally they do something with tile or brick or something like that which is great but by putting or using, holding their signage up as a conformance to adding accent colors to break up the monotony, signage should be. I don't know if you want to. Aanenson: ...context of looking at the...of the ordinance about...Those are questions to make sure we... Scott: Okay, and then the height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are limited to one story and it shall be neutral in color. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: So you want that added? Scott: Do we? Yes. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Harberts: As opposed to what? 3 story? Ledvina: Is it appropriate to do that? I mean in all cases to limit it to 1 story? I don't know that that's. Krauss: Well, you're going to wind up with more poles, which raises cost. Ledvina: Yeah. Which there's more lights. Scott: Well then we have our landscape, our parking lot landscape stuff which is going to cause more islands. Ledvina: How tall is one story? 12 feet right? That means you're looking at a 12 foot light? Scott: How tall is Target? Ledvina: Those are 40 feet. Krauss: Those are 40 feet, yeah. Ledvina: We want something inbetween. Scott: What are we looking for here? Mancino: Well we didn't want anything taller. One of the things was it wasn't any taller than the building. Like the ones at Target are much taller than the building. Krauss: Well there you have a 25 foot high building. Scott: So is Market Square and it seems like every, I think you go into any commercial parking lot and you can see. Mancino: You can see them over the heads. I mean you can see them 3 miles away. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: Yeah but one story, is that overkill? I mean that's what scares me. Mancino: I don't know. Conrad: You know actually I think you're right because I'm not sure that that makes sense. Scott: Should it be 1 1/2 times the height of the building? I mean is that what we're looking for? Mancino: Well that could be 3 stories... Farmakes: We toyed there about whether or not it should be any higher than the building, similar to a pylon issue. Then there was a discussion that you would have too many lights because they don't, the arch of the lights does not give off enough, it's not high enough to give off enough light coverage. So can we get, it would seem to me again that that's a professional response to what's appropriate. I think the issue is, you don't want to drive in and see these kind of arched lights that are far higher than any of the buildings...Well they lend too much visual pollution from the standpoint of it kind of becomes signs in a way. Ledvina: I understand and I agree with that but can we just, instead of saying these shall be whatever, 12 feet. I mean can we say that they're going to be. Mancino: In proportion to the height of the building. Ledvina: Yeah, right. Scott: What does that mean? I mean I was more comfortable when it was like 1 1/2 times. Farmakes: I'd like to see a specific gap similar to the way that we do pylon signs. Scott: What is that? Farmakes: I'm not saying it should be the same. I'm saying that something that is reasonable for the economy of lighting a parking lot. But no more than that. Scott: Why don't we say 1 1/2 times the height of the structure and if somebody comes back and says, watts and all this kind of junk and they can say well. Mancino: But 1 1/2 times is still higher than the structure. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: 1 1/2 times so it's 16 feet on a 12 foot building. Farmakes: But you could have a maximum building though of more than 40 feet. Conrad: We really don't know what we're talking about here. Let's stop this. Somebody's got to tell us. The intent is real valid but we don't have a solution. Ledvina: Let me get back to that just a little bit though. I mean if we can't say that it should be in proportion or use a qualitative term like that, then the whole, then we're taking the wrong approach to this ordinance because we go through this throughout the ordinance in terms of being subjective and having qualitative measures and all of that. So if we're trying to do that for light fixtures, I think we've got to take a real deeper look at that what's in here and how we're doing it. Farmakes: No, I disagree with that. I think that there are qualitative issues on there. There are issues such as how many materials are being used in comparison to build it... There are other issues where you don't want to be quantitative and the issue of the height of something, I think you should be, should say specifically what the maximum is. And the issues of aesthetic things, that becomes a far more difficult issue. You talk more about the end intent of what you're looking for. Ledvina: Isn't the height of a light fixture aesthetic though? Farmakes: Not necessarily. Not if you're going to qualify it. If you want to qualify it, and you say in proportion to the building, define the word proportion. Many of the definitions that are in there, that may seem ambiguous are defined. And I think in the purpose of the light fixture, or we discussed that issue. You were concerned I think about the...and issues of things that are already currently in our ordinance. I think the purpose of it was that you did not get disproportionately huge lighting situations going on. Scott: But I don't have any problems specifying something and it doesn't have to be 1 1/2 times the building but I think when you put some language in, the...who would be impacted by it, would take a look at it and if they can come back and you know with reasons why this isn't going to work. I mean I don't know, quite frankly on that issue I don't know what we're talking about but I think we do need to put something in there that's specific. So as part of the next step of the process, if somebody should come back and say here's why or why not it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: Currently I believe don't we have a height restriction on lighting? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: I think we just have a candle. Krauss: Now we have a half a foot candle at the property line. Farmakes: You just have a power restriction. Krauss: And the problem always comes about, that when they take these plans to an electrical contractor...to bid, that can save you $25,000.00... Farmakes: Well, I would entertain just getting a professional responses to what would, the economic...leave it to that. Harberts: I think it's a public safety issue too perhaps. Scott: Yeah. Let's do it. Mancino: I have one quick question. Kate and Paul, on Chapter 8 with the standards related to architectural designs. It says standards governing all these architectural designs shall...both new and renovated buildings. Do we need to say what a renovated building is? I mean does that mean when somebody existing on Highway 5 let's say, I don't know the storage company who has rooftop equipment that shows now. It's very visible from Highway 5. Wants to screen and do a little bit of building renovation. Do they have to comply with these standards now? Krauss: I think we should have some more specific language. One of the things we talked about, a couple of years ago...you want to work with your existing business community by encouraging them to expand or improve and a way to do that is not to throw, not come down like a...you're adding a window, therefore you've got to add $75,000.00 in improvements to make it proportional. We can probably put in some language there that says just that. Ledvina: I'd recommend that. Scott: Also too, this is on page 12 where it talks about in locations where plants would be susceptible to injury, so on and so forth. Possibly something in there about the salt tolerance and I may have missed that if it was in here but we spend a lot of time talking about that in all of our developments. This would be good to have use of salt tolerant species. Krauss: ... over the summer we had the ordinance that... 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Good. Okay. What about the comment that came up about any development, and I don't know whether it's going to be at the conceptual plan would show not only all the elevations but some sort of a computer aided design or a computer generated simulation of actual, the actual visual impact and as constructed. Not in 15 years when the trees are big. It seems like when we see these plans, first of all and I got quite excited when I saw that, the bridge because I think we were able to jump on that and make some better decisions. I think we would be better served if we had that as a requirement of all projects at a certain point. Aanenson: ...you may want to amend the ordinance to say any large scale parcel... Scott: Okay, so that's a different spot. Okay. Have we satisfactorily dealt with the land use portion and the design standards? Mancino: I have one other design standard question for people to talk about and that is, there's nothing in here on neighborhood commercial. And I would like to see something about how neighborhood commercial is different than a regular commercial area, meaning does it, how it fits in with the neighborhood better. Does it have more residential type materials being used that reflect the neighborhood that it's support to be part of? Scott: Good point. Farmakes: Won't that be part of the zone though? Scott: I don't think it is. Aanenson: In a PUD certainly when we looked at that with Opus, certainly that would be something to put in a PUD development plan. Do you want it to be architecturally compatible so it looks as one cohesive unit, and that's one of the goals. But certainly if you had a separate case that's not under a PUD. Mancino: Yeah, I mean what about Galpin and TH 5. Aanenson: Right, and that is built separately without any other project, right. Do you still want it to go under the residential, so it looks like it's part of that neighborhood. Mancino: Yes. Because it is neighborhood commercial. I mean it's not general commercial. Aanenson: I know that's in the intent. I think we'll have to make sure that, even the intent when we adopt the plan. I mean that's in the goal statement there but how we put that into 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 the ordinance, we'll have to get some clarification from the City Attorney on that. That was an issue that was... Scott: Any other comments on design standards or land use? Seeing none, let's talk about the access boulevard. Harberts: I'd like to maybe broaden that a little bit. Just with regards to the comments we heard this evening. I think some of the comments that we heard tonight we've addressed through some of this discussion. And there seems to be other comments. I don't know if .they're really our role to address such as with the roadway, moving it 100 feet south or, I guess what really concerns me is some of the comments made by the, well the fact that the comments made by the landowners in terms of not supporting the whole access boulevard concept. I'm not saying that, I certainly recognize the need for development and I think the best thing that this community can do is put a plan out there. I think we've all sat on this commission and pulling the hair out of our head in terms of, give us a road map. An infrastructure plan so we don't have this pieces here, pieces there of roadways not connecting. I like the idea of putting the access boulevards out there as a guide plan so that we do know what way development is going to go. I guess I'm going to defer to the task force of where the alignment is for the corridor because of all the time they spent on it. I guess when we look at DataServ, I don't know who's role it is to consider that request with regard to you know 600 employees. That's somewhat of a major development for Chanhassen. So I'm just sharing my, I guess my comments in terms of what I heard tonight. Farmakes: I would qualify that. I was on the task force and we had known that, the task force was made up of many divergent interests. The same divergent interests that you see here tonight. And it's similar to this commission I guess. They don't always vote alike. Sometimes it's 5 to 4 and sometimes it's 10 to 1. I mean there were a lot of different things to look at on this issue. Many of them, particularly the landowners, obviously they have a divergent interest. Their properties are all shaped differently. How they can maximumly develop them to get their return on their property. Where their access roads would be. Each property owner, if left to decide that, it would be different and obviously you can't build a corridor like that. And the other spectrum of that process. Harberts: And did the corridor task force hear these same comments or similar comments then? Farmakes: Oh sure. Yeah. Harberts: And that's why I'm saying that I certainly defer to what's being recommended by the task force because of the detailed work that you folks went through, and overall like I 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 said, having a plan for a roadway system that's going to help enhance the mobility of our community is important. And I think with what's being planned, I think it's good. Farmakes: I just wanted to say that the task force was in disagreement just like we are here and the issue of what was voted on of course is, in some cases there was no disagreement whatsoever and in other cases there was disagreement. Scott: And also too, as necessity is the mother of invention, I think left to their own devices, I think any developer, and rightfully so, would take the path of least resistance, the least creative, the least costly and you get basic stuff, which is what we don't want in our community. You know we need a plan. I happen to prefer the alternative as proposed by the Highway 5 task force and after the hoopla dies down, this property is still going to be developed. We're probably going to see the same people coming back in here with similar plans. Tweak those a bit but they're going to have to think and they're going to have to — stretch and they're going to have to be creative, and isn't that what we want anyway. Farmakes: But you would expect that though. I mean this is in use now as agricultural property. So it's much more of a free for all than on the east side of TH 5 where it's much more defined and city zoned. And as I said, each individual property owner has a different expectation. And rightfully so. That's their prerogative. They own the property. Scott: So you've got, you support your recommendation. I support the recommendation. Each of the guys that are on the task force, you guys were on opposite sides or? Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I, obviously I'm in the minority of the issue of the access road. I believe it's 2 between Lake Ann and Galpin Road. I support the southern route solely because I think that the city would be able to control more of the property. Whether the city buys it or whether the State buys it. Whether the money's there or it's not there or if _ it was there 6 months ago and now it's not. 6 months from now it might be back. I think that it's logical to assume that by controlling that property between Highway 5 and the access road gives you more opportunity to landscape out and buffer TH 5. The issues of land use, it seems to me it's convenient to slice off that chunk and essentially make a strip of high density housing. And I've already talked about this with everybody so I'm not going to repeat myself again about my issues there. Failing that, I do support the northern route around the Bluff Creek area which is not currently on the recommendation. I'll just give you my opinion. I don't think that the task force spent a considerable amount of time with that issue. We spent more time arguing the north and south routes. That's my personal opinion — anyway. And I feel if you go and look at the property, there's a lot of compelling reasons to run it to the north. There are some issues of crossing over residences. If you look at, there's 4 for on either route and this is a sensitive issue. But if you look at the long term...one 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 would have to say that there's a limited short term life span for those uses. Based on what's coming in there. So if we were looking in terms of, long term planning and we're looking at - essentially a highway network that's going to be here for the foreseeable future, I would say that it would seem to me that protecting that creek corridor, where the trees are, and going around it rather than through it would be in the best interest, long term of solving the intent of the original statement which was to keep Highway 5 from becoming a wall with no landscaping, no trees and no separation. Scott: That seems to be a wash with construction cost anyway. Mancino: Yeah, I'd ditto Jeff on that too. I mean...and did like the northern route. In fact I think the site plan that's done for that parcel between Lake Ann and Galpin, it's a very good one that shows some view so that we won't have a medium density just lining Highway 5. There's some good site plan analysis in here. But so I do agree with him on taking that northern route and not cutting through Bluff Creek in that heavily wooded area. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I agree with that. Ledvina: I agree with the proposed alignment and again I would support the northern route right at Galpin there avoiding the crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as a severe crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as the most environmental friendly way of tackling that feature of the terrain. Scott: Say that again. Conrad: Yeah, say that again. - Scott: You support the A-C connection or just number 1? Ledvina: No. I support the northerly route. Conrad: The blue. Ledvina: Right. Right. Scott: Blue all the way. Ledvina: I think that you know I feel bad about displacing people and that but again, we are 66 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 talking about long term planning issues and that's really the key. And if we stay with the objectives of the task force and what was laid out for us as the ground rules, I think that northerly route at Galpin satisfies those objectives. Scott: So the recommendation that we will then pass to the Planning Commission would be the complete Alternate #1 without A-C. Just the blue line that we see here with the northerly connection at Galpin. Harberts: That's basically what Jeff indicated in the beginning? Scott: Yeah. Harberts: Going around Bluff Creek. Farmakes: I disagree with another section but yes. No crossovers. Just go up to the north. Scott: I had some concern about that too because I was thinking, if it's dollar for dollar and such huge soil stabilization and so forth at the head waters for a pretty benign and fairly flat connection versus a tremendous amount of landfill and re, I think we had 200 or 300 feet of. Farmakes: It's still all essentially a wash. Any of the routes that you go and from an environmental impact. Or at least that's what the recommendation. Scott: So we'll pass the complete alternate #1 without the A-C connection. We've gone through the EAW on the design standards. Farmakes: I'll dissent on that one. _ Scott: Okay. Oh, because of your. Farmakes: Yeah. I support no crossovers and that issue but I just don't support the northerly route from Galpin to Lake Ann. Aanenson: We can break these out into three separate motions. Scott: Yeah, can I have a. Farmakes: I'm not sure, are we voting on this or are we just giving recommendations? Scott: Well, we're going to now. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: It makes no difference to me. Conrad: Let's not vote yet. The northerly route, does that eliminate the possibility of the golf course? Scott: Well, my personal opinion is that the golf course is not real. Farmakes: I would not be opposed though to leaving in an option in there that should it become real, or should he acquire another 40 acres to the west and it becomes a viable issue, let him bring it forward. Let him bring it forward and let's see it. I mean it does support the intent. Conrad: I'm not sure how we do that Jeff. It's like. I think we can revise stuff but you know. On the other hand, where can you put a golf course? You can put a golf course in a residential. In our zoning, as we would have it, even though we've already talked about zoning, we don't have a zone for a golf course but they're permitted where, in our proposed zoning, would a golf course be permitted where he's got the property? Krauss: Actually I don't think we'd permit it practically anyplace. We'd probably have to... the zoning ordinance to do it but in itself... Farmakes: Since the city or the developer is going to have to pick up the cost for the road anyway, when it does go in from that section, I would assume from a matter of practicality if he comes forward with a golf course, it doesn't stop him unless there's a zoning issue that would stop him from proposing that. Scott: Plus the fact is that the, there is not going to be any access to that parcel off of Highway 5. All access to that parcel has got to come off of the access boulevard, right? Krauss: Well yes. That's the way we see it...MnDot will see it. Scott: So, I think you can take the senior housing would have to be serviced from a different way. And still, you know having a 15, actually we've got 30 feet. The total right-of-way for the access boulevard is what? Aanenson: 80. Scott: 80 feet? I can think of 5 golf courses right now that have major, major like University of Minnesota golf course has got Larpentur Avenue. That's 4 lanes. Minnekada. Interlachen. I mean the list goes on. 68 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah. I don't think a road would preclude. It will take some property but I don't think it's going to preclude putting a course there. I think the total amount of land is more an issue than the road going right, you know separating 3 or 4 holes from it. Scott: He's got to have. Farmakes: Another 20-40 acres. Conrad: He probably does but I guess my only issue, and again my only issue is I don't want to not, I don't want to force that as not a possibility by whatever we're doing and my perception is, the road is not the thing that's going to keep it from happening. But I want to make sure that we haven't done something zoning wise that is keeping that from happening. If he can make it happen. Actually if he can make it happen I'd rethink a lot of stuff. What makes the northerly route valid in my mind is that it's not only, it's transit for people to the northwest to downtown but it services some high density area that we really are putting in between the road. It's really a very functional street and that, once we drop that street down to right next to Highway 5, then it's nothing in my mind. It's nothing. It's just not doing a great deal. Farmakes: But what's right next to Highway 5? 80 feet? 100 feet? 400 feet? Conrad: You'd end up with not a functioning piece of property. Farmakes: Something that you could develop as a medium density or high density. Conrad: Basically a service road concept doesn't give you much to work with between Highway 5 and. Farmakes: Well in the case of TH 7 or 494, there's nothing. It's right next to the slope. Conrad: Right. And I think we've got a great opportunity to do something different and that's why I like what we've got but that's why I want the road to the north to make it. I need to justify it cost wise and that's not our decision here. Price is no object to the Planning Commission. We kind of want a realistic solution but we don't really weigh it against some price options. We typically don't. But from a citizen standpoint, I can justify that road and when it's servicing some people, plus it's also a corridor for the community. Farmakes: It would seem to me then that the only thing it would restrict, since they're not... the road, would be an issue of how much time we're looking at or the timeframe we're looking at here and whether or not the zone that we're committed to or give a guideline to is 69 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 going to include that. Does the fact that that's going to be single family and multi keep them from putting in a golf course there? Scott: Wouldn't you think though that if a proposal like that came forward for a golf course, that would be able to be built on that property, I'd be willing to bet that any Planning Commission who saw that would say, well oh you mean we have to rezone this to have them build a golf course. I would think that most Planning Commissions would go fine. Let's change it. That's definitely something you want. Farmakes: But what happens when you get some piecemeal development going on there? Maybe they don't want a golf course. I can't imagine that but maybe they don't. Scott: Well I. Farmakes: Are we committing ourselves here? Are we essentially zoning this to the effect that nothing else can go in there? Where we have it as multi-family and single family, I think on the comp plan it's listed as residential, is that correct? Aanenson: It's guided right now for multi-family and single family. That's how it's guided right now. Farmakes: Okay, but what I'm saying is there isn't, is there a line on the comp plan that shows exactly where multi-family begins and single family ends? Krauss: Pretty much. Farmakes: Okay. Krauss: I mean arguably it could slide a little bit one way or the other but the line was put exactly where Mike Gorra asked for it to be put several years ago. When he says he was _ never consulted on this, I mean... Farmakes: When you submitted the comp plan. Krauss: Yeah. Scott: Yeah he was, yeah, I read through all that stuff. On the July 23rd meeting. He talked about...but are we in a position right now. I see we've got three things to adopt. Should we make that into three motions? I think we all have them in front of us. I'm not going to make the motion since I'm not supposed to do that. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Paul, I thought of something else that I wanted to add to this whole thing. Scott: It says approval of these things, like the corridor land use study as modified. With modifications. I supposed you want to get the modifications in before your motion tonight. Harberts: Yeah. Just real quickly. Aanenson: Those that we took notes on, and I'm assuming there are modifications. Scott: Yeah, but if anybody has any more, let's get it in before we made a recommendation. Mancino: The only thing I'd like to add is to the park and trail section which is Chapter 5. I'd like to beef up the Bluff Creek corridor specifications. You know when we had the school site and we reviewed it, one of the things that I commented to staff I thought they did a great job on was proposing that the applicant meet with the DNR to determine the original landscape along the corridor and also to have a 60 to 100 foot width set aside for that purpose of getting it back to it's original vegetative state and we all kind of talked about it. And I think that would be really good in here. Some sort of specifics on the Bluff Creek corridor and how it was treated going through the Highway 5 area. Does that make sense? Krauss: Well I think it ties in real well with the...the way the routing should go on the north side. By the way, when you touched on this golf course thing too. There's some issues that were raised tonight that we're going to want to address as staff...but it may be appropriate to add some text to the plan that says if a golf course is legitimately demonstrated to be a viable option, then that's something that will be considered. Conrad: I would like that very much. Scott: But it's not going to change the alignment of the access. Krauss: Well I don't th ink it will but since we don't have that...coming down the pike immediately, it could. I mean if Mike came in with a proposal and said look. I really need to slide this thing over. Over to here because it's going around the 14th hole. We always work with people on stuff like that. Scott: Is it going to go down the line and down the line and down the line and then all of a sudden the road's looped all over the place? Krauss: Well yeah. It obviously has to meet our parameters and the longer Mike waits to do something, the less flexibility he's going to have if the die is cast on either side. What I 71 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 heard Mike Gorra saying was, don't do anything and I'll tell you what I'm going to do when I'm ready to tell you. But if you want to keep your foot in the door and say that the golf course is a possibility. Conrad: See Joe, if somebody brought in a golf course that was real, it's a terrific community asset and it's equivalent if not better than where this road goes. I'll just tell you, if you can get a golf course in Chan, if somebody's willing to put it on this high potential property, if that's what he wants to do, I'll slide roads wherever they want them because I perceive that to be a very definite community resource. But I'm real comfortable keeping the roads the way they are right now until that comes in but I do want to communicate to them that I'd sure consider it. That's real valid. I just...the course next to the park, it's just really neat but I considered it but not until I see it. Scott: Yeah, I'd go with that. We want to see something that's for real and we haven't seen it yet. I mean I think we were all took it as waving the golf course around to try and get the road to move so something else could be built there. And I think it was pretty obvious that's what was going on, at least to me. But I would agree with Ladd. If something for real comes in and it's something that we're comfortable with, we're not going to, I mean I'm personally not going to shove the road all the way down to Highway 5 but, as Ladd is saying, if the layout is such that you need to put a bend in there or something to get it around a hole, I can see that minor modifications but nothing major. Farmakes: If we were talking about his proposal exactly, I would not entertain any other uses though except a golf course. Conrad: Correct. Farmakes: He had some other uses that were envisioned there including a large space, building yet to be determined. Conrad: Well there was some strange stuff. — Farmakes: But recreational golf area between... Scott: Why don't we take this, can we take this as one motion or three? Ledvina: No, three. — Scott: Okay. Well, who wants to start? 72 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: What would you recommend? Aanenson: Obviously number one's been amended... Ledvina: Okay, well I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Number 1. Affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton-Aschman. Scott: It's been moved. Harberts: And second. Scott: Is there a second? Yes. It's been moved and seconded that we affirm the preferred Alternative #1 as stated by Matt. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton-Aschman. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: And your reason? Farmakes: I don't support Alternative #1. Scott: Same as during the discussion prior to this? Farmakes: Correct. For reasons already stated. Scott: Okay. Is there another motion? Ledvina: I would move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Recommending approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use _ recommendations as discussed in detail this evening, and we had several discussions on the items that were identified by the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study as extensively modified. Is there any discussion? No discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as modified during the previous discussion of the issues outlined by the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Ledvina: Well I'll finish it off. I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion for the approval of the Ordinance Establishing the Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications as discussed this evening. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the ordinance of the corridor districts. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ordinance Establishing Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications discussed during the previous issues outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: And your thoughts Diane? Harberts: Public transit needs to be further flushed out and we'll do it at the Council level. Scott: I'm sure you will. Motion carries. Due to the hour, unless there's some significant _ administrative approvals or first of all, we'll accept the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 1994 as presented. Scott: Unless there's any objection. Yes ma'am. Mancino: We just need a calendar for our attendance at City Council meetings for '94. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Good. Matt mentioned that. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 75 i i i i 1 i i l 1 i i 1 i CITY OF 1 HO'4111 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: January 26, 1994 SUBJ: Report from Director At the January 24, 1994, City Council meeting the following actions were taken: 1. The Council approved the findings of fact denying the Papke variance request. The request did not come through the Planning Commission but is interesting never-the-less. The lot is located at the south end of Lake Minnewashta adjacent to Hwy. 5. It looks like a small amount of marginal high ground but mostly wetland. It is a lot of record and staff took the position that we should make it buildable although we would prefer that it not be. The Arboretum has a critical viewshed to the north over this parcel. The variance was to allow on-site drainfield within 150 feet of a wetland (the ordinance is somewhat confusing since it allows the same drainfield and home to be within 75 feet of a lake). The only way to avoid the need for an on-site system is to extend a sewer line some 1600 feet to the west at a significant cost. The Council denied the request stating that development was premature and that environmental safety could not be insured with an on-site system. The case is likely to be litigated. 2. The Council authorized staff to submit a second RALF loan request to acquire the portion of the Hwy. 212 ROW located on property owned by Frank Fox. His parcel is located south of Lyman along the future extended ROW of Powers Blvd. 3. The Council reviewed the requests associated with the new elementary school. While there was general support, the applicant "blew it" when they neglected to bring the colored boards and model the Planning Commission got to see. The Council tabled final action until the January 31 Work Session. 4. A resolution supporting the LCMR grant proposal was approved. The grant would be used to restore the Bluff Creek corridor. A copy of the preliminary application is attached. '•_ly Planning Commission January 26, 1994 Page 2 5. The Council directed staff to work with the watershed district to purchase 5.07 acres of land at the south end of Bluff Creek. Refer to the attached letter for details. 6. A review of the Hwy. 5 Plan was scheduled for the February 7 Work Session. No date for formal review has yet been selected. LCMR Proposal 1995 Tide: Bluff Creek Comprehensive Watershed Management Project Program Manager: Paul Krauss,Planning Director,City of Chanhassen, 690 Coulter Drive,P.O.Box 147, Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 (612)937-1900 Biennial Total: $777,000 L Narrative: Develop and begin implementing a comprehensive natural resource management plan that demonstrates prudent development can occur in harmony with protection and restoration of natural systems in an urbanizing watershed of the lower Minnesota River. IL Outcomes for the Bluff Creek wattrshed and lb residents • A consensus-bossed comprehensive natural resources management plan is developed and agreed to by project partners. Strategies and actions for natural resource management are identified and prioritized. There is extensive Iocal public and intergovernmental cooperation to irirnrify problems,solutions and - fumding sources ▪ Acquisition of key parcels for I)wetland, prairie and forest restoration projects; 2)protection of critical natural areas,;and 3)restoring the watershed's hydrology. • Formation of an environmental education parts ership made up of the Chaska School District,the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the Minnesota Valley.National Wildlife Refuge(NWR). si Begin trail construction in the Bluff Creek corridor including trail connections from south Lake Minnewashta to the Minnesota Valley NWR. • Improve condition and management of land and water resources in the Bluff Creek watershed and the Minn es ota Rive basin. • Ill Objectives A. Title:Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management Plan 1. Summary: Develop a partnership that 1)provides an effective forum for extensive public involvement, and 2)marshals skills and technical knowledge of natural resourcemanagement interests and the public to develop a comprehensive natural resource management plan that provides guidance with regard to plan implementation and funding strategies. 2. Bug $180,000 for project coordinator salary and benefits,planning and project support n3. Project Timeliae: 7/95 1/96 6196 1/97 6/97 **alt****•t***••!M!*************,.. B. Title. Demonstration Projects 1. Summary: An important component of this project will be land and water restoration projects focused on wetland,prairie and oak savannah habitats; erosion control and water quality enhancement; and acquisition of lands for recreation. On-the-ground demonstration projects will serve to galvanize interest and garner public commitment in the watershed. 2. Budget $560,400 3_ Project Timeline: 7195 1196 6/96 1.97 6/97 e C. Tirtk Environmental Education 1. Summary: Education plays a key role through ail phases of this project A new school planned for construction in the upper watershed neat the Bluff Creek corridor provides an opportunity for a unique - - whip betweenibe Chaska School District,the mea-by Minnesota Landscape Arboretum,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through their Minaesota Valley facility. Curriculum will focus on the watershed's natural commimitics. 2. Budget $37,01X1 3. Project Timeline 7/95 1196 6/96 1197 6/97 •••s*r••***•****i•*****•I*$$*•*!$ S**SS***•lois!•**• IV. Context A. Significance: Comprehensive natural resource management using ecological boundaries(such as watershed units)is a concept that is gaining widespread acceptance at national, state and local levels. This project provides an opportunity to implement ecosystem management principles in cooperation with local interests and decisioonnrrnnaakkers in a rapidly urbanizing watershed with significant and unique natural resources. This project provides opportunities far restoration of natural aquatic and terrestnaI systems while complementing community infrastructure needs and requirements. Chanhassen has implemented some of the most far reaching wetland and water quality protection plans in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The city has also identified Bluff Creek as a natural recreational corridor that has the potential of linking Lake Minnewaslita Regional Park,the sow Lake Mmnetrnke area and the lower Minnesota River Valley. The Bluff Creek evatersbed is tributary to the Minnesota River—a river and watershed that is the subject of intense study,and rehabilitation and protection effort To date,there is no comprehensive watershed project in the urban,and becoming urban, reach of the Minnesota Valley. B.Strategies: This project will enhance the knowledge base for natural resource decision-making by applying a model process for watershed planning in a developing urban watershed. This process is predicated on delivery of environmental knowledge to local officials and citizens so that they may make sound natural resource management decisions. This effort will demonstrate the practical value of ecosystem- based,collaborative management approaches so that they may be applied in similar watersheds. (strait 17 This project will preserve, protect and restore the significant natural resources within the Bluff Creek watershed Those resources include wetland habitat, native prairie and oak savannah habitats,scenic bluffs, and unique and sensitive flora and faun&(strategy c) C. Time: This is a Iong term project whose implementation will occur over several years. This proposal seeks start-up funding from the LCMR for ooe biennium. D.Cooperation: Approximately twenty project partners representing citieens,organizations and local, state and federal agencies in the watershed. Letters of cooperation are att gibed. In addition, S75,000 of in-kind matching funds have been pledged under Objective A,with$195,000 actual cash pledged to match Objective]3_ V. Budget History: A, LCMR Budget ll3'istory: None B. Ton-LCMR Budget Errstorr Chanhassen has taken some steps towards attaining its Bluff Creek corridor goals. A few scattered partes of land and protective easements were acquired as dedication during subdivision approval. Chanhassen is in the process of ptreliasmg an 11 acre forested and wetland parcel threatened by development at a cost of$40,000- S100,000. Another 40 acre parcel was purchased at a cost of 3460,000 for an elementary school and recreation complex that will protect a section of the corridor,provide access for environmental education efforts and allow for veesiene4 reereeatien. VL For LCMR Use Only: sig and leg. lev cor sht inn inf ace stn CITYOF C IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '- (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 20, 1994 Mr. Conrad Fiskness Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District c/o Barr Engineering Suite 300 8300 Norman Center Drive Minneapolis, MN 55437 Dear Conrad: • I have had several conversations with Bob Obermeyer and Ray Haik concerning acquisition of a 5 acre parcel of land owned by Steve Rowland, located at the south end of Bluff Creek in Chanhassen. Todd Hoffman, our Director of Parks and Recreation, and I have expressed an interest in the city acquiring the land outright or preferably in cooperation with the district. I believe our goals in this area are similar. The land contains a portion of the creek that has a unique, pristine ecosystem that warrants public protection in its own right. It is also part of the planned Bluff Creek Corridor project that we anticipate working on with the district and other agencies. When I first spoke to Bob, I had assumed that we would negotiate for the land in partnership with the District, but Ray informed me that you already have a purchase agreement in place. Pending action by the Chanhassen City Council, I believe it is likely that the city would participate financially in the acquisition. Based upon my conversation with Bob, we had anticipated a 25% DistricY15% City cost share. _ >s._. It is clear that some sort of joint action on this parcel would further our common goal of protecting this resource. It is my understanding that the district is willing to consider assuming the full cost in the expectation that you and the city would ultimately undertake a cooperative Bluff Creek project. I am proposing that this cooperation start immediately by supporting a joint acquisition strategy. The land in question is_adjacent to a city park and has some current drainage and erosion issues. We would like to start addressing these matters as soon as time and funding permit. I am proposing two alternatives to the City Council, but you may think of others. The first is based upon the purchase agreement Ray negotiated which, as I understand it, would pay $25,000 down and the balance over the following two years. We would consider being responsible for the remaining $50,000 payments and interest. In this case, since we would Mr. Conrad Fiskness January 20, 1994 Page 2 be paying most of the acquisition cost, I would assume that we would hold fee title to the land with the district retaining some sort of easement or covenant to assure that it is put to proper use. The second would be a 50/50 split with the land held jointly in some sort of partnership arrangement. We would anticipate taking the city's share of the funding from our Surface Water Utility and Park Acquisition funds. I am asking that the Board consider these proposals and am asking the City Council to do the same. The Council will review this proposal at their January 24 meeting. I fully expect that whatever option is selected, our joint efforts to preserve this land will be one of the first steps to implementing a comprehensive plan to protect the entire creek corridor. Sincer- Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Ray Haik, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Bob Obermeyer, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission t-� c_____ 41,; tv r , ..11 )..,„..0. „opACb), in . :4 -- .., _,,._. • f . in lig ( . .. I ."to • Ili P'it0 Q Qv Nc2 :\'44 . iil,,,r,... _ 6 „. * Iu-ii 1..7 ..Li. �NMI air muff r •• AK. . . 11111111 4 c/ Irir;°"4141 Oil CEC, _ REGIONALS RR AU HOR rlitilliiiiri• - Rigue.„fill 1 0 I I ITW itAIS Me-41T11 _;•_,fir_ e ,.,,._ fri„,:i, _.....,..„_.......,--1,t ,,,, r4111. .,,. :,, /t STEVE ROW LAND S PROPERTY • 2 G LOUD DO i. . s n ►.^.",T �_._1rk Sty i 1 i ONGOING ISSUES REVISED FEBRUARY 2, 1994 IS SUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. Materials presented to PC. Public hearings 5 Corridor Study held at PC on January 19 to CC at a February 9 work session. 2.* 1995 Study Area (South)/Bluff Staff is working with MnDNR on the Creek Corridor Greenway/Existing potential of establishing a comprehensive use zoning - BF District multi-agency program to protect Bluff Creek. The initial meeting was held on November 16. There was wide spread support and an LCMR grant application is being prepared for a February submittal. On January 24, the CC approved a resolution in support of the grant. The LCMR program uses lottery proceeds for environmental projects. We are also looking into the purchase of 5 acres of land at the south end of Bluff Creek near the railroad tracks and Hwy. 101. There is a potential for its acquisition using a combination of SWMP, Park and Recreational and Watershed funds. Staff intends to start work on south study from land use issues after adoption of the Hwy. 5 plan. 3. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. To be completed early 1994. 4.* Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Work completed on upgrade parking lot of significant vegetative areas landscaping. Work on going on boulevard plantings and tree preservation standards. Going to Tree Board on 1/31/94. 1 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the — ordinance. Initial comments delivered to Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. — 6. PC input in Downtown Planning The city is continuing work on the 2002 and Traffic Study Vision Plan for the CBD. 7. Review of Architectural Standards Hwy. 5 Plan incorporates some language to Promote High Quality Design addressing this issue. If additional — emphasis is desired by the Planning Commission, staff should be notified. 8. Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to ordinance make changes and bring back in 1994. -- 9. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 10. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. Recreation Commission on natural area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. 12. Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion — of available sites and how best to control/ influence auto related uses. 13. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential developing a map and plan. — 14. Hwy. 101 Alignment Selection Analysis completed. Will be presented to PC shortly. We have found that it raises — land use issues around the future 101/212 interchange that warrant examination. 15. Legion Site Transit Hub Plans in development for presentation to HRA and PC. * Change in status since last report. 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 101:‘1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: January 27, 1994 SUBJ: Group Homes Over two years ago, staff proposed an amendment to the city Zoning Ordinance to allow licensed residential care facilities as a conditional use. These would be facilities that are either public or private that include foster homes, maternity and women's shelters, residential programs and supportive living residences for functionally impacted adults or handicapped children. A draft ordinance was proposed but was never recommended for approval and the City Council never reviewed the issue. Attached is the staff report which analyzes the issue and the proposed ordinance amendment. Since that time, the city has received a request from a non-profit group to locate a women's shelter at Holy Cross Church located off of Country Oaks Drive and Highway 7. Currently, women's shelters are prohibited under the city's zoning ordinance. Staff has told the applicant _ that the ordinance amendment would be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration. This issue is for discussion purposes only. If you would consider amending the ordinance, a public hearing would have to be held on any proposed amendment. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission if they would like to pursue an amendment or leave the ordinance as is, prohibiting these types of uses. Attachments 1. Memo dated April 9, 1992. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 15, 1992 and March 4, 1992. 3. Proposed amendment. CITY OF01(‘4CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937.1900 • FAX (512) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson,Plannner DATE: April 9, 1992 SUBJ: Discussion of Group Home Regulations - BACKGROUND At the March 4, 1992, meeting, the Planning Commission discussed developing an ordinance regulating group homes. State law mandates that a residential facility is a home for retarded, mentally ill, physically handicapped, or chemically dependent persons is: - Permitted - in a single family district with 6 or fewer persons Conditional - in a multi-family district with a capacity of 7 to 16 adults Except to ensure that health codes are met, a city cannot stop a state approved group home from locating in a single family neighborhood. Facilities with 7 to 16 persons need a conditional use - permit to locate in the multi-family districts (R-8, R-12 and R-16). Group homes are currently reflected as permitted uses or conditional uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance currently states that the conditional use permit would be reviewed using the standard conditional use permit criteria (Attachment#1). Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission give consideration to developing more specific review criteria. In addition, the Planning Commission may want to consider other types of residential facilities as a conditional use in the single family and multi-family districts. These uses could include supportive living centers, women's shelters, and foster homes. Under this amendment, all of the proposed residential care facilities would be a conditional use. _ They would have to meet the criteria staff is proposing as well as receive the conditional use permit. The definition of a residential care facility would exclude those types of facilties where a judge or court would order someone to reside. The city has the option under the conditional use to approve or deny those facilities that are compatible with the community. Planning Commission April 9, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIS SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT 0-6 Persons Permitted 7-16 Persons CUP *Licensed Residential Care Facility *Licensed Residential Care Facility *New definition Licensed Residential Care Facility - Any facility, public or private, for gain or otherwise, regularly provides one or more persons with 24 hour per day substitute for care, food, lodging, training, education, supervision, rehabilitation, and treatment they need but which for any reason cannot be furnished in the person's home. This definition does not include any person recommended by court order or otherwise to such facility. This use may include public foster homes, maternity and women's shelters, residential programs, supportive living residences for functionally impaired adults or schools for handicapped children. The following criteria should be used: 1. Licensed residential care facilities or group home facilities for six or fewer persons located within 1/4 mile of another similar facility or for more than six persons or other charitable,religious,counseling or therapeutic service entity involving regularly scheduled meetings; a. 3,000 square feet of lot area for each overnight resident, based on proposed capacity; b. 300 square feet of residential building area for each overnight resident, based on proposed capacity; c. no external building improvements undertaken which alter the original character of the home unless approved by the city council; d. traffic generation: A detailed documentation of anticipated traffic generation shall be provided. In order to avoid unreasonable traffic impacts to a residential neighborhood, traffic limitations are established as follows: 1) the use shall not be permitted on properties which gain access by private roads or driveways which are used by more than one lot; — 2) for property located where traffic from the property will always utilize the same portion of a local residential street before reaching a collector or Planning Commission April 9, 1992 Page 3 arterial street (for example, a cul-de-sac) traffic generation shall not exceed 23 vehicle trips per day; - 3) for property located on a local street not subject to paragraph b above, traffic generation shall not exceed 32 vehicle trips per day; - 4) for properties located in close proximity to a collector or arterial roadway, traffic generation shall not significantly impact local residential streets. - e. No on-street parking to be allowed. Adequate off-street parking shall be required by the city based on the staff and resident needs of each specific facility. Private - driveways shall be of adequate width to accommodate effective vehicle circulation and are to be equipped with a turnaround area to prevent backing maneuvers onto public streets. Driveways shall be maintained in an open manner at all times and emergency vehicle access is to be available. Driveway slope shall not exceed 8% unless the city determines that site characteristics or mitigative measures to ensure safe vehicular circulation are present. Adequate sight distance at the access point shall be available. f. All facilities to conform to the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code; g. Landscape buffering from surrounding residential uses to be provided consistent with the requirements contained in Section 20-1180 of this ordinance. A privacy fence of appropriate residential design may be required to limit off-site impacts. _ Landscape screening from surrounding residential uses may be required by the city depending on the type, location and proximity of residential areas to a specific facility; - h. Submission of detailed program information including goals, policies, activity schedule, staffing patterns and targeted capacity which may result in the imposition of reasonable conditions to limit the off-site impacts; i. The facility to be overseen by a board of directors; - j. Submission of bylaws of the board of directors, resumes of members of the board of directors and articles of incorporation to the city; - k. Neighborhood representatives to be invited to sit on the board of directors or advisory board if required by the city; - Planning Commission April 9, 1992 Page 4 1. For community based residential care facilities only, a background investigation shall be performed to verify the qualification of the director and the responsible operation of the program this investigation to be paid for by the applicant. m. Submission of a formal site and building plan review if a determination of need for such review is made by the city; and n. Additional conditions may be required by the city in order to address the specific impacts of a proposed facility. RECOMMENDATION In summary, staff asks that the Planning Commission give consideration to approving and call for a public hearing to amend the zoning ordinance regarding Licensed Residential Care Facilities as a permitted use for 0 to 6 persons in the single family district and as a conditional use for 7 to 16 persons in the multi-family district. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider adoption of the standard conditional use permit criteria (Division 2, Section 20-231 through Section 20-237) be used to review licensed residential care facilities in the multi-family districts. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Code, Division 2, Conditional Use Permits. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated March 4, 1992. Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 23 Krauss: I didn 't have that as a separate thing . It would be attached to my memo to you if there is one . Emmings: Hey we 're not down to that in my packet . We 'll get to you . The next thing we 've got is discussion of group home regulations and you need a motion on that . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF GROUP HOMES. Krauss: Yes. This is a continuation of the discussion we had about a month ago . This has kind of been , it's not been festering but it's something that we 've had on the work program for a year , year and a half that we have a big hole in our ordinance dealing with group homes . I mean the State mandates that we have no say if you have 6 or fewer people in a - single family district . You can have a conditional use permit for 7 to 16 adults in a multi-family district. That 's State law. And we 're comfortable with that but where we say we have a conditional use permit for 7 to 16 adults , we have no standards . And frankly, I think it's good public policy to look at the thing when we 're not being pressured by a use to allow more of these things in more situations with reasonable standards. _ If we 're allowing more than the State mandates , we can pretty well do what we want within reason . Now when we brought this to you the last time , I • think Jeff raised the question that all this stuff looks fine and dandy but how do we differentiate between a group home for retarded kids and a halfway house for sexual offenders? And I wasn't certain that we could do that but we did clarify with Roger that since we are going in excess of what the State requires , we can in fact do that . Emmings: We can in fact do what? Krauss : We can in fact , where we are allowing more than the State mandates , we can set criteria that would allow only those types of group residences that we 're comfortable with in our community . Emmings: And how do we do that? Krauss : Well , we took a crack at it . I 'm not sure we 're totally . Emmings: I saw the standards in here . Krauss : When you look at the definition for licensed residential care facility , it says this may include public foster homes , maternity and womer shelters . Residential programs and there 's a comma in there . It should not be there . It says residential programs and supportive living residence- for functionally impaired adults or schools for handicapped children . If you don 't meet this criteria , you 're not going to be allowed under these standards . Emmings: Are you restricting it to these? Krauss : Yes . Now I think we need to . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 24 Emmings: Why wouldn 't it say this use may only include? Krauss: Yeah , we can define . Emmings: Make sure you 're not just giving examples rather than a definitive list . Krauss: You know you have two options with this . We could either describe it on an exclusionary basis , and this specifically does not cover da , da , da , da , da . Or we could try to describe the universal things we do allow . And we made that attempt . Farmakes: Did you , how familiar are you with the situation that was in the paper not too long ago about, Shakopee I believe . There was a group home . Like something of 6 or under moving into a single family zone. It was a troubled kid situation and the neighborhood was up in arms . It was an upper I think $250 again was the price on the house . To handle that many kids , it would have to be 6 bedrooms . 7 bedrooms . Anyway, I 'm not sure how that resolved itself . Krauss: I don't know. But if it 's a State protected group home with 6 or fewer , there 's not a dang thing we can do about it . — Farmakes: I understand that . I was just wondering how the situation resolved itself . Whether it did or not . Krauss: I don 't know but I really thought that the State really showed some wisdom when they did that because any one of these things , any time it comes along is a horrendous hot potato . Typically . And the experiences we had in Minnetonka , I thought they thought of some fairly creative ways of helping to diffuse that and some of that 's in here like if you 're going to be in our community you're going to appoint some community leaders to be on your board . You 're going to work with us on that kind of a basis . But - fundamentally , and the State licensing , the State protected group home does not include halfway houses for criminals or whatever . We 're talking about relatively innocuous things . People 's fears aside , we 're talking about relatively innocuous groupings of people that are functioning as a single household unit and under State law they 're going to be determined to be basically a family and nobody can say anything about it . We 're taking a little bit , we 're going further than we need to . I think you need to be - clear on that . My personal opinion is that we function in a society where we have an obligation to take care of each other and to me that means that we don 't dump our problems down on Chicago Avenue . That where if we have _ problems in our own families or neighbors do , where their kids need some structure . Where they have some medical problems or whatever , that there should be provisions for those people to live in your community. It's harder than hell to come up and say that stuff when you 've got one of these things on the table and 100 angry residents about it . Emmings: Right . Everyone thinks they 're necessary . They just don 't want them next door . Krauss: And I think too , these criteria are well designed enough that you put them in a place that 's appro,Jriate . I know that we had a situation in Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 25 Minnetonka where there was a group home for battered women that we really did support as a staff but the property that they had purchased was not ideal for it . It was way at the end of a long dead end street and there wasn 't quite enough open space and we learned from that . So anyway we throw this on the table for you to kick around and tell us what you 'd like to do . Emmings: What you're looking for here . We 're not passing anything onto the City Council here . You're asking us to give you direction whether to have a public hearing? Krauss: Right . Emmings: Okay . Does anybody here have any specific comments on the conditions or criteria or think that it shouldn't be published for a public _ hearing? Does anyone have anything to say about either one of those? Ledvina: As a basis , when you use the City of Minnetonka case? Krauss: Well that 's the one I 'm most familiar with. It turned out- that Kate Aanenson who's working on this had similar standards developed completely in a different , I mean without any relationship in a place she worked outside of Salt Lake City . The Minnetonka stuff was developed by th- Planning Director over there who served on a Hennepin County Task Force to deal with group home issues and they met for about a year and a half . And so the regulations came with probably more wisdom than I can offer . It came with that input plus the experiences that we had in the city at that time . Ledvina: So in other words , it 's a hybrid done? Krauss : Yes . Ledvina : Okay . Conrad: Where did you get the vehicle trips per day Paul? The standard here . You had 23 vehicle trips . Krauss: You know I honestly don't recall . A single family home is 10. I - can find out . I ' ll check . I don 't know if the intent was that it 'd be roughly comparable to not too much out of the ordinary for single family . The idea is that these things function as a home situation and not a dormitory where people are being shuttled in and out . The only exceptions that I 'm aware of . Well , we had a home for kids that were suffering , it was a form of retardation. It was called Prader Willie Syndrome . There 's only one home like it in the United States . I think now there 's two . It 's a very , the manifestation of the retardation is that these people can 't control their eating and they literally eat themselves to death . If they don 't live in a very regulated environment and in that case there was some buses in and out during the day because they went to a sheltered workshop kind of a thing . It was very more trip generation because it was all structured housing situation . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 26 Conrad: Yeah this is really tough to get in and analyze . It looks good to me . It looks good but boy I 'm just such a . Ledvina: So many foreign things . Conrad: Well yeah . I can 't disect . When you look at different issues . - I just don't know how to be perceptive enough to know if this is right or not . It looks okay to me but boy that's coming from a real ignorant position . I guess the only comment I made when I read it before is that - the standard is to fit into the neighborhood. They didn't want this to change the neighborhood character in any way or significantly. And you put that in terms of the building . Then we talked about other things . Traffic . Parking . Anything else that might happen that might affect the character of the neighborhood? Emmings: I think so . I think just by the nature , if you put up to 16 - people into a residential neighborhood and they 're 16 unrelated people living in this house , that 's more than a normal household. By a long shot. 4 times probably. But the baseline here I think is that these things at least up to 6 are permitted. There's nothing you can do to stop them . So and what I understood we're trying to do is at least have something in place so when one comes along, we 're comfortable that at least physically how big the building is and how many vehicles there will be and what kind of parking there will be , that we 've already got something established for criteria . And on that basis , this thing makes a lot of sense to me . But will it change the character of the neighborhood? If that 's your intent , - you 'd never get one in because it will change it just by virtue of the attitudes of the people who live around it . Conrad: And that 's beyond what we can deal with . Like they have 10 cars . Well , then they 'd each be allocated 2 vehicle trips . Krauss : No . You have to take these things on a case by case basis and if the nature of the program is such that people are commuting in and out every , at multiple times of the day , they 're not going to be able to meet that criteria . Steve just mentioned , what if it 's a home for 16 kids . I - don 't know , just picked a number . If it was a home for 16 kids in one of our single family neighborhoods , it would have to be on a 48 ,000 square foot lot which is over an acre in a 4 ,800 square foot home which is a mansion . Well not a mansion. Big house . But it 's not something , you 're not just going to go down Frontier Trail and see the next ranch house over with 16 kids in it . - Emmings: No . Farmakes: Well not even with 6 . It 'd have to be a pretty substantial - house even with 6 . You're not talking entry level home there . Krauss: Now I don't know what else I can , you have been confronted with these things . I don 't know what else I can give you now . We do have one group home in town. Chuck Gabrielson. I have not run this past him . I don't know if he 'd be for or against it frankly but I 'd be happy , I mean I 'm not in any rush to do this . If you wanted, I could give Chuck a call and let him have a copy of this and let him come and talk to you and give Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 27 you his feedback on it . He runs a program that , I don't know if his comments would be good , bad or indifferent . Erhart: Well I think it 'd be entertaining . He 's a funny guy. Krauss: He 's an interesting guy . Ledvina: How many individuals does he have in his group home? Krauss: I don't know. I think about 20. Farmakes: I 've been through this in . . .property went through some of the commotion at City Hall in another city and most of the people aren't worry about their safety or even about the interaction of the kids. A lot of them are just worried about the bottom line . How it affects their property . investment . That 's where the majority of the arguments really lie . And a lot of that has to do with fear of the unknown . People move into a single family zone , they think that they 're somehow protected and we 've had a lot of unique factors in this town that have changed some of that. We have a church with like you said , 120 some acres. In a single family zone , we have on the board here a density that even in a medium size development you could technically get several homes within that development as a group home situation . And if you 're familiar with Minneapolis or if you go down to a ball game down in the Twin Cities there 's kind of a concentration there . Heavy concentration of group homes . This is the type of thing , it sounds well and good on paper until it comes next door to your house and then of course you see people down here pounding on the floor . The response is going to be , take it up with your State Representative because as you said when this was litigated up and down . Krauss: It is but again , you 've got to recognize that the way we 've proposed this , you 're doing more than you have to . You would be allowing in more than is mandated . You 'd be controlling better what is mandated in the multi-family districts but it would allow more than you had to do . Farmakes: I think as long as these people are from our community , that 's a good response . At least a start when they come in to argue about it . At least it is for me . Conrad: Paul , where are we allowing more than what is mandated? Krauss: Okay , at the top of page 2 . In the single family district , the 0 to 6 persons permitted . That 's State law in a single family district . You 've got nothing to say about that . In the multi-family districts , State law says that Chanhassen , you as a city have to allow by conditional use permit licensed , residential care facilities for 7 to 16 people . The law doesn 't say we can't develop standards for allowing those in our communities and we don 't have any right now so we 've got kind of a problem waiting to occur . That 's under State mandate . Now the way this is written , you would be allowing a 16 person group home in a single family neighborhood by conditional use permit. Subject to criteria . You don't have to do that . - Erhart: I thought it was just in a multi-family . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 28 Conrad: That's what I thought too . Krauss: No . Erhart: Is that what it says? That when 16 people are in the multi-family , it only requires that the City allow them in the multiple family area . Did - you read that there Steve? Emmings: Sure . Erhart: I read it . I can't find it now. Emmings: Right at the top of the page . Erhart: Yeah. R-8 , R-12 and R-16 . - Farmakes: Right , there it is . Krauss: I need to clarify the language with Kate on that but the way this, the way I interpret this and the way we clean it up to work , unless you tell us not to , is that this would accomplish two things. It would give you criteria for the multi-family district , which we don't have . But it also allows in or would allow in larger than 0 to 6 in a single family - neighborhood . Erhart: We have to decide if we want that . Emmings: Yeah . Well , yeah . We'd be subject to this criteria so it 'd be real limiting on the criteria . Why would we want to do that? Why would we even want to consider it? What do we get back? Krauss: Well this is where I , this is kind of a crusade . - Emmings : Okay . That 's what I thought . Krauss: When you have a group residence , whether it 's for the retarded or seniors or kids with problems , whatever , battered women , do we relegate that stuff to an industrial zone? Or to a combat zone like Chicago Avenue is . I mean where they want to be is in residential settings . I mean the whole purpose of these kinds of places is to have it as close to a - residential situation as possible . And what they seek to do typically , the ones we 're looking at . is buy a home . Large home and establish a residential atmosphere and let their kids or their seniors or whomever - become part of the community . Now . that can be a real frightening prospect but that 's . _ Emmings: But Paul , if what they 're seeking is a more normal living environment , having 16 people isn't , is that giving it to them? Krauss: Well the only way they 're having 16 people is if they 're having -- nearly a 5 ,000 square foot house on an acre lot . Emmings: Right . But even then . If you 're interested in accommodating - these people , would you rather see those 16 people in 3 homes or in 1 big Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 29 one? I don 't know . Krauss: I don't know. That 's where the performance standard comes in . But arguably , if these things are managed in this kind of a format , is it any different? I mean I think we stand a lot more risk of having 5 unassociated teenagers renting a house and being disruptive to a neighborhood . Or someone who for whatever reason, religious or otherwise , has 12 kids living in a little 3 ,000 square foot rambler . I mean these kinds of things happen all the time . We don't regulate that . I really wouldn 't want to but what we 're saying here is that if somebody wanted a group living situation, we would throw all these standards at them and make them live in a much larger' house on a much larger lot at a much lower level of impact . We 're applying a much tougher standard. Conrad: I just keep playing over the 7 to 16 people in a residential area . Thinking how that changes it . Wanting to be responsible. I totally _ believe in what you're talking about Paul but I 'm also concerned with how the residents of that neighborhood could change by a big , you 're not talking about a family, which is typically there . You're talking about a different unit which has different character and when you magnify it, the 0 thru 6 , I 'm comfortable with but when you magnify it by twice that much or more than twice , then all of a sudden I don't know what I have anymore . Don't know what the risks and I don't know that I would feel real comfortable with it . Ledvina : I worked at a group home with 6 residents who were developmentally disabled . I worked weekends so I actually spend the night there and 6 individuals in a house , and it was a big house . I think it was over 3 ,000 square feet and that place was like a beehive . I think that it was , it seemed to be almost taxing to the neighborhood. Not that these weren't good people . Not that the neighbors weren 't receptive but the individuals liked to be outside and just a lot of things happening with those people . I think that if you get more than 6 people in a group home setting , it almost becomes like an institution type of thing and I think you 're , certainly with 16 people you 're really , it would be very difficult to have like a family type of situation. That 's my feeling. Erhart : Another point of view would be to really be optimistic and assume that somebody on the State level , private citizen , the next person involved , people came in and developed this standards as one that 's adopted - statewide I would assume . Krauss: The 0 to 6 and the 7 to 16 , multi-family State law . Erhart: . . .assume that they 've put a lot of thought behind that . Probably more thought than we as 5 people could develop here at least in one session. I think it 's just one more reason why I would tend to want to follow just that recommendation . That somebody set a standard there probably more expert in it than we are. And say we 'll do our share in it . . . Emmings: 7 to 16 in residential seems too big to me . . .family is fine but in a single family neighborhood , I don't think . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 30 Krauss: Well okay . If that 's the sense , you're sense is coming across clearly . Why don't you let me come back with this then dealing with it from the context that these are the standards that would apply or these we would apply . In reviewing those conditional use permitted ones for 7 to 16 in the multi-family . - Emmings: And get comments from . Krauss: Yeah , and talk to Chuck . Okay . DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL. Emmings: Next item , do you think we ought to turn the TV off for this? - I 'm not sure that anybody should actually be reading a report like this . The next item in our packet here is discussion of an amendment regarding sexually oriented , regulating sexually oriented businesses . Krauss: We were asked to get something on the books by the City Council . The Mayor in particular when we set our annual goals. And when we looked at this the first time , I think we mutually had a lot of questions as to - how do you do this without trampling on the Consititution and is it possible to do and how do you define it? Well , I found that attorney 's can define almost anything . And apparently have. Roger 's telling me that this - is really becoming the boiler plate ordinance and I think it achieves the best you can achieve and still be legally defensible . Now this gets away from the combat zone approach which I really wouldn't advocate and goes for defining what these businesses are and requiring them to be a distance from certain protected categories of land use . At the moment I can't find what the distance was . - Emmings: 500 feet . Krauss: 500 feet? Emmings: Yeah . Farmakes: So this would be similar like a liquor store . Krauss: Well liquor store really doesn 't say that . Liquor store , people make that up as they go along but yes , it is somewhere in that people don 't want a liquor store around a school yard or something like that . Conrad: Do we have this is our fast food? Do we have a fast food ordinance? Krauss: We have a convenience store ordinance . Conrad: Convenience , yeah . Farmakes: Can you define principle business purpose? What criteria do you - use to define principle business purpose? Emmings: And beyond that , it didn't say just principle business . Didn 't - it say one of their principle business purposes? Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 43 Farmakes: I mean even more so . 5 ,000 say . 10 ,000 . What that will incur ( and where we center our educational system within this city . OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. Krauss: I don 't know what all I can say about it in the interest of being brief . I think we have , we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and — I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things . That we believe we have an obligation to serve the needs of all our residents in a fair way but right now you 've got a problem waiting to occur . When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in our community is that it has to have a good septic tank , we 're missing the point . Minnetonka , to give credit where it 's due . It wasn 't me but it was the woman who 's the Planning Director still over there , took some real innovative steps with these things . Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations . One - was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school . Another was a shelter for battered women . What I ask you to do is take a look at the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance . We can adopt something like that . We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because I think it does a fairly good job . Batzli : I liked the standards . It looked to me like it buffered it . It took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I thought it was a real good , you know use that as a model . I guess that 's what I 'd like to see . What does everybody else say? Ahrens : I think it 's well written . Batzli : Yeah . So do we want staff to draw something like that up? Is - that how we want to use up more of that time with? Krauss : I 'd also tell you too , I want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get - his input on it . Chuck is the program director of the only real group home we have in the city right now . I think he 's a pretty decent fella who would give us his comments . Batzli : Straight scoop . Okay . Farmakes : Can I ask a question , since as I 'm not as experienced as some of - the people on here . One of the definitions they had in here was mentally ill . Is there a definition for that? It 's kind of a broad range . Krauss : I don 't know . Emmings: I 'm sure there must be . I 'm sure there is . The State has to have one because they have MI programs and they 've got to have a definition . I don 't know what it is though . Farmakes : And there isn 't a definition in here for criminal group home or — people who are coming out of prison . Emmings : Halfway house? _ Planning Commission Meeting March 4 , 1992 - Page 44 Farmakes : Halfway house . Does that come under that? Krauss: Well I don 't know . That 's the details you need to get into because a lot of those are not licensed specifically by the State . Judges - can remand people to certain homes . Emmings : I wasn 't thinking we were talking about those when I was reading this . Batzli : No , I guess I wasn 't either . That 's an interesting point though Jeff . Emmings: I think we 're talking about licenses . Farmakes : Well I was talking about some of the problems they 've had in Minnetonka in a group home there where people who are sexual offenders . Krauss : Oh , that was not actually a legal group home . That was a defacto - one that was taken over by Reverend Ralph . I forget his full name but . . . Farmakes: But it was a group home? Krauss: It was not in compliance . The guy bought the home and he was , I don 't know if he was ordained but he was a minister of some sort and he started having services in his home for theoretically an outreach and he turned into a defacto group home . It didn 't meet the City 's criteria . I forget why but I know that the zoning administrator was after them to close the place down for a long period of time and it ultimately was . Farmakes: My only comment was , the intent I think in the Minnetonka ordinance is fine . I did have some questions in that regard and I also had a fey questions in the issue of , I 'm assuming that this is for profit and not for profit in regards to these? Krauss: It could be either . Farmakes: Either . And the two instances I 've known in the southwest suburbs here where there 's been a problem like I just mentioned , neither -- one of those house residents were from the community . I refer back to the intent that you originally referred to in here and I 'm wondering how much of that if it is for profit , some of these homes primarily get their clients from out of the community . Krauss : The issue as to whether somebody 's remanded by a Judge or a court system probably needs to be addressed and frankly , part of the Minnetonka — ordinance that I was less than comfortable with is the lack of assurances . I mean some of the stuff that Minnetonka did , there 's one for the teenagers that were remanded by a Judge was done fairly sensitively . They put City - Planning Commissioners and City Council people on their Board and all that but this is a program where the kids are not locked in and have the ability to run . The question came up , what happens if they take off? The answer was , well then they 're out of the program . Well , that wasn 't a good enough response and I felt less than comfortable with that . But those were conditions that could be placed upon the permit . I ' ll try and get you more Planning Commission Meeting - March 4 , 1992 - Page 45 information on that . There 's another one too I think Jeff that you 're i mentioning that is a large group home where they did have a problem where somebody , I think was raped from somebody and that was up on Hwy 12 . I forget the details beyond that . Farmakes: How about the one in Chaska? Krauss: The one I 'm thinking of is just on Hwy 12 just before you get into Wayzata . But I ' ll try and clarify that . You shouldn 't be buying something that you 're not , that opens up the door . But the ones in Minnetonka that were the more .tragic situations I think were the home for battered women . And it was a neighborhood dispute that was , I mean this ordinance was developed basically in response to the situations that arose from that . There was a group home for mentally retarded kids suffering from a very exotic syndrome called Praderwilly Syndrome where they literally will eat themselves to death . And they need to be in a full residential situation with full time guidance and they bought an old mansion over by Minnehaha Creek in Minnetonka Mills and it caused a big neighborhood uproar . Oddly enough though after they moved that program out of there , there were other groups homes that tried to get intothere because it was set up with dormintories and what not and they didn 't meet the criteria . Primarily because they were at the end of a residential cul-de-sac . It was just inappropriately placed and there wasn 't sufficient open space to justify that level of occupancy . And basically you had a white elephant and they couldn 't occupy it again with a group residence . I think converted it back to a single family home . We can get into that a little more . Batzli : Okay , but you 're comfortable with at least the direction? Farmakes : Yeah , I just wanted to bring up those points because when I read - through it , those really weren 't answered in there . DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL . Krauss : First Amendment , Supreme Court , you can 't do it . There 's only two options for doing it . Roger 's told us this before and I guess it hasn 't changed substantially although I keep hearing of some new rulings that are _ coming down but chip away at the edges of it . You either can designate an area you want to give up on , the war zone concept or you can come up with standards that say things like it can 't be within 500 feet of a church or - 1 ,000 feet of a daycare center but then you have to overlay all those criteria on a map and if you don 't have a site that fits it , you 've just broken the law . I 'm not sure if there 's any good solution to this thing . It 's a little frustrating because clearly , I forget which town it was but up north where they had one that located next to a daycare center , it destroyed the daycare center . Batzli : I know in the past this group has said that they really don 't want to look at this and I think the Council has directed that we look at it . Emmings: Well I think we said , I think the decision here is an important one . I think trying to looking at the secondary effects of these places I . hink is real legitimate . Looking at what they 're doing or what they 're CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. The Chanhassen City Code, Division 3 Section 20-255 1. Group home facilities shall not be located within 1/ mile of another similar facility or _ other charitable, religious, counseling or therapeutic service entity involving regularly scheduled meetings, unless the two facilities are related such as a church sponsored, or facility that offers in and out patient services. 2. There shall be 2,500 square feet of lot area for each overnight resident, based on proposed capacity. 3. There shall be 300 square feet of residential building area for each overnight resident, based on proposed capacity. 4. Any building design shall be consistent with the zoning district which it is located in. 5. No on-street parking to be allowed. Adequate off-street parking shall be required by the city based on the staff and resident needs of each specific facility. Private driveways shall be of adequate width to accommodate effective vehicle circulation and are to be equipped with a turnaround area to prevent backing maneuvers onto public streets. Driveways shall be maintained in an open manner at all times and emergency vehicle access is to be available. Driveway slope shall not exceed 8% unless the city determines that site characteristics or mitigative measures to ensure safe vehicular circulation are present. Adequate sight distance at the access point shall be available. 6. All facilities shall conform to the requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code. 7. All facilities are subject to Division 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review. 8. Any residential group home facilities, public or private, shall comply with all appropriate state licensing and regulation requirements. 9. Submission of detailed program information including goals, policies, activity schedule, staffing patterns and targeted capacity, which may result in the imposition of reasonable conditions to limit the off site impacts. i i .1 1 i 1 i i i i i Planning Commission ZOA #92-2 May 6, 1992 Page 2 10. Additional conditions may be required by the city in order to address the specific impacts of a proposed facility. 11. The facility shall be overseen by a board of directors and neighborhood representatives shall be invited to sit on the board of directors or advisory board if required by the city. 12. A background investigation shall be performed to verify the qualifications of the director and the responsible operation of the program. This investigation is to be paid for by the applicant. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1992. A i-l'EST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992•) i i i 1 1 i 1 i i i i i ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION 4 CITY OF 1•A)141 ' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 R. January 26, 1994 . Mr. Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: The City of Chanhassen has recently completed q mprehensive sewer and water distribution plans for our community. The plans detail how to provide service to areas that are currently inside the . MUSA line and ultimately to areas that are currently located outside the line. However, it is important to note that no further MUSA line extensions are incorporated in these plans and it is unlikely that any will be requested until 1995. These plans will become components of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan and Metropolitan Council staff has requested that we process them as a Plan Amendment. We are therefore providing copies of the plans to you for your review. We anticipate taking them through our approval process during April/May of this year. We are requesting that you complete your review and submit comments directly to us and Lynda Voge, at the Metropolitan Council, by no later than February 25. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. If your have any questions on the plan, please contact me directly. . -., Sinc y, Paul Krauss, AICP t Director of Planning pc: Planning Commission City Council Charles Folch, City Engineer Phil Gravel, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik Ms. Miriam Porter Mr. Chris Enger City of Victoria Mr. Kermit Crouch City of Eden Prairie 7951 Rose Street City of Chaska 7600 Executive Drive P.O. Box 36 One City Hall Plaza Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Victoria, MN 55386 Chaska, MN 55318 ---- - Mr. Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 - -my-- v4- -11OF •tr - t • - t- . • • • .• i CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 20, 1994 Mr. Conrad Fiskness Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District c/o Barr Engineering Suite 300 8300 Norman Center Drive Minneapolis, MN 55437 Dear Conrad: I have had several conversations with Bob Oberrneyer and Ray Haik concerning acquisition of a 5 acre parcel of land owned by Steve Rowland, located at the south end of Bluff Creek in Chanhassen. Todd Hoffman, our Director of Parks and Recreation, and I have expressed an interest in the city acquiring the land outright or preferably in cooperation with the district. I believe our goals in this area are similar. The land contains a portion of the creek that has a unique, pristine ecosystem that warrants public protection in its own right. It is also part of the planned Bluff Creek Corridor project that we anticipate working on with the district and other agencies. When I first spoke to Bob, I had assumed that we would negotiate for the land in partnership with the District, but Ray informed me that you already have a purchase agreement in place. Pending action by the Chanhassen City Council, I believe it is likely that the city would participate financially in the acquisition. Based upon my conversation with Bob, we had anticipated a 25% District/75% City cost share. It is clear that some sort of joint action on this parcel would further our common goal of protecting this resource. It is my understanding that the district is willing to consider assuming the full cost in the expectation that you and the city would ultimately undertake a cooperative Bluff Creek project. I am proposing that this cooperation start immediately by supporting a joint acquisition strategy. The land in question is adjacent to a city park and has some current drainage and erosion issues. We would like to start addressing these matters as soon as time and funding permit. I am proposing two alternatives to the City Council, but you may think of others. The first is based upon the purchase agreement Ray negotiated which, as I understand it, would pay $25,000 down and the balance over the following two years. We would consider being responsible for the remaining $50,000 payments and interest. In this case, since we would Mr. Conrad Fiskness January 20, 1994 Page 2 be paying most of the acquisition cost, I would assume that we would hold fee title to the land with the district retaining some sort of easement or covenant to assure that it is put to proper use. The second would be a 50/50 split with the land held jointly in some sort of partnership arrangement. We would anticipate taking the city's share of the funding from our Surface Water Utility and Park Acquisition funds. I am asking that the Board consider these proposals and am asking the City Council todo the same. The Council will review this proposal at their January 24 meeting. I fully expect that whatever option is selected, our joint efforts to preserve this land will be one of the first steps to implementing a comprehensive plan to protect the entire creek corridor. Sincer- Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning pc: Ray Haik, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Bob Obermeyer, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission c j.._, , 4' ..., 1;4 r • .0 jiiihr ...., iii 411111 ; it j- ! _l _a_.11111 . ( . •. I i / Oak 0 .�c Qv 4ir- c's. _ 9<G f BLUFF ,A., w CREEK )1 mob • iPARK „... _. 00* _ . Imin -� , arm ., - a ouri mei .# ANIro* 4. .., ,* . k 0 • 1 •Tillic>. 0,1.40111, T II • t f AIIIIIII REGIONAL R R AU HOR �� C --N 4.. . .moria 44 I 14. ;:- STEVE ROWLAND 'S DS PROPERTY it Z12 00 oa‘v t s T `q :, r +� .iAVG 01 d3ISID3a nog( Jot a.1e sdoys)IJoM asayl _ t'>� s;(f'fs+ a a . - .C.: �3e,' � 4. r �• _• _ �t -=f: . -;y 4':wM v L..)„'•r L.s1iLr.., _s=...- 2 -�-V� 1 ( •h i6• ' .r £896-tL£SS NW N3SSYHNVH3 • fy . -'-•.":;-:-..z ,, (,Y as a311no3 069 , `R - /^' a0133aI0 9Nld A113 N3 SSYHNIfH- ' - t0 - � d3Id SSnv8)I W 1fYd , s _ -.- _ -.:,; -�^ ,: :-... S2 d11H3r d3IV 540£20 - JCS -- .--__.i....---.... ' � .i ,ti.i��. :.•T^s- . 'F,'�`�t may. � �'!C_ i•:' �C. •' ,. -1. ,-.• , • . - *� fmoit J . •77 f` 3\ 4KY -� j < ,.."••�� yL^Y-'-•---.4.a, -t � 4 ..-k" i.- f -.Pk' . ler-,..00•-03171. •2 i .,,..... .„4„.,......;.„4,..c....„:.:,- .- , Y7. .:,--...-,,7_. �. '.'''::•,'•;i•isz. c tf. i.a� 4 �:.i�'y+T`. ='•1_ T " -K w .1 : ' 0'.i•. F_'190••••-V--1::!--mx'f d`_�.,...,-.:-..-..4 .}.))-<.A` (.� ',-.. • t.� +__11,...'n •� �'�C�•Ct � ,s,..4.1% � (_ T 7 r �'�' 3.--�1; S.1---3� r. T y.4.4 w.' l .ate moi- a-� 47. .a' a 5: Ji•tom ,t tea. .%r/- _ at+'-Z,•v -ice i.: --� ",'i:--bfkin 1415i. !4«< " M ,yif<. • =-7 �r+Y� ' sr t -v .7 • +..a- CIS a f rya =trACM u d s . .` �`',.' fir, ' ''3 • � '!!• V. v� .:. 11!18 z :c y ...i. s . r _ ti ss ! s✓Y' .ti 1. a-k #;;;,,:---.,:,,c,...:-.. " s �" ; 311 ' ,. 't..;,y. ! 4,4 -.• • 1•. I. 7ensoci S n •• sJt '.•:,-- �b ..ry ! _._n/.., _T� 'd ..�i y`�'a. .•by��d� `I +. •R;vt`�it" . mins`' �•. ,•' 71b'1'V sSbr iD 1Sktij' s's-1.1,4 �+ y/1+-� � -ls sus . f�,,�� s'}tp�[n��1/�j. �-�. .+E, ,...,Vs.c,..7, .,_.,,,,;.,. .,s.•• lei �;_-e' ' " •—" .4- '' '- v4 Y 1 - --/�' _ _ t1 !ivag 6ujuleJi 1uaiuuieno j —/ :T LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS = . , _ FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS" Al _ INCLUDES' . . dip'" -'4' P. ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTES ' _• FEBRUARY - • • BEY a APRIL 1994 ';� OND THE BASICS , ‘ - ..--. . .--- . - . ......__. _ . 3 Sponsored by: �► GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE . : „ • ._:._ . . ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE: .': : • • - . • .:,:...-BEYOND THE BASICS THE BASICS -; ,. Thursday,April 7 or Saturday,April 30,1994 _ 7huttaday,Febnuary24 or Satu day. 4994 I:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. ' . - ' • -'----.- -li• ' -- : - -' -00 a.m.-.4:30 p.m '- -- -For+nosenew to land use and z =_Learn 4tboyt prpparing and.using •plan fullg fools to-- �'in9 On 1 -- -deal s.Vr7h i wide va ty of development problems, -�' _: i.. ...iew.a/hmdarr,.. . . }` : plus an in-depth review of the planning process — - - •INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING c ' ....Why plan? proper legal notice to development of sophi�i-. sated- gs:of fact. - . i Players in the planning'process -_• - -- - _- r .• Understanding the planning process - PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT •' r - A- , Elements of a comprehensive plan : ;, •.. -1p}Any Slze) :'BASIC PLANNING TOOLS—PART 1. '-- -.. '- =�' ' i ` finitio> nd.backg'rbbtid `;Y .•,---.-.'-<-- kms ZONING,VARIANCES,CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • How tools relate to each other - • •• - • ^ 44 Definitions, Rationale,Uses,Myths/Misoonceptops How • -Subdiviaign rexactions and dedications �` -k` X;;� -:.-a•, ate' :• • r ".#�' Public and private sector perspectives ZONING CASE STUDIES. _ - • Implementation strategies.. .HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM SOLVING ' •• - ,; �� • Legal issues t4. �#-�° ��y -' ,,,t!--:, :5Palticipants are-placed•Into small groups y .. •- Pitfalls/words to the wish - � +',irk on rural or urban zoning issues. -. :4%7.7.# Lop riorl requirements ., <,: w, �' s .� •a� DUR LEGAL UMITS: 1'i i-i4' ;;' •. r(: , � � y„=,r;rf `rs-041:1 ;:' , 4 d ;P- t• OUR ROLE AS A DECISION MAKE{ c =IgAA$IC AL *''�' ;y "' `" �. environment Lae *,.*::-•• LOPen Meeting Law. .. -w +--L al limits g ernrironm. iia larxt Ws, - ' ,• iMatp ^' x" ''-..";-i.,"1.4 --• Procedures to keep from being sue,.'-:0,--1-v-- 1- )Making finding�t DY— f-ppbttTor - -' _ •. .p When something goes wrong,wt 's liable? ,-N-'A a decisions ;.. - _� F -;-;-.:‘,.--1.--4:t _. :L ' d , Con'flid of interest ,,$e: '•a=cr, � � t .,. ti.. , ,,s1 w -� - Y‘-1';', ----,--7*--1-km your attorney can help.,, ; f - 1,. '- T ►g m4W#"P �#E �'`'VW-- �t W �'' il. J .ap�.�,,�� .rl ( �� , '• 1/ldeo press bon. � �-�* :.y..� �-i•� :: �r � , c+%<f _: .;..� ��yam.�µ''m v t::, =='T'`- ��HOT,WHAT'S L '�7 iT�y�' d.`vci • to HOT ISSUES-PART i • ;Summary of recent land use caseg s. _ ,, -lrs` { ANSWERS TO-YOUR QUESTIONS(Faculty Pan&) .4 ~ p•• ;P new2oni a y' sh BASIC P . " '.- � c iB$!sfabog r 3 -_ PLANNING TOOLS—PARTN 74t;� �. Lf,..fi._�� _ -.•' , ,A'Ai: ; 5=l.� •`=M -1A--11:.-- BASIC SUBDIVISION REGULATION r ; ��,. ;SURVIVAL SRILL�S.•. • '`_? {�-"�'� :` v - ' ,_ - "" •--•;COPING WITH THE REALRIES-OFTNE PLANNING •, =' Definition,Rationale,Use§,A.;ontent, -rooedurss, es�gn - _ Standards, Financial Guaranties,Special.Provisions. PROCESS • - 4y 4 of,,,How to(and-how not to)con ducttpirbtidliearings EVALUATION OF A SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL. ;:' ' '' Legal guidelines . _ .4 ,-...,-.•:_...! _ --. A SIMULATION - - -_ :, .. : , - - • • Practical tips from,local elected official - +. Participants work in small groups to evaluate a develop - - ' - . = - - en's subdivision plan using standard planning tools-the . .ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA-WIDE REVIEW - -'comprehensive plan,ordinances,and - • ' maps.- HOT ISSUES—PART 11: - QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS(Faculty Panel) - SITUATIONSI(Fac• Panel)_, ; - ` -- FACULTY • +.FACULTY ,� --. ;--.-. ' IAN TRAQUAIR BALL,Planner and Attorney; _.• . • PETER BACHMAN,Attorney.Leopard,Street and Rasmussen &Ball = . Deinard -. -,:-.-_::--:!Z:,-•-.-, WILLIAM GRIFFITH,Attorney, Larkin,Hoffman. - * ' - _ .- . _ Daly& Lindgren = JOHN SHARDLOW,President:Dahigren, ,. •= ., ROBERT LOCKYEAR, Director of Planning and , , :Shardlow and Uban, Inc.;planning'consultant 3 . ... Public Affairs, Washington County - - - - _ • _ GEORGE MARKS, Council Member,City of St.Anthony ELECTED OFFICIAL'froth a local community - • - - BRUCE PETERSEN, Director of Planning and- '-. - -- _ _ • Development Services, City of Willmar _ - - 'LOCATIONS - ` LOCATIONS - Thursday,Apill 7,1994 Saturday,April 30,1994 - - Thursday, February 24, 1994 Saturday,March 26,1994 North Hennepin Community College : St.Cloud Civic Center.. : ' t„.--- North Hennepin Community Earl Brown Center - :-; _ • Room 132 - ' 10.Fourth Ave.S. - II- - College U of M St. Paul Campus "` . -_ . 7411 85th Ave. North • 1890 Buford Ave. _ 7411 65th Ave.North.. . _ _ ';:.$t,Cloud,MN 56301 �. Brooklyn Park,MN 55445 - -t612 255-7272 Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 St. Paul, MN 55108 612 424-0660 ) - (612)424-0880 (612)624-3275 ( ) .- - . - FL � $75 per person or $65 per person for 3 or more - $85 per person.This course has been approved for 6.5- . - people from same jurisdiction. This course has , hours of continuing Real Estate Education Credit. been approved for six hours of Continuing Real . - - Estate Education Credit. -... .....• _ __ - -..- • -.. --- .-..._ -_!-,...,•:-. -_...;-._-4.-.,- :-... --?....---,;-1._, :.• - .F...,17' ,:!.i'r':,,r. ... 4,:,te's .<,.:. ;.,..''•••••...4. • 5i-,,T,....:,;(1,....E.fr''-.;...r-.--r"- r''''.'r'r ^ ,- - • • ''' - • ---'-',*...'`... -.'.•' 7 -' '. - ';-.-- ;-2••-• -..'1/-.:--•:,,-.. -‘ -,..... .F.."-',;:2:,rr'-''Z.,-..:--,,...4...„-'-!.%)._.•: 4,--:-....r....-'7: '-''' ..- -.••::e.':.;'r,:.:'••' -;"'''''•-'-. -- - '-- ''- - - ' -.. • '''-.' •.- • • -s•-_,.;•'t.• '-.-e '-- -'. ' i-'f 7.--e. -,••,44:44.1;'-.,.',64,,- ..•`',-I'. ....-154,sc 4:- -'1‘..''''.;.4.-:,',F-...-`,.',.t,'"'..'-. ` .-- ' -- • ' • '- .i.;,. F' % ir., ''...-.':4--'-...-It-'.-'7 '-, r "4..,4`--'-'',-'•-•,.i,---•;:l.'.-...-',..--.3‘,-:e:,---,y .`‘. :::•,f,"'-'1.;,4.,--r,..-'= ' ‘4,-.-:•=-:2-`r ':'.'...r--," -:'..-i' -. ..' -'-,- ' ' " - `'. .--, ,,,:'. -_,..--- • •1.4.1 -.;;;'Z....:%:.`.1.•:N r...,._ „,HAVE WORKSHOP ..-- .-INILL --,.,•--..---,,-- -.,'-.---..,"%z,-,-.'---,CONSIDERING A GOAL-SETTING -- ,-- • . : ,.....--: HAVE:.. :•„- --t,....:---..,-...•.,?.:--.--i...„-*-1-1 1-116 e.,....„.,,,,i ,." , TEAM BUILDING SESSION , .# • - -TRAVEL! '--:?•-,-- - - - :. -..., 4.T.,.4-3.10)-C.C.• ' - "--- ..i.i'' .... .11OR - ,'-'7-14-.1:::7V-..-L.ST.'*:'-,--Z''-:764-44..:':;-1.f.;-.::;IA-M4-:•;?:rfien'..".%..1''' '.7aZ.frinf4:--...'ng:-'4'''''sV'''''.4.-'1.;.;t:4"..Y ):'\:t(11‘)g*r4C.- "'a.'"tIti'''''s e'Alt4444F*'....."-... ter....,;:_:' ‘.74':.. O ,_,-"- -‘4-A''"._ .,.., 7.i.;-F R.. . YOUR GOVERNING BODY c"- t t '•-• • "Serviivizeiri cuttOrnize the.-----v4, --,•‘ 1FOR • . - -::* . .... vodcshop in this brochure and other_ptanning topics,- ...7. :: ----. 'zzr_ii:*.e.-1.OR AN ADVISORY COMMISSION? . -1•-• -- ...- especially for your community! - ----• ---,"-`,-•:--v-- '-:..`!"--141g-X*--.c s'-''..;':•.-f- ''-'''.. ''''' ' ' - : ' - ' ' ' - '' ..: ' 's•-•: :-....";' -?;'-..i1S-1711 , : :..........t-,...-., • . . , . ..,.. :-.. ...-- ._,. . ' - • Y.Ott choose the topics, date,locaGon,and supply the .-.-ii-- ..p.- .--. -,,-,7,-G'Tg--Cart•provide trained facilitators participants. We'll provide the faculty and materials:7.----_ ,. '---.-t*"..i4-';i•-1-1_44'..-f-:.• -.-_. •••••• :• ------ .-•:-. , -: " • •,- -- ; • ...:. -- -- -:::•;-••• '--.. ;;.•----- 4.4 .•••=e,--•1•;-,--- : , '4.ir -'-z.•:'--•:-' -----1.--- ---"•13F•'-----•te -:--,44.--='.,-;-: .-wrIo......have.-:extensive experience . Some pcss;ble house planning wotimhop thkia ...•--:;:..,--,-1::'• ::4--------r-fg---r*--Woiriti g with local. :. , - nl governments like -include, but are not limited to: -__:.. .---,';,: - ---..„v , _ sl-'. -,,-..1::k.r......-- . - •,..• e•.,. - • - .___-_,_ - , ;,,..- _t--;•.-..f.3;1,7-..., -. •- . .7,74Wri•--7;---'-"" - " -- ' . ......,.-. • Updating Your Comprenenswe,Pkw-, ...i--, - -.1.0-- • - . ..,-;-rourst We can facilitatealso-- - a-: ‘.. _ . . -„,.:-.-..-.:,._,,,...-4-,:.-,,,,v--,..._ ..,:.--,-- .--)z.1,. ,.-7- - ....- - - • , .. 0 -Planned ,.....,,%-!..;-- ---f-,-.:-...., .,- . .,_•. . .: -T.: . - ; ..-: •,.- . . • .--. • : ' ' . --'•'''-v's--W'ft-Y-.72-PV'',•`•--A -,• -iprocess designed to gather:citizen-_-7,,,. -.- --- -i' Environmental Issues . , :- -:- - ..._ , . -•,. ,-.. •,, .._- . ... -- - •• Housing&ECoetomic DevelopmentToollt.--'-'-:----ti----;')-,Y21.--4";:f:'7-%J-7-'-',"-:' --7*,--'.- '7''' - -.1-;;Y-:' _ --:.it •oi:..,-,.,e,';,•••,,L.-r•.'•• -e3... .7:le - ‘,,,--..- ' --,.., - -. - - - 4 `-`;',P' i. -'''''''-' '.---vinput-so guide problem solving , to ;The Art of lbe()ea s-;-.4-241ie;c4,_,:i.„ov...-r-i.e.:-.1.,„1:ir-A.1 -10...ir,,, ....g.--s-, v- ,---• ..- A•--- -: - •- - = -- -. ' • '.?-4--w.i .: . Y''-, ,. .'.--:-.-,,I.Visionary LeadeishiP,:-:"t7. i:'..z;••''',.-.'--1:;-,--1.-:*;---.'". • ,--5: -- ----': --. ',"-' n. ';.-V-_;,; 5.;.'•;.•-•__,•'•W:.z .,-'--iN-•!' -'v igfeallocates.scarce resources - -..._.,,Hanging Tough.liti Tough Times:.--:,-_ ;•.;dr.A..zav:-•-•_-: ---/Pf:. P•_-'4,7..,,.-. ,.. ',1!.4...-'-'.:1 : '•'•-• ;.-'..! r ';-•-1-Tr -'.---' :i'--:, .;-.•7:-?:':>:1‘,'r'' r:74,:t . _ ,, ..'...7.-) '-: r..1:-:-* '''. t''----'-'r' ''-.'''''-'''';f:-- ;•' ' r-"-.r ''''.7-'''k:*"....t.'=•-•• -':'-....-:`..::'and.Thake-budget decisions,-or ta,...!..--iN.x. . . ..,. . ..,....--.,;-:‘,--, ...: .- - ..--- - „...,_-: ..i..a.z....7--i-,-,Z...' .:,-'..----. -'..-::.., ''..-.‘, --%ZViP,..Y,---_ - • ' ' ''Mote-and •-.odes and : _,. -.: . _ 1.•--. •v,..r.o....:--- - '.--- advange of this convenient,cost-effective-way to'-t:.1-,-.,-: ,_.k-•- - - , - ....•-r•s .- ' 'I --;... "' het _Stfeetijthen existing teams._ •.,..----.-, -,-. make such educational opportunities available les,-,''&v,v:-?4:':". :0. ,,s21.?-tilts 4.t.,.,".1.1 ti,-Ii-- tg-',:--- :0,r -••;.• ,:-:-. - -,.,-..;---, -.- .._...,- ; lhOS13- involved in local-plannin• g-.7,- -;•--... .w--."-, . ."At-..f.26-r3..!,..r---.•.:;•;-1•-. ..,..ta,-._,.-4.-*-..1.,-..i_,--7 ?_!•-•::•1--.;,-,:i'4"---2.-"4-±,`,::-'7=. ..._ ;-' ;-:- "----.: -----...- :_--.. *-----','.•-::_;,v1-,•Az.,..„.--•*. •••• ,•-;41-3.- - - •N-:c-'. --.?'' --- -. - ' "-"• ' ' J • *4t.--'4zjief 7;-e. lising professional assis,' .ir-. ... -- - .,...„ _ "A- .-- . -% -- •:,-.-:,,..a. rRtriliE1:1 BENEFITS:'-.."''-':__'----':---,c ,--;,-'?!3:::.*, ,---4 .1i-r..i;-1'..c.. ..:;:-g-':. ,s-§"..-.Ji.:44;. ••••••-_..t.t_7•-•,_i.•:••••:i-'4-;-.!'": i ,: - "'f.:."_,_ .. A;'P• .-- • ir.y., , ... -.*Elti..e. e...,,,... .:_-:. ' - iliiiiiiiiiinfig&._%.'--' .1'... .1.4'e 7''5'.. .'1.‘ . •M' '''-: Can:be even more oenericiav_ _,,----, .-- The content can focus on your --k-•• _ . -:- --7..--=•-•7to-o-r-,_15% '-:.;•,,q4).- ';.-,It•N:•-•i,r-t--•-,• -•-,-.,_.,- .'1r:--4.::_,...i•.4..;,•::147.:4!::-,-,-...Th.•;,•eadpvrioagor.aam cocmilinmbiseaipohna-asevanmtebdetrost,:tatlaltivteedrsoetgficroia.u.telti.-=.-(f:2--,e:.i-..:,-.41-,-,:--.....--..7•.. -a'.zie-tLoto.- ..,ts..,-:t•-.---:T-,.-o"..-i--.;-t,-----:c-•--i_,-if-r-r-;.'. l-..-.a-,-c7.-e---•‘d• -with t- h-'e---,s-•;i* - - •-•..,:-- .- - -_,-• ,.•.- ' ,••-•- •''..: . -_ • ''... interested citizens. -4;_-.7-.--",-.ii.,:•---1-=-,.-.1•0..;.--r.-k-t.'. 9.-••• - t;',.,i---1,•• -'7:' % inift -;o re u ources -4.e'.--- • ' -Li•iit* s' f - 'd ced -res and. ,: ., .... _ -. -_,:,-....Aosts cao be thared;bytttiPitlflOregfSdknialt11, --• ------ '?s--- '1.;.•••;4,.... --'..,...'..,r. - ',1----4.4,4;.....--%-s.:',,;4•L•r•t„,..1 - - -.1* `, - .•.• •.--:, ,..-f.•........... • _,--;-_-_ r:#=--- ,-•----, .--- ----.4--- . -. ,-,-... ..•,,, -7:••,.= -.:,...r.-.7 tougri uwm*pas'0;1:- •.:: rr.........,-._-. ---. •.,....._.•'-.:(:--,„4.,.-it. -. ..,:''..; Call Vivian.Hartle/2)22244091Q seprerathaNsall ,-.... .....,-.: 440:1:54.5 ei.,-,...i-4i-,,4r• ..-4';---t;;;`,..7:-.4!;i4.,..... •. , .....-- -,-;\--....4,,,,,ag.,- •--(1:4,----4-"Iti.-11,- -..4....k.- ',••• a•- ,,,.. 4-..7%-:_-' ..."9 .-Yr..-,:._.s1:4,14,-:-. ..: _ -... ....._: ::.-m3-umw imm.4.3"-.41.41, -1;ii;- .;11.11 -- - -- -ilWiiit- - 'viirroiir' •111 -'*ii-moo swo me oil•.om if mor olor m: moo- oolO:'Imir:',O#.1,..moltr-7_. .., 1 . •' • .----7'.:7 i-,-.,1.2.:".:', ...'...•:• -1.-.-,4,-4.-,..,-,...,-,- :..2 :,',,:c..--:,.,.;.:--4,::::.e.-,:,..-:".....-4-sr,,...,:i,--"&i:52,...-...--;:i.-2,.. I-.-..t....5::::.7.y.-,"•::::,::_i';...-•_.--,..-:,...:4;.,..:,:.if,, :::...:::;_,;._.....i:z.ck.4.7.1,; •_; ,7,____ .:.••••',.:1..::::!...z;,... •.......,,:.j.••!..-; .;i5j.:::i.'1.--...- -r."; ii.•''' gr'.---:./V1.:'.;''''Z.-•*•- •14.ti.' ''r:,.';'..:•1:;.:::•.-A-t-';,ti IF:'.. .4,1134--.1:•?.11:•;:tri...-'1`.,.f'.'i.,;-+4 s',4.4C1•1"-;11,:ii :14Z:11-Z.r.-.4V;.;;->;r7iLl'---4.4,,;'f..lri."-.7-r.;.:....":;,'`.'5•.,:'-':-:. 147'7.3'..!..17. ft. 1.. ...,:•;--. F-...:,.::'',S'-',:,,7- ....„.t'' ve,,4,.::%•-.5;e-..VO- : -..iii_r_.!..CS,• Irs•;.,:FAI....$, 7/..Atei;TaX,.-'-'4.C:„Ttec.1,. .t-riV •*^L'";.--:••It' Ft.:•••••••.;'.,,'-:".......--`:.-....5"-.!•:-Z-C'0•'*1- -'''''''- ----s'.. --41-.''6-.-Ps::"',' '--.4)- "...It'Zt...- ' ''''ts..*' • --i ..„,-,1% -;Lstar::7477 ."<kl:tsr:: -42.-41.-..11.-. C't-:...7 ?.;;, ;:•_- •;t-tv:1.-:-.1,A;,..-r-'-',Z;74.."_;;•'`..-:,t-: '... 4,-iir-... ,,,, - '''-...."--..-''..v..,,,.•-.4,1,,,."-.." „.,IV%,. ,ivi,i,...4-_, ,_•.,r.,,,,.... ,,, , ,,,,,..,..„ ...., ..;-,-,.. -_-.., ..:,,, •::„ -....,,, --.: ....,,-...___-. ''..:-.St,:.•::'!".0';'a.--..: -1.-- ._---,; "...•4 ;;It:.•.::.:3- r'11-- -e- -,:..,..-C.-.4.--V---' ••'-',..--‘--:, 1- -;.•- ;'--;'-':-=-- ' -• :.---- -:-r" :: '' ' - g .-- ..,. -• , ..., „. -.- - . --,...---. .e. -•- ,....- ,..- -:-.-!:. ...;:-.. -..- :-...t. .--.: 5 ;.:-..-f -3-::. •-•;::,:'•-•.: 1::..,;,:„: . --. '-, .C_. _ -, .. -- '-'• '.';; c; It.-.4/•. _.-- •:.- !--- .. ' :". . '''''':, :-t...:4ft. ;LI.- .-1A-:.• .,';'•-•!•_•?' ,-:',. 7:: 1- --i'-..' ":_" - .',,_ .. '40;`,4t'ic..:1!'' '--;;`.5-;,7 -"'Mli.,k7,;:- '4E- 4:;:: 7:-'_.f...it. f",.= --.t..i i...-.=, ..F._it.-:2... - • '.--14...-:-1,-14.... I a - -4. - ....: .... -,. ,i..it.,..:1,Arf;.-,:_,1,-:i,,,.-. ,,•,,,..1:-.,-,7. . _ ..-.--; . ...s.7"..-- 7:•-.-;..--,,- .:. ,-.. -,s..,•,..-2'4-V.,;.$4,7eqp,:.,44!:,:-., :.:-`-:'- ..s"?..7 -..-.i '..:-.? ;7 -.1.::::-• -...,--4'-f, _. .,-.„..1.-.- . •,..;.......:,.. ....- -..„.x---..,. -:, -,..: -.. ----.._i:. •--• .;,-• -;-- • ,,..,-- ?,--:----...-------,_ii,,,,,,.., .0.,...„ , .- ,.,.. -, ...: *.-..,k,,... . __ •.... .- ,4 i-,..--. -,:rt-f.,..._„.;-,.:.-t: - : -,..._.i . ,.---. :it..-.--_J.4.:_=,. .. -:-.-,,,:- -,....-:-.;_z-,i,7,1[.-....-.,- ,....;.....A._...,,...t.:•:.,,_.. ..,_, :_. ,f ,., ,,,,... ,„ ..:„.: . -, , ,, ::.-_. .,. 1,...;„,,,.....,... -...... ti',1,.;.! • .... itti......,..-.‘'- -,,; •,„--F".;*'.... .!--"....i.:7-3,"141,-. o'..1%.• Liif:A*-. :-'011..11-• ' ---. 'IT., ---, tar •,,..-: 1..--..' - .. .-' f.-ise:A1- t f i-t•-""t.f.C" -.:-_:?1,........... '-'- - •,7. '-: '-:--' ...,:,., -C. , "- :.-,_-;.,;',- gy;'..-r.,:,...:-.7.-,.1 .- ..4 , ..-.• 14-,-.-. 7.-".:,, „ ' ,%rt.i .....-....:,..,_',.'''.- . . -',; .- -,. 7..; •;',,, 1.... •-a•-•,__ _ .ei.rti, i. ,, ..7.-•-•t:i ,.-..- ,,,,--;_1:::N-12,-;_.-,- ._:-- • - . .f--.. : •-,.r:f-_- '2-::- ' --":•:- :''., --,,.-..b,,,,,,.-,4._ ''-',"." 'Cr'• ..' L. ,...y&:.• •%;-•'-• .:Is '", rf I P- ' ff--.'.:t. :.i .'f"--'u'.- '':•.4;.-:.- 1 :,----'-...i--c-'7.-;-.-:-. 0 li..-r--1--. ..?---;,.;A,:t. 4.. -•7----; g';--------.'.','-';• ,.,-, i.,„tow _, .;;_,- - . -. ,:f_ '2 . 2 i S,...--.....,',. ...,fi 21,1. .!.....:,., g-...1:7,.ti,..-,k_ki-:::,..,-_,Ri_.,,,___-:4.,_4-,-.3...-„,...,ia,,reiii.: ,...jp.::.-s.:_:-,-4 .:.:„;,:::,:::.-2i.--..: sc. i ,.......„w:i.:......ic,-0.4. ..i,....cc,et gt.___0:,/, t,,I; li... ..tt- -:;-_-_ , e ,=. ,,,,-.-,::-,,;';x::?_---- ...,f,-2-;,..4---„.4.-,..ii..,,..-actosi,i1;:. -,;it.-_ f..;, .-„If .:,_:::,..,...-:::::- ;''Z:011:-..r7S 42.--' ' •-:'" :.---'7.., ' g ' -:- ..:!---. ^,tc-. .'.7.-1-1•4?-'4.-. 0 u.--. 3 . t ,a . . o •a• s . .. - _ . . a . ,- _ - ..,• ..: i 7 ''•;-•;V" ;7'---..r.'ir-;...-'• ''' ....;.. 'W tr °- .i::•-••••• ff- 0„„.= 11--zw---k.: --:1 -, --- - ' ' '''-. V`L'. ;.4--' '--;.V:.`. 7 cif , -- -,.- -,3•,..,g,,..-.: 0 • --, -- .- ,- •3-- .... • cs ' .-i'"•-•,•-•Ap'w ' 7; •---1,--- -e': .s- '.- • - ' -'".!.:• Eit'-'-'T 2.:;;;"-• - - ‘B° ; :,- '.-'-' -: :-., '-7 `4..' o --• • ':.' -A-- .- 37;•11.?.. ......r:"2-:-..r--••• 1.-_,. :.....::':,..--_--. - - -- .. ••. F., -:-. Z fa • . - ic .-- 1., • . 0 EL, ..- I-- Z . _ Ills ah*-- 4--ii, ' .1•1•W:;-:,..',}..*-i..,7--.%I.:z"- 171 - it-, ,...- .,-,-..,.. . . . ... _ _ • . r!-• -f, ..„ I. ti.-7.--,--.,.,• , CC•• . - 4-- ...---- '•'„ -, _. .. ,, --&-_.„,•-• --:_. ex w, , '-./T., •-... • ' - -- >. • 4:e ...-"" - -. •--- - ,„,, ,-.ftsp'.a . 4;4 ii,........., F. z ,__ . . . 1. ch _ •• . _.•,:-. a. - • .. 0 c I-1 ... -:_ ,-- ...- : 1 .„ _ _. ....... -.- - B a 1.,-•''.4"4.P.• ,.,; e%.. ,_:-. 7 . . , •_7: a,:p. -, zi a. 8 *.-.. :0-3 - - .. --, .-- ---- -- _ ib,- : a- co 1 ,,--_---,....-: ... -.: il_.: ,........,,,,,. Z..'•,a1-...:-..,.,:• ...,,,,..'....- :Isi. ..„..-..,,,E.,,:,..-„, , 74 -• UV 0 ,J es.:, , - •-:. • :-.-_- ii •-:-To_ cr-, ,...... ov„-111 0 -4 r:. --f-:: ._ -- 16 To k.- • :'- or, Ch •.• a. -- • - _ . • , ._ cl- - - - --.:: .• - 11.- - i'' - I = Lli • cl..--!: -,•-'•. '- 8- - I . a '". 2'..• -'' -..- -.: ..- , ... it.... :• 1 -G-•,.....,'_:.z...,._._ rt_ _..:-.t....13.-..1.'.. 4::•-•••. , .„;_ -..A.-- •g". . ."-:-."-%•Ft ..-- ..c.'S otk:-7-... :: .-- . T., :112 '..' •.: -1-. ':::. , ... . - . .. Z- ...-.;S.'''•-: .47.V.-•''" ..*- - `--- ;-- c . E e't": ''.... 1 .z--.' :" x... : --- ,---. . - -..--. 7 - I. . ' 5". - -• • . . -.-.. -. . t. _ • • ."-, i ....-:s_.,•,,..-y,'77-7,-;:...-• . E.- • 0- • - • -;•-• 0 -2 «. op -* - S.. e - . . • • • • . ' cil - •.-4' co - z • ----- • E - • 4 ;12 a. = = - - . - 2 1 f-' ., ' • : E * • -...41E it-1 CL = 63 - 2 - .?- ., .: . . . - - o .. - .2 l' EL g x 0„. : it • 'a S ...,.: _ • , -_ -..,,,- 01 V.,t-% :-SI: .41 ' . a& .c. s , g „,- . 9 ol„ .. 111.• 7 1-;-`-'-'''..1`. ''• ,:i ot Q0 -1g0c1Ellr, I - -..--1 ii ci ii t .c -2 "co .2 "tg E-.IP. a.:-.1-7,7,----,---.--41 ..-./,:f.-,.t.,74--...4.- er• - ... _t 0., ..., , = 75 e 13 0 ,--, e , ,_ -_-__.- . .c , 1 z , (j) r . u • 0 , . 0 I ----,-..-.., :- - ... ... gg .. / c .c1211 „ c = E - • - _: • - ...... ac AC C = C -.... • = . -- - 1-* E 2 -C. = .e.• ei Is w 0 W (..) Ca a. : 1:1'• . t . .,- ge .•._-, = as a . 13- • 0. 3 .-,- - . . , . - z 1- -3 2 FS 3 3 o o o Q.. .• _- - - . .. . _.. .. . .. .. .._ . . _ .. . _. _. f . .- . ..._ .. - -•- - - -:;--#)-5 '1, cat- dA Ota,,,, •- . SGENERAL INFORMATION ,_ _ i- - We are pleased to once again offer.workshops`. - necessitate program cancellation or postpone- Designed especially :for citizen planners : :merit, registrants will.be notified-via-announce-: Participants will enhance their knowledge of anents on WCCO radio and other-local radio sta- various areas of planning and, as a result, tions f F • _-- become better equipped to make recommen -. „_.,_„,,,,,...;.i..,•_,-,--.,;._,-_-,-__:. --,..:._ ,_ dations and decisions about the communities =- `FEES _ in which they live. °�. § es {or all_workshops include a • it, �_:1 _ meal, refreshment breaks and.handout maten _, 1.3 Program Features Include: 4• 4als:_See inside thdetails-about group=xiis-' . An accomplished faculty with extensive :•• 'counts for three ormore participants attending :_,•,-:' • - = backgrounds in both planning and _” + Annu31 Planning 1nsbtute•' ' Presentations focusing on int moues; • , PORT ;10 {y r�the group tuscount, . 1144 and timely information.' ---..,. .--a .,- ,:.:- � iegistra'�1ons-Must be mailed in the saran envie- ',:,"7 . Handy reference materials ctesigned to K ,rr�bp_e! .:,,-2,_ti ;x r r .‘,....; .,---.,,-F....±,4. � 4 , � make your job easier r y w �. ~t art� '!��'� 'f v, '�Yy s.:.-Y�'� -L"r �1� ✓1�. ie� , t'�- t'�}2: 'i J r'K .. ; +� -i�'r�/��c i" - 't •K ' '.+iii. �4` _.= z -: C�51)0N3ti1T7�7�i.,a k fC �3Lf�� z-r[ -�}Y �� .. �r ..4 ` � u�iiould .ike"to make'yOur contribution9 • ., v • 4 :��4 , `r- ' . _ solving land use problems as informed and" '-7kssOdiatiota of Metrgpofitart Mt nlcipalties`' `.. - effective as possible . .REGISTER TPDAyl ,,-..j.--,--i.. Association of Min nties - �, ;s. .� . ARE FOR YOU: .!'..%:+4.Humphrey Institute'of Public Affairs-: T ';` F� THESE PROGRAMS >1- •= r : } -'%------,-;:-..-- ,7=--; s-- - • • League of Minnesota Cities ,� r: ,, -� : 71".;.'0 • MinnesotwAssociation of Townships "� ,, WHO SHOULD ATTEND? - � - Minnesota Chapter,American Planning • Members of planning commissions, .boards df -_Associat on- ... ..;-;:c.,: = ;..-- ,,> . adjustment/appeals and governing-bodies in- . Minnesota Planning Association . Minnesota cities, counties and townships. Also_.: • Minnesota Planning ri _ _ . . s valuable for members of other advisory •corn-- : < .. �, _-_ `< • - • missions, housing and redevelopment authori- ties, staff (especially those without degrees in - FURTHER INFORMATION planning), real estate professionals, and others Contact Barb Croucher (Registration) or Vivian - working in areas related to specialized work- • -. :Hart (Program) at" - Government Training :, shop topics. - __. - . Service, (612) 222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free :j t: % (800)652-9719 - _ _ _ REAL ESTATE CREDITS = - - . , , .q ,c Participants of "Annual Planning Institutes'and - -- -z_- E - x - ' ' "Beyond the Basics" can earn Continuing Real ' About m Governent Training,Setvlee-(GTS).- -` • Estate Education Credits. = .- - - Recipient.of Organizational Support --- REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION. - Epilog. � for Excellence in •Training Award• - -(American.Society.for Training and - Register at least 7 days prior to the workshop , . Development) -- — date using the forms in this brochure. Fill out _- 'Cat's . ., .. - i' -.-_,1. . ,' one form for each workshop; duplicate forms if . GTS is a public organization whose mission4S,_ needed. Fees will be refunded less a $15 - o meet the changing management and leader--. service fee if the registration is cancelled 3 _ ship needs of policymakers, staff and appoint-_:, •: working days before the program. '-'ed officials by providing innovative, compre - Substitutions for registered participants may be hensive, practical training and consulting to: _ made at any time. Should inclement weather publicly funded organizations. -. (or other circumstances beyond our control) too Printed on recycled paper: - _ ,