Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02-16-94 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1994, 7:30 P.J CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DR CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING 1. Review and select the alignment of Hwy. 101 for use when it is widened in the future. Approval of the "official mapping" of the selected alignment. The section of the highway being evaluated starts at Hwy. 5 and runs south to Lyman Boulevard. 2. Chanhassen Kingdom Hall for a site plan review for 3,800 square foot church to be constructed on an 87,113 square foot parcel located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center, located south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad and west of Audubon Road. 3. Lotus Realty Services for a site plan review of a 9,660 square foot office retail building (Edina Realty) and a 2,533 square foot fast food restaurant (Wendy's) to be located on Lot 4 and Outlot A, Market Square. 4. *Item Deleted. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 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. Items Deleted _ 4. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 46.5 Acres into 36 rural single family lots and one outlot, Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates, located South of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101 (Great Plains Blvd.). City of Chanhassen Highway 101 Corridor Study Addendum DRAFT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. February 1994 H I( Eii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 - STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7 - DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS 14 LAND USE PLAN 19 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS 21 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 22 INTRODUCTION In September 1989, the City of Chanhassen, with assistance from Hoisington Koegler Group, completed a plan for the Highway 101/5 corridor which evaluated a variety of Highway 101 alignment alternatives and established a corridor land use plan which was incorporated with the City's comprehensive plan. At the time of the original 1989 study, the interchange configuration dictated an alignment which afforded very difficult roadway connections to Chanhassen Hills while creating unusable or very difficult to use remnants of land lying between the existing and proposed Highway 101 alignments. During the ensuing four years, a number of factors have changed, which warrant additional study of the corridor. Due to the delay in the programming of Trunk Highway 212, a great deal more flexibility is afforded in the design of the 212 interchange which allows for correction of the original deficiencies. Restudy was also warranted by the passage of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 which requires the mitigation of wetland losses and set in motion a new era of wetland sensitivity. A third factor influencing the need to restudy the corridor was the potential existence of cultural resources particularly in close proximity to Lake Susan. The current corridor study included a tree inventory, wetland delineation and a cultural resources analysis. The study scope extends from Great Plains Boulevard on the north to Lyman Boulevard on the south. Its purpose is to evaluate a variety of alternative alignments for Highway 101, to develop a revised land use plan and to develop a funding strategy for what is currently a temporary state trunk highway. The study included a detailed analysis of the natural environment; the development and evaluation of four additional roadway alternatives; the establishment of roadway geometrics, grading limits and right-of-way needs; the preparation of roadway cross sections, the development of buffering concepts to protect the neighborhood to the west of existing Highway 101 and the formulation of a revised land use plan. The process included two neighborhood meetings on May 17 and November 17, 1993. This report represents the culmination of the recent study and is intended to be appended to the September 1989 Corridor Study. CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Based on a traffic study completed in August of 1986, Highway 101 between Highways 5 and 212 is projected to carry between 11,000 and 15,000 vehicles per average day in year 2005. A volume of that magnitude requires four moving lanes plus turn lanes and well spaced accesses to minimize side friction which can interfere with the efficient flow of traffic. The timing of the construction of new Highway 101 is intended to correlate with the construction of Highway 212. However, due to the delay of Highway 212, combined with considerable area growth, a temporary solution may be needed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will build the Highway 212/101 interchange in conjunction with the Highway 212 project. MnDOT's project extends to just north of West 86th Street, leaving approximately one-half mile of new roadway construction to connect with Market Boulevard and Highway 5. Originally programmed for construction in 1995/6, Highway 212 is now scheduled for letting in November of year 2000. At the earliest, Highway 212 will be under construction in year 2001 given the current status of highway funding. Any alignment for future 101 which does not correlate with the existing alignment will need to be formally established and officially mapped to protect it from future development encroachments. Absent this course of action, the most expedient way to deal with Highway 101 will be to simply widen the existing roadway to four lanes. Unfortunately, Highway 101 is classified as a temporary state trunk highway and as such, it has no improvement funding source. MnDOT wants to turn Highway 101 over to Carver County. Because of this jurisdictional conundrum, the City has elected to take the initiative in defining the future alignment for Highway 101 to ensure that its own interests are best served. This may also require a sharing of the cost of construction between the City of Chanhassen, Carver County and MnDOT. Page 2 cHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED The 1989 Highway 5/101 preliminary alignment study evaluated four major alternatives ranging from use of the existing Highway 101 alignment to one which moved the roadway a considerable distance to the east. Alternative 1 which represented the least departure from the existing alignment was selected as the preferred alternative. The 1993 evaluation involved four alternatives including the use of the existing Highway 101 alignment and three variations of preferred Alternative 1. The following is a description of each of the alternatives evaluated as part of this most recent study. Alternative 1 This alternative consists of the continuation of use of the existing Highway 101 except for its relocation to connect to Highway 212. This alignment would entail a 100-120 foot right-of-way to accommodate four contiguous lanes. All right-of-way expansion would occur on the east side of the already existing 66 foot Highway 101 right-of-way. This alternative would entail only limited extraordinary cuts and fills though it would encroach on the front yards of the two existing homes lying easterly of Highway 101. Due to the existence of numerous curb cuts, this alternative represents the least efficient way to handle the projected future traffic volumes. Alternative 2 This represents the 1989 approved alignment with a slight modification at the south end to reflect the reconfigured interchange. Due to rather extreme topography, this alternative would require approximately 200 feet of right-of-way which would accommodate a four lane divided roadway having a 25 foot median and a 100 foot dimension from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Alternative 2 has a substantial wetland impact and embodies significant vegetation loss. It leaves a strip of nearly unusable _ land between it and the existing Highway 101 alignment but leaves the two existing houses on the east side of existing Highway 101 intact. This alignment traverses an area that is known to have a variety of cultural resources including Indian and more recent antiquities. The quality of resources appears to be minimal, representing more of a junkyard character. Alternative 3 This alternative represents a slight westerly shift in the 1989 approved alignment of Highway 101. It would require 200 feet of right-of-way to accommodate a four lane divided roadway which could easily carry the volume of traffic projected. This alignment, too, has larger cuts and fills and a significant wetland impact that would require mitigation plus significant tree loss. It traverses the area known to include cultural resources. Its slightly expanded right-of-way provides the surest buffering for homes abutting Lake Susan. It makes near total use of the land between the proposed and existing alignments. cHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 represents the use of a portion of the temporary alignment extending southerly from Market Boulevard. It would have 120-150 feet of right-of-way to _ minimize wetland impacts. It would embody a roadway four lanes wide but having no median. It too traverses an area that causes significant tree loss and disruption of known cultural resources. As does Alternative 3, it takes the two homes lying easterly _ of Highway 101. CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 4 ty Votio'AN _ -J /�/'�f - :`'I Figure 1 Ys�;:.. ' - _ : r - ,.- r f-Q- ' \ti Alternative Alignments ,,- ( = 1��•+. .7----__- - - -- ------- —%.vl.,,ont —7"- \\, ---J• =.t G--- _ —r, . — 13 ICY __ - \l' _ 'S �1`\..........•••••..-../. J . N _ _ v• - \ NMiNS \ '` 1¢ iMENI a_ { �� ___ '��� study Area Boundary 2C: ♦CC _ A • Lake Susan �•,. I y ----,,,,,,, .---, ,--- -..... .•d,.,:•--_,-- __ -:..... ,(• ..., ‘1.,. - ' 1 i J Limi...... ..) _�,,"J`W\L -/ mai- V-iJR i[ 1 • .i•�I.. /%;,..r'' - -\ f .i' � �� J•! `fi `.+•i .::.. -...,- ---:.•-x.-----.... ..---: ..- _ _�T= r.- . .� .+y;-1-"y"_"� �°i' 7c.1 .� - ff 1/•:--5-.• ': ,...___ - Figure ,' - :,1 f (/ s. , ._� Alternative Alignments • .\ '� ,% ' , i..•.� - I , ,......._ + , „...„... , ,,, ....... ' emir N _ 11 ,�r ;� = '� �: _, .' �,. • 'ti - •;; i :r:' Wiz: -"..._, --Study Area Boundary Lake swan ! • :` I '/ 6•.:. -= 7 — iii/irop!!...• .ye� ti••f¢ 'N . t , f.'''''' ---'.-:". SY „ g r ` // 1 I — --/C;:j 1 - Ete , VP,.: , 7,. ,,, • —, 4•,t1 §::,.:.. I, .;J, ., -.-. , ._ ,,, ky,a4.4._,•,,,40,0„,,,,,:.., — _. ,,: ....,..." V S,17;' . \ 4, ,T.,45-.:::,:-..... , J,..----,./.. .:- ...,---_,.... — ';,.;\-1";„, ' ••;;•V... ../ .. ..::'. "..: ,./"" .;;.. 1'''\t.••1' / , 171// ' rill\- . siti - ':.-....---- '''',,,,•-:',..j t.d4rItit.::.,---.--"- -.'--' ""/- //11 '.. N ''1.:'''''. Z.s‘11* ...:;* '46 :3- ; - • -' •sem 1ri� / . ,, • :• N; ' ` = ` i' '_ . J :.• iy.,...,\..L...../...) • + ��+- . • A;! Study Area 'a '� O`'�- • v----)1,7.-•;—r,71. 7—',•-_'_ ''T---.'",:•--,-..-.----.------ ,..' ••. /i 1\1� �"._.\s / '---- .. �� `ilo J I•• J' �� �� 4, -.do / -tel, / rt ,� +}- •.-. ! . '• ~y • = • : ./�,.1, �/ ,��._ . ,., ,. . c •..... — ..41:ark_-_ _......o t C.en ,i i --...." 1., J�. _�- i . q�+ ' ,.- •'': \ s,`�-- � .fes p.i' �� J// . �ate: J _ r�n 4 (Z. 1 'i `\ • �r -i' �:. 'i /i^';.� i /��� r s 1 rte- ''.t--_ i . i / ''...-1--.,...... ,,' .�� f/''. !' 1/4\ii �,ti: �\ !1. s ;a ,�\- 3 4 — - . . —� �\ ,� �I CITY OF CHANHASSEN --/-!./.-----::-3c) • / ,. 1 7 '�- Alignment Alternatives L '- �'' = UPDATE FOR s—vw„ _ _` ��_: .. HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT �c" J � � AND LAND USE STUDY • •' ` ��_f` Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. • ©© ®B Page 6 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES At the first neighborhood meeting conducted on May 17, 1993 the four alternatives were presented for comment by land owners and neighbors. A partial evaluation of the alternatives was presented and input was taken as to neighbor acceptance and landowner preference. At that time a list of criteria was presented and subsequently modified considering neighborhood participant input. The evaluation criteria utilized is included in Table 1. Each alternative was scored based on its impacts on cultural resources,wetlands,vegetation,neighborhood compatibility,extraordinary development cost, traffic conflicts and carrying capacity, impact on trail linkages, neighbor acceptance and landowner preference. Table 2 represents the rationale used in scoring the alternatives. Table 3 represents the scoring summary. Based on an objective evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative 3, which is the westerly shift of the approved alignment, scored highest. It can be termed the preferred alternative. If, on the other hand, Alternative 3 is approved as the preferred alternative, the City will either have to mitigate the loss of the wetland it traverses or suspend the roadway on a causeway to allow for limited coexistence. If weights were imputed to each criterion, the outcome could change. The present evaluation assumes that all criteria are of equal importance. cHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 7 Table 1 SCORING OF TH 101 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 5 = NO RESOURCES IMPACTED 3 = LIMITED RESOURCES IMPACTED 1 = SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IMPACTED WETLAND IMPACTS 5 = NO DISRUPTION 3 = MINIMAL DISRUPTION 1 = MAJOR LOSS/REPLACEMENT VEGETATION IMPACTS 5 = NO LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES 3 = MINIMAL LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES 1 = MAJOR LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD/BUFFERING CAPABILITY 5 = NO ADVERSE IMPACTS (Traffic, Values, Noise, Visual) 3 = MINIMAL IMPACTS/ABILITY TO MITIGATE 1 = POTENTIAL MAJOR IMPACTS/LOWER VALUE HOMES/ LIMITED BUFFERING CAPABILITY EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT COSTS 5 = NO EXTRAORDINARY COSTS 3 = MODEST EXTRAORDINARY COSTS 1 = EXTRAORDINARY COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GRADING TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND CARRYING CAPACITY 5 = NO CONFLICTS 3 = MANAGEABLE CONFLICTS 1 = MULTIPLE CONFLICTS EFFECTING CARRYING CAPACITY IMPACT ON TRAIL LINKS 5 = CLEAR SEPARATION OF MODES/SAFE 3 = MINIMAL CONFLICTS 1 = SERIOUS CONFLICTS NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE 5 = PREFERRED ALIGNMENT BY MAJORITY 3 = ACCEPTABLE ALIGNMENT BY MAJORITY 1 = UNACCEPTABLE ALIGNMENT BY MAJORITY LANDOWNER PREFERENCE 5 = PREFERRED 3 = ACCEPTABLE 1 = UNACCEPTABLE CHANHAS\9321\HWY_101.RFT Page 8 Table 2 HIGHWAY 101 CORRIDOR EVALUATION RATIONALE FOR SCORING ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA RATIONALE CULTURAL RESOURCES Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all would traverse the area where archaeological artifacts have been found (see Attachment 4). WETLAND IMPACTS Alternatives 2 and 3 will alter the entire wetland while 1 and 4 will impact only the western edge (see Attachment 5). VEGETATION IMPACTS Significant trees lost* Alternative 1 17 Alternative 2 74 Alternative 3 79 Alternative 4 44 * Desirable species 6" or greater in size. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the greatest direct impact. Alternative 2 would leave a remnant of land that would attract lower value homes. EXTRAORDINARY DEV. COSTS Alternatives 2 and 3 would have about equal major cuts and fills while Alternative 4 would have a slightly lesser cost impact. TRAFFIC CONFLICTS Alternative 1 would have numerous -- driveway/turning conflicts,while access can be controlled with all other alternatives. IMPACT ON TRAIL LINKS Alternatives 1 and 4 do not fill the wetland and thus require at-grade rather than grade- separated crossings. NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE Based on the May 17, 1993 neighborhood meeting, it was concluded that the majority of residents could accept Alternatives 2 or 3. LANDOWNER PREFERENCE All prefer Alternative 3. 9 CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPf Page 9 Table 3 IMPACT MATRIX SCORING ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 5 3 3 3 WETLAND IMPACTS 3 1 1 3 VEGETATION IMPACTS 4 1 1 2 COMPATIBILITY WITH — NEIGHBORHOOD/BUFFERING 1 CAPABILITY 1 1 3 EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT 1 3 COSTS 5 1 TRAFFIC CONFLICTS/CARRYING 5 5 CAPACITY 1 5 -- IMPACT ON TRAIL LINKS 1 5 5 1 NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE 1 3 3 1. LANDOWNER PREFERENCE 1 1 5 1 _ TOTALS 22 21 27 20 — 5 = LEAST IMPACT 1 = MOST IMPACT ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS 1. EXISTING 101 ALIGNMENT — 2. APPROVED ALIGNMENT (1989) TO REFLECT NEW INTERCHANGE — 3. WESTERLY SHIFT OF APPROVED ALIGNMENT 4. USE OF EXISTING TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT Page 10 — CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT ir Figure 3 izt�x+1� ii, ` , -- • — — Natural Features - --a , Jr .o ati,+a.• l i4Ev Q -- , •., ` – N—+ , �' .X:} '_ ' TLAND ...;5`. -K-:-..' T— Study Arta Boundary r!C ••• SIGNIFICANT '.1:i.:11 . r • VEGETATION ----)�- "f' -1, i ` last saa.n - - l — ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND •= 93-CR-1 r: ._-ate' li - 4. 1 -r .W +- 4$ I '-i—_ � 1�\ �, tip` 'w Q 1 ,�1 ....._„../..". kt ''' N\ 5-r.- -c ....., ‘,w,„ ...., ,...,;.___ :. _......,, __.,..7.7„ .\ : _,...„1„2.„,917, .' - - , ..9. –Ammo:0v i Fes. �• �.f'✓'� •n11� -�/ %l- ,\' r\`_ _.f - _! r 1 Q , , '� '-��J .18".1! - - _� .` ``.'..• \ �• �. / /--St-,,::V S iy Arta g 11 r l r / , -,•.�. . tr\ \ i .�� �\Sy /. /;ti &—dary�, J Q. 1ko��..,, ` _ , _ ) ` . ; )Pti 1� /'� . C. _ \ , •�\, EYP; . \\ice �.�L •r-n //�, % i �/ I e�1;/ i Vii.i' •i ' \ ��i - -_, , ,._•,, ,. ..-„, /`:-. / �. J _7,- /� _ `�// Tom• ^ - ���/ •• • i o -..,.��1.•-�- .r�r_._ ., '� �/` � .�/ 1 ./ � '��� V�.� - JJJI. - • I ► a - ' '.i — .%•':X.•' -- i.- FJ`• tea' .�7`.� � _y, I I is ..../ W� .` ii '. / rte';-�, ✓, /; ter. I /. i`r / V - 1=-----:-- �.. lam-' ` ` ., --� k y-' �- �r I. ,. • • \. `� 1 I L -,,i1 . _ ; 1t — ;` — ` 1 D 2 \; / I r� �\ - CITY OF CHANHASSEN "' ' �,rt:� - — I !� Natural Features _� ! r� L __ -_ - �+ UPDATE FOR ----.......-_:.........„6. . HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT I _ -= . AND LAND USE STUDY 1.•o �; ....,...,... Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. •L - ©© ®B Page 11 • Figure 4 •�, ' Natural Features \ �� ^� b:i _ + 1 - ''...c.'.:‘; ,. N -•-• l''... -- __ _ p -- • �/ ; "?. 'T L A N D .p,. `.� _ Study Area Boundary ,;, ,pa SIGNIFICANT C � �; , imMI VEGETATION --3 \ .' Lake Susan rI •IZ 1 _ 1 '- ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND �i� 93-CR-1 `f:• _ i • L� ''''r▪ ' r; _ Q is $• -4'A'''_ _ —.- -.. •• ./fka. .0----- -▪ -.' a,, . i --7/7---C2 -•---. .,' /-- ii§ .•`::.?:V.- ... . : .. .- fes.r,-'� , 7ci f •s — �. Ca �r� i•4b_ F S S.• / \�\._ — : rte' • - �s,,,• \:•:1'._' � • ,i 5 $':!.., -.;:s. .r•••• --�-'-`-=-;;,7-- cam' — ..a.. : •,•• t - r. 1 ' - '.rte_ gS 4!:t ------,17..„.?;.- , ` ;t• .,..„.;, /�_ '/(1l/ \\•. tf = ❑❑ ❑ __ _,, f- __7 y/i✓j5.5 &,,„ +„ lV / ...,_`-�_ a .- J ✓/ _ ,,▪ ,/-•- O i/�� �9' r(.` F. �fi .^ r• teAn_ �l\'y'R"-,.,. y -7-:>\__ ::--,i, • ---G n7-J.." -- - •:-:=-----'...- ---..\ .n.- --7- — .,...------ . , *;:,,I.1-4,S\\..1. -----.. - """\.•?` •- .1.es s.---- ../2__:;,-;., ,• ,...-- ...,gir. , _ �. -� �il�: 'S IL _-- . - --- �. �. _`?� �` i. 'v%,-/,),q--- • StudyArea — •-..�,� �- ` ` e ; \,, ../ .. Boundary--e, _ -S.;,1\O` !~ a !- - �\ moi. `,Y . - • -. •,, ----.2----..,z-c74.---- ____,_-__--(- -.• •A _- ,..:-., •.„/ _ ,., - —'' ,.... J a E /__ ,.---C1-_-_--<1'::-.--:-, - /moi 1 ,:. 3 4 CB - _ f : _. 7 r-� ,•'. ` - -' I CITY OF CHANHASSEN — r -- \ Natural Features �� - UPDATE FOR - - --_---...-;-,_....-4....,_,/- --,—_ _ -- HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT _ :- -"''• _.-�� - t r AND LAND USE STUDY =: �� 44444,„. Hni+inttun Knegler Grnup Inc. ©© — ®B Page 1 J v I Figure 5 Ns :. f /,� ,. ;. Preferred Alternative <' �' ....• r Q .---\___�as ,- �. \ 1\ss s1 z://f;\ , . ,,,.. ,, - ::: — , .,,, \ ' ''''''si.......",-;‘....—....„40:000,10L, — --:-.7'." . ..‘ liiir* :.l..1— -.--- 'It- '1 '' 1 '141'—— _ S Area Sorardary ]eo .oa APPDXIMATE GRADING LIMITS - ' )1 iii Jam', l . -7` ,/ , • . \ — ter .� . .-. Susan ) /I f . r - Lake - =,.--- .)\ . - r .\ �.;, IIN iii \\ (...---4- .--`7 .;t(t. 4 Ihiiii fill \ ; :4*.t, //://, '. .' ; '----.-'77. _ „ .. 'via, s(•.• // '1 r r i 1,• ' ••• ''''`:._to'. , . r''''M lac .' --//c=1 •— a ---•• •••• ; '/11 / yey -h \,.•.„...." . I• \\,. j Ili 7h."4„.„,:J.'S/ • ...,1 ..."-•''''' ii5'\.,0.'0. r'.',c.\ ,`-:;•'r ,1/4"/".. ii \ -•-„,:\-\1111115(... —.4 ' ': '1'^''''''P.\'‘... •;.1 �1--- r/lI„iia �- � � ----:: :-4-. __•_ •-- rte.. r!-' /- - .fly -- -- -- ' � •• \- ^ - ..• �Q'--- - �,.�//r .\ ��� / 6; . • --_ _ a N..._____ ie. `/,- • -.y p / 1 `L 7`: ' , moi.' `-� ,, , ` ‘ \--- .7a �1IrUT1 ii --. _. _ �� i Study Area 710011 �.. , • j�(, _ ( �” ' lilt • --S• ^) � //3.'i , -. -:;,......N..,9 ,::. - ... ...:_d -. ...,\ Ii(4.. ' , 7-, .. . c , .,c.'"?. . . / !,Cirr 7,-'--F.C.- : A' `-N,:f / (1 il (7; l s / � � � , �/ \ a__:....,,,,..-s__ �!1 i . l moi,//�— /;, O] ' it l e' w , /- I I ,, �..�� III I. - I 1r- -1 I Vv� I ?�I . I CITY OF CHANHASSEN '`'• ' ....I.' i ; I N, ;1 t. I I PROPOSED ALIGNMENT '' et! • UPDATE FOR = � ______ r_ I� _ �__:_,••••• •_.„.--,,..4,_-_,-__' -- __. , f_____—__ HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT c<<"` L � — AND LAND USE STUDY Ilnivnctun FueEler Group Inc. OD OD Page'.3 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS Roadway Character. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, is intended to be a four lane divided roadway which is designed as an urban section (with curb and gutter) but with a median ditch. It is intended to be suspended above the creek to allow for a grade separated pedestrian crossing and a reduction in the vertical alignment to 4% over a distance of approximately 800 feet. The remainder of the Alternative 3 alignment will have a center line grade of less than one percent (1%) or one (1) foot of rise in 100. The horizontal alignment for Highway 101 is intended to accommodate a design speed of 49 miles per hour. This would suggest a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. If the speed is intended to be increased to 45 miles per hour, a limited amount of super elevation or tilt will be required. The problem with using super elevation with an urban roadway section is the diminished effectiveness of costly curb and gutter on one side of the roadway. The construction grading limits extend beyond the proposed right-of-way in some areas due to extreme topography. Nonetheless, 100 feet of right-of-way, as measured from the center line of the median, is proposed for the east side of the roadway. This dimension can be diminished to as little as 90 feet in the vicinity of West 86th Street. An expanded right-of-way is proposed for the west side of the new highway extending all the way to the westerly right-of-way line of existing Highway 101. This area is intended to be used for extensive landscaping and berming. Berming and Landscaping. While the landscaping concept embodied in the original 1989 corridor study is intended to remain intact, the landscaping and berming westerly of the preferred alignment is intended to be very intense. At Section A, (see Figure 6) there will be a 75 foot distance between the old and new rights-of-way. A natural berm will be created by roadway excavation. This area can be further supplemented with earth materials and then landscaped to create a significant barrier for the residences on Lake Susan. At Section B, the area between the rights-of-way shrinks to just 20 feet but the existing land form allows for the construction of an eight foot berm with landscaping as a supplement. Throughout this area, extraordinary berming and landscaping is proposed as a means to mitigate the potentially adverse environmental effects of the roadway on adjoining residential properties. At Section C, the new Highway 101 will be depressed creating a natural berm as a shield for the juxtaposed neighborhood. There is also a considerable horizontal separation between the houses on Lake Susan and the proposed roadway. The intent throughout this segment of roadway is to literally divorce the future roadway from the established neighborhood and return existing Highway 101 to local street status. CHANHA5\93-21\HWY_101.RF Page 14 Figure 6 Sections -- - ,--� - - I #s-J I CO C !ili I _ 1 Q r'¢ ---- U .c Z : --I - Z > ' I Z c0 a o-a I o a r 0 - I F- , ---}- H e o• 1-= 1 {C) j I O j sc I v I y I z 1 c 1 = ` �i a { J 'I jt4 ii T. Ci i g I 1+. ;y W 1 I .•i O ! I 1 2 1 I K _ � W I -_ -_ I f - I : ! a ill 1 dn 1 -1 --a I I 3 I 0• 1 rd n._E}-, ..- .I - L s O —Q ; 0 ._-----� 1 a C NW to I o-a is r y o , _• _" 47. I•-- - -- ti----wil . I • II I ( i - T-11I eii, 11 I I isI - 1 a5 1i I I Om • r l 0 II • II I a ._ i t ji. W -�. 4glll �yl r-, i 11 . 5 --Sama - I ``—cit i t . 2 � II 1 In. iI .....:___NI fc 12 f ; . I I 1 3---- = ----� - c , a 1 E ;--.1.1 1 I s < i o- I 3 I I 1 Qi I W I 1 O' _— -. I ... I I I I I I I W • Sfl • {I e v I C I li,c --- 1 Ji I I. I i I I — I m I c I c c O I o I • C 1 o j c I e ..Dq S 1 ¢ 1 II I 1 a u Page 1 11 - Figure 7 /1,/,'' - D ---_ _ • . Trails and Sidewalks [ -_•.,,,,.* ill,. ...,.7.-:,i,.. \ • -- :2.--- . sk) ..-.„ .•; _ __--- .1., ,.. \,\ --- . . ...... ..---2 - )__ r--„:„.:-:,-- ........ ..,.\,i,. -,kt ;.5./tx -7: 4 1 - • '.- . c p ..1 N , _ -,--- \ \ --`,1 ...- _ - _ _ • ------------,!: .-. ----- . lit,••'. ----':-- \\ . ,. --,..".... IF It' Area Boundary \ - . ., i•''..-:n--% . \ - . . .... .., -,,!...,- . • ::: “. APPDXIMATE GRADING LIMITS -- r. ".".11_6314/ -7-• V:, '• _ , Legend •• • i • ' ,•!--'k,\• ...,: --- -..., Lake Susan .\ ../- i i,:-: -/ / '. .74;i,.. `A• 1---1 ,.. ' 10'lAulti-use Trail --..-i•••••• 10'On-street iff 1 / • -,,-•"•--t! III • . •-•-.\\____,/ Commuter Bike Lane ../ / 4 . , . \\,.... ..,\ : / • "r • ,_ __-2 - --1 ----,------0,--,a' ............ S Siderant .- - -1' i • "#*/ - .- --77--,---,-7—tzi .7- , _ , ...... .... ..., . • ' .-•-••••• 11/•-• ••••••• _... . ,,,......... „.................7["':4 if / .. . ::..Ii I•• , .. . t 1 ;.' ' • ..- . 1•J_...;* <2. ,. :•/ /0,7..:'...,7 1 7"--...---, , ,;) . , /3....,4... •z....., , . , , . — ' - ..-- .....- ?-4e. '?",;. 'z•,---/ .....--.. --- -.., 1:1 i. '\ ,- (-) w ' '' -- ...• C3..1:!..'n-_,XiV, '14. .'.... -...) -. . ‘• \.k.N....... ..2 4 .•) \'' * . *.•\‘‘ ; ' \ r.‘.7,:•ZiPitCar) :C4'. /71,...;4A ( A_‘ ._ .ii •-•;"' '.. -...........--.•••••-r- • -.-•- ___ ' \ .0. ' •1 ...-1..y.....- - . L 1: ''..-- -.1•0(Npi. ‘Z...1 . ,./.7__, ACtr'.- ''.. .—...= _,.....?... ...;;(7.!-._-..7-... ....-- _ 7: ''0.• _%:r..0. . ‘.__L.,'. ._ ,r• I •, I!..-1-,locashr--‘, .....;,..'- - -,,fri-A, 1.1.:----- , -- /. " ..-- - s '',." - •,, • jtverA-our , 7. .... '..-. .. .- -r• c't'.------ . • 4CCESS :- ,---'!- : -\-----_-'•: „...\-r-?;" ---(- ,___z. ...‘i7. ; • ":7- (..V___J );r•t\.4.'.‘t\(p 010 0 .i. :2_-`s.. ..'*-- "' k;•, ,'-.. , .-. ;••••r'. ••;:=- ,.,'' ' -.,. ..../7- ,_„,"\, I __„. =5';...,, ---1( ,, N.. ,• -- _; ,,, •zo t- ..;,. --:.- .......‘..ar,.. - . -__-:-..- --, •- ••) . s,-------:---.,\•'.\\, 4,.., ',";_,"-----7`,... •' ---,2- Iti:--1111 ..0,24 i , _.... . .,..__ -,..., _ , . . ! , .....-,-- - 7-7 ---7----,.....-•- `/..-----' ...;. ---..*:... S ,,,- • \•...:- •;"... 1.9‘. • —"1A, 1'1• i` ..:?....--- . 1 _\-.....: -''' , '"_•.;- . ''.4.- -...".,' ,_ .4' .........2) _ - ,_ : ... i‘ .....,)-(\r. , N ..--- • -- -.0•Nr ; , --p. -- - - . 'reit'. \\,\•••-•:-:....../‘- .-. C -i "-ePri•sl, - -E1---; h !' - .. -TANE i 1. .---.--_--..1. 7. 7.-.;..----1--• . • '"-.., •s. • • 1 :91ra.. .4.: StudyarArea --.--. .... . . '\.. ..... Boundy-.. - - - ..1- •••;* '':•-'0,..L;r.-..,..... 1"./'- ''.... 1 ' t- '''. \_ ..! _lir...,L• ..., ,,,.. t . . -; ,Te;-.; 7-NP • / 1 : • 1.... , •-•,_.-_- _ a• --.. ...---- ••-..1 /2:-/i 1,• ' . -••• .1--• • "---- ;ift"-N16 -...-. '•/ jill‘,;:,....\\ "s•:...4" P-Ni -s• !)6-- -:.-- --- ----• ........N......i. . _ ,. 7:). .1 ...-' _ .,.1 (/ .AZI.,..\ , '-• 1;4: ...--// _ :r_p... •I •_ , , !• K ', •••:,,,..°(‘..: i- s .1.4:7-",_„, ::4.: q,.c-, ' . . .---- f /: '_. ...., \ • ir:,,, _- _1 ie ..: --- _ _ :-.,/X ,...7.-,;,,,-, ,r,.,s - 1 i , ; • ...--/ - .„...- ,....,x, ?, - ., ; ! .; ,. \ - ; \ --.. A. , -i---- 4, , ., I• 'Fr- • • 4 • ; , ,--,----; ' _ ..--_--.7 .._.,-- •,,, 0 if' .::,_. _ , ---,,, .--____>,/ .,:i...") -...,- __ , ,-,.k 1 -•• ...„.. I ' tr-iiiv... • . e- , , - ...., .._________ .,• -4..w.. ., 1,41/; --) ' 1 i • x ... e , • - ,,--....•••••-•'•••••...„_...^t : I .. _'.. .,. ..> ,,, I . ._ : , • I 1 , 11 ,.. ..., i _:• _____ ...e. -I --,y lir "- ;(.T -,_ i- - CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ .•- 7 r. , i .." 11 , -1 .; .-' . .;(- . . ti I • . • • fit , I „, •.-- -..• I- •••.. TRAIL and SIDEWALK PLAN • '‘•:-, , ;I ; -..• e UPDATE FOR • --. - ...)q____ __I i.i.. ._,._._____. HIGHWAYS 101,'5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT , ___________ , •:.:_. .._.5-•_f-s`\-- --- .--7-, , _._--' -- 4- AND LAND USE STUDY i --, -, ,, 7...-..7'- T "----2.- 1 77_.=,-- --•••.,:___,,,-:.---,-...,,,.,,---: -I IAL7ERNATIvE 3. ' ...... .sei•••-:.... _ .---.....;.......L.„-'...w.......7_ --..- li.iisiril;t.in INe..!Rr (,,,up int.. El CI El 13 . , Page 16 Trails. The Trunk Highway 101 corridor through Chanhassen is proposed to include trails which focus on two primary user groups. 1) Bicycle commuters 2) Recreational users on wheel or foot. With a new emphasis being placed on biking as a legitimate form of transportation and recreation, design standards need to keep pace with safety concerns and trail use. Studies have found that avid bike commuters and long-distance riders will more likely use a wide shoulder than a separated bike path which is interrupted by driveways, curb cuts and slower moving recreational users. Research has also indicated that commuters are much more likely to adopt bicycle commuting habits if a facility is designed for that purpose. On the other end of the spectrum, recreational trail users find their activity much more enjoyable and safe if there is less concern about "getting in the way" of fast moving bikers. Trails along the Highway 101 corridor through Chanhassen are proposed to be separated and designed specifically for their users. The 10 foot wide shoulders on either side of T.H. 101 can become designated one-way (with traffic) commuter bike lanes. These lanes will accommodate the serious bikers who are traveling at higher speeds with the intention of arriving at a destination. The lanes are also wide enough to allow use by autos as pull-over lanes. The commuter bike lanes can be striped and marked to inform bikers and autos that it is appropriate that they share a roadway. Intersections and turning lanes will require careful striping to accommodate safe bike travel. A separated trail on the west side of T.H. 101 will be a 10 foot two-way, multi-use trail intended for slower moving recreational users. The trail will provide a more leisurely experience by meandering somewhat through trees and over berms. There is a potential safety concern by combining recreational biking with pedestrian use but due to the commuter bike lanes accommodating the faster moving bike traffic, any potential hazard should be minimized. Bike and recreational lanes will be part of the new bridge over Highway 212 in the same configuration as the rest of the roadway. The recreational lane will be separated from the auto traffic by a Jersey barrier. Park and Ride/Transit Hub. Southwest Metro Transit Commission has identified a need for a Park and Ride lot located at the intersection of Highways 212 and 101. Originally thought to be a secondary facility given its rather southerly location in the City, it may be evolving as a transit hub which is intended to serve the residents of Chanhassen and Chaska. The proposed Park and Ride lot is intended to be located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange such that it would have direct access onto the eastbound _ entrance ramp of Highway 212 to expedite the movement of buses through the Park and Ride lot. CHANHAS\93-21\HWY 101.RPr Page 17 The Park and Ride lot is intended to accommodate 300 or more cars. It will be officially mapped by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Since the Park and Ride lot will not be operable at least until Highway 212 is constructed, a temporary facility may be needed. A location north of the interchange may be appropriate for temporary purposes. CHANHAS\93-z1\HWY_1o1.RPr Page 18 LAND USE PLAN The land use plan departs only slightly from that developed in 1989. It includes a buffer zone between the existing and proposed Highway 101 alignments which area is to be heavily landscaped and bermed to separate the homes along the west side of Highway 101 from the future roadway alignment. The former plan proposed single-family residential in the void between alignments. The buffer extends southerly along Highway 101 encompassing the existing right-of-way which is intended to be landscaped to establish a screen or buffer yard between single-family and higher density residential areas. A second change is the inclusion of medium density residential north of the access to Chanhassen Hills on the west side of proposed Highway 101. The change in the alignment of Highway 101 has created a natural medium density residential area to serve as a buffer for the lower density single-family housing to the north and west. The area south of Highway 212 on either side of the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment is proposed for mixed use development including commercial, office and housing. This area is designated for mixed use primarily because development may need to await the construction of Highway 212. The uses that may occur post year 2000 are difficult to predict, however uses that might be anticipated include hotels and motels, standard restaurant (non fast food), banks and financial institutions (SIC 601- 609), offices and clinics, garden supply stores (SIC 526), home furnishing, appliance and electronics stores (SIC 571-573),health services (SIC 801-811), amusement and recreation services (SIC 791-799), business services (SIC 73) and multi-family housing. All development in this area is proposed to be by planned unit development. In the area lying northeasterly of the Highways 212/101 interchange, and designated for _ neighborhood convenience and highway service uses, uses intended to be accommodated include convenience stores with fuel pumps as an accessory use, drive- up establishments including restaurants and banks and other convenience uses that generally service day-to-day needs of the surrounding neighborhood. CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 19 Figure 8 1‘;\ ` wEn.Awe ' :! ~-• _ Land Use Plan I', -cE .° it‘. i''' '.-it.- --A-- -OFF • • t --7 - -- •• --..7. N ! `ice„� t �`• , _ - ' `:-\ cam, It.a ? ,' __ BICYCLE PATHWAYS \ ''' 1 -: .k, �_— AQ - �S Y Ana Boundarys.,, `V1.1� '— - MST • Susan -! .� l Ladle r .J\ N SUFFER '•' I y ~.art`� �• �c • il .7--:-., i -ir -/ iti.N.__: -' t:v.-...1-.- _r + _i ri d> SF' ` , i- 4I . 4: -- to ,•: 1 1/ -__ , \ ...--- W. • _A __ - -, -..p. _-_.i:ptF7®fR• _ �.. ' — f•,tt ‘.;.:1 �" "'���l' ��� am .. - No, _fz $uFi�a,;, ,_ - � --\ , ..-.-„. ,. .‹,,..,......_—_____ism , .,..._,.:eit . — c: C C 4 . Ile*--- . •'' , . . \a,ViCELA_____ _.?_, .._ :......) ----..... .....r. ;"-.: 2 ("7:-.:.•1- _W'',,_.._../ 1 j 7.--70,\\`.. ''' Im• '-elr<-' , - - .;-•)(\.__ _ ; .,,\. ;,......_:. 4.,,tei - F •r. O C. 7�' IP ` ODER- - •• ( . - �•�:....�. e-. _ % /f Study Area — - Ada --"-_' -• - { tt :: :+'. ;"".,:r• n : . ,:et....:....-::, ::: . /y- 711- • /Yom4Y• /. --7 , -,.-,0 ' HD f . - . f - / _ J---,-- �; - r. A..\---1. � :' f� \ '. ` r _•-•"--- __...:••_.,.___ • ' ,_,. : mo . 1i"7.. ,._. '- .” _. , w. ,.. � ,, , . , , : ILLUSTRATIVE ILAND USE PLAN '• MX 1 1 0 • • CITY OF CHANHASSEN r .ii •.• C.•OFF ! y • OFF (BASED ON ALTERNATE #3) WETLA•.r • HOUSING i•i -i HOUSING . UPDATE FOR ___ _-_-_ • _r.._- HIGHWAYS 101,5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT _ = __ _ AND LAND USE STUDY { H..i.in_t..n h..r_Icr ,roup Inc. ©© as Page 20 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS A number of roadway improvements are proposed which depart from the original 1989 plan. Cul-de-sacs are proposed for the north end of existing Highway 101 and the connection of the Klingelhutz property to the old highway. In the vicinity of the Klingelhutz farm, the road is intended to be realigned to the east out of the existing right-of-way to allow for landscape buffering on the west side of this new roadway segment. The connection into Chanhassen Hills is also intended to be more direct linking the westbound exit ramp with Lake Susan Drive. Access is intended to be carefully limited throughout this segment of Highway 101 to street intersections only south of existing Great Plains Boulevard. Areas where exceptions will be considered include a right in/right out access on the east side of Highway 101 between the Trunk Highway 212 interchange and West 86th Street. South of the interchange, one principal access,whether or not it correlates with a public street, is intended to be allowed on each side of the highway. Other accesses to these properties are intended to be from Lyman Boulevard. PUBLIC UTILITIES Limited sanitary sewer and public water supply availability exists with the study area to accommodate immediate development south of Highway 212. For the larger area to continue to grow , it will require the construction of a new lift station south of 212 and a force main parallel to future Highway 101 to connect to the MWCC interceptor sewer lying north of Lake Susan. These improvements are proposed to be constructed in 1995 and should be timed to be built within the proposed Highway 101 right-of-way. Water service is also available in limited fashion within the corridor to serve immediately proposed developments. A future trunk watermain is proposed within the Highway 101 corridor which should be timed with the availability of the highway's future right-of-way. CHP.NHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPI Page 21 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Official Mapping Because of the delay in the construction of Highway 212 and the rapid growth of the City of Chanhassen, it is imperative that the preferred alignment be officially mapped in accordance with Chapter 462.351 of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act (see page 3 of the 1989 Corridor Study for procedures). Adoption of the official map may qualify the City to utilize RALF funds for the acquisition of needed right-of-way. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Needed An EAW will be needed before any funding can be authorized for highway improvements. Most of the study information needed to fulfill EAW requirements has already been completed as part of this Highway Corridor Study. Along with official mapping, the preparation for or completion of the EAW process is the next logical step in the project development time-line. Temporary Highway 101 Alignment Because of the delay in the construction of Trunk Highway 212 at least until after the turn of the century, it is probable that a great deal of additional growth will occur in the general vicinity which will exceed the carrying capacity of Trunk Highway 101, given its peculiar alignment and multiple access points. While it will be very difficult to build a temporary alignment that would correlate with the future alignment for Trunk Highway 101, due to the need to traverse a substantial wetland area south of Highway 212, it may become necessary to build Highway 101 in advance of Highway 212. In the event this occurs, a temporary alignment may need to be established which can carry the projected traffic but does not require expensive highway construction and a wetland intrusion. The plan, therefore, gives consideration to a temporary alignment which can be substantially used as part of future Highway 101. Financing Financing will necessarily be a cooperative effort for a variety of reasons. MnDOT wishes to disengage itself from the roadway and pass it on to the County as soon as possible. The County recognizes Highway 101 as an important arterial highway, the only one which extends from north to south in eastern Carver County, and one which might appropriately be under the County's jurisdiction. The City must be concerned about its citizenry and the potential impact of excessive traffic on the Lake Susan neighborhood. Finally, landowners need the highway since it will serve a limited local street function. They have an interest in defining and setting the right-of-way aside so that it can be incorporated with future development plans for the corridor. All have a stake in participating in a project solution. Thus, a blended financing approach is recommended. CHANHAS\9321\HWY_101.RPT Page 22 — Figure 9 \ ��� I N \_.� :. Temporary Alignment , • .\-:c. et' - ,. ;,' ;••_ ;.0 ab _ ` ._. �` 4,....A/:,.... /5 ii,,,, , 1,z:7: C , �� r-_____ __ ____________ __ - _. ~ 1 :7 ; f I �G r�'- d{moi _ lA� _ SIudy Area Boundary soar • � 'il;�zoo .00 APPDXIMATE GRADING LMITS '*.I�� • • I .407. it, ` ' Lake Susan _ . I `` _ � /. / -.qv. � w�, ` ' 1.. • '',- . /, / '''--4) . V 0- 1 N. • _c_. S 14;gE 3}, , . __.„.. i — — `� ` N...,_(;) ,v,",-.- -., rte �� _ �`� •, ,....,, !a.,.,„..0. ,.,. , /,:,,,, .„,,,, : .,.... - --17,(,:-.,.., ,, , , ..:. ,,,..„,....,... . -6,V/rdel. l' , N.- A- ..... •\. - - lur Nr, •DIY •,'. ,�•t ` �''.w _j �: 7-7�w -T ', T,�w• — -+w / �I/..-' i 1,\ - - --"'. 7 /7.7- Acclasiln-it•• %___11_, , V;. i \:' "P•_,,,* ..-.4Nli /'--- !. - -- :e . 1 - ,,,,..-- — ...- a,..-, L....., i.,*(f.'z ) ,,1--.. . , \(fl y..= ^ V -:_--...\X- --,:,',.... e-----, ,- bay A14111 naafi:—6. If 3 }. -- �' mss:� � �. 1 /i�� ��� •ter- 1-rY Aifylrllrrt I �', —: L 1 /: / ! \ \ 0 - 1 1 _J . \ _'• t--.. ,...--. ... 1 ? .) ....., / , ..„..:_-,,,.,.. , ‘ , ..e...../40nor. ',41 il lit.ak--;te-- 2,', 0• ,,//_::, : - _ , /-:\ .-9 1:::1 -CC) / II i . 4 . s,,.. ...,\,.: • /, .. ..';'-'7i< r-;.,- -.'.,../. ,' ‘1 r 1•••4\1)1 )14s'j'''7:'-' ice r�; "'-'- ? ' 1 r •L. �L1 "� �� : , 1 i."' �`\ 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN r� , �� r I 1 ... / Ili TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT .. =: s. ' L I ;II UPDATE FOR ' HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT =_ = ��`� �.. Y , AND LAND USE STUDY r:. � - �;'�I (ALTERNATIVE 3) �' ...wary.n. Hubin&lon Koegler Group Inc. ©© ©D Page 23 City to Protect Right-of-Way. If the City had elected not to play a lead role in the project on behalf of its citizens, the project might have entailed the simple widening of existing Highway 101 to four lanes to accommodate the projected traffic volumes (11,000- 15,000 vehicles per day in 2005). It voluntarily intervened to establish the alignment and carry out the official mapping. Its continuing role should be to continue to protect the right-of-way from encroachment and, as such, purchase properties where development is imminent or hardship warrants. Sources of financing may include RALF funds or tax increment financing (TIF). TIF will require the extension of the downtown redevelopment project area boundary to encompass the project. A relatively small amount of money can be expected from this source particularly because the highway project and its associated development will not create new tax increment. TIF should be viewed as a form of gap financing used primarily to insure that the right-of-way is protected. Another use of TIF might include the construction of roadway aesthetics (e.g., berming, landscaping and screening). Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Program (RALF). RALF is a revolving fund program whereby the Metropolitan Council provides loans to local municipalities to purchase lands within officially mapped state trunk highway rights-of-way. Money is loaned to municipalities with no interest charge and the City is responsible for the acquisition and holding of the property until such time as it is needed for highway construction. At that time MnDOT will acquire the property from the City and the money generated in this manner will go back into the revolving fund for future right-of-way acquisitions. RALF funds are generally used to relieve hardship or protect the right-of-way from imminent development. The Willis Klein property may qualify for acquisition utilizing RALF funds and, if at all possible, that acquisition should occur as early as 1994. There is some uncertainty as to whether RALF funds will apply to Highway 101 inasmuch as it is a temporary state trunk Highway. Setting aside the future right-of-way for Highways 212 and 101 may be imperative to construct a temporary connection of Highway 101 south to Lyman Boulevard. RALF funds should be considered as a funding source for land acquisition within this corridor. Landowner Dedication. Landowners,for the most part,have an interest in the relocation of the roadway and its compatibility with future corridor development. The new highway also serves a limited local street function for proximate developments. Thus, landowners should be required to dedicate land equivalent to satisfy the right-of-way needs for a local street (60 feet) north of 86th Street. The remainder should be acquired by the City. In the interest of insuring that utility construction can occur within the future right-of-way, all right-of-way acquisition should be completed no later than early 1995. In the event right-of-way cannot be acquired by that time, easements will need to be obtained to facilitate public utility construction. — Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). ISTEA is a source of funding for projects that are multi-modal in nature and can demonstrate balance in accommodating pedestrians and public transit, thus improving the efficiency of transportation within the corridor. This is a limited funding source that is about to undergo a third round of funding (April 1994). It may be 1995 or 1996 before CHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 24 applications are again taken for enhancement projects. The funding is provided by the Federal Highway Administration and administered by MnDOT. Cooperative Agreement Funding. This, too, is a limited funding source which is used primarily to fund smaller projects in the range of$400,000 - 500,000. Money is provided by MnDOT for projects that are designed by the local unit of government. Right-of-way is also expected to be purchased by the local unit of government. One of the main objectives of this funding source is to correct safety problems. Given the unusual vertical and horizontal alignment of existing Highway 101, in conjunction with growing traffic volumes, this project may qualify for such funding. Turnback Funding. MnDOT is most interested in divesting itself of existing Highway 101 and would like Carver County to take it and maintain it as a county road. Generally, such roadways are improved by MnDOT before being turned over to the County and limited funding is available for such projects. Some portion of the segment of Highway 101 extending north from 86th Street should be funded by tumback dollars. County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Funding. Since State Trunk Highway 101 is such an important north-south roadway in eastern Carver County, it would seem appropriate that a certain portion of the highway project be funded by County State Aid Highway Funding. This would require that the County include it as part of its County State Aid Highway system. Once again, only limited funds might be available utilizing this mechanism for highway improvements. Any County State Aid Highway funding would necessarily be blended with tumback or cooperative agreement funding. Special Assessments (429). Limited special assessments may be necessary to provide a funding source for the City's share of storm drainage improvements and landscaping. While the majority of the cost should be borne by the project, some storm drainage may need to be constructed as a project element which also services private properties. The desire on the part of the City to heavily landscape the corridor may also exceed that which can be borne by the project. Special assessments may be an appropriate source of funding for extraordinary landscaping. cHANHAS\93-21\HWY_101.RPT Page 25 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: Feb. 16, 1994 \1 1 G CC DATE: Mar. 14 , 1994 1 ' CASE #: 92-5 SPR By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for Jehovah's Witness Congregation Building LOCATION: 8300 Audubon Road Chanhassen Business Center 7 I) APPLICANT: Stephen G. Kern Chanhassen Congregation of 6540 Devonshire Drive Jehovah's Witness Chanhassen, MN 55345 13001 Lake Street Extension Minnetonka, MN I _ PRESENT ZONING: PUD/IOP ACREAGE: 2 acres DENSITY: n/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP, Industrial Office Park, vacant S - PUD/IOP vacant E - IOP, Industrial Office Park, vacant W - PUD/IOP and A2 Agricultural Estate, vacant WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has been recently graded as a part of Phase I of the ) Chanhassen Business Center. The site is relatively flat the site slopes towards the railroad tracks. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Stephen Kern, representing the Chanhassen Congregation of Jehovah's Witness, is requesting site plan approval to build a Kingdom Hall. The proposed building is located on Lot 1, Block 1 of the Chanhassen Business Center (CBC). The CBC PUD was given final approval by the City Council on February 8, 1993. At the time of final plat approval, the Council amended the PUD agreement for one church use in the business center. Lot 1, Block 1 of the CBC was always considered for an office use because it has direct access onto Audubon Road. The lot is triangular in shape and is bordered on the north by the railroad, a single family subdivision to the east and the industrial park on the remaining sides. A church _ use not only generates less traffic use than an office use; peak traffic for the church use will be during non peak hours normally associated with the industrial/office park. The church is one story, all brick with a pitched roof and will have a residential look. The applicants have stated that world wide Kingdom Halls do not provide day care nor engage in commercial activity. The proposed plan is developed consistent with the PUD for the Chanhassen Business Center and the staff is recommending approval with conditions. General Site Plan/Architecture The proposed Kingdom Hall will be built with the main entrance facing the southeast. Parking will be located in the front of the building (southeast) and to the southwest of the building. The main access is via a singular driveway off of Audubon Road. A canopy is proposed over the southwesterly side of the building. There will be a driveway under the canopy to allow for pick up and drop off. The church as proposed will be one story in height, 19 feet to the highest point of the roof. The building is 4,095 square feet in area and includes a lecture area and class room spaces. The maximum seating is 208. The building facade is a 4 inch face brick. The roof is pitched and will have asphalt shingles. There will be no roof top equipment. The required parking based on the seating capacity and classroom space is 72. Seventy-three spaces have been provided including 2 handicapped stalls. Refuse collection is not shown, if there is to be outdoor storage of waste, it must be screened with compatible building material. Site Circulation The site is proposed to be accessed from Audubon Road which is classified as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Audubon Road has been constructed to urban standards. As Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 3 a part of the Chanhassen Business Center (CBC) approval process, one of the conditions of approval was for this lot to align its driveway access across from the Stockdale property (Edgework Builders) entrance directly to the east of the site. Upon further review and consideration, staff believes this condition is no longer valid. We strongly believe that the existing driveway access to the Stockdale parcel will change if not totally be eliminated with development of their parcel. Access to their site could be taken from future West Lake Drive. In combination with this, we believe the permitted use of this parcel (Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center) would generate fairly low traffic volumes at off-peak times. In addition, the site lines along Audubon Road are not of concern. Therefore, staff feels comfortable with the proposed driveway location. The proposed driveway curb cut on Audubon Road should incorporate the use of a concrete driveway apron to maintain drainage along Audubon Road. The city does have a standard detail plate (No. 5207) which should be incorporated into the overall site plans. The parking lots and driveways are proposed to have 6-inch high cast in place concrete curb and gutter. At the northwesterly end of the parking lot adjacent to the railroad tracks, the curbs should be deleted to provide a curb opening to maintain sheet drainage from the parking lots into the drainage swale adjacent the railroad tracks. Grading & Drainage This lot is included with the overall development plan for the CBC site. The lot was rough graded in accordance to the approved grading plan for CBC. Therefore, the site will involve relatively minor grading for the building pad, parking lot and driveway areas. The site plan should provide the pre- and post-site contours across the lot. Staff recommends that the parking lot be designed so it drains into three directions with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and easterly and southerly parking lots. This will evenly distribute runoff into three areas where it can easily be handled. A majority of the site, approximately 70%, will drain northwesterly towards the railroad tracks where it will follow an existing drainage swale parallel to the tracks and end up in a temporary retention pond which serves the remaining CBC development. The final grading and drainage plan for the CBC site proposes a permanent stormwater quality and quantity pond located in the southwest corner of the CBC development. Eventually when the CBC development is built out, storm drainage will be conveyed from approximately 70% of the entire site through storm sewers into the water quality and quantity retention pond. Until the entire CBC site is developed, this lot will drain into a temporary retention pond area which is currently a natural low area directly to the west of this lot. The Twin Cities and Western Railroad has expressed concerns regarding the site draining into their drainage swale. Staff has indicated to the railroad that this site will not significantly increase runoff or result in a potential erosion problem for them. Although this method of overland drainage is not our typical drainage scenario (storm sewers), staff is comfortable in this Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 4 case since the overall drainage plan for the CBC site will significantly reduce the overall amount of runoff draining to the railroad tracks (approximately 40 acres). Parking lot runoff will be effectively treated by draining through the natural grasses in the drainage swale. Erosion Control Erosion control measures shall be incorporated in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Erosion control fences should be used on downstream slopes until vegetation has been re-established. Staff will confirm the location of the erosion control fence upon review of the proposed site grades. Access to the site should be limited to one point along Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance should be used to minimize tracking material on to the city streets. Utilities City sewer and water are available from Audubon Road. This property was previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water with the Audubon Road improvement project. The city will be extending a 6-inch sewer and 1-inch water line from Audubon Road to the property line for the applicant to connect on to. These services, however, will not be available until sometime in early May. The city will be responsible for restoring Audubon Road and the cost for extending the service to the property line. The applicant will be required to apply and obtain the necessary plumbing permits through the city for extending the sewer and water lines to the building. Landscaping A 50 foot landscaped berm was required along Audubon Road as a part of the Chanhassen Business Center PUD agreement. To date, the berm and the landscaping have not be installed. This was a requirement with the underlying development contract. Responsibility for the landscaping may have been shifted to the Kingdom Hall, but they should be made aware that a certificate of occupancy will not be issued until a landscaped berm is completed or surety to complete it is received by the city. In the fall of 1993, the City of Chanhassen planted boulevard street trees along Audubon Road in the city right-of-way. These trees are a mixture of Kentucky Coffee, maples, Ginkgo, honey locust, hackberry and oaks. The landscaped berm is in addition to the city's street trees. The landscaping plan proposes Austrian pines in the northeastern corner and lindens and rose shrubs on the landscape berm. Along the southern property line are maples and lindens. The northwestern side of the building includes spruce and red cherry. Additional overstory trees shall be placed in the parking lot. They can be placed in the planter island in front of the building and at the most easterly end of the southern parking lot. This will Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 5 bring the plan in compliance with the parking/landscaping requirements. All sodded area will be watered by a computerized sprinkler system. Lighting and Signage Parking lot lighting is limited to three 15 foot high light fixtures located in the parking lot. The lights are consistent with the PUD agreement. (Decorative shoe box fixture, high pressure sodium with a square ornamental pole.) The PUD requirements state that the sign shall be limited to a monument sign. The proposed sign shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area and 8 feet in height. The sign shall also be constructed of material compatible with the building. The proposed location of the sign is to the north of the entrance drive off of Audubon Road. The sign shall be moved to the east to maintain sight lines. The applicants have not submitted a sign plan to date, but staff will ensure compliance with the conditions of the PUD. A separate permit is required for the sign. COMPLIANCE TABLE -PUD STANDARDS ORDINANCE PROPOSED Building Height 50 feet 19 feet Building Setback/Public 50' buffer + 30' setback 132' - 50 'buffer + 82' ROW setback Parking Space 1 space for each 3 seat 73 spaces plus 1 per classroom Parking Setback 50' buffer + 25' setback 60' - 50' buffer 10' Public ROW can be reduced to 10' if setback screened Lot Coverage 70 c7c impervious 48 % impervious Permitted Uses Church, Lot 1 Block 1 Church Building Materials and Brick or Better 4"face brick Design Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 6 Site Landscaping Buffer required w/ PUD consistent w/PUD Parking 72 71 & 2 handicapped Screening 50 ' Buffer on Audubon 50' buffer on Audubon Signage max area 80 sq. ft. not provided max height 8 feet Lighting high pressure sodium high pressure sodium Variances required - None RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for the Jehovah Witness congregation SPR #92-5 as shown on the plans and subject to the following conditions: 1. B612 or equivalent concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in all parking lot and driveway areas with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the northwesterly portions of the parking areas adjacent to the railroad tracks. The parking lots shall be designed to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot areas. Depending on the side slopes of the drainageway, rip rap may or may not be required. If rip rap is not required then the drainage swale shall be sodded. Final determination will be made by the City Engineer after review and approval of the site grading plan. 2. The driveway curb cut on Audubon Road shall be constructed with a concrete driveway apron in accordance with City detail plate no. 5207 (Attachment No 1). 3. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site plan with the pre- and post- site contours across the lot. The parking lot shall be designed so it drains in three direction with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and the easterly and southerly parking lots. 4. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook. Access points to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cut on Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance shall be provided and maintained until the parking lots and driveway have been paved. Jehovah Witness SPR February 16, 1994 Page 7 5. A separate permit is required for the sign. 6. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Steve Kern, Chanhassen Congregation of Jehovah's Witness. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 8, 1994. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 31, 1994. • g:clanVcayehovah_spr CI anI aiiEn ConeTE9ation of goval ` /VIBES 13001 Lake St. Extension, Mtka Stephen G. Kern — 6540 Devonshire Dr. Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Secretary 470-5475 Chanhassen City Hall Planning Dept. Kathryn Aanenson — Chanhassen Kingdom Hall _ NARRATIVE Site Location Block 1 , Lot 1 , Chanhassen Business Center Purpose Public Bible Lecture, Speech Class, Group Bible Study Building Size 40'x80' w/ 28'x32' S .E. Wing 4095 sq ft Building Height 19 Feet to outside roof peak Max. Seating 208 Chairs Parking Spaces 73 spaces — Pk. Lot/side walks 44% Hard Surface ( Min 2" Bituminous - sidewalks 4" cone) Green Landscape 51%. . . 28 Trees, 21 shrubs (on site plan ) add20 N,E.walL. near building 51% area has cultured sod. Lighting 3 Parking Lot poles. . . PUD Std Parkdale. Flood style lites in soffits on 3 sides of bldg. facing down. — also Low voltage lighting in garden areas. Irrigation Sprinkler system for all sod areas w/ electronic timer Restricted World wide, Kingdom Halls do not provide day care activity nor engage in commercial activity. Sewer / Water November 1993 Chanhassen city hall Eng. dept. said they would stub-in our sewer at city expense. We will connect to water at our expense. CITY OF \ , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-� (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 'Nip go MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official , /CA.,'<,, DATE: January 31, 1994 SUBJ: 92-5 SPR (Chanhassen Kingdom Hall) 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: The handicap parking requirements,as specified in the Minnesota State Building Code(MSBC)and shown on sheet SP1, appear to be inadequate. 1. MSBC 1340.1900 requires approved signage at specified locations at each parking stall. These signs are not shown. 2. The site approach must comply with MSBC 1340.0300. The slope of the approach from the parking lot to the accessible entrance should be indicated as a percent slope. 3. Curb cut requirements are not clearly addressed in the MSBC, however ADA (CFR 36, Appendix A, Section 4.7)requirements are generally accepted for curb cuts. Curb cuts and site approach details are not shown. Curb cuts may not be contained within vehicle parking areas of the stalls. Recommendations: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Indicate handicap parking spaces and site approach details complying with MSBC 1340. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Anenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /1. DATE: February 8, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Chanhassen Kingdom Hall Church, Lot 1, Block 1 Chanhassen Business Center - LUR 94-4 Upon review of the site plan dated November 31, 1992, revised November 12, 1993, prepared by P.V. Blasko, Architect, I offer the following comments and recommendations: SITE CIRCULATION Site is proposed to be accessed from Audubon Road which is classified as a collector street on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Audubon Road has been constructed to urban standards. As a - part of the Chanhassen Business Center (CBC) approval process, one of the conditions of approval was for this lot to align its driveway access across from the Stockdale property (Edgework Builders) entrance directly to the east of the site. Upon further review and consideration, staff believes this condition is no longer valid. We strongly believe that the existing driveway access to the Stockdale parcel will change if not totally be eliminated with development of their parcel. Access to their site could be taken from future West Lake Drive. In combination with this, we believe the permitted use of this parcel (Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center) would generate fairly low traffic volumes at off-peak times. In addition, the site lines along Audubon Road are not of concern. Therefore, staff feels comfortable with the proposed driveway location. The proposed driveway curb cut on Audubon Road should incorporated the use of a concrete driveway apron to maintain drainage along Audubon Road. The City does have a standard detail plate (No. 5207) which should be incorporated into the overall site plans. The parking lots and driveways are proposed to have 6-inch high cast in place concrete curb and gutter. At the northwesterly ends of the parking lot adjacent to the railroad tracks, the curbs Kate Anenson February 8, 1994 Page 2 should be deleted to provide a curb opening to maintain sheet drainage from the parking lots into the drainage swale adjacent the railroad tracks. GRADING & DRAINAGE This lot is included with the overall development plan for the CBC site. The lot was rough graded in accordance to the approved grading plan for CBC. Therefore the site will involve relatively minor grading for the building pad, parking lot and driveway areas. The site plan should provide the pre- and post-site contours across the lot. Staff recommends that the parking lot be designed so it drains into three directions with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and easterly and southerly parking lots. This will evenly distribute runoff into three areas where it can easily be handled. A majority of the site, approximately 70%, will drain northwesterly towards the railroad tracks where it will follow an existing drainage swale parallel to the tracks and end up in a temporary retention pond which serves the remaining CBC development. The final grading and drainage plan for the CBC site proposes a permanent stormwater quality and quantity pond located in the southwest corner of the CBC development. Eventually when the CBC development is built out, storm drainage will be conveyed from approximately 70% of the entire site through storm sewers into the water quality and quantity retention pond. Until the entire CBC site is developed, this lot will drain into a temporary retention pond area which is currently a naturally low area directly to the west of this lot. The Twin Cities and Western Railroad has expressed concerns from the site draining into their drainage swale. Staff has indicated to the Railroad that this site will not significantly increase runoff or result in a potential erosion problem for them. Although this method of overland drainage is not our typical drainage scenario (storm sewers), staff is comfortable in this case since the overall drainage plan for the CBC site will significantly reduce the overall amount of runoff draining to the railroad tracks (approximately 40 acres). Parking lot runoff will be effectively treated by draining through the natural grasses in the drainage swale. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures shall be incorporated in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Erosion control fences should be used on downstream slopes until vegetation has been re-established. Staff will confirm the location of the erosion control fence upon review of the proposed site grades. Access to the site should be limited to one point along Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance should be used to minimize tracking material on to the city streets. Kate Anenson February 8, 1994 Page 3 UTILITIES City sewer and water are available from Audubon Road. This property was previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water with the Audubon Road improvement project. The City will be extending a 6-inch sewer and 1-inch water line from Audubon Road to the property line for the applicant to connect on to. These services, however, will not be available until sometime in early May. The City will be responsible for restoring Audubon Road and the cost for extending the service to the property line. The applicant will be required to apply and obtain the necessary plumbing permits through the City for extending the sewer and water lines to the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. B612 or equivalent concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in all parking lot and driveway areas with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the northwesterly portions of the parking areas adjacent to the railroad tracks. The parking lots shall be designed to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot areas. Depending on the side slopes of the drainageway, rip rap may or may not be required. If rip rap is not required then the drainage swale shall be sodded. Final determination will be made by the City Engineer after review and approval of the site grading plan. 2. The driveway curb cut on Audubon Road shall be constructed with a concrete driveway apron in accordance with City detail plate no. 5207 (Attachment No 1). 3. The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site plan with the pre- and post-site contours across the lot. The parking lot shall be designed so it drains in three direction with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and the easterly and southerly parking lots. 4. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook. Access points to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cut on Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance shall be provided and maintained until the parking lots and driveway have been paved. jms c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g eng'.dav[lmgdom spr . fy I W Z ~ I O F- O N 0 Q f- } 7e z t69, O jr J IRH w 4 1 ll / w a / w 1 -ir Ick."2.401k �— O • < 11. H I Ix w 1 4q Y IE I— .79 it rr IR W Z D N H J 11 w W O 1 ;,-- 1„, V� > n 1 •-. DI, co m Q1 - . .4.. . F' W ( P g ;41 tr U m J I } t0 Q m ki t.0 Z .4y3 i > (.75 " Cf) t itl? 3 O h t.) 1 a irlcrect— I— • so cn <v a. W kt; V- „..31> Uq • } 0 OLAJ t.-- 0,,, Z — .. .n? ~ � ° 0 ri U - — 6%, m•/ — '� C7 IJ V J • E HiQ � Q x>m0<9 ti Io2Ze u . 1 - CITY OF INDUSTRIAL 1 .0' " HAHAE DRIVEWAY s DATE 2-91 _ PLATE NO. 5207 - I /4-77 -f,e/g7.A.-/— / PIIIIIIIIIIIII C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 2/16/94 \, CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/14/94 — --I.-- CASE #: 89-2 PUD PIIIMIIIMIIIIIIMMINIMMIIIIIMINMENINNONIIIIIMIIINIMINIMINIMMINIIMIIII STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for a 9,960 Square Foot Retail/Office Building, and a 2,533 Square Foot Wendy's Restaurant t — 2) Replat of Oudot A, Market Square into Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 7 Second Addition, 41,193 Square Foot Lot (To be reviewed on March 2, Q 1994). LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street �.J I. APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. _L P. O. Box 235 Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 79,946 Sq. Ft. (Wendy's Site 41,193 s.f. - Office/Retail Site 38,753 s.f.) DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - OI S - PUD, Market Square E - CBD, Filly's and Country Suites Hotel < W - PUD, Market Square -Q Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. _.1J PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: A level parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial - a Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 8, 1990, the City Council approved the final PUD plan for the Market Square Shopping Center subject to conditions described in the attached report. The site included 4 lots and one outlot. Market Square Shopping Center occupies Lot 1. Lots 2, 3, 4, and Outlot A are _ vacant. The current request is for the construction of a 9,960 square foot office/retail building (Edina Realty) on Lot 4, and a 2,533 square foot restaurant building (Wendy's) on Outlot A. The site plan is well developed, however, in some respects it does not meet all current standards. The PUD it is regulated by is almost 5 years old and while it was considered progressive at that time, newer standards have since been put into place. This request is subject to regulations under _ the existing PUD plan. Staff is recommending some changes that will allow the overall plans to work more efficiently. The architecture of the office/retail building attempts to reflect the existing use of light grey 4" lap siding and rock face block foundation to match the shopping — center. Diamond shaped louvers accent the gabled roof. This type of architecture is consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Staff is recommending the gabled roof sections be extended out to resemble entry ways and break the box shape look of the building. The Wendy's — Restaurant building is proposed to have brick veneer exterior. The color of the brick should be of a tone that blends with Market Square. A pitched roof and a parapet wall screen all the roof top equipment. It also adds an attractive architectural element. Site access is provided via existing shopping center curb cuts on Market Boulevard and 78th Street. Internal access is a somewhat more complicated situation. There are two internal access points onto Market Square's north drive. Once on the site, however, there are serious conflicts between the Wendy's drive through circulation and other parking for both structures. Turning movements are difficult, stacking space is inadequate and one-way directional parking is required. A simple solution for the stacking and the interior vehicular circulation issues would be to rotate the Wendy's building counter-clockwise. Another advantage to rotating the building would be additional green space, additional parking, better design elevations and the addition of a plaza. Staff discussed this option with the applicant at length and an agreement was reached to make these revisions. At the time of writing this report, the revised plans were not available. These revised plans will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Attachment#1 is a sketch of the revisions staff is recommending. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. Additional landscaping is being requested south, east, and north of the site, as well as between the two buildings. — In an accompanying subdivision request, the outlot is being replatted into a lot. Due to an oversight by staff, we failed to publish the replat for the February 16, 1994, meeting. Staff is — making the approval of the site plan contingent upon the replat of Outlot A. The Planning Commission will review the replat at their March 2, 1994, meeting. The only change taking Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 3 place with the replat is the change of status from an outlot to a lot. The replat request is a straight forward action. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan request for this proposal with appropriate conditions. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The applicant is proposing two buildings. The first building is a 9,960 square foot office/retail building (Edina Realty), will be located on Lot 4 and situated at the southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The second building is a 2,533 square foot restaurant building (Wendy's) and will be located on Outlot A, south of the future Edina Realty. Access is gained off of a curb cut on West 78th Street (right in/out only), and via Market Boulevard. Parking is located to the west, south, and between the two proposed buildings. Vehicle stacking is located south and east of the site and the Wendy's building so that direct distant views from West 78th Street to the north of the site will be minimized. Direct views of the stacking lanes will be screened by the two buildings and landscaping from the north of the site. The architecture of the office/retail building attempts to reflect the shopping center's use of light grey 4" lap siding and rock face block foundation to match the existing shopping center. Diamond shaped louvers accent the gabled roof. This type of architecture is consistent with the rest of the shopping center. Staff is recommending the gabled roof sections be extended out to resemble entry ways and break the box shape look of the building. The Wendy's Restaurant building is proposed to have brick veneer exterior. The color of the brick should be of a tone that blends with Market Square. A pitched roof and a parapet wall screen all the roof top equipment. It also adds an attractive architectural element. As was mentioned earlier in the Proposal Summary, staff has recommended the Wendy's building be rotated counter-clockwise. This will result in the south elevation facing Market Boulevard. The applicant is in the process of revising this elevation by adding the metal trim. The architecture is consistent with the shopping center through the use of columns of metal trim. The applicant is showing the trash enclosures screened by masonry walls using the same materials as the buildings. Wendy's trash enclosure is proposed along the south of the site and Edina Realty's is proposed to be located on the east side of the site. Staff is recommending the two locations be consolidated as shown in Attachment #1. The applicant is in the process of making this revision as well. Three electric boxes (transformers) operated and maintained by NSP, as well as a traffic controller unit, are located at the southeast corner _ of the site. These units will be screened by landscaping to the north, west and south. A 10 foot clearing must be maintained around the units for maintenance purposes. While we are generally satisfied with the two building's architecture and note that the applicant has worked extensively on this project, we do have some concerns. The site on which Edina Realty's building is situated is a highly visible one at what is highly likely to become one of the Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 4 most important intersections in the Chanhassen CBD. We appreciate the fact that the building is situated to maintain the West 78th streetscape by its close proximity and orientation. There is no parking between the street and the building, only landscaping. Setting an architectural standard for this building is difficult in part due to its location. The PUD approval requires architectural consistency with the main shopping center building. However, at the same time, this site is essentially the transition point from the shopping center site into architectural styles found elsewhere in the CBD. Therefore, we believe that the architect's intent to combine the style of the shopping center building, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites, is a sound one. We have some concerns over the visual massiveness of this building. The inclusion of dormers break the massiveness of the roof. However, we would propose that the dormers be carried down along the facade of the building to detract from the box — like shape. The second concern pertains to the Wendy's building south elevation. An enclosed indoor storage area is located behind this elevation. When the building is rotated as staff is proposing, it will face Market Boulevard. In discussions with the applicant, we requested that the service door be moved to the side, and detail similar to the north elevation be carried onto the south elevation. Due to the lack of time, we have not had an opportunity to explore this more fully with the project architect but are certain that this matter could be resolved in the final plans. Parking/Interior Circulation The city's parking ordinance requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for retail buildings. Edina Realty's building is proposed to contain 3,000 square feet of office/retail space. The number of parking spaces required is 15. The office portion of the building requires 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. The building is proposed to contain 7,000 square feet of office space. The number of parking spaces required is 31.5 spaces, resulting in a total of 47 spaces. The applicant is providing 35 parking spaces. Although there is a shortage of parking on this site, the applicant is proposing to make up the difference on the Wendy's site. The ordinance requires one parking space per 60 square feet of gross floor area for fast food restaurants. The Wendy's building has a gross area of 2,533 square feet. The _ number of parking spaces required is 42 spaces. The applicant is providing 59 spaces which exceeds the ordinance requirements and makes up for the extra parking spaces needed for the office/retail building. This shared parking will require an agreement. Staff voiced some concern over the two spaces located to the southwest of the site and recommended they be deleted as they could potentially conflict with vehicles using the southwesterly access into the Wendy's parking lot. Although the number of spaces is reduced, the total shared parking will still meet ordinance requirements. The parking layout has been redesigned by staff, as shown in Attachment#1. This layout keeps the drive through traffic out of the office retail parking area. It also provides them with an additional five spaces. Traffic circulation within the two parking lots will be more functional. Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 5 Traffic will be directed via West 78th Street running parallel to the westerly edge of the site then headed east into either site. Traffic exiting the site would utilize the same two entrances located to the west of the site. A stop sign should be placed at the exit points to regulate traffic. A cross access easement running in favor of both lots must be created over the northwesterly access as it will be shared by both sites. The drive-through stacking is another issue that surfaced during the review of the plan. There is space for one car at a time to read the menu board and place an order. Any additional cars will block circulation. Staff recommends the menu board be moved further to the east. However, rotating the building will eliminate the vehicular stacking issue. Access Since Market Square has been completed, traffic circulation throughout the center has had its problems. One such area is turning into the shopping center from Market Boulevard at the most northerly access point. The driveway access is designed with three lanes of traffic; two lanes outbound onto Market Boulevard and one lane inbound. A center median also exists dividing the inbound from outbound lanes of traffic. The problem exists on the inbound lane. The lane is narrow and the turning radius is tight. Numerous vehicles have "jumped" the north curb line. Staff believes by increasing the northerly radius to 30 feet it would improve turning movements into the site. The City's Fire Marshal has also indicated that fire trucks heading south on Market Boulevard to access the site are unable to enter the site without swinging far out over the northbound lane of Market Boulevard. The inbound access driveway from Market Boulevard currently is constructed to 14 feet wide with a temporary bituminous curb on the north side. The inbound lane of traffic was to be constructed to 14 feet wide; however, staff recommends that the driveway access from Market Boulevard be increased to 16 feet wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter (B612). This should provide adequate room for vehicles to ingress and egress into the shopping center. The southerly access driveway into the Wendy's site needs to be increased to 26 feet wide face- to-face to facilitate turning movements into the site. The west curb line in the parking lot lying north of the northerly access should be posted "no parking" as well as the east curb line on the drive-up window lane to Wendy's. Landscaping Although the landscaping plan appears to be generally reasonable, we do have several revisions to request. The first is that the plan shows the southern green space area having a depth of 6 feet. This is an insufficient depth for plants to grow. We recommend that the depth be increased to 8 feet. In addition, five additional over-story trees should be incorporated in this area. Secondly, we recommend the two trash enclosures be incorporated into one as shown in Market Square H February 16, 1994 Page 6 Attachment #1 and the area to the east of the enclosure be bermed as well as the proposed hedges be incorporated. The proposed staff layout will increase the green space area by adding a green space to separate the two sites. The corner islands are increased in size and will be able to accommodate additional over-story trees. The city's West 78th Street project also includes groupings of tree plantings along West 78th Street boulevard. The city's plans propose to plant five linden greenspire trees adjacent to the sidewalk in front of the retail building. The applicant should incorporate these trees in the landscaping plan and remove any of the proposed site landscaping from the city's right-of-way or easement areas. It appears it may be necessary for the applicant to convey to the city a permanent landscaping easement over the trail easement in order for the city to plant the trees previously described in this section. Additional roadway easements may also be necessary in the - northeast corner of the site. The landscape plan also indicates two pedestrian walkways onto West 78th Street and one onto Market Boulevard. From a traffic safety standpoint,these pedestrian ramps should be eliminated. There is an existing pedestrian ramp at the intersection of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street that promotes the safe and orderly crossing of pedestrians. Staff welcomes the idea of a meandering sidewalk along the retail buildings but opposes the proposed pedestrian walkway locations. Coordination between the city sidewalk construction and landscaping and these proposed site improvements would be prudent to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Lighting Lighting locations have not been shown on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than .5' candles of light at the property line. Plans should be provided to staff for approval. Fixtures should match those being used elsewhere in the shopping center. Signage The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the northeasterly corner of the site. This location is in conflict with the existing NSP transformers and traffic control box, as well as being located with in the sight distance triangle. The existing Market Square sign plan permits one monument sign only for the retail/office building site with the following conditions: a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed fourteen feet. b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face. Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 7 c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center. Staff recommends the sign design be identical to the existing Market Square monument signs. d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction, repair, maintenance and/or replacement. Only one wall mounted sign is shown on the northern elevation of Wendy's building. Wall mounted signs must meet the following criteria as identified in the plan: a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. b All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. c The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the buildings to be constructed. Grading/Drainage The entire site is proposed to be graded to develop the building footprint and parking lots. Only minor earthwork is anticipated since the site is essentially level. Catch basins and storm sewers are proposed to convey surface runoff from the rooftops, lawn areas and parking lots. The runoff will be conveyed into the city's downtown storm water pond located south of the railroad tracks west of Market Boulevard (fountain pond). No additional ponding areas are required as a result of this development. The proposed storm sewer system will be a private system and maintained by the applicant. The installation of the storm sewer will require permits from the city's Building Department. Utilities Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. These improvements were installed as a part of the original Market Square development. Erosion Control Erosion control provisions were not applied to the site plan. Erosion control measures should be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type I silt fence should be employed along the southerly perimeter of the site at the construction limits. Temporary construction entrances should be required at each entrance point to minimize tracking off site. Construction access points shall be limited to the existing parking lot and not from West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. Market Square H February 16, 1994 Page 8 In conjunction with the storm sewer installation and prior to paving the parking lots, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediments from washing into the drainage system. Park and Trail Dedication Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid as part of this development. COMPLIANCE TABLE WITH PUD ORDINANCE As a PUD, most of the usual ordinance provisions pertaining to dimensional criteria are waived. Required Proposed Staff Plan Original Plan Building Setback 25' 25' 25' Parking Setback N-10', S-0 N-10', S-0 N-10', S-0 E-10', W-0 E-10', W-0 E-10',W-0 Hard Surface Coverage N/A not provided Parking Stalls Combined 89 94 89 SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a simple request that will serve to change the status of Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square Second Addition. Staff did not realize this parcel had an outlot status until it was too late to publish the request in the newspaper as required by ordinance. Consequently, the Planning Commission will review the subdivision request at their March 2, 1994, meeting. Staff has added a condition making the site plan approval contingent upon the replat approval. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be required: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of Lot 1. 2. Cross access easements need to be provided over the north driveway. Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan for Edina Realty and Wendy's (#89-2 PUD) as shown on the site plan dated December 6, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plans, with the exception of the elevation plan sheet (Al), shall be redrawn at an engineer's scale. The site plan shall be revised to show existing site topographic features such as utilities, sidewalks and lot dimensions. 2. The northerly access to the shopping center from Market Boulevard should be widened to 16 feet wide face-to-face. In addition, the northerly radius should be expanded to 30 feet to improve turning movements into the shopping center. The southerly driveway access into the Wendy's site shall be increased to 26 feet wide face-to-face to facilitate turning movements. "No parking" signs shall be placed along the west curb line of the parking lot lying north of the northerly access to the retail site. In addition, "no parking" — signs shall be placed along the east curb line of the drive-up window lane to Wendy's. 3. The applicant shall work with the city in resolving final placement of the sidewalk along West 78th Street along with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the city's right-of-way or trail easement area. The site plan shall be revised to show replacing the sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Pedestrian ramps onto city streets other than the existing one at West 78th Street and Market Boulevard shall be deleted from the landscape plan. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall grant the city the necessary landscape and street easements along West 78th Street. 6. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook to control site erosion. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the southerly perimeter at the _ construction limits. Temporary rock construction entrances shall be required to minimize off-site tracking. Construction access points shall be limited to the interior parking lot and not on West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. After the storm sewer installation and prior to paving the parking lot, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be Market Square H February 16, 1994 Page 10 protected with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediment from washing into the drainage system. 7. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. A sign plan has not been submitted. One monument identification sign is proposed at the northeasterly corner of the site. This location is in conflict with the existing NSP transformers and traffic control box, as well as being located with in the sight distance triangle. The monument sign shall meet the following criteria: a. The height of the monument sign shall not exceed fourteen feet. b. The sign shall contain no more than 41 square feet of sign area per face. c. The sign shall be constructed to reflect the architectural style of the Market Square shopping center. Staff recommends the sign design be identical to the existing Market Square monument signs. d. The owner of each monument sign shall be responsible for its construction,repair, maintenance and/or replacement. Only one wall mounted sign is shown on the northern elevation of Wendy's building. Wall mounted signs must meet the following criteria as identified in the plan: a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. b. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. c. The signage shall be located on a maximum of two elevations of the buildings to be constructed. 8. The depth of the green space area along the southern edge of the site shall be increased to 8 feet. Five additional overstory trees shall be added. A berm shall be incorporated into the plan to screen the trash location from views as shown in attachment #1. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 9. Revise architectural plans as follows: • The gabled roof section on the office/retail building shall be extended out to resemble entry ways. • The color of brick on the Wendy's building shall be of a tone that would blend in with the shopping center. • The south elevation of the Wendy's building shall incorporate metal trim and resemble the north elevation. Market Square II February 16, 1994 Page 11 10. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the replat approval from Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition. 11. The two trash enclosures shall be consolidated as shown in Attachment #1. 12. Stop signs shall be placed at the exit points of Wendy's and Edina Realty's parking lots. 13. Submit revised utility plans to reflect a fire hydrant location on the oval island directly south of the retail office building. 14. The Fire Marshall will provide information regarding placement of "No Parking Fire Lane" signage at the time of building permit application. 15. The office/retail building must be fire sprinklered pursuant to Chapter 38 MN Building Code. 16. Submit radius turn dimensions to Fire Marshal and City Engineer for approval pursuant to 1991 UFC Sec. 10-204(c). Subdivision "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat of Outlot A, Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition as shown on the plat with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot. b. Cross access easements need to be provided over the northeasterly driveway " ATTACHMENTS 1. Layout developed by staff. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated February 3, 1994. 3. Project statement. 4. Staff report dated October 8, 1990. 5. Plans dated December 6, 1993. 9 WEST 78TH STREET DTPDi r C7 bayitib al 4 0e111` O Di•r C,� op ea 40 171 \ . / • , , , tl 1111 . \,,,' 7' z e , . . tb , . \,. ' , @ ,,-_ _ _ _ .EDINA REALTY - -- - --- - ry •.- D ►'i mgKt "17 t .19 9 ) Nrii• t N' uj . (4)/ - 70111/4)11/4 *V CC 0 • • UJ 00,01 CC /), 1101141S, - Ilw mall V'AinigariN) 4w P---# w \ 2,) 'e • i :ii1. . :°' Ic � Q I;tei • 111V W.s. ■ o s �1 J P.14il ril .0 eQ • 10 `: / ;1, Irol MI r,4t fir. WPM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 4164( DATE: February 3, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Market Square II - Lot 4 and Outlot A, Market Square File No. 94-3 Land Use Review Upon review of the site plans prepared by AMCON dated September 21, 1993 I offer the following comments and recommendations: SITE PLAN - SHEET SD1 The site plans were prepared in an architect's scale and not in an engineer's scale as required. The site plans, with the exception of the elevation plan sheet (Al) should be redrawn in an engineer's scale, i.e. 1" = 50'. The development is proposed over Lot 4, Block 1 and Outlot A, Market Square. According to City ordinance, the outlot will have to be replatted into a lot and block subdivision prior to becoming a buildable lot. The site plans do not show existing site topographic features such as utilities, sidewalks and lot dimensions. NSP has three large transformers and the City has a traffic controller on the northeast corner of Lot 4. All of these structures are in the general vicinity where the applicant is proposing sidewalks, landscaping and a project sign. These potential conflicts should be further identified and shown on the site plans to avoid conflicts in the field. Last year the City's West 78th Street Improvement Project added a right turn lane in front of the proposed retail/office center. This will reduce the available green space between the curb and building. The plans should be revised to accurately show the existing turn lane along West 78th Street. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 3, 1994 Page 2 Since Market Square has been completed traffic circulation throughout the center has had its problems. One such area is turning into the shopping center from Market Boulevard at the most northerly access point. The driveway access is designed with three lanes of traffic; two lanes outbound onto Market Boulevard and one lane inbound. A center median also exists dividing the inbound from outbound lanes of traffic. The problem exists on the inbound lane. The lane is narrow and the turning radius is tight. Numerous vehicles have "jumped" the north curb line. Staff believes by increasing the northerly radius to 30 feet it would improve turning movements into the site. The City's Fire Marshal has also indicated that fire trucks heading south on Market Boulevard to access the site are unable to enter the site without swinging far out over the northbound lane of Market Boulevard. The inbound access driveway from Market Boulevard currently is constructed to 14 feet wide with a temporary bituminous curb on the north side. The inbound lane of traffic was to be constructed to 14 feet wide; however, staff recommends that the driveway access from Market Boulevard be increased to 16 feet wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter (B612). This should provide adequate room for vehicles to ingress and egress into the shopping center. The southerly access driveway into the Wendy's site needs to be increased to 26 feet wide face- to-face to facilitate turning movements into the site. The west curb line in the parking lot lying north of the northerly access should be posted "no parking" as well as the east curb line on the drive-up window lane to Wendy's. In conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Improvement Project, the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail will be replaced with a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk. The site plans propose an interior sidewalk connecting the site to the City's sidewalk along West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The landscape plan, however, indicated a meandering 6-foot wide sidewalk around numerous landscape areas in the front of the retail building. The discrepancy between sidewalk design should be resolved to avoid conflict in the future. The grading plan also proposes regrading this entire area including along Market Boulevard which necessitates removing the existing concrete sidewalk. It may have been inadvertently overlooked, but there are no provisions for replacing the sidewalk along Market Boulevard. The plans should be modified to provide for replacing the sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Since there are some public improvements involved (sidewalk, boulevard restoration, etc.), the applicant should enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee replacement of the sidewalks and restoration of all City boulevards. All of the sidewalks located within the City's right-of-way or trail easements that are not constructed as a part of the West 78th Street project shall be constructed in accordance with the City's design standards. The landscape plan also indicates two pedestrian ramps onto West 78th Street and one onto Market Boulevard. From a traffic safety standpoint,these pedestrian ramps should be eliminated. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 3, 1994 Page 3 There is an existing pedestrian ramp at the intersection of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street that promotes the safe and orderly crossing of pedestrians. Staff welcomes the idea of a meandering sidewalk along the retail buildings but opposes the proposed pedestrian ramp locations. Coordination between the City sidewalk construction and landscaping and these proposed site improvements would be prudent to avoid unnecessary conflicts. The City's West 78th Street project also includes groupings of tree plantings along West 78th Street's boulevard. The City's plans propose to plant five Linden Greenspire trees adjacent to the sidewalk in front of the retail building. The applicant should incorporate these trees in the landscaping plan and remove any of the proposed site landscaping from the City's right-of-way or easement areas. It appears it may be necessary for the applicant to convey to the City a permanent landscaping easement over the trail easement in order for the City to plant the trees previously described in this section. Additional roadway easements may also be necessary in.the northeast corner of the site. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The entire site is proposed to be graded to develop the building footprint and parking lots. Only minor earthwork is anticipated since the site is essentially level. Catch basins and storm sewers are proposed to convey surface runoff from the rooftops, lawn areas and parking lots. The runoff will be conveyed into the City's downtown storm water pond located south of the railroad tracks west of Market Boulevard (fountain pond). No additional ponding areas are required as a result of this development. The proposed storm sewer system will be a private system and maintained by the applicant. The installation of the storm sewer will require permits from the City's Building Department. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control provisions were not applied to the site plan. Erosion control measures should be in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type I silt fence should be employed along the southerly perimeter of the site at the construction limits. Temporary construction entrances should be required at each entrance point to minimize tracking off site. Construction access points shall be limited to the existing parking lot and not from West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. In conjunction with the storm sewer installation and prior to paving the parking lots, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediments from washing into the drainage system. Sharmin Al-Jaff February 3, 1994 Page 4 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. These improvements were installed as a part of the original Market Square development. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site plans, with the exception of the elevation plan sheet (Al), shall be redrawn at an engineer's scale. 2. The site plan shall be revised to show existing site topographic features such as utilities, sidewalks and lot dimensions. 3. The northerly access to the shopping center from Market Boulevard should be widened to 16 feet wide face-to-face. In addition, the northerly radius should be expanded to 30 feet to improve turning movements into the shopping center. 4. The southerly driveway access into the Wendy's site shall be increased to 26 feet wide face-to-face to facilitate turning movements. 5. "No parking" signs shall be placed along the west curb line of the parking lot lying north of the northerly access to the retail site. In addition, "no parking" signs shall be placed along the east curb line of the drive-up window lane to Wendy's. 6. The applicant shall work with the City in resolving final placement of the sidewalk along West 78th Street along with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the City's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the City's right-of-way or trail easement area. 7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 8. The site plan shall be revised to show replacing the sidewalk along Market Boulevard. Pedestrian ramps onto City streets other than the existing one at West 78th Street and Market Boulevard shall be deleted from the landscape plan. 9. The applicant shall grant the City the necessary landscape and street easements along West 78th Street. 10. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook to control site erosion. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the southerly perimeter at the construction limits. Temporary rock construction entrances shall be required to minimize • Sharmin Al-Jaff February 3, 1994 Page 5 off-site tracking. Construction access points shall be limited to the interior parking lot and not on West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. After the storm sewer installation and prior to paving the parking lot, the storm drainage inlets (catch basins) shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence to prevent sediment from washing into the drainage system. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:\cng\dave\m arketii.apr LOTUS RI;ALTY SERVICES MARKET SQUARE II PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of an office/retail facility and a Wendy ' s restaurant located on the Market Square site at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Market Boulevard and W. 78th Street . The land area consists of two parcels . However, a single site plan is being submitted. The northern parcel will be owned and managed by Market Square Associates Limited Partnership, the developers of Market Square. The building to be constructed will be 9660 square foot single story designed for both office and retail use . Edina Realty is expected to be occupying approximately 7000 square feet. The southern parcel will be owned by Wendy ' s International and a Wendy ' s restaurant will be constructed on its site. Lotus Realty is acting as the developer and has coordinated the preparation of the site and landscaping plans submitted. Both plans have been reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments and were used as a case study by the Tree Board in connection with its deliberations concerning the application of proposed changes in the landscaping ordinance . Based on prior review, we believe the landscaping complies with the new landscaping ordinance; the sizes of the islands and choice of landscaping materials required by the new ordinance , as well as screening of trash enclosures and HVAC equipment have been addressed . The recommended relationship between the impervious and landscaped areas have been met as well . The Site Plan indicates two buildings each within the required set backs and with parking for 94 cars , at least 2 more than the required number for retail and restaurant uses . Entrances to the site have been aligned with the entrances to the Market Square Shopping Center Site . The construction design and materials for the improvements are dictated by the terms of the PUD Agreement of record for the Market Square Development of which these parcels are a part . The PUD Agreement specifies that "any buildings on Lots . . .4 and Outlot A shall be designed with proper building materials so as to be architecturally compatible with the shopping center . " 545 WEST 78TH STREET IN P.O. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 I■ (612)934-4538 ■ FAX(612)934-1505 Amcon Corporation is designing and will construct the office/retail building . Their elevation plans submitted for the proposed office/retail building show a hip roof with six gabled dormers . Design elements in the gabled ends coordinate with those of the adjacent Market Square Shopping Center . Windows have been provided on all four elevations; however neither pedestrian nor delivery entrances are anticipated on the West 78th Street side. Construction materials will be grey painted lap siding on the gables and upper walls with grey rock face block base below the windows, all to duplicate materials used in the Shopping Center . Asphalt shingles on the roof will be dark green to coordinate with the accent colors at the Shopping Center as well . - Wendy ' s has modified its signature building to comply with the requirements of the Market Square PUD. They have changed their color scheme from beige to grey but have retained their traditional use of brick and their prototypical use of columns . The columns are consistent with the column elements of Market Square and for additional consistency , design elements of grey split face concrete block have been added . Grey metal awnings over the windows also serve as building sign bands. The HVAC will be screened by a combination of parapet walls and green metal roof . The roof is a two-level hipped design with gabled ends at the north and south elevations , similar in material and appearance to the pitched roof design elements at Market Square. The site is allowed one monument sign pursuant to the PUD agreement . It will be the same design as the two existing Market Square signs and will be located at the Market Blvd/W. 78th Street corner of the site. Building signage will also comply with the covenants of record . Thus , the design and selected construction materials comply with the requirements of the PUD Agreement . We also believe that the design of the site, the landscaping and the buildings to be constructed will not only complement and enhance the design of the existing shopping center but will also complement the overall look which Chanhassen has worked to achieve . The pitched roof on the office retail building will coordinate with existing Chanhassen architecture and will accent the pitched elements of Market Square without overwhelming it whereas the more subdued pitch at the Wendy ' s building will provide balance at the corner and echo the more subdued elements of shopping center . •The traffic generated by Wendy ' s and the additional retail is an important element in the success of the existing Market Square Shopping Center . In addition we believe this project is an important addition to the retail mix and density identified as an important feature by the participants in Vision 2002 . -2- It is important that the approval process be completed as _ expeditiously as possible to allow time for completion of construction cost estimates and financing for the office retail building in time to complete the grading and site improvements prior to Wendy' s early spring construction — start schedule. -3- V.11 kl\t Es r . t-- 1••• • •' , • - I • 11111 r •t;I. • Ai Cit • i • e. • : - 1 4•I ME g -g III 1111P < -/ t • /Ar ti •1111 '• .?" ;54;.; • EN r., .„te.s - -- • - . _ • , •- MR 4` • - fl.: . 't•LAr-, 1.,,",` - .1 ' , •.. '...- I'• t . s i - .• •-:.F-,i :V...-'" ..- ' • i,..,s-_. 1,-.,,A....- .---•.•.. _{...t.tc.:.-to- <.*..... ..-•-.-•_• k4,-,•.:.. 1.-..t,:•..vg-_.....„ '. itt., ' m . _ . f - ; - 11 ._,.•_. Fq '''"•.: 44..- .i• IP”-.1 le" ../ .' ' .' .`• •1,-ekti.. -0 X .1.'-/ ' k.2-'.04• ..-f -''.:414/1.• IT -#. -4 . . . .s, ....• ..... '- • l, . . 2.; '- .....1 N4 1.1 , "••,•• •',.. . ''' • ''.-'' V-• •I 4. 1 I -..ir...,11:1•. •ix, _,E,„. . . • .. . 1t, .., .. .- .,,.1‘... m . . ,..,44 : ., ... ..--::..ar- 1. • .. ',..-.; ,'4 r. ,., . t --.il i.p.:.1. ;. • • - . ; A .. ./... U) ;.:•'''..$ •.:::.'. , .-,*. 1 ,.- -i. 1..v-...t ' PA---',17' ",."_,.- 1r,...".• . . _ • t'L 1 ."-,.-SPfitr.1..T.4.•kl'ii. ....,-1'.1-• - • C41 -10 r ,'1-_-' - : ,,'• mq . . -• • _. , . r-fr-,;:- . •-•• 7—— - = ,•':- r •:!-.-_,. ., ..„•,-16.:- * _ . • . _ m .• -; .., • ,- ,.... . ,.- _ .. , 4, 1 -.- ' . 3 : •, . .... . W --• MA • • . .41 , . 2.-. . - - - ..1 .4„...• 1 — -•_ . • .' ' . .-"-.1':' . 4.1 .•'.-... f " .-•'-::. ., ' --ery ' -->"--:- - • ' ' Mit ime - t-.--'--ii,..'141"-it.J4t..,.•- - -'' .'-'41144141.111* *14"1111***6111,0441 .14E 1mm .f iti;_ .,74,•zkler-'• 6, ' t ,..• • •••• . . t • '" - 4 _ ft•t.4 ,..••••-• ....c,- . --. ,.. ...;..., :it z,,,...;:-. ...- . -• ,,,,,;I , 4r: mak Mil ' ..-i .: ,..,,,47..,*- .i. •fi, ,- •s' .,-, -:,-„,71,...-.-- ' =-,A. t. ., I.- IEEE rim . .. 4,r-eic4e,:-.,:.....:4-1.3.0 -. . ... , ,j.. ." ' '',:i'l‘,,' ' •`-'.o.t--et--, -..- ' ''• : imia sawn 1:-..I-4_ ., ' --''''t', ,.,,,F•, " am ion . _,, .. _! 1, .: ,:- 44,1 ,- it:f- '`..,,.‘., . ..••••• ••••''.- -,' ..t- -•"''.1 -•,i';',AI,4...:-;-7 7 '1 . •4.-- y-.-T",-.--i--•c:. 1- ,-•:.9-4.- ",. - --.i-J,''„ — ,. . • . - -:,.., , .•.-- .•:!....1..;''''-:i-'',a_ --- ' •,.'- :- ::Vi.., ...-.,.,....F ,,.,. 4x:. .A.Iriti- ,.._-....-_,,,-.:, ,_ ......-.; • • ,.::f.4 .was 1.:, -",•,."i w.,..1.;;_, II.: . ..3-......„ •• 413: .• :-.--,1 'TT ''''.----',:::;=,.-,!c:'lie:2Y'gisiii14?-"; '-:•:,11671-- • ffj!"11ffa I 4 -,-.. 4N • -. •-• .•.,•t....u'...--.,-,4- s....„..N;---.. :'.." ‘ ---lime or mt*: ...: --- - 5:44i -*., --:'- '•?,-'1::, "-'-' - v-'''---.*;:.:',4-.,....' 9.: , .. .,, fr -.....;... .L.L*F4-• 0 . a -..•....','" 7:' i....,,-.'46;.:' - --,,,e.41:".7.--..•;-,• • , .- .7.:*,' I •:- .4-4. .,_. ....,. .. „...„:„..„,„..,,,../.:•.„ ,.....,,, J ......,,,,. , . W"! I. ' , „,t..* . .; .. • ....e. ,:-,;•,: -:•;z;.,-,... •,_ - f:,-- , • • -, , 'if.:'----f?,•-,..tj:54j.`,...-(A.• . . , ;' -. jr-i----.'- •-•-:--r; ".•`• -.., '-07-' ._'- ii... .==•-4.,. :s'7'.•!'i:.:i 1.,......-....'.... :4,1.'-''... . - • „. _,...,_ ., .,,,.., ,...., ;,.:i ••••- •.tt.--T'''..-„..:: 'iN if-----.t•-•!)".-1:-',,:. - 't ''-- --.''‘-.-.--"r .-12?-- - ' - .-'''' •J.-:•.:.. ill. t.; ii i,-r?-4.'ti44:'-'•. ,::.. :; . . ;.••=fe.,:i.,- ;:e•..-.r •. -,1...:-.-,..r.;.:s„._.,%:•• •' ,,,..-...•-, t.1 it-4.ii•-- 1.• z ' .,•=.' ,I7e.- .A._. --:-.,tz.•'-'1.,l r,-- - 1--, ..7v,-Ii•-- ., •,,,.'-' &:4-'--*- t.."...E.R.- -----. .51r." ' __i...:•-•x-.--,,-,---.-. ---,--. "--'4,--7,41*-tx- -- ...-, . . • '5%1.7';,:,,.-,-..•. - .•=- '-rditi.., -:- - '..-..c:... 4•-•,..-..,;...-.4-.,,it4--': '-vilt:ii:),:!' -- 1.4----i•-.': .---•:••' ,..--. -,,,...-'!--,f:-.- ,.- - •4....._. ----s..,-:p.--v• - •- - - • rte. 54 .1= lit.. F, lit 7.----- Z..... ' • .- /•-11.19, ..,-.1., : t ,..A. .. .... .-,.,••,..-....1„i -.: Z. U : � •�J ; c. .. r,t4te'S polotA•'";:e• - c--- 4. . 3-,i . . ,4 ...:„ ,„.. fli r T* , v-,''tft} - \ < _..... 1 tR 1 -' S : � ; ► _! , om = = t .4. - ■ _ . ': -- .;1 •<... ,. ,. 4.r, ■ Y ■ p ` . Vi ..-.. l} -,. 1'1114 R KK I... t Y8 11 '0t, l'„,•,-47:-_,I; , ray 4t... mm . - Y ,1".1“.... r .' • • A. .. ...... _.„,„_ . ...-.. , • • ,. ,..., ,. ... .„,.. :I . . . , 0 :-:_. . . . _ , Pi, . . . . . _ . . ., ...,,...,.. ,•_., _.:, ......., �-.r { r tv. .� Nj • yY T .f s i � -' sem^ • dT t 1 Z 1 i 7 f av • -t. . ' { .,ate �', .- - s1 ..„...,1...,......,,,..,g,Q. at • YN • i q • .- S-tt -';$4'1.4:-.:,-.-=---_ r ":,,•,G= ,�-�S1y'�3 S •` pK ..r. )a•, .,r• i. T. -xry.. ... riT ' �"�1,.. .E'erA. ` Erb .....04:11%;,?./..-C1c. ^ �.5 �3-' -L--: ". . 4. ,-' .4.4 -4-7r.s. 4-'•• •-, ;LEt.v.;'• ."' -ri-#4%,"' ' 4. N. �*iorr s •fit aY":.' ti :..5'Z''''. - ''� - 1',44V5: ����". .. '' ^'���_., 1}3 c,,;; `' ',' _., •ti �"; Pa \. le 1` 75FYt� fc ' I .. . ., ....... . Z:. . 771:-.• .•.t1/4 Z.,--44 11.. - ". '-,•4.2 { {iC �.i" aa ` is ^h t f tS S m- f e .♦ ~ 1t �♦r.'.Ia P41, . Ssys - I.2 r . ti 0 z• .,, -,tar a � r madin 4,, - *il V► "a, s St...... .} Its—....„....„....,,,i.,..,?.... ,-„t..-,..0 s I �+e 2 „,17%—.F s4 f '.si-sAtrS• '•c'{,.�,. Jl..�» '<� ..•iu yr 3 Y'e'p • r.:•.--,-.1;_ -.1•,:..4.,-;- _,.:4—_ � ,- w.- 4....„,40,s- Fr., Yom.C,?_ �t �$�-1 1. 1 7 Yr is ; y # A .Y�i T4! rte. t+rf i.' A. it1.a�9x •., l• ac.-.¢ice.:* . _-4 r ::::- 1 }•-, Ag - 4' '.Z;;.t. M . } k t, ;TY OF Pt.. DATE: '4 CUAAE CC DATE: 10/8/90 _L CASE #: 89-2 PUD By: t STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Amended Site Plan for PUD Development Stage Approval for Commercial Planned Unit Development, Market Square I LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Market Boulevard and West 78th Street a. APPLICANT: Market Square Partnership 5775 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 820 _1. St. Louis Park, MN 55426 kti_`n by CM./ A?^irit+ra4 fr.ccr_ ✓ id7✓ Nodifie" PRESENT ZONING: PUD Cs�/ 1Zo ACREAGE: 12 . 1 acres Date Submitter to C3 -�iss� DENSITY• �e /879. ADJACENT ZONING AND Q LAND USE: N .- IO and CBD; Chan Bank, Realtor/Dr.Office S - BG; vacant E - CBD; Filly's and Country Suites Hotel -121 W - BG; Chaska Tool/Vernco jj WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site 1- PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Currently, a level parcel 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8 , 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 23 , 1989 , the City Council approved the Development Stage Plans for PUD #89-2 for Market Square subject to the conditions described in the attached report. Since that time, as the Council is aware, development has not yet been initiated and the project has gone through an evolutionary process which is concluding with the amended site plan being reviewed in this report. The site plan amendments is focused on the change from a 20, 000 square foot Super Value with an 8, 000 square foot expansion to the present plan which proposes a 35,000 square foot Festival Foods Market offering an additional 10, 000 square foot building — addition. In the process of making these modifications, the ultimate size of the main shopping center building has increased from 91, 134 square feet to 97 ,954 square feet. Some of the original retail space offered for general tenants has been replaced by the expanded market. The primary purpose for requesting an amended site plan approval at this time is so that the developers can concluded their final leasing arrangements with Festival Foods, — lock in their financing package and initiate construction within a time frame acceptable to the City. Most of the changes to the site plan are relatively minor and for the most part involve the area located in the vicinity of the supermarket site. The general site plan layout, parking lot design, and access provisions have not been changed in any significant way by the proposed amendment. In a similar manner, site grading, drainage and utilities remain unchanged. The parking lot design has been revised to increase the number of parking stalls commensurate with the increase in the size of the shopping center. This was achieved by using 9 foot wide parking stalls instead of the 10 foot wide parking stalls on the original plan. Since this plan was originally approved, the City parking ordinance has been changed to allow parking stall width down to 81 feet, thus the revised parking plan exceeds City standards. All original setbacks offered by the original plan are maintained by the current proposal. In summary, it is our belief that the revised plan results in no major new issues for consideration by the City Council . If the revisions were more substantial, we would recommend that this item be referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, however, we do not believe this is the case. There are, however, several minor issues that we believe should be addressed in new conditions appended to the original conditions of approval . These include the following: 1. A revised landscaping plan should be submitted illustrating landscaping of the building addition area for Festival Foods. Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8, 1990 Page 3 At a minimum, this area should be sodded or seeded and provided with sufficient trees to make this an attractive setting until it is built upon. 2 . A raised concrete display platform has been incorporated in front of the Lawn and Sports Center. Staff objects to the - proposal to allow exterior display of merchandise for sale in front of the shopping center believing that if such is allowed, it would be very difficult to control it and limit it to this site. In addition, outdoor display of merchandise is not permitted throughout the community in spite of two existing examples that currently exist along West 78th Street. With the opening of Market Square, the two businesses which currently have exterior storage of materials for sale will be moving into the shopping center and it is hoped that this problem could be eliminated. Therefore, staff is recommending that the raised concrete display platforms be removed. 3. Revised building elevations should be submitted for staff approval. A good deal of time and effort was expended by both the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that this shopping center is an attractive addition to the Chanhassen CBD. We believe that the approved architecture was of very high quality and that this should not be lost through the redesign process. The applicant has assured staff that it is their intent that the Festival Foods be designed to accommodate the architectural theme that was adopted for the balance of the center and similar to one which was used for the previously proposed Super Value Store. However, they note that the final design has not been drafted and that the elevations will need to be revised due to the different building footprint and store entrance locations being proposed for the gateway store. If staff is given the opportunity to review these plans, we would do one of the following: a. If the plans are believed to be consistent with the architectural themes approved with the original site plan, we would authorize it's construction. b. If, however, there is a substantial question as to whether or not the architectural goals have been achieved, we would return the building elevations to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the amended final development stage site plan for Market Square subject to the following conditions: Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8, 1990 Page 4 1. Submit a revised landscaping plan illustrating plant material in the future expansion area of the Festival Foods Store and of the revised parking lot island configuration. 2. Submit final building elevations to staff for administrative approval or, if determined by staff to be inconsistent with the original plan, to be returned to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. 3 . Eliminate the outdoor display area from in front of the Lawn and Sports Center. All outdoor display of merchandise in the shopping center is prohibited. Merchandise contained in screened outdoor storage areas is exempt from this requirement. 4 . Enter into a PUD contract with the City that will contain all of the conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted in the project. The PUD agreement ' should provide for a landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. 5. The final plat shall reflect a 20 foot utility easement for the proposed City water line over the southerly portion of the site. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary security. 7 . The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the City. 8 . Enter into a development contract with the City that required financial sureties with construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improvements. 9. Revise architectural plans as needs to: - confirm that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west elevations; trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with the main building; - relocated the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the building or incorporate it into the structure; - outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall; Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8, 1990 Page 5 - the trash compactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall and relocated to the north to provide a 24 foot wide drive aisle; and - the addition of any drive-up windows will require site plan approval wherein it will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that internal circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be impacted. 10. Outlot A is required to have buildings designed to utilize architecture compatible with the shopping center. No additional access will be provided to serve Outlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed with the outlot is developed. The site must be identical to monument signage allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the owner shall establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition. Parking requirements for the outlot should be satisfied on it. 11. Modify and/or regulate access parking as follows: - provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street curb cut; - delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in front of the supermarket. A pedestrian crosswalk shall be installed on Market Boulevard at a location determined by the City Engineer. The crosswalk shall be painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Manual on Traffic Controls. - eliminate the nine (9) northern stalls located on the east side of the supermarket expansion and modify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space at the end of the aisle; - all leases for the main building should require that employee parking be located at the rear of the center; - any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a site plan review procedure. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate parking adequacy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this requirement; and - all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete. Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8, 1990 Page 6 12 . The landscaping plan should be modified as follows: - increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6' to 10-12 ' ; - remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and landscape the space; and - cooperate with City staff in providing a relocation plan for the existing landscaping along Market Boulevard and West 78th Street. 13 . Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should incorporate the following: - storm sewers shall be sized for a ten (10) year storm. Revised drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval; - the 72" storm sewer is to be installed by the developer; installation of the line should be covered by the development contract. The City can reasonably allow building permits to be issued with the understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway and utility improvements, will be installed simultaneously with the construction of the buildings; the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhole #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius; - project approval by the Watershed District is required prior to building permit issuance; and - an erosion control plan acceptable to the City should be submitted prior to requesting building permits. 14 . Provide final roadway and utility plans for approval The existing 10" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing acceptable to the City. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be removed. The applicant will submit detailed construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built mylar plans upon completion of the construction. 15 . Provide written and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description in the October 23 , 1989 , staff report. The covenants will be filed with the Planned Unit Development Market Square Site Plan Amendment October 8, 1990 Page 7 Agreement. 16. Review (OR REVISE??) the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the supermarket and between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts. 17. All conditions must be completed as a part of the general construction of the project and shall not be left to tenants, i.e. rear outdoor storage areas, etc. 18. The bus shelter and concrete curb located on Market Boulevard should be changed/moved to another location in order to accommodate future traffic on Market Boulevard. The developer, at it's expense, shall acquire and convey to the City a perpetual easement for a bus shelter along Market Boulevard. The location of the bus shelter shall be determined by the staff of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. 19. The developer shall construct and dedicate trails/sidewalks along West 78th Street and Market Boulevard in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. The trails/sidewalks shall be constructed when street improvements are constructed. " ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated October 23, 1989. 2 . Original staff report for Market Square. 3 . Amended site plan. CITY OF CHANHASSEN - G \4! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ,• FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning p;,. /Q 0.1 1.� _ _ - Date Sct^r_dtc C- -.. DATE: October 18, 1989 DKe SUBJ: Rezoning to PUD 189-2 Development Stage Approval, eSu - r� — Preliminary Plat for Market Square --- PROPOSAL/SUMMARY _ The applicants are requesting approval to construct a 94,158 square foot shopping center at the intersection of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. The Center would be anchored by a Super Value supermarket. The PUD contains a two acre outlot that would ultimately contain additional development that is planned in a manner consistent with the balance of the PUD. The City Council last reviewed this item on September 11, 1989 when it was submitted for concept review. The Planning Commission reviewed plans for the PUD Development Stage on September 20 , 1989 . Staff supported the proposal and had recom- mended approval subject to a number of conditions and modifica- tions . The Planning Commisssion discussed the plan extensively and ultimately recommended approval with several revised con- ditions . Since that time the plans were extensively revised to respond to the issues that were raised. Many of the revisions were minor plan details but the most significant changes were to architectural design, building placement and access along West 78th Street. The Planning Commisssion had raised concerns regarding the projects lack of consistency with the balance of the CBD with regard to building placement and questioned the lack of compatible architectural design on the northern end of the site. The project was focused internally rather then having an orientation along West 78th Street. At the same time staff wanted to restrict Outlot A to use of existing curb cuts to pro- vide adequate levels of traffic safety on surrounding streets. The revised plan addresses and responds to these concerns by relocating the Vet Clinic to the northwest corner of the site and creating a new free standing building to house a dry cleaner. Both buildings have frontage along West 78th and will help to provide consistency with other development along the street. The Rezoning for Market Square October 18, 1989 Page 2 West 78th Street curb cut is adjacent to Outlot A and provides improved access and internal circulation . As a result of these changes the size of the center has decreased slightly to 94 ,158 square feet but the size of the supermarket has been increased to 20, 000 square feet with an 8 , 000 square foot expansion area. Staff is satisfied that the current plan is well designed and is acceptable subject to appropriate conditions detailed in the balance of the report. The project is being reviewed as a PUD which offers the developer a relaxation of normal development standards in exchange for a higher quality plan. Staff supports the use of the PUD noting that normal ordinance requirements are aften inadequate in dealing with large, multi-tenant projects such as this. We note that the plan takes advantage of the relaxation of normal district standards in several areas including hard surface coverage, parking and setbacks. The current plan offers much in. exchange including higher quality architectural design, landscaping and signage. It also provides for consistent and well planned development of two free-standing buildings and ultimately of Outlot A. The PUD plan also offers the City addi- tional control over the site since it is applied as a zoning district and any significant change requires that the City Council approve a rezoning. Based upon the foregoing Staff is recommending that the PUD be given Development Stage Approval subject to appropriate conditions . The Preliminary Plat is in the process of being revised to account for the final site plan. Consequently, staff is recom- mending that the City Council table acting on the plat until it can be reviewed at an upcoming meeting. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-518 defines the development stage of a PUD. Following general concept approval of a PUD the applicant shall submit the development stage application, preliminary plat and fee. The development stage shall include but be limited to preliminary plat, site plan information including location, type and size of all graphics and signage and any additional information requested by staff, Planning Commission of City Council . BACKGROUND On August 2 , 1989 , the Planning Commission reviewed the PUD con- - cept plan for the Market Square commercial shopping center (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission agreed that the site should be developed as a PUD and that the concept plans were Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 3 moving in the right direction but that more amenities needed to be provided to the site such as additional architectural design, landscaping, etc. The City Council reviewed the concept plan on August 28 , 1989 (Attachment #2 ) . The City Council also agreed that the PUD was the proper way to review the site. Since the August 28 , 1989, Council meeting, the applicant presented a revised set of plans for staff review to proceed with the development stage (plans dated August 17 , 1989 ) . Staff had several concerns with the revised plans and met with the applicant to review the issues (Attachment #3) . The applicant has submitted another revised set of plans dated September 11, 1989. Although there are still some issues unresolved, the plans are complete enough to proceed with the development stage. The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD for Development Stage approval on October 9 , 1989 (minutes attached) . Staff had recom- mended approval subject to 26 conditions. The Commission indi- cated some initial concern over the number of stipulations. Staff stated that the number of stipulations did not reflect fun- damental problems with the proposal but were rather indicative of its complexity and handling as a PUD. The most significant conditions included: - limitations on additional access to Outlot A. - rejection of a drive-up window at the north end of the building due to traffic safety conflicts . - clarification that the developer is responsible for the cost of installation of a 72 inch storm sewer over the south edge of the site and improved screening and landscaping around the rear of the building. The Commission discussed the proposal in great detail. They generally agreed at staff' s recommendations but added several modifications and new conditions including: 1 . The design and materials used on any structures on Outlot A will be compatible with the shopping center building and the veterinary clinic. 2 . The development contract will require financial sureties and construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improvements . 3 . The developer shall provide the additional width for the entrance lanes off of Market Boulevard as required by staff. Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 4 4 . Outlot A, until it is developed, should be planted in some kind of a ground cover and maintained so that it has a good appearance. 5 . Revised architectural plans shall be submitted to reflect the design that was shown at the Planning Commission meeting tonight should be submitted to the City. 6 . No regular display or sale of merchandise outside will be permitted. 7. The retail store on the northwest end of the center shall be architecturally designed to have three fronts. The Planning Commission also proposed allowing an additional monument sign for Outlot A, and asked the Engineering Department to assess exactly when the 72 foot storm sewer must be installed and to equip the outlot with a skimmer device. In addition, while they understood staff' s concerns regarding the proposed - drive-up window they were willing to allow the developer to make his case through a formal site plan submittal. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The site plan and architectural design have undergone extensive changes as a result of reviews by staff and the Planning Commission. Size of the center and accessory buildings has been decreased slightly, from 99 , 416 square feet to 94 ,158 square feet including future expansions of the super market ( 8 , 000 square feet) and drug store ( 2 , 500 square feet) . At the same time the initial size of the super market has grown from 16 , 000 to 20 , 000 square feet. The most significant revision of the site plan occurs at the norther exposure along West 78th Street. The Planning Commission had raised concerns regarding views of the site from West 78th. The concern was that the site plan turned away from the street for an inward focus that did not fit well into the balance of the CBD ' s streetscape. The lack of architectural detailing on the north elevation was also questioned. At the same time, staff raised significant concerns with the future access to Outlot A. We believed that the outlot should be accessed internally and that additional access points on West 78th or Market would be hazardous . To respond to these concerns the Vet Clinic has been relocated to the northwest corner of the site. In addition to the size of the main building was reduced and a second free standing structure has been proposed along West 78th. This will be occupied by a dry cleaner and contain a covered, drive-up/drop-off area. The 3 Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 5 two buildings would become a part of the CBD' s streetscape since their visual orientation is toward the street even through the are accessed internally. Sidewalks are incorporated to invite pedestrians to enter from West 78th. The north end of the main shopping center building will become a three sided space with windows facing north, east and west. It is designed to be occupied by a restaurant or frozen yogurt stand. This avoids the visually "dead" elevations of the origi- nal plan. Staff raised concerns with a drive-up window that was illustrated on the original plan. It is not now shown although the applicants have indicated their desire to keep open the option to have one. Staff cannot support the request since we do not believe it can be accommodated safely. Turning movements and stacking areas related to the window would cause a traffic hazard and contribute to confused access and parking provisions. The Planning Commission recommended that any drive through be subject to the site plan approval. Staff is not opposed to this although we doubt that we would ever be able to recommend its approval. The West 78th Street entrance has been realigned slightly to the east. It now offers improved access into Outlot A and actually provides for a cleaner traffic flow through the site. We believe that the proposed revisions have accommodated staff' s concerns in this area. A draft of the revised concept was also informally shown to the Planning Commission and they were recep- tive to the concept. Architectural plans have benefitted from continued refinement. Detailing has been revised since the City Council last reviewed teh plan with additional improvements incorporated since the Planning Commission hearing. The main building now incorporates highly detailed gable sections over major entrances . These gables are used to provide detailing to break up the roof line and to conceal HVAC equipment. The balance of the HVAC equipment is buried behind a 3 foot high parapet. Smaller and less detailed gable sections are found on the rear of the building to help improve off-site views . Staff had hoped that the gables could be connected to avoid creating false fronts similar to a movie set. However, the architect does not believe this is feasible. Instead, the front gables will be 24 ' deep while the rear will be 12 ' deep. New elevations have been prepared for the building . After reviewing them we are satisfied that the building offers a high degree of architectural design. These are large enough to be architecturally significant but the large gap between the gables will be visible from some elevations ( refer to attached illustrations) . Exterior materials include rock faced block base with single score block walls . Wood siding will be used above the smaller tenant spaces with stucco used on the gable sections . The rear of the building will utilize rock faced block and single score block with additional rock faced detailed. Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 6 The Vet Clinic remains architecturally identical to the original proposal with a rock faced block base and brick walls . Details are not provided on the northern and western elevations . We want to confirm that they will be built of similar materials. We also believe it is important to have windows along West 78th Street and along Monterey Drive since blank walls are not consistent with the CBD's streetscape. The new free standing cleaners building is an attractive struc- ture that utilizes a rock faced block base with wood siding walls and a standing seam metal roof. Architectural detailing promotes a visual identification with the main shopping center building. No details are provided for buildings on Outlot A at this time although it is a part of the PUD. Staff expects to use the PUD designation to insure that when a building is proposed, it is architecturally compatible with the shopping center . An appropriate stipulation is provided. Staff had requested additional trash enclosures to facilitate ease of usage. The plan has been revised accordingly. In our experience wood trash enclosures are often difficult to maintain and rapidly require repair. We are recommending that they be made out of rock faced block to be similar to the main buildings on the site. In additional the trash enclosure that serves the cleaners . is inappropriately located in a highly visible area near the West 78th Street entrance. It should be relocated to the west side of the building or preferrably be contained within the structure. As requested by staff , the outdoor storage areas located at the rear of the main building are to be built of rock faced block. We are also requesting that the trash compactor for the super market be provided with a rock faced block screen wall of suf- ficient size to eliminate all views of the compactor. In addi- tion the entire compactor and screen wall should be shifted to the north to provide the required 24 foot wide drive and to allow for two way traffic. ACCESS/PARKING/INTERNAL CIRCULATION As we noted earlier access provisions have been revised from the original City Council presentation with the most significant revisions occurring with the relocation of the West 78th Street = curb cut. A deceleration lane and right turn lane from West 78th Street to Market Boulevard that were requested by staff have also been incorporated. Staff has also requested that a triangular — traffic island be installed in the curb cut so that traffic exiting the site is oriented in the correct easterly direction. The north entrance from Market Boulevard has a single lane in with two exiting . We believesthat this will probably work in the Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 7 short run but when Outlot A is developed a second entrance lane will probably be required. Access to Outlot A has been the sub- ject of a good deal of discussion. Staff believes that addi- tional access points would represent a traffic hazard on adjacent streets and should be prohibited. With the realignment of the West 78th Street curb cut, Outlot A has direct frontage on the two main site entrances and can be served very adequately from internal drives . A stipulation prohibiting additional access points has been provided. Pedestrian circulation has been revised in accordance with staff' s recommendations with sidewalks extended around the entire West 78th Street and Market Bouldevard frontages and with connec- tions to internal walkways. The Engineering Department has re- evaluated the Market Boulevard sidewalk issues and now believes that the sidewalk should terminate at the crosswalk over the parking lot that connects into the sidewalk in front of the super market. A painted and signed pedestrian crosswalk should be installed. The goal is to bring the sidewalk over to the east side of the street to require only one pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks . The development contract should clearly state that construction of the sidewalks and crosswalk is the developer' s responsibility. In the long term, the Engineering Department believes that a pedestrian activated flashing signal may be required to maintain safety. Internal circulation has been improved. The south drive aisle at the rear of the building has been widened and adequate truck turning areas are now illustrated. The realignment of West 78th curb cut improves internal circulation by straightening a main drive aisle. Circulation patterns at the north end of the site are a little confusing due to merging traffic. Staff has worked with the applicant to redesign parking lot islands to better direct flow and to incorporate stop signs as needed. Each site exit is also requipped with a stop sign. Due largely to the redesign of the northern end of the site, there are now fewer parking stalls being proposed then would nor- mally be required by typical ordinance standards . The code nor- mally requires one stall for every 200 square feet of gross floor area in a shopping ecenter resulting in a need for 471 stalls when both expansion areas are included. The present plan will ultimately provide only 454 stalls. The PUD ordinance allows the city to create standards suitable for the individual project, thus no variance is required. The real issue is not one of code compliance but rather of satisfying actual demand. Staff has done extensive research into shopping center parking demands and found that a ratio of 4 . 5 stalls per 1000 square feet of gross floor area is adequate to accommodate centers of this size. Under this guideline, a requirement for 424 stalls results which is in keeping with the 471 stalls that will be provided. Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 8 However , we are concerned with several aspects of the center with regards to parking for several reasons as follows : - grocery stores can generate unusually high parking demand. - if restaurants occupy signficant areas of the building, parking requirements could also jump, and - there are two areas where the parking provisions should be revised in a way that will unfortunately eliminate several stalls . The parking area serving the Vet Clinic is a dead end aisle that requires provision of a turn around area that will eliminate two stalls. Most of the 13 stalls that are illustrated on the east side of the future grocery expan- sion are hazardous. Cars backing out of them will back into drive aisles that have several turns and poor sight lines . While staff believes that parking provisions could be made to be adequate, we feel that several conditions are required to provide adequate assurances. These include: 1. All leases should require employee parking to be located at the rear of the building. 2 . Site plan review should be required for any restaurants pro- _ posed to be located in the center. A parking analysis will be required before approval can be required. The 2, 284 square foot restaurant space located at the north end of the center is excluded from this requirement. Parking calculations do not include requirements for Outlot "A" since no uses have been proposed. It is expected that parking provisions for Outlot A will be consistent with ordinance requirements whenever a site plan approval is requested. For the center to function properly, cross access and parking easements should be filed over the shopping center parcel and Outlot A running in favor of each lot. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan has been revised extensively to comply with previous recommendations and is generally acceptable. Staff has only two modifications we would like to see incorporated. 1 . A continuing concern throughout the design process has been the rear view of the center from Hwy. 5. The rear elevations have been improved but we remain concerned with the level of screening provided to avoid direct views of loading docks, truck parking and trash storage areas. While the landscaping plan has been improved in this area , we believe that the installation of 6 foot high conifers in this area is inade- quate . We are recommending that the height at installation should be 10-12 feet . Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 9 2 . A snow storage area is illustrated at the southeast corner of the site along Market Boulevard. We believe this is inappropriate considering that the first view many people would have upon entering the city is a pile of dirty snow. The designation should be deleted and the area filled with compatible landscape material. Unlike most metro area communities, Chanhassen does not now have a requirement for financial- guarantees for landscaping improve- ments. Staff has raised this concern to the Planning Commission who indicated a desire to have the ordinance amended to cover " this omission. Staff is recommending that the PUD agreement include a requirement that a financial guarantee be provided to insure that landscaping is properly installed in a timely manner. The guarantee should equal 110% of the estimated cost of the material and be valid for one full growing season past the date of installation. GRADING/DRAINAGE The site will drain into a storm sewer system that outlets into a city owned pond located to the south. The 72" storm sewer will be installed by the developer and the development contract should clearly state this requirement. The pond was designed to perform as a retention pond for the downtown area. Thus a skimmer device as requested by the City Council is not required. Drainage calcu- lations have been provided and are currently being reviewed by the City' s consultant. The existing catch basin adjacent to Manhole #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius . Project approval by the Riley Creek Watershed District is required. Prior to issuance of any building permits , a detailed erosion control plan acceptable to the city and the Watershed District shall be prepared. UTILITIES Final utility plans should be prepared for approval by the city. The sanitary sewer plan requires that an existing 10" line that bisects the site be located under the new building . Staff will support the proposal only if it is constructed as follows : a . The existing 10 inch PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an oversized ductile iron casing which clearly extends 10 feet beyond the limits of any building footings or sidewalk with manholes built at each end of the casing to provide access . The sewer main must be properly blocked and encased in the ductile iron casing, i .e. , grouted or pea rock. Water plans are generally acceptable with some modifications. The existing watermain to be abandoned should be removed from the Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 10 site. Since the existing public utilities are proposed to be relo- cated and turn lanes constructed, the applicant shall submit detailed roadway and utility construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer. Roadway utility specifications should comply with the City of Chanhassen's specifications. As- built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. SIGNAGE/LIGHTING As with other aspects of the proposal , signage has been modified from the original plan. The current plan calls for a total of 3 monument signs. One on West 78th, one on Market Boulevard and, based upon Planning Commission recommendation, a third monument will be reserved for Outlot A. Although no details are provided for the Outlot A sign, it should be identical to the others. The monuments are 14 ' tall with 41 square feet of sign area per face. The signs are attractively designed to reflect the architectural design of the shopping center. All other site signage is to be located on the buildings. Front elevation signs use 2 foot high lighted letters with similar signage in the rear elevations and both ends of the building. Staff has discussed allowing larger signage of similar design for major shopping center tenants. We believe it is reasonable to do so and are recommending that letters up to 5 feet in height be allowed on these stores having gabled entrances and rear eleva- tions . These stores should have their sign boards restricted to the cable areas with signs on other elevations prohibited. No details are provided for the free standing Vet Clinic and dry cleaner buildings but they should be restricted to 2 foot high lighted signs on the north and south elevations. Super Value has separate sign provisions in recognition of their being the major tenant. The ordinance does not provide standards for PUD signage as such, however , it allows the city to establish suitable requirements. We believe the illustrated site plan is acceptable with the modi- fications proposed above and are recommending that they be prepared as sign covenants that will be attached to the PUD agreement. Lighting details were recently provided for staff review and area acceptable with some modifications. Staff' s original intent was to have the lighting be as compatible as possible with other CBD lighting. Two types of fixtures are proposed. The first is a 17 foot high ornamental type offering an antique appearance. The second is a 32i foot high box fixture designed to light large areas . It is our desire to have lighting on the project' s exterior use the lower scale, more compatible fixture. Thus we are recommending that the 3 fixtures located east of the super market and one located between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts be exchanged for the ornamental lights . We believe that the revised overall lighting scheme will provide adequate coverage. Rezoning for Market quare October 18, 1989 Page 11 SUBDIVISION/EASEMENTS/RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION The applicants are requesting subdivision approval and vacation of excess right-of-way along West 78th Street and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. However , the plat is being revised to comply with previous stipulations and and is not available for eview at this time. Staff expects to bring the revised plat to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. The plat will illustrate the following: - West 78th Street vacation of excess right-of-way. The city will seek to maintain an 80 foot wide right-of-way. - Easements for: °public utilities and drainage improvements °public sidewalks °cross access and parking for all lots, and - Division of the site to separate lots and Outlot A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that PUD Development Stage approval for Market Square be approved subject to teh following conditions : 1. Enter into a PUD contact with the city that will contain all of the conditions of approval and which will be recorded against all lots platted in the project. The PUD agreement should provide for a landscape bond as outlined in the staff report. 2 . Obtain final plat approval for the site prior to requesting building permits . 3 . Enter into a development contract with the city that requires financial sureties with construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer and City Council for all public improve- ments . 4 . Revise architectural plans as need to: - confirm that the Vet Clinic will have windows on the north and west elevations ; - trash enclosures are to be constructed from rock faced block compatible with the main building; - relocate the trash enclosure serving the dry cleaner to the west side of the building or incorporate it into the struc- ture; - outdoor storage areas are to be enclosed by a rock faced block wall; - the trash compactor is to be provided with a rock faced block screen wall and relocated to the north to provide a 24 ' wide drive aisle; and Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 12 - the addition of any drive-up windows will require site plan approval wherein it will be the applicant' s responsibility to demonstrate that internal circulation patterns and parking provisions will not be impacted. 5 . Outlot A is required to have buildings designed to utilize architecture compatible with the shopping center. No addi- tional access will be provided to serve Outlot A. Only one additional monument sign is to be allowed when the outlot is developed. The sign must be identical to monument signage allowed elsewhere on the PUD. Until development occurs, the owner shall establish ground cover over the site and keep it in a maintained condition. Parking requirements for the outlot should be satisfied on it. 6 . Modify and or regulate access and parking as follows : - provide a triangular traffic island in the West 78th Street curb cut; - delete the sidewalk south of the crosswalk that connects to the sidewalk in front of the super market. A pedestrian crosswalk shall be installed on Market Boulevard adajacent to the bus shelter. The crosswalk shall be painted and signed in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Manual on Traffic Controls; - eliminate the 9 northern stalls located on the east side of the super market expansion and modify the Vet Clinic parking area to provide a turning space at the end of the aisle ; - all leases for the main building should require that employee parking be located at the rear of the center; and - any restaurants proposed in the center are subject to a site plan review procedure. It will be the applicant' s responsibility to demonstrate parking adequacy if it is to be approved. The restaurant spaces illustrated in the two northern tenant spaces in the main building are exempt from this requirement; and - all parking lot curbing shall be B-6/12 concrete. 7 . The landscaping plan should be modified as follows : - increase the size of conifers along the south property line from 6 ' to 10-12 ' ; and - remove the snow storage area along Market Boulevard and = landscape the space. 8 . Provide final grading and drainage plans for approval. The plans should incorporate the following: - the 72" storm sewer is to be installed by the developer; Installation of the line should be covered by the develop- _ ment contract. The city can reasonably allow building per- mits to be issued with the understanding that the 72" storm sewer, together with other public roadway and utility improvements, will be j/nstalled simultaneously with the construction of the buildings; Rezoning for Market Square October 18 , 1989 Page 13 - the existing catch basin adjacent to Manhole #21 in Market Boulevard should be relocated into the new curb radius ; - project approval by the Watershed District is required prior to building permit issuance; and - an erosion control plan acceptable to the city should be submitted prior to requesting building permits. 9 . Provide final roadway and utility plans for approval. The existing 10" PVC sanitary sewer shall be placed in an over- sized ductile iron casing acceptable to the city. Existing watermains to be abandoned shall be removed. The applicant will submit detailed construction plans and specifications for approval by the City Engineer and provide as-built mylar plans upon completion of construction. 10. Provide written and graphic sign covenants consistent with the description in the October 23, 1989 , staff report. The covenants will be filed with the PUD contract. 11. Review the site lighting plan to use the ornamental fixtures east of the super market and between the two Market Boulevard curb cuts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Market Square Plan Package - Sheets P-1 - P-C dated October 13 , 1989 2 . Market Square Site Phasing Plan - P-8 dated October 17 , 1989 . 3 . Update Market Square Rendering. 4 . Updated memo from the Engineering Department dated October 19 , 1989 . 5 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 20 , 1989 . 6 . Previous staff reports. • I L_________ C or sw soar MIMMIMIIIIMII iiIMMIM1 - k .. . mili.- - �--- � ____ _ ..., - I.. 2� gra ___.. • • :4f;$/ / W" a 1 • t ,.. milibP /114. • • t' ii • • WC. _w.■ i f_ lk111.14F IL/ .._ J 1 __ _ 4. -�-- --= 111 MIN ._1-... -• ME lir int.imer I Ogg t \ 411M1.1 111,1.....• II": NIMMM1 IP I if,:, ,...1 _I IV WI IMMO IN•Ni !MEI ils rs. I -- -• \ \II __ • hi I _ "F III ( IJ~ ill _-' ,� - serf ruw r-rr-r ) ( J L______ um-- Cumriarianw � — �� 1r.VT- , .,W` .1 31_ ����1�.��i.0• ©3 1 IVce . ,. . A- - ,," I ..ons 1. e ••• , _ 4. 1pl 'I ` I ........ / • • . la 11 I /E------- .. ,.......,, ,,,,. ___ ' ... ® !E moi- OW —013 I0 — ' --Ii J _ IRO i i -Th GO • -Z" M- = = * .►.i o . _ A�., ,i) df 1 ; h _i .- . *J ,, 1 • r r r a lir.. .0. - r s .fes / M • r--1C �.....i I II I L _ _J-D C• I 1 —�� o =o p Ro I — —, ��oT; •�O0 — © _ _.,, 1 Uitd4DSCJWER1l/A 1...50'41" I i 1 Si I' . 11 1 111 g I I . w I Me la • ,s NI ll Mi 1 lir : . : � 11ll 1> _ _ ■c: . .. 11■ II 11owl •10 II - t ,rli 1 II I� • s ' .roll ■ : 1• w Iii 'NsU I'llI. !� s 1�, i 44 • ' 1 ! p . ) •OW _ •w. . \7 II 1 SI .III ILJI IM I 1 I : 1 I... ma NI es s • sir 1w w s ' K e isNBMIWM . II ! is • 1111 1IC - I•--) IN1 ._ IIS ___• :! i �E • ill ` IC I:Ie� ' n ' I� P I - .. Jr11[0_1:pi I Iin - , . = E it E MI m � _ 1 r �F S �� IIIA.. j i ■�� i. Me. a ® �,� la 7 ..- .juug - •• ,,,., \ �� Hi ----- . i; , ,...,, . , : ..., ■, I ;0. J I . El . 1- :1 T - tf i I= E. g m ,,,i \ R — - t- . , ___ g . ,:: „ • IL.-711 ._ , g § pa.... r,.," ,, „......„, • . ,, . it. . _____. .....,,,,,_ 4 2L- th.:. ilik f sill - � '... 11 p :-±--.77-iL".-2.1., 4.. .. • _ r I' I — \ :._ o . NM IN \ . r= 1 \ -E. ;Id y• ` m E i' x ii _ g lic:-01 \ I - t\ 1.3W. ', Nu,i• .. , .,.. S.. 1, sadi..;I.N \ .—....v:If#,,.........aitt .,,,,- rs: 1 m.... • val.:, . : -, _____ _.„_. , \ ..., ,.... r. 4 t,..... _ __.„..1 11 17164. I IF 11 611 ri 0 MARKET SQUAREi �.c�Co 11 1111 I ill.' d t! 411111 I 5 �-- AR!11111 Amit INN !Lill 1 Immo R rif • 1.7 ■. ; ■ i 1111 nirmwti ie � E , 1 . i _. i r _F\ 3, F i 1 ill ii- I E ',' •:- , I ?.., • ::• i , .• 1 t, • 1 • i-. r .1;. I•tir i•il 1 :. '•$ • 1 ; I ft. •• •• /1/11116k I. . , • III kp I 4 1 M - 1 i mom% 1==.2 ii-i- ---Ti pi =-_-..... i rpm . . ; . , .. ,... b _ 1 I i 1 • .1 1 i tali 1 , I Svi V h riLy q : . I . . 1 , i I - _ i N / 4___.......i_, f- f, MARKET SQUARE 7,-.:,..-_:... , Ai\AMCON •v.1 w-.. 1 r: c,.........E.........,.. .._. L tor...!.••••••...•Ci••••••eli. ....11 . _ \j4 sn mar 12 I . c-------, ._, --- .�_ - .� r _ .6--tra. iltree-,,,,, , dr-Lmtp-.7-/ 4 , :-,,rs--10111IP i ; . 4/, _ 11pAin ' i. . 4 larill11111 : --------- „lip a] AnktINEgg: : ;1% woo ill i : .i.L.........-/ 4,.... v. . I' 4- - •- •, , , 4 (di;A It 3 ' it 1 41•11.47r- kis” _ ( 1 ,ii t • iti. ; ..,.... ; \ 'a =Cm 6mwomilma 213E.' ._. w f M - • ill 7141-7N- ..5. — -..__—_— .,•1111.'' 1 a B:11 1 I I o IT I E ii I I % v -+� I , 1 % ttli\ .._ Ir ‘ II ` w A or•••• � EsiMG 7r pf/r L"'IL IY M Y f GRACIIN ME soKL r. . --, L • , -4....---:VIrj4— 4.— .7-- -431-0. . . I, . 6 11. : . L . ••••••....X:- • • . . ea. , : • •:' Z : : . 2 J : ,, : : 2 • . \.....-.--- : 1 • : N. . 7...... I ' • ' • : I.....•••••••v.... ...,, /,----- \ : : 1 I 1 I 1 .1 i . 1 . • .4•5/-1 . . wi " IL . / 1 • .I ! : • 1 . /) .NW i 7 Lj 2 ; = i .6- . • 80-. . : . :. . .(•/ - • • 1 1 ; : • • : ,..- . . -- ./, . .1 I - ...‘ • ,• i k - i I -4J • ' LIG : • : 0: . : , • ,:-.1,- i • c't.t *. \\\\\': - --) . . . - • :. . • . , . ii.1"., • : •• 0- , ...,. : : ___._-(• •Jiara. ! • 1 . . :Du . • . . i tia• : : : ur,:------------- , - , _ • - c; . , • • .: •; :i • - . . !-----tiLi. : -ii : i • ... ..............._; i • . • I: i j I, i i. I I i - ; : : : 2 I • I i ...-- --1)--\ \ -. ....-- 4---17 \ . ‘.•*"... c--------- =-7----114911•-• 1 ----- -------1--Th . "7.....--..'--\ I • i i i I ...v: 4 4 I i ' :ill I i :iii I i rl ..• - I. 11114.44 A i i 1 q -71i i WIN it:1 i Iiiiiiii IL i 111›.?, 11 1 . _: ::; ,,,:. r i.! iiilfil! i . 1:440 r 11 ' 171r1 i 4:e Iriittli 11; " MI' II: 1191iii le ! i;101 i ili Lai i g %. / # 4 x 8 -Tit III ' "iiiii,1: „ -..toi ' "III! 111 i al 1111 1 011 1 al purni 1 4 sifi t li I 1 i : I I i '1 11; 1 s• tVirE• • 1.p1-ili-4 1; 1-7i- _14.17=41;:t:ttiE11, -i . iiiiiillgiititio4tiitiii: ii P.'f I Iii! . 4iiireCtilitliii:P$1. i ttittecitilititiiii: 1 ... irtiivitftsisiiiil I ii I i l • 1:t t , I 1" iiittiOttiiiiiiiiiir '1 i i :/ i isisEEEratsstiviii I' 1 1 - t / isi - /: 'IF !............,.... SO 4.44.4.44. '" -• —•• 7 1 ' 1 m ECEESL:42:2F22414 7 iris -.iiiit:ii!IitittilT v.! f 1 titi tttt itisiiiiitiiittesiistits 1 1: irill • iTi 1 ;!" ; .aigillitItItzt::: _. :r.-Sii:rmerri:1114:: E retirttitttiiitkiiiii i '41 :i.selftiltiisiitet '; 1 - 1 il 7.1•.•.............-: • -; E iiitittiiiitiiiiiii t ti 7itti-iiitsittiiill'; It .: - tittseessittststtett . ' r"-t:—..iiiiiiiiii14 lit [ [ 1 MARKET SQUARE 11 1 AAINICON 1 L J . — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 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. Public Present: Name Address JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway William J. Wiele 6860 Minnewashta Parkway Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Charles Cruickshank 3921 Stratford Ridge Jeffrey Adams 3960 Stratford Ridge Bonnie & Terry Labatt 3981 Stratford Ridge Harold Taylor 3861 Stratford Ridge Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Jerry L. Kortgard 3901 Glendale Drive _ Allen Karls 3920 Stratford Ridge Paul Harstad Harstad Companies Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Okay. This looks almost identical to the same subdivision or preliminary plat that was proposed, I think we looked at this in July? Aanenson: June. Scott: June of last year. Did you make the applicant aware of your objections to the preliminary plat? Aanenson: They were given the original staff report with our recommendation of denial on the. Scott: But did the applicant come back to you offering to adjust lot sizes, re-situate the proposed park, provide any alternatives for access to the three lots that abut Lake Minnewashta Parkway? Have they responded in any way to those? Aanenson: The one issue that they did respond to, as you recall the issue on Kings Road...the only right-of-way we have through there...So they did establish where that line was...and from that line have gone, gotten 35 feet of right-of-way. So that's one issue that we...resolve. As far as the other issues... Scott: Okay. So we haven't gotten a response from the applicant, or are they basically of the opinion that this is the way it is? Aanenson: Yeah, except the location of the right-of-way... Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Mancino: ...1009 identical to the way it was presented last June. Have there been any changes whatsoever? I'm kind of reiterating I guess. Aanenson: Except for the Kings Road. Mancino: Except for that, okay. Ledvina: The lot sizes, street layout, everything is the same, right? Scott: Yeah, because Matt pointed out that the plans that we received in our packets are dated 6/7/93 so that probably would indicate. Any other questions or comments from the Planning Commissioners. Would the applicant or the representation choose to address the Planning Commission? Please state your name and your address. Paul Harstad: I'm Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. Our office address is 2191 Silver Lake Road in New Brighton. We are aware that we resubmitted the plat with very little, if any changes and frankly as a representative of the company I'm here to tell you that that was done intentionally. It was intentionally done because, as we understand it there are, of what we consider the two larger issues, namely the park and I suppose the right-of-way, but mostly the park. We were informed that the park, there were a number of different options and the purchaser-developer suggested this as one of the three options and got the ball rolling in terms of the design aspect of the project and then brought it to the city and was rejected on Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 that ground, among the others. In fact in the literature of the staff reports, I believe by the Park Commission, it says that final plat approval will be denied unless this change regarding the park takes place. If that's to be done, then we consider it a condemnation case and it is no longer in my hands, or frankly my company's hands. It will be in the lawyer's hands. So that's our intent and that's the reason behind it. I'm sorry that the people that were notified for the public hearing have to waste their time going through this again. It's not our intention to inconvenience people. Farmakes: Are you stating that your sole intent on bringing this back again, it's your belief that the only stated objection to this plan was the park issue? Paul Harstad: I'm aware that there are a number of different issues with the lot layout and that sort of thing that frankly are somewhat common in developing these things. I'm sure the Planning Commission is aware that these things happen frequently. But we made a decision not to even go ahead with making any changes until we resolve the larger one, namely the park. There was no sense in our wasting the engineer's time, or really even the staff's time in re-reviewing the plat. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and could I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If there's anyone here, if they'd like to speak in favor of or against this particular preliminary plat...state your name and your address and if you happen to have any exhibits that you'd like to bring, we have a couple of cameras. We'll try to help you position your exhibits so they can be shown for the record. So, if anybody would like to speak, please come forward. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments? Matt. Ledvina: Well, this is the same plan so I share the opinions that the staff has regarding many of the deficiencies. I don't know that it's appropriate for me to comment on the park issue. I don't have a good feeling for all the information and the philosophy of the requirement for that and we defer generally to the Park Commission on those items so I guess beyond that I don't have anything else to say. Scott: So you would support the staff recommendation for denial? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendation of denial. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: Ditto. I also support the staff recommendation for denial. Scott: Okay. I also support the staff recommendation for denial. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission deny the request for the Harstad Companies Subdivision #93-11 based on the following findings, which is 1 with a, b, c, d, e, f, which are all the staff's recommendations. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to 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 onto 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. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 f. Section 18-79. Parkland Dedication. The applicant has ignored the city's Park and Recreation Commission recommendation for parkland dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Could you please tell us when this will be at the next? Aanenson: February 28th. Scott: February 28th? Good. PUBLIC HEARING: ANDREW HISCOX TO REPLAT PART OF LOTS 14, 15 AND ALL OF LOT 161 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. Public Present: Name Address _ Andrew & Catherine Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Earl & Betty McAllister 7510 Erie Avenue Anthony Doppler 7508 Erie Avenue Larry J. Anderson 400 Cimarron Circle Tom Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: And could you please explain what a torrens proceeding is for those of us who may not know what that is. Generous: It's a legal way for a property owner to clear up the legal description of their property basically. It says that on anything up to this point has been certified and we're registering this and this is our property boundaries. Scott: Okay. Just a show of hands. How many people are here regarding this issue who have concerns about where the actual property line might be? Okay. Should we approve this particular issue, one of the conditions is going to be that no construction or anything is going to happen until the actual legal description. So what's going to happen is that, as a condition, Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 if for some reason the issue of property boundaries is not resolved, the development will not be able to go forward. Okay. I still see some kind of quizzical looks. Why don't you take a swag at that. Generous: They will not receive any final approval until the legal question about the property lines has been resolved. And so they couldn't build another home there. They couldn't move forward with the subdivision until that issue has been resolved. And it's supposedly, I believe the applicant said, has stated that they believe that their case is later this month but I'll have them... Scott: Okay. Any commissioners have questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? Andrew Hiscox: My name is Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. The last time I was here on this issue was I think in 1987 when we started this process. And at that time the city asked us to go start a registration on the property to clean up a bunch of title issues. We've successfully done that over the last few years and feel that we're in pretty good shape here. The only issue that really is outstanding at this point that we don't have agreement in principle on, or in fact by talking is the association. Frontier Trail Association which adjoins our property. There is a dispute. It showed the drawing in the original...If you look at that upper, the north corner of the property where the straights line across. We are registering property to the straight line which, if you look at that, there's a gravel path or boat launch that goes across the property. If you look at the requirements of subdivision for lakeshore property, we meet all those requirements without that piece of property so we feel like we're moving forward with something that, that that really should be a non-issue because we're not asking you to consider that. We're asking you to consider, what we show there, which gives the minimum requirements and exceeds them and I guess our opinion anyway is that we should be allowed this. That's all I've got to say. Scott: Is there a possibility, depending upon how the lot lines get officially mapped. Is there a possibility that the people from the Frontier Association are going to be denied access to the lake? What's the, you know from your point of view, what is the issue as you see it with regard to the homeowners association? Andrew Hiscox: The issue was in '86. The then Carver County Surveyor, Ted Cavanaugh from Schoell and Madsen, told us we could go ahead with this. He was okay with it and approved it subject to easements for the actual boat launch. We proceeded with notification of...and the Frontier Trail Association answered and we hadn't negotiated the easement on it. That was really the issue. But the easement really, and the issue seems to be anyway, from what we can tell, the boat launch and where their dock is and that sort of thing. Last year the Frontier Trail Association approval hearing, when the city went through and reviewed all the associations around Chanhassen, this one came up. It does not have enough lakeshore to Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 meet the minimum requirements but it was approved because it's a nice association. It works well. In fact we are members of the association. So we're kind of in an interesting position where we're kind of fighting ourselves. We have 1/20th, I don't know whatever it is now. Maybe 1/22 interest in the association, yet we're kind of at odds with them over this issue. So we're just trying to get it resolved. We've talked to the association. We've made some offers. We're kind of in negotiation right now on how that gets closed but at this point we're not asking to consider that. If you look at what we're going to register and what's shown here, again it should be a non-issue. The boat launch and the dock are on their property. We're not questioning that... Scott: Okay. Bob, could you sketch that in a little bit better to maybe help orient us as to what's going on. Generous: Well the dock area is somewhat over here and this is that gravel road, the boat launch that they're talking about. He's showing the line for his subdivision actually south of where that boat launch area is. I believe the contention is in this area in here. How much the association believes should be provided them. Mancino: Go over and above the 12 foot drive area. They think it should come south even more? Generous: They think they should have more land to the south. Scott: And the easement sir that you're talking about is the ability for you to leave, or residents to leave the subdivision and have an easement to the launch that is part of the homeowners association? Andrew Hiscox: No. The reason the easement was proposed was for the boat launch to go through our property. We are fee title owners of the property per many surveys showing that we do own the corner. The City has agreed with us, at least at some time. Yes, it looks like you're the owner. Yes, the association does have a boat dock on your property. When we went to register the property, they answered. Therefore, I mean we're trying to avoid going to court on this. We tried to work it out with the association and quite frankly since last summer, haven't gotten a lot of feedback from them. So we've decided to move forward. We were able to acquire enough property to meet the minimum requirements and thought that this would be kind of a moot point. The association, as I understand it, is trying to be in the process of going out and getting their own survey done. There have been at least 4 different surveys of this property done over the years and consistently they show that this is where the lot line's running. Rather than fight and go to court and then spend a lot of money, both my own and part of my own for the association, we thought this would be a good compromise. It should resolve the issue. We're not asking that you consider that piece of the property. That is where, I think, the controversy would be. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: So then, following the good neighbor doctrine. If the torrens proceedings show that you in fact own the property across which the association has access to the lake, then you would be in a situation of negotiating an easement for them. Andrew Hiscox: We've already offered that. Aanenson: ...when we were talking about the beachlot. He was willing to agree to that... Scott: Okay, good. Okay. Any other questions? Farmakes: I have one question. On the narrowest part of the property, when you're talking about access paths down to the lake. The narrowest part is 7,500. I believe it's the property then on the left as I look at it. What is the width on that narrowest part? What are you talking about, 30 feet? Generous: I think it's 63 feet, wasn't it? Andrew Hiscox: I have a number on this. It's to scale. I think we could guesstimate it pretty easily. Farmakes: Is there currently access there? How do you access that property? Andrew Hiscox: How do I get from the house down to the lake? Farmakes: Yeah. Andrew Hiscox: There's a path. Farmakes: Is it an unimproved path? Or is it just kind of a deer trail down through the woods? Andrew Hiscox: Yeah. It's a rather steep hill. Mancino: It's a very steep hill. Andrew Hiscox: We also have access via the road. Because we are members of the Association, there is an entrance to the association off of Frontier Trail and for the most part, we typically go down there. Farmakes: Do you envision expanding that trail or no? Not necessarily. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Andrew Hiscox: One thing I should mention. We show on here, kind of by mistake, that there is an easement up on the top of...and down that path and that, at one point we had offered a couple of the neighbors the use of that easement to get down to the association in exchange for vacation of another easement they own. ...made a financial settlement instead so that really probably should be erased from there. In fact that will be taken off the final plat. Mancino: And where are you talking about the walkway easement? Andrew Hiscox: Yes. Mancino: The 10 foot that goes through Block 1? Andrew Hiscox: Correct. Mancino: So that's not going to be built? Andrew Hiscox: No. Mancino: And you're not going to give them the easement, okay. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Andrew Hiscox: No. I just want to encourage the, you folks to approve this and sort of get going with it. We've been working on this for about 7 years now. And the last time we did this, I think one of the statements in the findings was that the city welcomed this...we're adding lots to the value here. We're giving you another property that you can collect taxes from and... Scott: Okay. Thank you for your comments. If anybody would like to talk to the Planning Commission, please step forward. Give us your name, your address and let us know what's on your mind...welcome to speak. Larry Anderson: I'm Larry Anderson...ex-President of Frontier Trail Association and just wanted to clarify on the map, if you could throw it back up for one second. Basically what the dispute is, as far as with the association. I've got a couple of copies to share. Basically the original plot that we had showed the line at 156 feet. When Mr. Hiscox laid it out the first time, in I believe 1987, was the first plot you had done. He adjusted that line to 158 feet and if you look at the current plot that he's got now in front of you, he's adjusted that line to 169 feet. Continually moving over. Whatever he's needed to get required frontage. That's the dispute. I only wish to call it to your attention and I believe with the attorneys and others, that's what's going to have to be resolved in the torrens proceedings. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? I'll let the record show that no one else would like to address the Planning Commission. May I have a motion please? To close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Bob, I have a question for you. I wanted to get your opinion on something. In the staff report on page 3, you made a suggestion that our preservation easement would be a benefit on this parcel. And I think it's on that back half that's so steep for erosion purposes, etc. And in your final recommendations you didn't include that so I wondered why. Generous: There were two reasons. We did have a discussion on that. If we made it a conservation easement, they would not be able to do any clearing for view or anything to gain access from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill. So instead we took the shoreland - regulations put strict requirements on what vegetation can be...We're also, as one of the recommendations say that before they come in for any permitting to gain access to the lake, they actually develop a tree removal plan and we think that will preserve the majority of those trees...access to the lake from their property. Mancino: So they could put a walkway system down to the lake. Aanenson: There's also view corridors. Mancino: The views, okay. But you'll keep a watchful eye with the erosion. Other than that, I'm just fine with the subdivision. I went to the property and it looks like a gorgeous place to have a home. Scott: Good. Jeff. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this issue. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Just following up on Nancy's comment. The shoreland ordinance. Now that's not passed yet, is that correct? That's in the works? Okay. Aanenson: We adopted the DNR standards though. Ledvina: Okay, you have? Alright. Mancino: Which were stricter. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. We're in the processing of modifying the new city ordinance... Ledvina: Okay. So there is an ordinance in effect at this point. And what is the setback requirement as it relates to vegetation? In terms of pruning and things like that and limited. Generous: Well it's half of the setback of the building which is 75 feet is the setback. Shoreland setback... After that they can't do any. Ledvina: Okay, so whatever. It looks to be about, roughly 300 feet so there'd be 150 feet then right? Aanenson: No, it's the building setback which is 75 feet from the high water mark. Generous: The conditions that we're putting on the subdivision require them to have a larger setback than the building. They have to actually stay above the 958 contour. And then if they did anything below that, they'd have to come in for... Ledvina: Okay. So in that instance we're really concerned about, well first of all from the ordinary high water mark, we don't even make the hill. So we're really relying on our tree removal plan in terms of getting to make sure we're preserving the vegetation there that we think is important or significant. Okay. Well that's fine. I just was wondering about that. Other than that I would support the staff recommendations. Scott: Okay. And I support the staff recommendations as well. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat Case #87-31 SUB for 2.88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of road easement to create three single family lots subject to the recommendations in the staff report. Recommendations 1 thru 10 with the addition of an 11th condition which states as follows: The torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat #87-31 SUB for 2.88 acres of land and the vacation of 33 feet of !� road easement to create three single family lots subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 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 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 (1/3) of such fees shall be payable at the time of building permit application at the rate in force at the time, less any fees paid at the time of platting. 11. Torrens proceedings must be completed prior to final plat approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF CHANHASSEN IS PROPOSING TO MITIGATE A WETLAND FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF YUMA DRIVE AND PREAKNESS LANE. Public Present: Name Address Steve Syverson 760 Preakness Lane Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: From reading the staff report here I know there's a number of people who have got property there and there's a nice view. At least in my mind it doesn't feel, it doesn't trigger me that after one growing season that anybody's going to be able to tell really that you've done that work, except one of the area's going to be open. It's going to be a lot deeper. So the visual impact of that particular wetland is not going to be significant. Hempel: That's correct. It's our intent to go out and actually stake it in the field to minimize any kind of tree loss. Vegetation in that area, there is a variety of underbrush. There are some willow, there are some older trees. There are no significant trees which you're removing from the project. It is our intent to, these ponding areas that we're going to be creating are to NURP standards where you can have a...create a habitat of vegetation or the wetland characteristics. That will be a 3 or 4 to 1 slope so approximate depth of 5 to 6 feet in the middle. You're correct. One growing season of vegetation it should re-establish itself and create more open water into two areas. Provide more... Mancino: I have a question Dave. This is going to filter and clean the storm water runoff so that in so many years, in 10 years do you have to go back in and do the same thing? Excavate and is this an ongoing process that is going to take place as it fills back up? Hempel: That's partially correct. That's our purpose here is to create three water bodies. The major collecting area will be a sediment pond proposed just east, or excuse me, just west of Carver Beach. Collect the bulk of the storm water off of it right now just drains directly into the wetland area instead of...It's our intent to create that holding area just on the edge of the wetland to collect these sediments so that is the area that we constantly have cleaned so — we don't have to go back into these other larger open areas to maintain and clean out them. Trying to collect the...before it gets further down in the downstream. Mancino: Do I want any of this excavation on my garden? I can see that it's going to Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 wear... Scott: Al Klingelhutz' property. Yeah, 86th Street. Hempel: Actually I have a couple of sites proposed. That would be one that would be proposed. Also...home being built and there's a back yard that's going to need a lot of fill type of materials... Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing. If any members of the public, if you two would like to address the Planning Commission, please do and just let us know who you are and where you live and you can say whatever's on your mind. Steve Syverson: I'm Steve Syverson. I live 760 Preakness Lane. I've just got a question as far as if there's going to be any standing water that you anticipate in these ponds or if they're going to be kind of what's there now. Kind of a wetting, kind of weeping... Hempel: There will be movement through the ponding area as the rain and precipitation occurs. These will be essentially the holding ponds and water will be filtering or migrating through the soils as well as the vegetation downstream. Steve Syverson: So there will always be water in them or will they be basically weeping on down? Hempel: We envision that they'll be containing water 99% of the time. Steve Syverson: My concern was like during the winter when we've got a drop in water and the ice is up. Kids fall down there and we've got about 45-50 in the neighborhood and they all like to come down there and play. I just didn't want to make any hazards out of them so that was my concern. Hempel: That's a good point. Our thoughts were...continual migration of ground water through there that the ponding area should maintain that level through there. Scott: Also that, it's usually a 10:1 slope so it's from the edge of the pond. It's got a fairly gradual slope and then it goes to 3:1 or 4:1, depending upon what you need to accomplish. Steve Syverson: Right, but at times we're going to be up to like 5 feet. Hempel: In the middle. There's also a...control structure on...areas that provide us some latitude to adjust the water level. If necessary if we needed to clean the pond... Steve Syverson: Would that be a fixed place or would that be something that you'd either Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 adjust... Hempel: I've got a diagram of it here actually. It's the storm sewer manhole, it's a board that controls the height... Mancino: Do we put signs up you know in the winter to say be careful for water? Hempel: Essentially there's like a wire type structure in the middle of the manhole that controls the water. The water comes in one end and has to come up over the boards to go over so this controls the elevation of the water in the pond. So if you take the boards out, the water level also goes down. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations. I have no comments. Ledvina: Do we have an estimate of the cost of this project Dave? Hempel: My understanding, the entire projected cost for this is around $80,000.00. ...as we go out to stake and field these sites, these ponds and excavation may be less. Ledvina: Will this be a big project? Hempel: This project is, in an effort to preserve our funds in the SWAMP budget, the public works department will proceed to rent equipment to dredge out the material with the labor and manpower to do the work. Ledvina: Okay, and are there other funding sources? This is an environmental improvement project essentially and as I'm aware, if we have the lottery and there are, or I should say the purpose of the funds generated from the lottery is to be for these types of environmental improvement projects. Have we looked at that at all? Hempel: To be honest, no. I haven't...potential of. That's a very good question. I will pass it onto Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator to research... Ledvina: Are those funds distributed through DNR then or how, I don't know. I guess I'm ignorant about that. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Hempel: To be honest, I'm not that knowledgeable. Ledvina; Okay. Well, just whatever. This is pretty innovative in terms of city's going ahead and doing these types of projects and it is a public works project and I believe those funds are for this type of activity so maybe there's a potential there. That's it. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Just one quick question Dave. Do we ever put signs out that say, designs for ponds in the winter to make sure that the ice is? Hempel: I can't think of any in the city that we have any...Surely that's something that we could do. We're in the process of requiring some of the developments of these wetlands. Buffer strip edges. We're going to be putting up monumentation to every other property lines essentially to denote the edge of the buffer. Mancino: That might be something for us to think about. Hempel: It could be. Mancino: Because it could be such a natural wildlife area in there too. Ledvina: What, you're talking about the ice in terms of safety? I guess we have ice everywhere. I mean we have lakes and all this and we don't put signs every 50 feet all along the edge of the lakeshore. I think that certainly there's hazards there but there's also. Mancino: I think sometimes when there hasn't been any ice there before and there's just been ground water. There hasn't been a pond. I'm just wondering if that would necessitate putting it there maybe for the first year or something so the people know. It's different than it was. Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and if there was a specific hazard associated with the ice with the change in water level or something like that, that would. You know not your normal ice hazards. Thin ice hazards or whatever, then I would say yeah. We should take some special consideration but if, you know I think it's, as Dave has laid out the design for us, I think it's a pretty safe design as it relates to the shallow slope along the edges and that type of layout so I understand the concern but personally I don't see the need for it. Hempel: I also believe that after the first year this area is going to be pretty well grown in again and if you've been in the area, it's not very conducive to walking. It's very heavily underbrushed and so forth. It's difficult to get. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please. Mancino: Let's see. I move that the Planning Commission approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #94-1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993 with the following conditions. 1, 2 and 3 attached. Scott: Is there a second? Ledvina: I second it. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94-1 as shown on the plans dated December 28, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. A grading and land alteration permit be obtained from the Watershed District. 2. A permit be obtained from the Corps according to the federal rules listed above. 3. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval. All voted in favor, except Joe Scott abstained. After the following discussion, Joe Scott changed his vote to in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: This is going to the City Council? Ledvina: Who abstained? Scott: I did. It's adjacent to my neighborhood so I'm not voting. Hempel: February 28th. Scott: Old Business? New Business? Aanenson: Would you like me to just walk through the Director's Report? Scott: Sure. We have a few minutes. Ledvina: I just had a question. If you abstain from voting, do we have a quorum? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: I was going to raise that same issue. Scott: Well, we have a neighbor from the residence. A neighbor. Are you from? Audience: No. Scott: Okay. Well, probably the authority would be Mr. Syverson and if you have a, we won't be able to get this through our proceeding unless I vote and I abstained because I live in the neighborhood. Would you have a problem if I voted on this issue? Steve Syverson: No. Scott: Okay. Let the record show that the resident of that neighborhood does not object to my voting so I will change my vote from abstain to aye, which would mean that it passes unanimously. Thank you sir. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Aanenson: Okay. Just go through the Council issues...administrative packet. The Council recommended denial of the Papke variance. Scott: We didn't see it. Aanenson: That was a Board of Adjustments. The issue there was whether or not...sewer extended. That's the island across from the Arboretum. Council felt that it would be best to have sanitary sewer and thus denied the request. Council authorized staff to submit the RALF loan application...Frank Fox property...Powers Blvd. Council reviewed the elementary school site. That same night they were also, HGA was also giving a presentation to the School District so unfortunately the graphs or renderings for the meeting were at the school site so the Council tabled it and they will be on their work study session, which Paul has on here is the 31st but it's actually February 7th. Next Monday they will be there. Council actually went through the analysis of the project but they didn't have the site plans so... Matt, this goes to the question you were talking about. The conservation money that's available through the lottery. A grant application has been submitted. Paul has put a copy of that in your packet here. It's $777,000.00 and that's for the Bluff Creek corridor study, and that's where Paul is tonight. He's meeting with the Watershed. There's a copy of that. Whether that...over that Riley-Purgatory Watershed District with the acquisition property...they've already purchased. They would also want...at that time a trailhead access as really an important piece and we want to do a joint venture and make sure that we can... Ledvina: Now who are the applications made to? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: It's in conjunction with the DNR. Ledvina: So the DNR... Aanenson: We asked for specific acquisition and we identified the Bluff Creek Corridor... and Diane and Paul put this together so you can see the... Mancino: Education? Aanenson: Yeah. The natural flora fauna out there. Education. The fact that it's a real...and it's got some unique vegetation. Ledvina: When is the next meeting on the Bluff Creek corridor task force? Do you know? Aanenson: This group? Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: I'm not sure, it's kind of ad hoc. People that are putting it together. I think if we get some funding, there will certainly be some, are you talking about the city? Ledvina: Yeah. The city task force. Mancino: Because we went to one. Ledvina: Yeah. Aanenson: That was kind of ad hoc to put something together. I'm not sure. This goes back and if we establish an environmental commission, I think it may come out of that. Or if in conjunction with recreation...engineering, so I'm not sure that that's going to be constantly ongoing or how Paul sees that as coming together. Mancino: I got the impression it was going to be. Ledvina: Long term. Mancino: It's a long term project obviously but it's going to be a Bluff Creek task force to work just on that. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: At one time. I mean that was about a month ago. Maybe it's changed. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Ledvina: I was just wondering what's the status there. Aanenson: It's kind of a kick off too to get this going. To get the grant application going so. Ledvina: Okay. That's fine. I'm interested in knowing more and keeping up with that so I can attend meetings. Aanenson: Okay. I mentioned number 5, the purchase of that property. And then number 6. After our grueling last Planning Commission meeting. The Highway 5 plans are going to the City Council also on that work study session. So they'll start that document and they have not yet set a date for their reviewing at a formal City Council meeting but it's... Mancino: Kate, would they want people that were in on the task force from the Planning Commission there or is it much easier just? Aanenson: This one was not noticed out as far as, you know they're trying to keep it just a 2 hour and they've got several things on that night. There were City Council people there that night too. You may just want to call the Mayor and see what he says. That's all I have as far as administrative. - Ledvina: Is there, as it related to the review of the new elementary school, was there any discussion about or regarding our discussion of the Planning Commission? I mean there were a lot of things that they looked at in terms of the site plan and I'm just wondering why they got so deep into it. Aanenson: Yes. Paul, did tell them as far as the presentations needed to be modified to go to the Council because there was obviously, they didn't a good job of communicating what the issues were. And something I can understanding with landscaping but also... Mancino: Landscaping and the parking lot. Scott: Parking for the public recreational facilities. Aanenson: Right. And Paul has been working with them and that has been resolved so I think it's a clear understanding. It will be...school district's obligations and what's the City's going to...My understanding is that has been resolved. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Any ongoing items? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: This is a list of ongoing issues? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: When are we going to be seeing the sign ordinance? Aanenson: That's on for the first meeting in March. And so is temporary sales and we've got a couple of the ordinances, make some changes to the wetland ordinance that need to be corrected and also there's...that you wanted to see on large scale projects. We're trying to find that working with the attorneys office, whether we want to use computer...or some videos and also with that...recommendations. So you'll see those four and at least the two. The temporary sales and the sign...The other two shortly thereafter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Scott: Alright. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes of our January 19th meeting. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. Scott: Open discussion on structured care facilities. Aanenson: Given the...to look at this issue almost two years ago. State law requires group homes of less than 6...We looked at possibly expanding that and developing a definition of what we call a residential care facility, vis a vis maybe foster homes for charity, women shelters, residential programs. We didn't want to look at juvenile, criminal type things but maybe expanding that where...so we proposed an amendment to the ordinance that would allow these in the single family district. We have...and the Planning Commission was reluctant to adopt it as...We're now required by State law to do that. Well since that time, most recently I've given you a letter from the Church...There's a group called Westonka Intervention that's looking at a site over, a women's shelter. Right now they're operating out of an individual's home and this serves, it's my understanding that the Chaska, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Chanhassen area and they're looking for a location. It just so happens they found a building, a church in Mound, a Catholic Church has a building that they can relocate on this site. The site we're talking about here is Holy Cross Church, which is just south of Highway 7. Scott: So you'd physically move a structure. Aanenson: It's like the convent. The old convent. They actually take that building off of Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 that property and move it onto this site. It provides a women's shelter. Scott: What is that site zoned, RSF? Aanenson: Residential Single Family. So right now there's no mechanism to allow that to happen. It's not a permitted use. It's a residential care facility which is not a permitted use or a conditional use in our city's ordinances. Scott: How many residents? Aanenson: Well I didn't ask that question...What we looked at before was allowing up to 6. Scott: But that's the State mandate. Aanenson: No, no, no. Scott: In RSF. Aanenson: Group homes. A residential care facility is a womens shelter which doesn't fall under...group home. Scott: Yeah, it's extremely important because when someone, and I was very happy to see something in here that said that if a Judge says you have to be there, we don't want any of those. And I think it's extremely important that as this moves forward, that we do not use the term group home at all and only use licensed residential care facility and I thought that that's an excellent description. I think it's extremely important. Maybe what you could do is take the last sentence. This definition does not include any person recommended by Court order or otherwise to such facility. That sentence needs to be the first sentence in that thing. And I think, I mean I appreciate the fact that we're being proactive on this but I think resident's reactions to group homes, and even though we do have a group home in the city, most people don't know about it. But I think that's real important. Aanenson: Well the reason for bringing that to you tonight is one, get your feedback is one. Do you want to consider amending the zone to allow this type of thing because it's not in place right now. Two, I know you're concerned about amending an ordinance based on one specific application and we put together that criteria here on as far as phasing...and I'm not even sure it meets those criteria. I haven't sat down and put those together. Put the measure to it. But what we're saying is, is this something you want to think about and he wants to know if there's a window of opportunity here or not so what I'm asking is some sort of direction. Scott: Comments. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: I have some questions at first. This is a big thing. Aanenson: It is. Mancino: I believe philosophically we are our's brothers keeper and that there are a lot of - people out there that need help. And it shouldn't be all done in the city, so yes. I would like to support some sort of a care facility. What I need though is a better or clearer definition of what a supportive living center is. What a residential program is. What a womens shelter is. Does that include children. What are schools for handicapped children? I mean we're talking about such big terms to me and I don't know what all that means. Farmakes: The ordinance and, from even coming up at the State level. I was here also, as my memory serves a couple years ago we dealt with this. A lot of the discussions are really frocked with spin doctor words on what these are and often they use different terms to refer to the same type of thing to make it more palatable. The issue of the intent that we discussed from the mandate from the State was, as you said, the community has an obligation to take care of it's own rather than send it to another community or concentrate it in another community. An allegation, the example that was used was the area of Chicago just south of Hennepin County Medical where there's a large congregation of group homes and halfway houses. We're talking about roughly a 6 block area. Ignoring the fact however that these are adjacent to the clinics and Hennepin County services that serves these areas. They happen to be geographically located there because of the county facility is located there. But using that as an idea, when they produced this law, what concerned me about it at the time was the State, and even from the Federal government on down has essentially turned it's back on some significant portions of our population. The issue of mental health first. In the interest _ of economy, they have de-institutionalized many of the health facilities that we have. And my concern about this issue that we look at here is, is it in the interest of the State to turn it's back to the community as they have so often when they come up short on the economy front. And they turn the problems back to the community and that was my worry here that that really was what was happening and that was not listed out in the intent statement. There are obviously issues of handicapped and group shelters and stuff like that that go beyond that. But what I was concerned about is the institutional cost of some members of our community, and I'm referring to the State in general, of sort of throwing these people to the wind and letting them go because it happens to be cost them 3 times less to stick them in a single family community. That a single family community has the ability to deal with that. I'm not sure that in some cases that we do. It concerned me that again, it was dictated down without the time or care to consider do we have the ability, in some cases, to deal with some of this. - And I'm talking about policing and enforcement. It's just putting people on board it seems to me in some cases would not be sufficient to guarantee safety. And in responding to the issues, well if they violate or they run from the program, well they're out of the program. That doesn't do it for me. There are issues of defining, I'm not sure this was ever answered for me. Mental health. It's a very broad term. I mean does that mean sexual offenders? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Does that mean people who are depressed? You know I'm not knowledgeable enough about the group home industry to really give an answer to that and I'm not sure in the discussion that we ever were able to get definitions for these issues and that really worries me because I see the State trying to divest itself, some of their responsibilities and when I see that coupled with for profit, that concerns me. Aanenson: I think you're right. I think that's why it just got left the way it was and there were too many unresolved issues. Mancino: Where do we go to get, I mean social services, where do we go to get definitions on you know, what these different groups are? What they're called so we could be, so that we can make the definitive list of what we feel comfortable with or at least recommend a list. Aanenson: My understanding these are State terminology. Mancino: But then they must have a definition of exactly what. Aanenson: Right and that's...talking of the earlier model ordinance. Where this came from and the City Attorney reviewed this when we looked at this before and what we tried to do is have some criteria you know for spacing. So you make sure that they're not in the middle of a residential. That they're near a collector...and the instance that we had on the...at the American Baptist over on Highway 5...talked about the Highway 5 corridor study is Rolling Acres has a couple of homes and...for mentally handicapped children. We had one that went in last summer that caused a lot of consternation for some of the neighbors... Mancino: If, I mean my other and my first issue is getting a clear definition of exactly what these area. My other one is that when I asked a few people, just friends what their and neighbors, what was their immediate response. The first one was obviously safety. The second one was property value. What does happen, perception is reality. Is the reality the perception that property values will go down if the group home comes in? And so, if it does, do we want to expand that to include other group homes than what is already legislated? I mean because we're opening the universe up, is what you're asking us correct? Aanenson: Yeah. We are expanding the defuiition. Mancino: And expand the definition or open up the universe. So what is it with, as I said, with property values and a neighborhood when a group home comes in when you have an established neighborhood? Aanenson: I guess that's... Scott: Could you, for next time. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: Isn't there anything quantifiable? Scott: I'm just thinking, could you run, I thought that the ordinance of the proposed guidelines that you had were pretty good. Could you run that against the property? I mean I just kind of skimmed through this letter. It didn't really give me a sense for what's going on. Aanenson: No. I didn't raise this because I did spend a lot of time. I had someone come in and say you know, can you just give me an answer. Can you run it past the powers that be and so it's really here just to get some sounding from you. If you want something pursued. If you say I'm uncomfortable with this. I don't want, I really don't want you to spend any time...or if it's something you want us to investigate. Scott: Yeah, I'm just looking here. It says we have until the end of March this year to move the structure. I mean that's a fairly tight time line. And if we do nothing, they won't be able to site the. Aanenson: They'll have to find another location. Scott: Okay. I guess my, knowing how long it takes to do, to get through something like this. At least having a sense for it. We won't be able to resolve it or make any changes by that time frame so I guess, my recommendation would be, and please. If you don't agree, please speak up. Would be to get back to these people and just say that there really isn't any way that we're going to be able to meet their time frame by the end of March and that it would probably behoove them to look for another location because that's really not enough time for us to react to it. Even with, when you think about having it come back in a public hearing. Then going to the City Council. It's going to be past the end of March anyway. Mancino: But I am still interested. Scott: Well yeah. That's why we could use this as a test case to say, here's a real piece of property in a real situation. But I wouldn't want to have them spend any more time on it. Farmakes: There is a home I believe in Prior Lake, or Shakopee, that went through this I think a year ago. In a large residential area and they brought a group home. You may want to follow through with that and see how that was resolved. It was in the paper of an issue on the government level of public hearing but it was not, did not make the paper on how it was _ resolved so I didn't follow that through. But one of the things that I was able to garnish, in talking to some people that are in community health, the issue of institutional costs. It cost the State something like 80 some thousand dollars to institutionalize somebody. Mancino: One person? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: One individual. It costs them approximately $18 to do this in a group home facility so. Ledvina: Per year you're saying? Farmakes: Per year. So that's a generalization and they didn't define what that institutionalized cost was. Were they, what type of offender. Chemically dependent or group home type of situation. But my point to this is that we continue to get laws back from the State on this as they unload themselves with the cost of institution and typically what the State has done in the past, both in criminal justice and community services. They often have these mandates that follow down and it's usually in their financial interest and we pick up that burden. It continues to worry me that we get sort of the cart before the horse on these type of directives. And I'm not sure how we're ready to digest this. I know my questions weren't answered when we dealt with this 2 years ago. It certainly doesn't. Aanenson: No, I agree. There's a lot of issues. Ledvina: I think, I mean this is a real important ordinance and it's even more so for our community, as you mentioned with the type of individuals that live in our community. They're here for the single family residential life and they, many of them are not receptive to these types of things. But I guess what I would like to see done is say, now you mentioned the Minnetonka example and apparently the ordinance that we have in front of us represents a hybrid of that. I guess what I would like to see is more research done. Maybe even go back to the city of Minnetonka. Ask them where they have group homes that have been established under this ordinance. What actually are the case histories for those. For those sites and then I don't know if that will give you enough information. Maybe it really hasn't been tested there. Even almost to the point of going back to the Minutes and public hearings and things like that. Otherwise I'm sure you could do more research. I realize I'm just loading some stuff onto you in terms of your staff but. Aanenson: Actually we do have a lot of that stuff when we put the original, I didn't put the whole packet together for you. I just wanted to know if you wanted us to...as far as getting the location. But as far as a lot of data...we do have that and Roger wrote lengthy details on, Roger Knutson, the City Attorney, wrote a lengthy detailed analysis...so we can certainly provide you with that. Ledvina: So you've done some of that research? Aanenson: Yeah. Ledvina: Okay. But how about the case histories? Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Aanenson: No, that's something we could use more info on... Ledvina: And I'm only making this as a suggestion. I don't know if this is the appropriate way of going about it but it seems to me, to say how to you know just go back and look and see how things worked out. Farmakes: There was another intent issue. A directive from the State, as I understood it. The community has the obligation to take care of it's own community service type needs rather than burdening another community, defacto Minneapolis. I'm wondering also why the State then did not leave the window open, particularly in conjunction with for profit group facilities, to exclude residents from outside the community. In other words to, if you're going to allow a group home, to say well it's going to be for the residents of the community and not ship in people from elsewhere. It would seem to me that that would be in line with the intent of the State. The other thing that disturbed me, I believe the one in Shakopee was a Missouri based corporation and they were bringing in people from outside that community. Basically they were looking for a location. The other thing that worries me, we don't have this here but there are, I would think possibilities for this. Is that as we grow and perhaps maybe our medical facilities expand, that this type of thing may follow as a greater demand. Minneapolis and this area is known for it's medical care. And in the foreseeable future I'm — not sure what those needs are. I know that the congregation of the one south of Hennepin County is there because of it's location to medical facilities. And in many of these cases, both in the handicapped and chemically dependent, those are an issue. Ledvina: The thought of developing group homes for those within your community, I think that's a real good idea but I don't know how you can legislate that people not come in from other areas. Farmakes: I'm sure that that's why that was not part of the intent. However, on one hand it makes it palatable to sound good as a reason for the legislation. On the other hand, it leaves it open for profit. What you have here philosophically is a for profit enterprise coming into a single family zone. A business. And the owner does not necessarily have to be from the community and the patients don't necessarily have to be from the community. And I find that unpalatable. That it seems to me to go against the intent of the legislation. Ledvina: It's like taking a business and putting it into a RSF zone. _ Farmakes: And the cost is greatly reduced so there are factors there that are in place that could make it a growth industry. You have certainly other institution parts of the State, both the prison system and chemical dependency and mental health that could create certainly concerns to both residents and the city's ability to police them. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Mancino: Limit it to non-profit organizations. Aanenson: I was thinking the same thing. I can check with the City Attorney on that. Ledvina: That would be nice if you could do that. Scott: I think the two big things that I'm kind of getting out of here is, I think the people who move to this community probably are not so much so attracted to our community as leaving someplace else. And we all know why people like to come here and live here but I think the important points here are number one, having the not for profit. Number two, somebody who is sent to a facility by a Judge. We don't want that kind of stuff. And then number three, if there's some way where we're looking at, I don't know if you want to use regional, local. I don't know but the idea of like Minnetrista, Mound. I mean that I think is, fits the intent of people from the community area. I think if we had those three things. Farmakes: That would be legal I believe. Scott: Yeah, that's kind of what I'm thinking. And it could be, you know Roger I'm sure could work that out but are we at this point in time are we, have we discussed this to the point where we can give you some direction to get back to us? Mancino: I still want to see economic bottom lines to property owners in the area. Aanenson: I think Matt made a good point when he... Mancino: What about Chuck, bringing Chuck in and talking a little bit about his. He _ certainly has the experiential level. Farmakes: The difference with this however is that that is a sort of a farm house situation. Mancino: Yeah, it's perfect because it's isolated. Farmakes: The difference here, and I believe the one in Shakopee is a corporation came in. Selected a rather large house I believe because to get several, up to 6 people in you're going to need a fair amount of home. It excited the issues that you just talked about. The neighborhood and the issues of property value and so. But what I can't resolve here is if the State law has mandated this, and I am a corporation. I come in here and want to put in a group home. Even if it conflicts with existing ordinances prohibiting this, can't I take you to court? Aanenson: Well, we're saying the definition right now, if someone came in with 6 or fewer people such as Rolling Acres, they could go in a single family home and we have no jurisdiction. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: So if you've got 6 or fewer, you can come in and put up whatever you want? Aanenson: Well, you're looking at medium density for a group home in the zoning ordinance currently. Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, has the City, must the City follow State legislation at this point? So what I'm saying is that, even if our ordinances have not caught up to that. Aanenson: They have. Farmakes: They have caught up to that? Aanenson: Oh yeah, we have. Farmakes: So there's nothing currently to even stop a group home from coming in. Aanenson: Oh yeah, that's what I said. We've got them in the city right now. Mancino: But right now it has to be a home for retarded, mentally ill, physically _ handicapped or chemically dependent person. It cannot be a home for battered women. Right now as it stands by State mandate. Farmakes: And see, I don't understand what mentally ill is. Aanenson: ...6 page report and definition of family...we can certainly put that together for the next go around if you want to bring it back. But...group home that a State mandates that every city must adopt and what we're talking about is broadening that definition. Mancino: This is just thinking off the top of my head but I don't, you know I'd like to see about expanding the definition for 1 to 6. I have a little bit more of a problem going from the 7 to 16. Expanding that in multi-family areas and it's just that I think 16 people in a multi-family area is just huge. Aanenson: What you see on the map...is multi-family zone and maybe you have a separate — building where maybe there's apartments surrounding it anyways...individual apartments but they're supervised... Ledvina: It is a CUP. Aanenson: Yeah, it's a conditional use. Architecturally it's compatible with... Ledvina: There's just a higher degree of review and you're right though. You want to make Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 sure that that is just right. There's going to be a very limited spot for that type of situation. I agree. Aanenson: But we see it more as being...different component. Now maybe something like what Mr. Gorra was presenting on his property. That piece sitting right there... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I guess we'd like to see some more on that. Ledvina: Well I just want to say, I think that it would be a good idea to keep this thing moving. I support that and. Mancino: I do too. Ledvina: And it will help us in the long term. Scott: Right. Ledvina: And it will also enable us to look at these other types of facilities that do have a place in our community so. Scott: I have one last comment and if anybody else has got any other comments. I appreciated this last issue of the Planning Commissioner's journal with the Riggin's Rules and I would encourage our other commissioners to read this. Basically for the record what this is, is there's a listing of 39 suggested do's and don'ts for conduct of public meetings and it applies to members of the Boards, Commissions and other bodies and I wouldn't suggest that we adopt all of these because some of them are, don't really fit with what we're trying to accomplish but what I would encourage everybody to do is take a read through here and this would, if we can think a little bit about if we want to set a particular tone for this commission. I don't know. I personally think we're doing a fairly good job but there's some good points in here. I underlined about a half a dozen of them to pay closer attention to. So any other comments on anything before we adjourn? Mancino: Oh yes. I would still like a schedule of who's supposed to go to what Council meeting when. Because I think right now there isn't anybody, is anybody assigned to a Council meeting from the Planning Commission? Ledvina: I don't have any assigned. Farmakes: I went to mine. Mancino: But you don't have a schedule for this year. Planning Commission Meeting - February 2, 1994 Farmakes: I haven't gotten a schedule, that's correct. Scott: Also, do we know how our recommended applicants? Aanenson: ...the Council did on their January 31st work session interview all the Park and Rec, Planning Commission, and Senior Commission. Ledvina: All of them? Scott: Yeah. Aanenson: Although at the end of the work session they couldn't formally make a motion to put them on the appropriate boards. That will happen at their next meeting which is the 14th of February. So hopefully by the next meeting we'll have somebody. Scott: Okay. So we'll be meeting on the 17th? Aanenson: 16th. Scott: 16th? Okay. Well then so our new commissioner will be attending that meeting. If you could let us know who that might be and I'd like to at least contact them and just chat with them a little bit so they don't come in completely cold. Any other comments? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF Va� e,. -� '0411r1' CIIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: January 21, 1994 SUBJ: Bandimere Park Property At the request of the commission, an inquiry into the legality of potentially selling Bandimere Park was made with the City Attorney's office. It is the opinion of their office that such a sale would be perfectly legal. In discussing the issue of the language of the referendum question, "L<: d in southern Chanhassen," it was felt that it would be appropriate to replace the land being soc; with other property in the same vicinity. However,this is not absolutely essential. The sale of Bandimere Park and a subsequent repurchase of other parkland would be a complex process. Staff recognizes that if the margins are adequate, a sale could allow parkland in excess of the acreage of Bandimere to be acquired. I urge the commission to be comprehensive in your thoughts about this issue. It seems ironic that on many occasions we curse the shortcomings of others for not buying parkland inside the MUSA Line years ago when it was "inexpensive"; but we find ourselves tempted to barter with a piece of property which was purchased economically and has increased in value. Staff awaits your direction. pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krauss, Planning Director