The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 04 08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING .RIL 8, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Howard Noziska and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary plat Request to subdivide 105 acres into 37 Single Family Lots on property ~d R-1A, Agricultural Resldential;-DOn-and Dave HaTIa; Applicants. --- --- ---- Public Present: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Buresh Greg Graffunder Alan Teich Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. ~b Brunner: I'm the attorney for Don Halla, one of the applicants. We ~ink we've provided a plan here which complies with all of the subdivision requirements of the City. We have looked at the Staff Report and it appears to me that the major problem that we have with this and the major problem that the Staff has with our proposal here is the issue of the private drives versus turning the existing easement into a public street and connecting to another public street. We've chosen the private drive approach in order to avoid some possible litigation with the landowners to the south and east over that easement that is to provide the land for a dedicated street. I don't see in the Staff Report any specific reasons why private drives should be disapproved as far as this particular property is concerned. It appears that the arguments that are put forward about private drives, as I read over it, I think a private drive can exist anywhere in the city. I don't see any reason why this particular area would be particularly unsuitable to having private drives. The Ordinance allows three lots to access onto a private drive and that's the way we've designed it. We understand now that there is consideration of increasing that to five lots on a private drive. We have three on each private drive. We think that complies. As far as the access onto TH 101, there can be a frontage road put in to connect the private drive to the present access on TH 101. There is an access for Lots 15 and 16 of Block 2. That has been approved by the Department of Transportation. That access could also serve to be joined to the private drive put on Lot 17 through 20. Erhart: .' 18, Would you explain to us again what his private drive is for Lots 19 and 20? Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 2 e Bob Brunner: This area here. Erhart: So you're serving which lots? Bob Brunner: Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20. Erhart: That's four lots. Don Halla: Actually it's serving 18, 19 and 20. Lot 17 already has access off of TH 101. That is connected to the cul-de-sac and those four lots could go both directions. They could service all of those, 18, 19 and 20 from the cul-de-sac even if necessary. Dave Halla: The proposed private drive there, Staff's argument that that wouldn't be maintained is a moot point because Staff already requires in the planning that that be a blacktopped road so what's wrong with a blacktopped road in there. If they put a blacktop road in there that's going to serve those lots. That's not going to become a problem. Bob Brunner: I guess one of the other po i n ts tha t we rea lly d i f fer from the Staff Report is in relation to the park dedication being required to provide a 20 foot easement in addition to the park dedication fees. We think we ought to be credited with that easement for the dedication fee by some formula that you could work out. We think it's pretty burdensome to have to . both. A 20 foot easement along all of that roadway is a tremendous ~ount to dedicate. Robert Buresh: I'm in the process of purchasing 5 1/2 acres from Peter Link. The property that we're purchasing is 5 1/2 acres right in here. I'm going to be at the end of this private easement. We started out purchasing the property with the understanding that it was going to be a private drive going in there and we share some kind of maintenance upkeep cost with the neighbors and we would still be content with that. However, if a public street is anticipated at any time, I would just as soon, personally, see it go in now and have it out of the way so we would not duplicate some of our costs and it would just service my property that much easier and then I would proceed with dividing my 5 1/2 acres into two 2 1/2 acre pieces servicing both on a public street. Paul Graffunder: I own 5 acres directly here, southeast of TH 101 on the south side of the easement that is there now. My wife and I and I think I can speak for another property owner down the road, really don't have a problem with a public road going in there at this time. Jo Ann has made reference to an Agreement between Halla's and the other landowners on where the property would come from if the road was ever to be expanded. That Agreement Hallas neglected to file and was not public record when I purchased by property I believe so it really doesn't have much to do with myself. If the property is converted into a public street, I believe in giving 30 feet of my own land. As far as improvement costs, I don't know ~at would be fair to charge the southern landowners. We didn't ask for the ~provements. Hallas are the ones who are going to benefit from it. I'll Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 3 e give up my 30 feet for a public road but I don't believe it would be fair that we share the cost half and half or even more than half which I think is what the Hallas want to do. David Teich: I own the land south of that easement road now. The Halla proposal to dedicate that easement and an additional 30 feet to make it the 60 feet that the City requires. I'm in favor of the private drive if we see that it's alright. One thing Halla is considering is limiting use of the road as it stands as it is now. I don't really have a problem with that being proposed as a road and leave that 30 feet on the south side private. Erhart: Would you explain this whole thing to me? I've read it but I still don't completely understand it. Olsen: The Easement Agreement? Erhart: Yes, go through this street again here. The 30 feet and 60 feet. Halla is asking for 60 feet off of somebody elses property for a public street or a private drive at this time or what? Olsen: The Agreement says that whenever that would be improved, whatever land is necessary for that improvement will be given by Party A. Party A is David Teich's property. ~hart: 30 feet or 60 feet? Olsen: Whatever is necessary. It doesn't say. Erhart: What was the intention when this agreement was written? Was the intention that they provide all the land for the whole street? Dave, in your opinion, what was the intention of the Agreement when it was written? Dave Halla: I really don't know. I wasn't involved in the land at that time. It belonged to my father who the agreement was signed. It was an agreement signed for Halla's benefit in the event that we subdivide it, that they would have to provide the public road. There is no mention in the Agreement that if Al was to subdivide, which way the road was to go. Bob Brunner: That's not exactly right. I've got a copy of the Agreement. That Agreement provides that in the event a road is dedicated at that location that the additional property needed for that dedication would come from the land to the south. That is clearly what it says. Erhart: Why would you need an Agreement at all? Bob Brunner: That Agreement was made at the time so that an individual with a home on the corner of TH 101 that Graffunder's now own, it was made so that building permit could be issued for building that house. It was a signed agreement to allow Mr. Teich to subdivide his properties so Mr. ~aUlY could build there. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 4 e Erhart: I don't understand what that has to do with the Halla's? Dave Halla: Let me explain this thing a little bit here. I'll go back and give everybody a little bit of history on this thing so they can understand it from the beginning. Number one, when Roy Teich's son-in-law, Vernon Pauly wanted to get a building permit, he came to the City Council here. At that time Larson was the Attorney for the City. He made the determination that that road was Halla's exclusive easement. In order for Pauly to get egress and ingress onto TH 101, Halla's had to give him permission to use that easement. Teich's Attorney drew up this Agreement. By doing so and having us sign it, Vernon Pauly was able to get building permit and build his home. When that Agreement was written, there were certain things put in that Agreement that if future expansion was done down the road, that Halla's built the road and maintained the road, that additional property required to meet the city's requirements, would come out of the property to the south. This was all signed up front. I might be getting into a point of law but we're willing to litigate it. The decision has already been made by Judge Tom Snow that the Agreement is upheld. We were sued by Teich through Graffunder for parking cars along the easement so we abided by the Court's decision and did not park anymore vehicles along the easement. We have maintained that road all of the time. I built that road to get down to my house which is down at the very end of that road and I have maintained that raod practically all by myself all this time. During that time they have hauled one or two loads of gravel since 1972. Neither one of them want to ~are in the cost of maintaining that road. We feel that the easiest thing ~ get the thing resolved so there are no more arguments about it is to make it a public road. Then they don't have to worry about maintaining it. They already signed the Agreement. Mr. Graffunder's argument that he didn't see the Agreement is a moot point. It's just like I've got a lot for sale. If you don't check out my title, that's not my fault that your builder will not provide. The document was agreed. It was signed. It became a part of the building permit. Precedence had already been established. It has been ruled on. That maintenance agreement has been upheld. We haven't enforced it because we know about the personalities of the people involved in it and we would just as soon not get involved in another situation so we haven't push that maintenance agreement. However, if push comes to shove, we're willing to take it because it's already been agreed upon by the Judge. The thing is already there. It's just a matter if everyone is going to agree in an amicable matter or if we have to litigate the thing for an agreement that has already been signed and that the principals agree. That's the whole crux of the thing. Now everybody can say that they don't know about it and that it wasn't recorded. It doesn't have to recorded to be a legal document because it was signed and witnessed by the people. Olsen: If I could clarify one thing. In speaking with our Attorney, this is a long issue but as far as the City is concerned, it's a private issue between the parties and the City has to make the determination whether they want it as a public road. If the City wants a public road to go right . through the middle of Halla's property, they can make that decision. If ~ey want it to go where it's proposed, they can also make that decision. ~ether that Agreement is proper or not is between the private parties. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 5 e Don Halla: At this point in time, the way it sits with that private road, there are three accesses on it already. Halla Nursery has one. Graffunder has another and David Halla has one. So as it sits, that private road that's in existence will not allow for another building permit in there so that would prevent the other 5 1/2 acre tract from being used. Actually, if we wanted to go for a fourth one, Teich could access the property too. We really have four on there at this point. Mr. Teich has also subdivided, when I say Mr. Teich I mean Roy Teich, not Dave, did subdivide his property into two pieces already. He has a 5 1/2 acre tract that was discussed here already and also another tract on the other side. Dave Halla: I want to make one last comment about that road. That's already a 30 foot wide road along I would say one-third of the road and it's got a gravel base that I'm sure Dave Teich will back up and Graffunder also is aware of it, that that is an all weather road. I hauled somewhere around 285,000 tons of rock on there for Class V that's required for a base road so you've got one-third of that road already built 30 foot wide and I know that the City or the Planning Commission is not going to require a 60 foot wide road. It might require a 60 foot easement and the way to keep everybody from getting their knickers in a twist and the landowners to the south is to leave the road as it exists right now and they can give the extra 30 feet or whatever is required for the easement but the City doesn't need to make a 60 foot wide road in there. A 30 foot wide road is plenty adequate to drive two semitrucks back and forth by each other and still have room on the ~des. Mr. Graffunder's argument that it would corne to close to this house ""'-S rea 11 y no t, if the City uses som e comm on sense and says leave the th i ng where it is on the north side of the part right now and the part that has not been expanded, that's not going to bother anybody really because that's kind of in a field. Where Bob's piece is down on the south is kind in a low area and the road needs to be expanded a little wider to the south there anyway so that's not really going to hurt anything and in one way it would be a benefit down there. The road as it is built right now, you've got one- third of it already built there close to the City's specifications. Don Halla: The City has already set precedence. I'm doing exactly what is discussed right here, at the Golf Course just outside of our road. The road is actually sitting like this. The blacktopped area is sitting against our property line on the south. That blacktop was done by the City so whether it's one side or the other of an easement, in that case they decided to put it all on one side. Erhart: Which blacktop was that. Dave Halla: That's on the south end on Creekwood on the very south end of all the way down. Don Halla: They expanded completely on the north side of that easement. Dave Halla: There is a section line there where most roads are constructed ~alf-way on each side of the section line. This deal there was a horse trade 'lrone way back in a coon dog's age that 3 rods and 4 feet out of the west Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 6 e side of our property was given out of the property to the west to allow for that road on the south end there which was all on our property north of the sect i on line bu t the City dec ided ra ther than go to the expense to move the thing to the south, where it should be half-way on each side of the center line, they left the thing where it is and put the blacktop in there and that's the way it is. That's what we're talking about here is the same thing. That wouldn't get Mr. Graffunder's feathers stirred up because that would stay exactly where it is right now. Erhart: Maybe the reason is obvious but can I ask Don or Dave, the reason against providing 30 feet of your property for half the road? Don Halla: The reason for not putting it 30-30 will be two things. There would be a problem with the width of lots meeting your criteria. If you look at these square footages, this was computer designed frankly to make it meet the City's requirements as it is. You could in fact take the 30 feet out of the north end if the City would be amicable to having 2.4 acre lots along there and not have the length requirement that they have now because they wouldn't need it exactly according to specs. It wouldn't hurt because you can see how deep they are but you would end up with about 2.4 acres per lot. Maybe 2.46 even. It's very little. It would just be under that without giving up a whole 2 1/2 acres of land. Erhart: If you provide a 30 foot road easement on the north end versus .-roviding a 30 foot road easement on the south end, why doesn't that affect ~e lot size the same? Olsen: Not the property. Don Halla: They take the square footage out of the lots. Olsen: That 30 feet will be on their property. Erhart: You're talking about doing the same thing to theirs. Olsen: It will become public right-of-way down to the south. Erhart: And that's not added into the square footage. Olsen: You take that away from the lots. Erhart: Where, up here it wouldn't be? Olsen: Easements don't reduce the area. Dave Teich: I'm not sure why we're discussing this road anyway. The proposal is their own private drive. That road is not affecting all the lots private or otherwise. As the proposal stands, that provides Halla's access for all their own lots for their own benefit, the question of the ..oad is moot. David is talking about the Agreement was signed and has been ~held. That case dealt solely with the question of parking on that Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 7 e easement road. It had nothing to do with property agreement. It was a question of parking. Is there something that you want to talk about the road as being proposed. Conrad: We're talking about it because of whether it be a private or public road. Dave Teich: Are you entertaining the thought of having that road public? Conrad: We're going to have to make that decision tonight whether we believe it should be going that way or whether we believe it's adequate as a private road. Dave Teich: I guess I'm sonfused then because the original proposal as I saw it in here, it says it was a private drive. Conrad: believe believe for any But they don't meet our standards. We have to decide whether we it's good road design. If we believe it's good for the future. We it's good for future subdivisions. we believe it's going to be good kind of future access. Those are the things we have to decide. Dave Teich: Are you entertaining making that road public? Conrad: As .ave Teich: proposed? soon as we close the public hearing we'll probably... And you'll go ahead without it being proposed or is it really Don Halla: It's being proposed as a private road here right now with three accesses and nobody else could have access. Dave Teich: It's already a private road with three accesses. Don Halla: Right. Nobody else could build. This 5 acres to the south... Erhart: I think the answer, we can recommend that the developer go back and come in with a plat that shows is as a public road. If I can speak for you Ladd, I think that's what we can do and we may do that tonight. That's why the questions. Bob Brunner: I guess as long as that's an alternative that's being proposed here, I want to speak against it. What we have proposed is a series of private roads and there is an existing private road and I guess I don't understand how the private road system doesn't meet your specifications. Your Ordinance provides for three accesses onto a private drive. That will be provided here. The flavor of the testimony that's been offered here, if the recommendation is to make that southerly private drive into a public street, you're going to have some litigation here deciding who's going to be providing that lot area. Who is going to be compensating who? I guess ~hat's what we've been trying to avoid. We're trying to accommodate ~eryone here who's affected. If there are some specifications that you Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 8 e " . want to make to those prIvate drIves to make thE!m more appealIng to you, of specific objections that you have to those private drives that are being proposed. If there is some specific objection that you have to a private drive, we would like to know what it is. But to just say that because private drives are not acceptable, the Ordinance allows them. The Ordinance allows the private drives. Conrad: We'll get into any of our reasons. If we agree with your statements, the Planning Commission will tell you. Right now we're taking the input that you've got and we're going to kick that around ourselves and see overall if we like the design of what we're looking at. That's going to be a whole unit that we're looking at and we're trying to make decisions on good access and appropriate access off of TH 101. Are there any new comments? Noziska moved, Headla seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart: I guess what we're saying here is that this now proposed future road has nothing to do with the proposal on the table here. If we put in a private easement, how do Lots 5, 6 and 8 get access? Through that existing private road? That comes up through the top easement or the top cul-de-sac? Olsen: It has several private drives in there. I guess they could come aom CR 14 but the most logical one would be coming off the cul-de-sac or ~ivate easement from TH 101. Erhart: That already has more than three houses accessed and our Ordinance is limited to three correct? Olsen: Yes. \ Erhart: So we're really looking at the one from the cul-de-sac from CR 14. Explain to me this phasing thing. How does the City handle that? Is this something that's done typically? Olsen: Typically it's done through the Development Contract and they have to do certain improvements within one year. The first 10 lots on Block 1 and then when they are done with that they will do the other one. The purpose of the phasing is to keep it moving. Make sure that the public improvements are provided in a timely manner. Erhart: Is there a time limit on these phases? Olsen: We don't have a time limit, no. But again, typically, the first phase will take two years. That's usually what it will take and then they will meet to start the other one. It's never happened where it has been one phase and then nothing for several years. ..lrhart: What we're looking at here is a piece of property that we're ~tempting to handle it as a typical phase subdivision in the sewered area Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 9 e which typically occurs over a period of 3 to 4 years maybe. looking at doing this over 15 years. I guess we're Olsen: That was a number that was mentioned that the applicant provided. Erhart: It could be 50 years? Olsen: It could be. If they do not want to develop it. If they want to maintain the nursery for several years. Erhart: What happens in a normal subdivision when it is platted in phases like this and the Ordinance changes say after phase I? Does that affect phase 2 and phase 3? Olsen: If it's been finalized and recorded with the County, the Ordinance does not affect it. Erhart: So say phase 2, in this case, that's recorded with the County. They don't pay the lot taxes though until improvements are in so what you're saying is they can grandfather this thing indefinitely under the old Ordinance just by getting this plat? Olsen: If the City approves it. ehart: Olsen: What obligation do we have to approve the phasing plan? It's all set in the Development Contract. It's negotiable. Erhart: Can you say no? Olsen: If the City agrees that they can not sit on it for a couple years, we can put that in the Development Contract and give them a deadline. Again ,. the issue hasn't come up before. It's all negotiable. Erhart: I guess if we don't like the layout our best resort is to not be so agreeable on this phasing plan right? Olsen: With the proposal as it is now, with the private drives, there are several variances because they do not have the pUblic street frontage. If you don't like it and you're looking for a reason to deny it, you have a reason there. The Zoning Ordinance requires each street to have the required public street frontage and with the private drive, they are not providing that. Erhart: So again, just repeat the issue here as we're looking at it, a phase development over 15 years and in order to attempt to grandfather this thing in under the old Ordinance. Olsen: I don't know if that was the intention. erhart: The biggest thing that he's getting out of doing that is that he Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 10 ~ allowed to put 2 1/2 acre lots over this entire piece of land from now until who knows when which is diametrically opposed to the current Ordinance which requires one unit in 10. I personally don't have any problem with that since I argued against that particular rule. On the other hand, for anybody after January 15th in the rural area that comes in with a subdivision, he's going to be required 1 and 10 and the City went really out of it's way to allow people to come in in plenty of time with the old Ordinance. Therefore, it's my opinion and I think we ought to take every advantage to get this subdivision structured so it's agreeable to the City. To use this phasing method to make this thing come out right because we're going to be living with this subdivision and in the process it looks like it may go on, if the developer wishes, for a number of years. With that I'll get into the issues of the proposed subdivision itself. Number one, if we allow Don Halla to grandfather the 2 1/2 acre lots in there, I guess I can agree with that but I am definitely opposed to allowing him to put any private driveways directly on CR 14 or TH 101. Under our new Ordinance, in creating that Ordinance, we used all kinds of effort to try and prevent direct driveways or having private driveways onto the arterials. Before I would vote for this thing, I would like to see a street layout here where all the lots were served by interior streets for the subdivision. I personally don't think that's too much to ask because every subdivision that we've approved in the rural area that I can recall recently, they have had that. Are there any lots in the Gagne property that had direct access to TH 101 or CR 14? ~sen: The first plat that came through. Erhart: What was approved? Olsen: Is wasn't. Erhart: So there were no lots in the Gagne property with direct access on TH 101 and CR 14 and that's just north of this piece. Dave Halla: There is one on CR 14. Olsen: No, I think with the new plat that was changed. Erhart: Secondly, did the Gagne's get any credit for the park dedication fees resulting in the trail system that they provided which was along CR 14 and TH 101? Olsen: No. Erhart: So again, that's obviously an argument that you can make if you want but I think we've seen other developers come in and provide this 20 foot easement. Again, my opinion of 2 1/2 acre lots, a 20 foot easement along an arterial is not really taking land away from those lots. The other thing I would like to see us do is relieve the 100 foot setback on one side ~f the lot. Again, I personally think we voided it in the new Ordinance and Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 11 e I've seen it result in some really weird layouts of the way people put houses. Olsen: When they come in for a building permit they would be under the 10 and lrJ. Erhart: That would allow them a little bit more flexibility in laying out the septic system sites. In summary, I, personally think I would like to see a street system as recommended by the City Engineer. Regarding Phase 2, running through from CR 14 to TH lrJl and then perhaps with an interior cul- de-sac. That that street would serve all the lots in this subdivision on phase 2 including Lots 14, 15 and 16 and that be an improved street. As far as Block 1, I don't have any problem with that other than again, I do not believe we should allow a private access on Lot 3 as a temporary access. With that, that's enough. Emmings: What are the problems with private drives Jo Ann? Olsen: Number one, you're granting variances because they do not have street frontage. Emmings: Not even with regard to the Ordinance but just through practical experience. What kind of problems have you seen with private drives? ~sen: We've seen that after several years that the property owners usually ~ome to the City and they want the City to start maintaining it. Emmings: Some do and some don't. Olsen: And then they will also come and ask for their street to be improved to a public right-of-way. Then we have these little streets that are just out in the middle of nowhere and are not planned for future connections. It's not good planning. Emmings: There have been a lot of maintenance problems with those roads. In fact, that's been typical of those roads hasn't it? It appears to me with 17, is wrong but maybe it's irrelevant but with 18, 19 and 20 for sure, looking at where the house pad is located on the plat, it would appear to me that that was intended also to have it's access on the proposed future road as it appears on this plat. I also note on the Staff proposal there is a question about the sewer and water since they are going to have individual treatment systems. It said the consultant recommended two soil treatment areas of 60 feet by 80 feet and the Staff is recommending that a new plat be submitted designating two 60 by 80 foot treatment sites. There are two treatment sites on each lot? How big are they? Olsen: They came out to about 3,0rJrJ square feet. We just need the larger ones. That's what the consultant suggested that they show the typical size treatment areas just to make sure that there is adequate room. 4lammings: These are smaller? Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 12 e Olsen: These are very small. It's just a minor detail. Emmings: It may be minor but I think it ought to be done. I agree it's probably a small thing to do and I think they would have an opportunity to do that when they redo it for the roads. I also don't like the road system at all. I think it all ought to be served internally and I would agree with the comments that have already been stated. The other thing, I remember when we did the Gagne property to the north, there was a great todo about matching up the entrances across CR 14. In fact, we wound up going over a wetland, allowing Gagne to alter a wetland because it was so important to have those entrances across from one another. If you look down TH 101, they've got their's coming in allover the place and I think maybe when they redraw the roads... Olsen: We did go through MnDot with that and that's where MnDot preferred they to be rather than directly across. Don Halla: Line of sight is the right way for preventing accidents on TH 101. Olsen: Actually, they said the ideal, when I just talked with Evan Green, where Highway is and then there is a 933, they said ideally that would be, because that's right at the crest of the hill, that would be the ideal connection from Block 2. But the existing connection is okay. They did not 4Ifnt them to line up with each other. Emmings: That cul-de-sac that's down there that serves Lots 12, 13 and 17 and so forth, if TH 101 were realigned. Olsen: It would have to be extended. Emmings: But is there a big ravine there? Can you do that? Olsen: You can do it but it's difficult. Dave Halla: That road aint never going to be realigned in anybody's lifetime in this room. Emmings: I think what we're doing. You're trying to plat it for beyond our lifetimes so I think we have to look at those issues anyway. Dave Halla: If you know the history of that road, it was ox trail originally and the County gave it to the State and the State gave it back to the County and the State's got it back now and nobody does anything about it. Chances of ramming that down their throat and making them straighten it out, that aint going to happen. Emmings: I don't have any other comments. ......i.iegel: I agree with much of what has already been said. My only question .. do we have any idea about going that far south? Does the MnDot say Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 13 4Itything about realigning? Olsen: They said if you can plan for it, yes, they will do it. The fact is that MnDot really isn't putting much money into TH 101 at all. Siegel: But can we legally put a condition like we've got on that for that lot to be unbuildable? Olsen: Yes. Siegel: Because that is terrible and with private roads coming in along that section, I can imagine that would be a real death trap for egress and ingress. It is right now if there were that many property owners living on it. Conrad: You can put that restriction on but I guess you go back to say, technically you've got to tell the property owner that you can't take his property away unless you're really convinced that somebody's going to do something with this at some time so that would be your decision. If you think they will fill it up and straighten out the road, if you think that might happen. Siegel: Aren't we going to be moving further north on realignment of TH 101 and have a decision made on whether TH 101 is turned over to Hennepin 4Irunty, Carver County or the cities involved and wouldn't that effect... Conrad: Nobody wants that road. Siegel: We are getting to the point where development north towards TH 5 is going to be decided. It was decided for the length of TH 101 instead of just a portion thereof. We're not talking about 50 years in the future. We're talking about the next couple years. And the intersection of TH 212 is going to affect the need for straightening out and the realignment of TH 101 so we're not talking about 50 years from now as Mr. Halla referred to. It could be that we will be realigning or someone will be realigning TH 101 wi thin the next few years. It's not that we're going to upgrade it into a four lane highway but it might be straighten out to remove some of the ox cart wheel tracks. Noziska: At the risk of reiterating a lot of what's been said already, I agree with the Staff as far as the private drive versus the public street question. Without a doubt I think the lots needs to be realigned. I just think we got stuck with a horse. There's a lot more that needs to be done with this plan before it's going to go and I think that probably part of it is administration on Staff's part. I think the park dedication fee question is moot. I think the precedence is already set there. Of course, when this comes seriously before the group I think it's quite realistic to expect a phasing plan. Those are my comments. ....Iiieadla: I guess I don't understand why we all shouldn't pay an equal amount .or park fees. It's going to be a benefit to all of us. Why do we look at Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 14 e individual particular parties? If the property comes in front of my place, I'm supposed to give 30 feet and the person behind me doesn't. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree with TH 101 being straighten out in the near future. I think that's tremendous to leave that curve in there. It stops speeders. I wish I had a curve like that in front of my house. I do agree with Tim to the extent, I think there should be an internal road system. That it goes out on CR 14 or not, I don't care but I think all the lots should be serviced internally. Jo Ann, did you have any comments on anybody's statements during the public hearing? Olsen: Just about the private drives and where they felt it was meeting the Subdivision Ordinance. Headla: Can you explain why the Staff feels the cul-de-sacs should be tied together? Olsen: It just always provides a secondary access. A through street. Headla: Where the houses are located now on the print, are they tied to that location? Olsen: No. Headla: .sen: How about for the drainage fields? No. Headla: All we're saying is this is a possibility? Olsen: Right. Headla: Do you know why they used 3,000 feet rather than 4,800 feet in the soil treatment sites? Olsen: No. Don Halla: That was the original number we were given. We can go to the 4,800. All you have to do is draw a bigger square. Noziska: That's a moot point. Conrad: I don't really have anything to add. I think as you can hear the Planning Commission is more in favor of the Staff's position. In fact, probaby to a person and as I look at it, it's not a real good roadway plan. From a pure ivory tower road system. It's certainly not the best and I think I would probably recommend that you take another look at it. In terms of what the Halla's would like to do, we have a couple options here. We can turn it down and that would get you to City Councilor we could table it and that would send you back in drawing and you could back to us maybe with ~other design. I'm just curious what your preference would be and that ~esn't mean we're going to follow up on that but it may tell us. If you Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 15 e would like to present it to the City Council the motion may take that into consideration. tonight assuming that we're negative at this this way and somebody who makes Any preference on how we move time? Bob Brunner: I guess I would like to see some direction from you as to what you might be willing to approve. Conrad: I think what people have said tonight, there are some specific issues that they have talked about but I guess we said we really don't want access off of our main roads. TH 101 and CR 14, whatever. Individual lot access. We're talking about interior roads. That's what we've done in other large subdivisions like this. We're looking for interior roads and I think to a planning commissioner, we feel that that's just good planning and again, we're looking at it from a very theoretical, ivory tower aspect. I think that's one thing and I see here in Block 2 real easy ways of making those connections. They are obviously a lot more costly then what you've presented but from the standpoint of us concerned with good interior roads. Enough access for houses. Enough emergency vehicle access. Even looking at future subdivision which is going to be potential, this particular plan is not conducive to anything in my mind and I think what we're primarily saying is you get some interior roadworks and we're also or at least I'm saying that the intent of the private drive is a different intent than what I'm seeing you use it for here. I look at the intent of Ordinances more than I look at the letter of the Ordinance. This is abusing that. I think you can "'nd ways to get three lot service from a private drive but I don't see that ~e intent that that Ordinance had out there is being well served by this particular design. We are not designers of roads and I think the City can certainly come and help you on that but what I've heard from the Planning Commissioners was pretty consistent in terms of road access. We would like to put them interior. We would like to get those properties served and I see a lot of other problems with the property to the south but I'm not even concerned with that right now. I'm really focusing on yours but as planners we actually should be concerned with how those lots are served. And unfort- unately you don't have agreements between property owners and we can't force you to do that but given that fact, I guess I have to make you a self contained, well designed unit and I don't see that yet. My preference would be self contained and expandable to the south but that's not there right now. I guess I would like to see a better design. Bob Brunner: If it goes to City Council and they deny it, what's the possibility of you seeing it again? Conrad: What's the timing on that Jo Ann? Olsen: July 1st is the deadline. Conrad: But if they turn it down, how quickly can a developer come back with a new plan? Are there any restrictions? . sen : That's a good question. I would have to confer with the Attorney. ~lanning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 16 - Conrad: I don't think there are any restrictions. I think all you have to do is come back. My feeling and I guess I can't speak for the Council is that they wouldn't want to see this to be very honest and I've been around for a couple years but it's your right. If we make that decision, it would be your right to take it there. You may hear their opinions but I think they would send you back but you can't count on my one person opinion on that. Dave Halla: I would like to ask one question. As I understand it from what Tim is saying there and the comments that are said or not said, everybody is more or less in agreement with Phase 1 on the west side of TH 1101. You don't have a problem with that. It's the property on the east side of TH 1101 that you're not real happy with. Conrad: Pretty much so. That's where most of our attention is. I think there were some comments however about interior access for Lots 14, 15 and 16 on Block 1. Emmings: That's Block 2 isn't it? Dave Halla: The natural terrain of the land in there does not lend itself to access to that cul-de-sac on the south end because of the rise in the land so the road already existing, Creekwood, is the natural access for those three lots. e Conrad: Tim did you make some comments on that? Erhart: The only comment I made on the side 1 was this request for a temporary access to Lot 3 directly from TH 1101. Don Halla: That's an existing access that is there right now. Erhart: There isn't a building there is there? Dave Halla: It serves the nursery property. It's a legal access. Olsen: You could make a condition that that would have to be closed. Conrad: Tim it was you who said it was Lot 14 and 15 that you wanted it served from a cul-de-sac. Erhart: It was Lots 14, 15 and 16 on Block 2. Don Halla: Just to get everything out. I feel I'm being forced into a subdivision. You folks, the City Council and so on, came to certain agreements that they are going to change lot size and basically take away a good portion of the value of my property. I would like to stay in the nursery business. I really am being forced out of the nursery business and to go into a subdivision or at least preserve my value of my property by doing a subdivision. Otherwise, I'm losing 3/4th's of it. That's really why we're here tonight is for me to preserve the value of my property that e Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 17 e has been up there. It really is going to hamper by taking 10 acre lots instead of 2 1/2. That's really like taking 3/4th's of the value. I have no choice but to do this. I still want to be in the nursery business. 15 years from now I would like to be in the nursery business. I think it's easy neighbors. It doesn't create problems but I have to at least preserve my right for future development so as to not lose the value of my land. That's really what we're trying to do. I'm going to do the minimum that I'm forced to do so I can still stay in the nursery business. That's really my attitude towards these streets and so forth. I would be happy if they went in 25 years from now. According to what you're saying, you folks is what you want to do for the City. You would be happy if they went in 25 years from now. You don't want development. I don't want development exactly either but I want to preserve my land value. That's really where I'm coming from in this situation. Conrad: But we have to assume you are going to develop. Don Halla: I understand that and I appreciate that. As far as the phased development I would like it longer than shorter just to handle that question as far as that goes. As far as working something out with a street on the south and so on, there can be some discussion with Jo Ann. We discussed that question. Will they give us an extension while we go through the Court system? According to the documents and according to the lawyers we have discussed this with, if we take the time to go through the Court system, ~at will be handled but that is what it's going to take. We're trying to ~eet the deadlines that are imposed too. Dave Halla: I would like to add one last comment here. I have a little bit of an interest. Not as much. I settled out my interest in the corporation so I basically retired but this bottom piece down there that kind of juts out on the end where I have my house in, I've got that divided into lots. Lot 7, I already own. Number 6 and 8 will be proposed lots. I've got an interest about maintaining the value of my property down on that end because of the situation that's going in now. If it's going to be one lot in 10 acres then I just have one lot in that whole area. Right now I could have two more lots in that same 10 acre piece. Conrad: Okay, Planning Commission I think we've said our thing. I don't know if we've helped them redesign this at all but I would certainly accept a motion. I didn't hear any direction from anybody saying whether we should table it or return it. Bob Brunner: I would like to give you my preference on behalf of Don Halla, that you table it and come back with a redesign. Conrad: I think that's probably a wise decision. Noziska: From a planning standpoint that makes more sense and if it makes sense to them. e Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 18 e Noziska moved, Headla seconded to table the application request for a preliminary plat to subdivide 105 acres into 37 single family lots until the applicant provides an amended plat which eliminates the private drives and and provide internal public streets taking into consideration the general discussion of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. Noziska: How long ago did this thing come in? Olsen: It came in in early December, late November. Noziska: Has the applicant been aware that we were ruling against private drives? Olsen: They were trying to force the easement issue and as they stated, they went to Court and their solution to that was a private drive. We let them know right from the start. Don Halla: Can I ask one question of the private drive? There was an agreement with both the City, the Highway Department and the County as far as the private drives and the entrances, that they be on certain lots and there was no question or problem there until we came up with these other private drives. ~sen: It was acceptable with MnDot and Carver County. If I can speak for the Planning Commission, it sounds like they want everything off of internal drives. Conrad: That's Jo Ann speaking for the Planning Commission. Emmings: She certainly is speaking for me. Conrad: I think she's speaking for all of us. Noziska: It's quite feasible to eliminate the private drives. Dave Halla: You only have consideration of two entrances on TH 101. I'll point it out to you. Right down here with Lot 15 and 16, are the only lots that had egress and ingress onto TH 101. Emmings: What about Lot l4? Dave Halla: Lot 14 had access off of CR 14 on a very extreme corner between Lot 13 and 14 line and the reason that is is because this is a high hill up on here and it would be hard because of the terrain to get it any other place so they agreed, MnDot and Carver County, that that would be the best place to put it was over on that location there and it was far enough away from the corner with the line of sight not to impose a traffic hazard. That .s the only other one on CR 14 was tha t one on the corner and then Lot 15 d 16 would share a common entrance. I was out there personally with MnDot Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 19 - and if you people ever ha ve an oppor tuni ty to go with them, they really educate you. They get out there with their gauges and sight and have their line of views so many feet at so mant miles per hour so that you got clear view. That's where we put it because of what they suggested. Don Halla: They felt it was designed probably cutting down 4 or 5 lots to try and limit to those two. Dave Halla: If you go up and look in that area, the speed limit is greatly reduced because you're coming around that curve. It's a 15 mph speed limit in that area and because of that speed limit imposed on there, we thought it would cause no additional traffic problem in allowing that. Conrad: Okay, we'll see you back here. Site Plan Review for expansion of an office, manufacturing/warehouse b'UITdT'ilgby 63,810Square feet fOra total of 108,916 square feet on property zoned lOP, Indust~Office Park and located at 18930 West 78th Street, Redmond-prQducts, Inc. ---- --- Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. Paul Strother: I'm wi th Cluts, O'Brien, Strothers Archi tects and I can say ~at I've reviewed the Staff Report and I don't have any problems with any ~f the conditions. Bob Cordell: I'm with Redmond Products and it looks good to us. Conrad: Just to clarify, Jo Ann, you've read Art Kerber's note but feel comfortable with the previous recommendation? Olsen: Yes. It has enough water to supply the need for it now. Conrad: Who made the previous review? Olsen: Jim Castleberry. Headla: I see you supply hair products. Are you going to do any repackaging? Transfer chemicals from one container to another? Bob Cordell: We do manufacture hair care products. Headla: What kind of chemicals are involved? Bob Cordell: Water with fragrances. Headla: Do you have any leftover and disposal problem? .b Cordell: Very small amounts. We wash out tubs or packings. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 20 e Headla: Engineer How do you dispose of it? looked at that? Dump it do wn the se wer? Has our City Bob Cordell: They did originally when we set it up. They didn't seem to have any problems. Headla: The other one I'm concerned about is I don't see where we ever talk about external finish of the buildings. Just to the west you've got a big white castle that sticks out like a sore thumb. What kind of exterior finish are you going to be putting on that building? Bob Cordell: The building is all Fab-Con. Noziska: Getting back to the question from the Fire Chief again, what prompted him to come up with this letter? There had to be some thought process that created this letter and it's a rather recent letter obviously. Olsen: Actually I don't know what prompted it. I'm sure that he's always looking at the ultimate and this would be ideal to have that second loop. We're not denying that that would be nice to have. Whether it's absolutely necessary is questionable. Noziska: A 10 inch watermain should put out any brush fires along the railroad track. I agree with the Staff in that case. Unless there was some ~'her justification or a statement that one could nebulously distribute the ~st among several people, it sounds to me like there are 3 or 4 or 5 people that would benefit from that but how much they benefit and whether they would end up benefitting from an insurance premium standpoint to pay for the cost of putting in a 10 inch watermain I don't know but that seems to me like that is kind of expensive to go that distance. Especially we're attempting to create a bog or whatever so it would have to come across that too so maybe he didn't have all that in mind. So long as the applicant agrees with the recommendations of the Staff, I really have no further comment. Siegel: I don't have anything. Emmings: I don't have anything except the Fire Chief says in his letter that there is not enough water if a major fire were to occur. Did I hear ou say in your presentation that the City Engineer says there is adequate water? I guess the only thing I would say is that before this goes to City Council, that dispute ought to be resolved before it gets to City Council. Erhart: I don't have anything. Conrad: Me nei ther. Just picking on words in our Fire Chief's note, it says desperate and words like that evoke emotion from me and I guess I would like to have the Fire Chief clarify desperate before this gets to City Council. e Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 21 e Siegel: Isn't the major or what Mr. Kerber calls a cooperative venture on the part of several participating businesses a moot point for consideration for this applicant? That's another question entirely that Mr. Kerber should address through Staff to the City Council instead of attaching it to this applicant's request. Noziska: It sounds like about half a dozen owners need to get together and sit down and see whether it is or isn't worth it. If there is a real need to fight a fire and I don't know what he is considering a major fire. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Site Plan request #85-1 for a 63,180 square foot expansion as shown on the site plan dated March 20, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised landscaping plan incorporating staff's recommendation prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. All vehicular areas must be paved and have concrete curbing along the perimeter of the paved areas. 3. All rooftop equipment must be screened in a manner consistent with the materials of the principle building. e 4. An access roadway will be provided to three sides of the building in accordance with the UFC 10.207. 5. Fire Department connection will be placed in an unobstructed quick access area. 6. Exits shall be provided along the north end of the building in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. 7. Installation of all fire protection systems and appliances shall be in accordance with recognized standards. 8. Any expansion of the site shall receive site plan approval. 9. The applicant shall be required to physically pipe the roof drainage from the proposed building to the storm water detention pond proposed for the northest corner of the site. 10. The excess 15 cubic yards of fill presently in the existing detention basin be removed. 11. Silt fence and other appropriate erosion control measures shall be utilized to control erosion of the site consistent with the requirements of the Watershed District and the City of Chanhassen. .1 voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 1987 - Page 22 e APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated March 11, 1987 as amended by Robert Siegel. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings moved, Noziska seconded to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated March 25, 1987 as amended by Steven Emmings. All voted in favor except Conrad and Siegel who abstained and motion carried. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - RETAIL WEST. Barbara Dacy: What I would like to do first is clarify some of the items I brought up in the memorandum and update some of the newer Commission members regarding this whole topic because some of you may not have been present when the Zoning Ordinance was originally considered. We have here tonight Fred Hoisington, the project manager for the downtown redevelopment project as well as representatives from CHADDA and Winfield Development that is proposing to build the West project at the northeast corner of Laredo and West 78th Street. The purpose of discussing this tonight is to determine some type of direction from the Planning Commission regarding gas pumps and the proposed use at the subject location and talk about it's inherent design elements as it relates to the site plan. Also talk about gas pumps in ~neral in the central business district. Some of you may recall that when ~u were going through the Zoning Ordinance process, you specifically asked Mr. Hoisington to look at our commercial districts and to make sure the central business district is copasetic and compatible with what the HRA and the Council are doing in the redevelopment efforts so I attached the memorandum that was distributed in, it was 1985 at that time. Part of that recommendation was to not have convenient stores with gas pumps or auto service stations. The primary concern as far as location of those particular uses was down near the intersection of TH 5 and the new north/south road because there was a portion of land down here that was zoned central business district. Secondarily, there was also an intent to create the downtown area with speciality uses or other uses that would play off of the Dinner Theater use and hotel use on the south side of the street. During the zoning Ordinance process then when it got up to Council, CHADDA was then formed and in progress and made a specific request to include conveience stores with gas pumps because in their planning efforts for the north side of West 78th Street, market studies showed the need for convenience retail and that there would be a market out there to support that particular use. You have in your packet the Minutes from the Council meeting when they did install convenience stores with gas pumps as a conditional use in the central business district. The Planning Commission really never discussed that whole issue when you folks were going through the Zoning Ordinance review process. It was only brought up at a Council meeting primarily because CHADDA really didn't exist in 1985 when you were doing most of your heavy duty review of the Ordinance. So CHADDA and ~nfield have made formal application and their request will come before you ~ April 22nd. Again, as I stated earlier, the intent is to see if you have Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 23 e a major objection to gas pumps at the central location or in general because if you do, they need to know that right away to make some adjustments in their leasing of the whole site plan and basically, as I'm sure they will express, in the entire project. You have attached also, site plans that you will be seeing again on April 22nd. At this point I will leave the project description, site plan description up to Winfield Development and CHADDA to go through some of their thought processes on that. Then, after their discussion we can talk a little bit more about designing gas pump canopies, aisle widths and just in general how you react as a Planning Commission to this issue. Brad Johnson: I have with us tonight, Jim Winkles from Winfield Development and Rich Townsgard who is our project manager with the downtown area, Paul Madsen from the architects who is a project developer and architect for this particular plan. As we go through this whole planning process, much of our activity, because of the nature of our business that we're in is with the HRA. We've been here now for about a year and a half in what I guess you would call planning but we spent most of the time putting the package together at the HRA level. We feel now that we have, I believe as of Friday of redevelopment being signed for two of our first projects that we will try to implement into the City. One of which is what we call Retail West which will be coming before you now and later on you will be seeing a housing project that will be here probably in July. We very concerned that we not get a false start on a project. Also that we keep the ~formation flow. As I said, the process that we have to go through does ~t include a lot of review by you. Normally it is reviewed by the HRA or the City Council so we thought we would take some time tonight to review where we are. Why we are what we are so you can get to see our plan and tak a little about the rationale of what we're trying to accomplish and bring you all up to date and get some feedback. We will then go specifically into the project that we're discussing this evening. I might mention that we've already met with the neighborhood in an informal meeting. We did not receive any objections at all to what we're trying to do other than they don't believe it will ever happen. Some people just came to the meeting because they didn't think it would ever happen so other than that and our job of course is to make it all happen. We met with all the people on Chan View, all the business people and we've done that twice now so far independantally of any meeting or request of anybody just to make sure that we're not trampling anybody's feet or doing something we shouldn't be doing. Let me just talk about the plan a little bit because the plan is changing. The evolution over two year and with market studies and actually going into the role of leasing which is getting a tenant to take over some space, always changes things. Let me just talk about the plan in general and the uses that we perceive this project headed towards. I don't think it has changed much but it is changing a little bit. The Dinner Theater area which is this area right here, we perceive at the present time, remember all these uses are driven by market and if we can't lease the space and have no tenants, you can build things and they are just empty so we're always faced with that kind of problem. Currently the plan is that the Theater is a ~gional type of thing and we will try to bring a hotel in and place it W>proximately right here next to the bowling alley and it will act as a Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 24 ~rtain magnet. You might also be aware that we suggested bringing in a community center into that area to attract traffic to the downtown because there will be more viability to the downtown. Then the areas inbetween will be what we call speciality retail. Speciality retail is retail that is available to people in Chanhassen but probably will be attended and rely upon 75% of it's business from a 5 to 10 mile radius rather than Chanhassen business. That's what kind of supports speciality retail. We have not yet come up with a plan for what type of retail that will be. That's a toughy to do and probably the hardest development problem there is today is how do you do speciality retail. Speciality retail is a thing like the Galleria that have a special reason to go there. That's why they call it speciality retail. Clothing, soft goods, that type of thing. Normally found in malls. Across the street we have originally designated and we're staying with that is what we call convenience retail which is basically retail that we perceive the people who are residents of Chanhassen need. We have to prove tha t then to each tenant tha t comes in. In other words, they make us make sure that there is enough demand in Chanhassen for the services that they are going to offer. So convenience retail tends to be things like grocery stores, conveneience stores, video shops, travel agencies, florists, bakeries. Things that you would use on a routine basis if you lived within 2 miles of this particular site and it sort of becomes the hub of the town. We also had originally planned on it that area to place a grocery store of major proportions for Chanhassen anyway, of around 20,000 square feet in that particular location. Since we tried to merchandise that we discovered .at the space is not big enough and have backed off from the fact that ere would be a grocery store located in this area of the plan. We found out that the grocery store on anything, the square footage that is going to be necessary to support a grocery store, the other retail that would go along with the grocery store ultimately and the fact that the grocery store comes in at 16,000 to 20,000 square feet. They want space to grow to 40,000. They want to be here for 10 to 20 years so if we place a grocery store anyplace, we have to provide them a site of about 40,000 square feet. In addition to that, if you put a grocery store in, we pick up about the same amount of square footage in a general merchandise store of about 40,000 and we just didn't have enough space. So we have changed the plan a little bit and you will be seeing, I don't know if on the site plan will be next week. We're proposing that this become a professional building in that area or a clinic. We're currently trying to merchandise that off to the various doctors in town. There are a couple of reasons to do that. Parking and alternate uses and things like that. And that we have shifted most of our emphasis for any major retail development that we'll call convenience to this area over in here. At this very moment we are completing the acquisition of the property already owned by Mr. Burdick so we now have 10 acres over to the west of the new intersecting road. Where we plan of placing a supermarket and a general merchandise store and we'll have the ability over there to go up to about 130,000 square feet of retail space. That's an evolution that we've gone through. We've got tenants for the grocery store. We've got major general merchandising operator coming into town so I think we have about 30,000 to 50,000 square feet of that leased at ~e present time. It turns out that the reason they don't want to be on ~in street is the TH 5 traffic. They all want to have people see their Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 25 e store and main street will never be seen by TH 5 traffic so all the retail studies we had from Super Value and Red Owl and all those guys essentially said that this is not a major area for retail, for TH 5 traffic and they perceive that this area over here will be very ideal thing. With the addition of the pond down here from Mr. Burdick, we have eliminated potential visual impairment because now it's flat so that is going to be a very nice site and we'll have traffic coming into town this way and this way out to the highway. It's kind of interesting thing happening throughout the development. This is some of the dynamics that we have to go through. Then we're faced with how do we fill up this side of the street. Realizing that if I were to go out and get a clothing store or something like that, they would just say no. They're not interested in going to Chanhassen because there is on retail. A clothing store and all those kinds of things have to have traffic first. Our job as a developer then is to build something here that will be rented so this is now a convenience. Hopefully maybe a clinic. We have to sell the idea. That's the hard job but it's a use that is permitted in the downtown area. Then some more speciality retail over in this area. And you can see that all happen in the next 2 to 3 years. That's some of the background of where we are. As I said, we've got to then go out and actually merchandise that. We currently have the lead tenant in any convenience retail then becomes probably a convenience store of some kind that creates a lot of traffic and stops so our first approach was to go and get a convenience store like a Superette or a Tom Thumb or something like that to come in because that creates the stops. They are running eound 3,101010 stops per week into a store like that so we also had looked at at corner. We figure that's a great corner for that kind of thing because it's right next to the Library and places where most of those in town go most of the time. We've had a number of people come into town and currently we've got tenants that are interested in that space for about 510%. That's without building anything or doing anything. That's fairly good. That's all based upon and this was the discussion, the fact that we'll have a convenience market there. If that falls through, then we don't know where we go for tenants because they all come in next to the grocery store. They will come in and be next to that if there is one of those there. If there is not one of those there, then we're not sure there will be any traffic. That's kind of where we're at. It turns out that as part of their business formats that these guys operate under, they know that they need certain kinds of products in their stores and one of the products they need in their store is gas in order to make the numbers go. So we about 3 to 4 months ago came, knowing this way back then that this was probably what was going to happen, requested that the convenience store with gas be permitted assuming that aesthetically is was pleasing and didn't foul up any traffic patterns within the downtown and that went into the Ordinance at that time. I guess the questions, we're going to present them and I'll ask Paul and Winfield to do that is that here's where we are and here's what we designed. What do you think of it? That's why we're here tonight because you haven't had a real good chance to hear from us and I think now, for the next 2 to 3 years you'll probably hear from us every time. We'll probably spend as much time with you as the HRA hopefully because we have a tremendous number of arojects that we're currently working on so we should have one for you all ..,e time and we'll know where we stand. In addition to this, a lot of you Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 26 tven't heard from us and we don't know your positions and we would like to hear any concerns. Generally speaking, anything we do in the City, we'll spend a lot of time upfront with the residents to make sure we're not doing anything they don't like. Any questions on that? That's the general plan. We do have a grocery store coming I guess and things that we need. Jim Winkles: I'm with Winfield Development. We have been asked by CHADDA to come in to look at doing the retail portion of this plan. Not only for Retail West but also for other areas of downtown. Quite honestly, we would tend to do more projects here than just the first one which quite honestly is not that large of a project. Nontheless it's the most important one since it's the first one. I can't really say a whole lot more than what Brad has mentioned here tonight. I would like to cover just two very quick items then I would like to bring Paul Madsen up who is our architect and kind of go over the site plans to get an idea of what we are talking about doing. To begin with, I would like to give you some things to tell you who we are and what we've done. Winfield is a, what we refer to ourselves as a full service development company meaning that we develop, build, we lease and we do our own property management and own all our projects. We build real estate to own and have a number of projects around the Twin Cities area. I have some brochures and things that you might just want to pass around to get a look at the different projects that we've done around town. We primarily do just commercial/industrial projects. Office buildings, retail centers, office warehouse projects and again, we develop them, build .em and manage them ourselves. We were first introduced to this project a w months back when I ran into Brad at another meeting at another city. A couple hours later that night he suggested that I should come out to Chanhassen and take a look at what was going on out here. He said they had been working on an overall redevelopment plan for this City for some time and that they were trying to create a real downtown area in Chanhassen centered around the Dinner Theater. We looked at the project and I guess, from the model here, it seemed to have some attraction to us primarily because of a couple different things. First, it was obvious that Chanhassen is growing. There is a lot of growth. with that growth there is typically going to be some retail opportunities. As you get households, as we would say you get rooftops, there generally is a demand for some other needs to satisfy the needs of those people. Secondly) it's a redevelopment project. As a company we've been very involved in a number of redevelopment projects in cities and have been fortunate enough to be successful in these redevelopment projects that we don't mind doing them. We understand how long it takes. I understand what needs to be done to satisfy the concerns of the City in terms of the residents. In terms of the Council and Planning Commission. I understand that a redevelopment project becomes a real partnership with the City and in doing those things, we became comfortable working in those situations. I think it goes without saying that the other reason we're attracts us to Chanhassen is that you have a built in identity out here that is as good as almost anything in the Twin City area. You immediately identify location with Chanhassen Dinner Theater. That is worth an awful lot in terms of any redevelopment project that you want to be ~volved in. Again, I think if I can emphasize one thing, we're not trying ~ build a gas station. We not trying to build a SuperAmerica or any king Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 27 4It Holiday station. What we're trying to build here is the first phase of what we hope will be several of the retail projects in the downtown. It's an 18,500 square foot convenience retail center that we think is going to be attractively designed. We think it's going to be very attractively landscaped. We think it's going to be there to provide a number of services for a number of residents within the immediate area of Chanhassen. One factor of that, in less than l/7th of the size of the building will be devoted to a store which among other things would sell gas. It's that issue though that we are concerned about and it's a primary issue why we asked to be on the agenda tonight. When we first talked to Brad and when we first looked at the plan, everybody was telling us that there was going to be that form a convenience store in this project and we don't want any misunderstanding with anybody on this project. We've come down the road a certain step and we want to make sure that that use is acceptable. We were concerned about that and we did have a neighborhood meeting about two weeks ago now. As Brad said, we did invite residents in and the comments we got back regarding the architecture, was it looks good. We want the landscaping to look good. The only concern that was raised was one gentlemen who in fact was really the only one affected personally by the project, just to the north of the project, said that he had no problem with the gas. His only concern was to make sure that the canopy itself was designed appropriately. That's something as we told him, when we do that we would make sure to sit down with him and let him take a look at that and we will do that. That's kind of where we are right now. We want to and have requested to be on your ~enda I believe two weeks from tonight for a Conditional Use Permit and Wso for site plan reviews and for preliminary plat and there is one other application too which I can't remember right now. Anyway, we'll be back in two weeks. We did want to come to you earlier to let you know who we are and what we would like to do as well as get your comments in terms of the design, landscaping, architecture, uses themselves, so again, we not only keep the informed but keep you informed as well. I guess with that, unless you have any questions of me, I would like Paul Madsen just to go through the site plan very quickly with you and the building plans so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. As Paul's coming up, I probably should just mention that one of the things we've been struggling with is what is the building going to look like. If you think about it, this is the first of what that plan shows is going to be an awful lot of projects going on downtown Chanhassen. Our concern was whatever we do here is obviously going to set some kind of precedent to what else is going to happen down the streets on the north side of 78th and the south side of 78th. One of the things that we started getting into was asking people what should the ex ter i or or wha t shou ld the feel of th i s th i ng be? Some people sa id you should match the Dinner Theater and some people said no, we don't want the western look and some people said it's a real German community so we should have a German theme to it so we weren't sure. We've got and Paul can go through what we have, that we feel would be appropriate so we're certainly open to your ideas and your thoughts. Also, along with that I would just mention that if you've seen the plans you'll see that the whole idea of this concept is to try and tie into the Riveria Restaurant with this. We've had ...6.1 number of discussions with the people with Riveria and you can see that ..,'re talking about in not only parking but the landscaping and some Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 28 e 'f' . .., , , modl lcatlons to that bUlldlng so lt would more blend ln wlth what we're talking about doing just to the west of that. Paul Madsen: Essentially the plan is developed to stay in character with the initial master plan. What we are proposing is the 18,500 square foot strip retail center. It is set back from 78th Street by a three bay parking lot. The Riveria, which sits up closer to 78th Street, would be totally reclad and become really a part of the center, at least appearancewise. The parking circulation, the main customer parking area would be between 78th Street and the strip retail. We are entering off of 78th Street at a point that is just west of the Riveria and really creates the best circulation pattern through the parking lot. We've got a driving lane here. We also have a driving lane which is loaded one side which will allow drop offs to occur at the retail strip center. The pumps that were being discussed earlier occur at the west edge of the retail strip center and there would be a canopy that extends out to approximately the property line although we've been discussing pulling that back so we've got a 5 foot setback. We do have some parking in the rear of the building which will be primarily employee parking for the center. It would have trash enclosures and a retaining wall combination fence. The extent of the bulk of this stretch in here we wouldn't plan on opening it at a point here and doing some heavy landscaping and then carrying that fence beyond to the east. The fence itself will be constructed of materials that are used on the building so it would be an integral part of that building. One of the changes that came out of the ~ighborhood meeting which is not reflected on this plan is moving this ~ash enclosure further east, probably by about 400 feet. Concern of Tom at the Riveria was that he have enough parking to accomodate his use and not have it in conflict with the high use times of the retail center. We are providing parking. This is actually the property line right here. We're providing parking to maximize his portion of the site. Then by some sort of magic we're extending that beyond here to provide a double loaded parking situation. As this plan expands to the east and we start looking at the clinic use, this parking which is fairly temporary in nature, although it will be blacktopped, we will put a rolled blacktop curb in so the rest of the site will have minimal curb and gutter, this could be expanded on as we look at developing that. Whatever happens before construction is complete or whether it happens two years down the road, there is that flexibility. We are proposing a very generous landscaping plan. We feel that with as little side as we've got for greenery to landscape, we really felt to do it to the hilt. Especially as a screening mechanism back here for the neighbors. We're proposing trees and shurbs in the parking lot area to really soften that parking lot and I think in conjunction with the 78th Street planting plan that BRW has developed, it will provide a well landscaped commercial project. The danger there or the problem often times is that you get into a too dense a plan starts causing problems for the retail center. The one other issue that we're looking at as far as the parking goes, the drive that exits out onto Laredo is directly across from the bank's access off Laredo. The circulation there should work as well as possible. The character of the building which Jim was eluding to, we could llliiJ...o a number of different ways. We could have gone a number of ways. What -= are proposing right now is to do a building that incorporates the split Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 29 ~ce of masonary, the rock face masonry. We've run that by the Staff and Brad and also Jim Lasher from BRW. I think that it is a very common material today. It can be a good looking material and we're going to use this as a base for this building and the columns and so forth. There will be a covered walkway for the length of the strip center. That will punch in and create the pretty good shadow in here. There will be a very controlled signage ban for tenant signage and then the gable and kind of meandering facade that curves above that signage panel will be a cedar shake. We felt that the warmth of the wood material, although we didn't want to recreate a western town or even knock off what is happening with the Chanhassen Dinner Theater across the street, we felt that wood was very sympathetic to what downtown Chanhassen is so we wanted to add. The Riveria would be, at least in the discussions we've had to date, would be clad in the same cedar shake material. He's also considering an addition off the east of the restaurant to provide a new entry point and to be closing off the front entry off of West 78th. Getting rid of the drive thru or drop off at that point and moving it to the east side of the building. The canopy itself for the gas pumps. The canopies that we all conjure up in our minds are the well lit 400 foot candle SuperAmerica canopies that soar 22 feet in the air and that's not what we're looking at at all. We still need to maintain a proper clearance of about 13'8" but we are proposing that we do it with a hip roof and really get rid of the commercial characters that put a more residential form onto that canopy and then carry that onto the end element of the convenient store. That's really going to be located by the _of line of the Riveria. The rear of the neighbors elevation of this will quite concealed with the fence. The fence combination retaining wall and the bulk of that elevation would be the rock faced masonry unit. I don't know how much more detail to get into here but that essentially is what we are proposing to do. This area will be bermed. It's deceiving. There is a 10 foot elevation change from the tallest point here down to the corner of the site over here. That appears to lull a little more gradually than that but we are going to be cutting back into this area about 4 feet so there will be a 4 foot retaining wall that will stretch up to here and reduce down to nothing here and then this will be flat in here. But there will be a retaining wall with a fence above that. Actually the same material projecting above that. The trash enclosure here and trash enclosure here behind the Riveria will be a part of the fence retaining wall system and made out of the same materials. The lighting will be, first of all the lighting in the parking lot itself will be the same light standards that are being proposed for 78th Street streetscape so I think there will be good continuity there and will be something that will be carried on throughout the development on the north side of the street. It is a fairly low light standard with 13 foot so it will not cast light over the building into the neighborhood to the north. The only lighting that we are going to be doing off the north side of the building will be a shoebox type of fairly severe cut-off, convenience lighting more than anything else for service doors and so forth but that will be an 8 foot level and will cast a fairly low light level and will not be shining directly into the neighbor's eyes. .Ziska: Security type lighting? Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 30 e Paul Madsen: Right. Fred Hoisington: Mr. Chairman, we really haven't reviewed the plan in detail that it deserves at this. This is a critical project because it is the first project in downtown so whatever happens here will set the pattern obviously for everything else to follow. The primary concern that CHADDA and Winfield people had this evening was obviously the gas pumps. When we first became involved with this project we made some recommendations to you that for the most part looked at the creation of speciality retail on both sides of West 78th Street. Somehow trying to knit those two sides of the street together into a shopping department to whatever degree that was possible. Maybe that was my aim. Maybe it was idealistic but the market is what decides the kind of uses that will occur. You recommended strongly that there not be gas pumps in the CBD or Central Business District zone as such. We were primarily concerned about the entrances to downtown and I think one of the good things that has happened, that is being resolved that in a very acceptable fashion so we don't have the risk any longer that we once had. There is only probaby one place in the CBD zone where gas pumps will likely occur. There is another gas station obviously now that will not be here in the future and there is a need for convenience type retail and one that is needed to be supported by the sale of gasoline. Maybe begrudingly we have come to the conclusion that maybe those have to be accommodated in this case and I guess we're more concerned now about how it's done. How it's to be meshed with the neighborhood and downtown and how .'s to be screened from the adjoinging neighbors. We think all those ings can be accomplished. We think they can be dealt with and I guess what I would like to do is leave an impression that we feel in the way as a planner and one that's been deeply involved in this process, I think we can live with that if the design is acceptable. Conrad: At this point they really are kind of asking, Brad is asking if we have comments on what we see. He's going to come back in two weeks and maybe show us the same thing. Brad Johnson: We have a schedule that we're working under and one of our schedules is we would like to get construction started July 1st, July 15th is our schedule. We don't want to come back twice formally. Once informally. The same reason we met with the neighborhood two weeks ago. To make sure that we can keep on schedule. I think we just have to start the process of talking to you guys so you know what we're doing. We are setting the standard for downtown. Conrad: As Brad said, he's looking for some general gut reactions right now on whether we like it. Whether we're concerned with the pumps. Maybe not detailed criticism or detailed recommendations but general feelings for what was presented so with that, are there other things? Siegel: I'm sort of disappointed at the prospect of having gas pumps at that location. We had gas pumps there forever. I would just as soon see ~e bait shop stay there now that we've gotten rid of the gas pumps and ~'ve got a bait shop. It just doesn't seem right that we've got this Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 31 ~development plan and beautiful bank building across the street from gas pumps. It just seems that marketwise there should be something other than that aspect of it. I guess I question on the marketability. We've got a Holiday gas station and they are a convenient store on the north side of TH 5 and we've got the Q station and that convenient store on the south side of TH 5 and now we're going to move another convenient store with gas pumps right to downtown Chanhassen. I don't know. If it works, I supposed we'll have enough convenient stores and no speciality shops. I'm disappointed in the prospect. Although you can make it look beautiful and architecturally it might come across certainly much better than what's there now. The prospect of having another set of gas pumps on that corner of Laredo and right across the street from what is proposed to have a first class hotel? And right across the street there is going to be gas pumps? It seems to me that corner deserves more consideration. Emmings: I think in the abstract, I kind of agree with Bob's comments but when I look at the way it's done on this plan, it's set back so far from the corner. I think you've done a lot to minimize the negative aspects of it and it just doesn't bother me. I think this looks like a real nice plan. Erhart: What was the architectural style of the model that you have here Brad? Of the buildings, the style. It's not western but it's something else. _ad Johnson: One of the problems you have when you do a model, they don't a plan. They just do a model so they pulled a style out that was some type of retail and was designed primarily to be wood and the same architect did both. When we actually got down to doing one, the whole thing, they decided that style probably could carry through probably wasn't going to work. Erhart: with the dormers and all that? Brad Johnson: Yes. You may see it different down the street. Like the clinic building. Right now we're dealing with, normally on retail, people won't go upstairs for retail so we've given it height to match. You've got the Riveria and the road looks like this. What our plan is, if we get the clinic, it will be a two story thing and maybe with a peaked roof which will change the whole look. We're kind of excited about that because it gets away from just one long line of convenience but retail on the second floor doesn't work and office space in town isn't moving real quick. If you go down and talk to Chanhassen Office Center. New office space so our goal is to build something this year. Get something moving. What we're always faced with, we can't even get a mortgage unless we have a tenant. That's it so we have to have 50% of anything we build leased. Paul, do you want to address the architecture? Erhart: You're satisfied wi th the outside appearance that they're proposing? e Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 32 e Brad Johnson: Where we are it makes real sense to do it. This is the third one we've done in the last month ourselves and I think everybody is getting kind of comfortable with it because it's got a combination of nice stone look to it plus wood which is soft. Erhart: When you come back for the formal meeting, do you have photos of similar buildings that we perhaps could look at at that time? Dacy: As an example for the rock face masonary, the public works building in the Business Park does have that same rock face texture to it. It is a deep red but this will be the same type of texture. As a matter of fact, we have a block upstairs if you want me to go and get it. Erhart: That's okay. Again, it's hard to look at a print and see what something is going to look like. Fred Hoisington: The windows are not these big glass windows. They are all narrow. I don't know if you can see it but all the windows are narrow and with the shadows going across it. Noziska: The one thing I wonder about is the maintenance on the cedar shakes. I don't know what the maintenance situation is with them and I don't recall a strip center with that on them. Is there one in the Twin Cities? 4luI Madsen: The best example I can think of is in the new center that was just put down on Hennepin Avenue that is probably 22nd and Hennepin. There is a Lee Ann Chin's and a number of others. There they have used a similar palet materials with stone face block and I believe it's a cedar siding that's stained. I think it's a very handsome strip center. One of the nicest ones I've seen. It's less commercial looking than a lot of them. There is a lot of play with the facade as far as the roof line goes although it is a flat roof. I'll bring some examples and I think we can illustrate this a little better too. The way the canopy relates. Erhart: I consider shakes as shingles or is it cedar siding? Lap siding that you've got here? Paul Madsen: No, what we're proposing to use is actually a shaker town panel which is shakes that are laid up in 8 foot panels. It's hard to tell the difference between the shaker town panel and a machine cut shake side wall. They would be shingles as opposed to a lap board type. It would be stained. Jim Winkles: The product as far as maintenance is pretty good. It's a product that has proven itself somewhat. That also brings up one of the things that we were hoping to avoid. We wanted to keep away from what you see in many of the strip centers around the city which would be the flat roof with metal canopy. Yellow or green. We decided that was something we 4IJdn't want to do. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 33 e Noziska: Believe me I'm not crazy about that either and I think that the variance in the facade that you're looking at does add some interest to it. The only thing that I think about is, when I look everyday at what acid rain is doing to most of the materials that we're sitting on, you really need something that's able to take that caustic environment. You might even get some nice passive solar gain out of it on one side. With the solid wall on the north side and a nice glass wall on the south side. That sort of gives me a good feeling because I'm concerned about energy but maintenance is also something that I think the last thing we want in the middle of downtown Chanhassen is something that doesn't have a good performance from a maintenance standpoint. I don't think you want to be out there. That would be my only concern. What's the maintenance? ...Just so it will hold up. Paul Madsen: I guess to answer that, it will hold up as well as the majority of the material across the street and you can speak to the history of that better than I can. Headla: ...there are ways to check that. How gallons go into in a place like that? How big a tank is that? Are we talking gallons? I think we have to have some way of detecting that. detection of leaks. those tanks 8,000 Early Erhart: to come eorage Headla: I think the Federal government has just passed laws that are going over the next five years or shorter to require all underground gasoline to have electronic measurement devices to detect leaks. They're talking about it. Erhart: I thought it was passed. Headla: Somewhere between talk and action I think if we approve this, we've got to force that issue to have some way of detecting that. Noziska: For any facility such as this, from a use and aesthetic standpoint, I agree with Steve, I think it will be just fine. I don't have an objection to putting in gas pumps. Sure, we're getting more and more controls so I'm not concerned with that. If it works out that a bait shop is better off than a gas station on that corner, then we'll pull the tanks out and put in water tanks. Conrad: I think it looks fine. The reality has said convenience. I think convenience type of stuff is what we need and what we have to have in that section. Even though we were looking for specialty there, convenience is a natural thing to go. I don't have any problem with the gas station as long as what we're talking about aesthetics, if that works. It appears we can make it fit in and look good. I do have a couple thoughts and it relates to pedestrian traffic. I've looked at past plans and pedestrian traffic, we've always been looking at it down at the other end of that strip and no sidewalks towards this end and I guess my biggest concern is how we connect ~is center. Given that there is on grocery store and given that you are .ing to move medical folks back and forth and there may be a parking lot, Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 34 e I'm kind of concerned with how we do connection of people. I really hate to see people running across the parking lots and there has to be some thoughts as to how we connect the center to the other area. That will be my big concern with this development and where people flow from the sidewalks in front around the Riveria and on down. Brad Johnson: That has been addressed. As part of the whole downtown plan, there are a number of walkways. Conrad: I've looked at the plan, I've got it here and I guess I just didn't see that. Paul Madsen: What we're trying to accomplish short of adding a walk along 78th Street, is the majority of pedestrian traffic will be coming from this area then across here. We've created a walk across the front of the Riveria which would be extended on at the time when whatever happens next door so they are really crossing one drive at that point and traversing 600 feet by the time they have arrived to this point by it will all done on sidewalks. Conrad: Off this subject but as we go from grocery store to medical facility maybe or office building, how does that affect the balance of the downtown? Parking spaces that we had between the Riveria and the grocery store. "ad Johnson: It improves the situation. One of the reasons we're trying ~ put a medical clinic in there is that it will be a long strip to the Riveria. The Riveria creates a benefit to the community but creates a problem because it's got certain peak times that it needs a lot of parking so we have to assure them of having at 75 cars during it's peak hours. The retail likes that kind of traffic but you can't go over on that. The clinic, when you think about it, is open from around 9:00 until 5:00 and the Riveria times are from 5:00 on. The major one and at noon the clinic itself will generate business for the Riveria. If you went through downtown Chanhassen at midday, currently, other than parking here for the bus that is getting quite large, there is very little parking going on in town during the day. There just are not a lot of people who shop in downtown so the clinic will generate traffic for the downtown. What we're trying to create in this whole atmosphere is something that exists that when people come to Chanhassen, the clinic is going all the time. We're really excited about that idea. We're putting it in there because of the parking situation. It will allow us to have a major building going two stories. One of the our problems in downtown is that every time we build a building we've got to build a building with a certain value so we tear down something. Our taxes have to pay for tearing down a building. You know where that's going, to all the building we have to tear down. The grocery store was big enough, it was 30,000 square feet of space but we perceive that every dollar we take, we could not charge the rent to a grocer to get the necessary rent. The clinic will be 30,000 square feet with a value of maybe Two to Three Million dollars. It creates a good solution to our problem. You'll also see if we .me back with the housing, that we increased the scale of the housing from units to 60 units. The site will support it and we need the dollars into Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 35 e downtown. The rules that we operate under economically are we must build enough on the north side of 78th Street to pay for the cost of tearing a building down. We're not getting any assistance from the City other than our own taxes that we pay. These are the sort of rules that we follow. So the clinic concept solves a lot of problems. Conrad: Whether it's a medical facility or an office, do you have to put the parking spots out in front? Brad Johnson: No. The clinic will hold both. Retail you run into that. The clinic, at that point, we use the parking in the back. It's a very subtle use. We've had indications from local physicians that they have 3,000 square feet and they want 15,000 square feet. They were concerned that they wanted to build a facility someplace where they could be for the rest of their lives. This will be set up as a nice building. We'll probably try to have a site plan here next time because every time we talk about that everyone wants to know about parking so they are working on that right now. You can get a feel for the what we're trying to accomplish. Conrad: I think what you heard us say is that most of us are supportive. Bob definitely is not. Siegel: How close are you to a clinic facility? ~ad Johnson: We've got a clinic located in town whose lease runs out at ~e end of the year and there is a group in Waconia as well and another whole group in Shakopee area that want to establish a market here. In our particular case, we have an owner and operator. They will build it and keep it so there is no financial commitment on the part of any of these people to build their own clinic. The clinic will be provided. Conrad: What does that do with signage. When you get into convenience, they do like gawdy signage but I think our signage standards are fairly tight. What are they Fred? How are we controlling signage? Fred Hoisington: How are we controlling that Barb? Dacy: Our new Sign Ordinance. One of the provisions is that in a center such as this it is required that all of the signage for each of the tenants be consistent. In the past, as far as the gas pump, and I didn't see any proposed but in previous applications for Holiday and so on, gas pump signage has either been eliminated completely or limited to certain faces of the canopy. This is a different type of canopy however but what I think you are proposing is one shoping center sign along West 78th Street and then each tenant will have a wall sign in your sign band. Brad Johnson: We anticipate some of these to be franchises and franchises pay a lot of money to have color. .nrad: Do the signs go on the cedar shakes or do they go on the wall? Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 36 e Jim Winkles: There is a sign band. Brad Johnson: I think you have to realize that if people go by the color of the sign, we have to make it look good and you have to give them brand name identification. Conrad: I guess my only concern would be signage on the canopy. If there is any. If there is none, then I think I'm pretty comfortable. Anything else of these guys? If not, then we'll see you back in a couple weeks. REVIEW RURAL BEACHLOT STANDARDS. Olsen: I don't have much to add. It's just that I gave it the 50 dwellings that you mentioned last time. We are allowing future lots with future subdivision to still have the rights of the beachlot. Conrad: Is that realistic? will that be subdivided? More than likely not so I guess I'm comfortable with the subdivision of that. Here's my problem with how that reads. It reads that we can cram 350 houses onto one lot and I go back to neighbors and I go back to traffic and I go back to other things so I'm not real comfortable with the subdivision of that. I'm throwing that out. I'm comfortable with the other stuff. 4Itziska: You don't think that will police itself? Conrad: Well, it probably will. Sooner or later if you have 150 people who want to pack themselves into a beach but what is the Ordinance saying? The Ordinance is saying that the City of Chanhassen, regardless of self policing, the City of Chanhassen says that literally in the future when it becomes a part of the MUSA. You can put 150 houses through that one lot or people. I'm not sure that that's appropriate. Noziska: I understand what you're saying Ladd but... Conrad: We don't have any beachlot in town right now that is servicing that many people so why are we doing that for the rural area right now? If you can persuade me that there is a good reason. Olsen: Why I came up with that, in speaking with the Attorney he said you are in a pickle. When it happens, it's going to be really hard to determine who has the right of that beachlot when they do start subdividing in the future and keeping track of all that. We just came to the conclusion that the easiest way is just to permit anybody to future use of that beachlot. Noziska: And let those brilliant homeowners take care of the problems themselves because they sure as heck aren't going to jam 350 lots worth of people through one beachlot. ~nrad: The only thing I can see Howie is when developers come in here and ~ey say, we've just read your Ordinance and here is one out here in the Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 37 It rural area that says 150 folks can come in. I have a similar type of deal in the urban area and if you can theoretically say 150, then you obviously think that's right and I say, we must have thought it was right. What was the purpose of restricting? The purpose is pressure of neighbors. I'm not worried about the lake to tell you the truth. Boat access and all that other stuff will be taken care of through launch sites and whatever so that's not a concern. I'm concerned with signals to other areas and maybe it doesn't apply. Maybe it's something real far tangent. Is there a possibility that we can leave off that last sentence and address it when it occurs? Emmings: All of these beachlots will be maintained and run by a homeowners association. I agree with you that this makes me uncomfortable. That it's in here. That we're saying do it. It sounds like we're saying go ahead and do it. What if we just said, whether or not the subdivided property will be permitted appurtenant right of access to the recreational beachlot will be up to the Homeowners Association. Why don't we let them decide that. Noziska: So if there is any squabbling, they will do it amongst themselves. Emmings: Or if they get up to a point where they feel like they have maximum use, they can just say we're not going to let anymore people. Can they have that power? Dacy: One of the concerns is, with what we're going through now with some ~ the beachlots, other people down the shore on the lake call up City Hall ~d say, don't you have any restrictions or anything that you can do to limit use on the beachlot down the shore because it's overused? It depends on your degree of comfort for how much authority you want the homeowners to have and/or the city to have. In your instance, you're really giving the entire police enforcement issue over to them and if that's what you want to do. Emmings: No. This says if they resubdivide every lot in Gagne's development out there, they will all be able to use the beachlot even though it had gotten over 50 houses and what I'm saying is, why don't we just say, if somebody subdivides, whether or not the new person coming in on that parcel will be allowed to use the beachlot will be up to the Homeowners Association. Dacy: So they can have their own little application process to go through? Emm i ng s: Or they can se 11 the 50. Maybe there is someone over here who has the right who doesn't want to use it and they could sell it somebody else. We could have still limit it to 50 and they could raffle them or whatever they want to. Headla: What do you think if somebody from 1 1/2 miles away wants to get in out there? Can they go in on it? ~mmings: No. Because we've got the intent statement up there that says a ~creational beach10t is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 38 e the subdivision of which it is a part. Headla: Okay, that's A and then you go down to rural recreational beachlots. Emmings: That statement of K governs both of those two. To me anyway. That's the statement of intent. Headla: I like that opening statement of K but does that directly apply to both paragraphs? Emmings: Sure. I don't know if we want to settle it but maybe we should initially and then we can find out later if it doesn't work and then let the Homeowners Association manage who gets it. Headla: I think we ought to have no parking. Conrad: That's already there. Not in this document but... Emmings: That's in the Beachlot Ordinance. Conrad: So, if we take Steve's comments and weave that back in, the next step after this would be? ,-,sen: Bringing it in front of the Planning Commission as a public hearing . May 13th. Conrad: And who would we inform? Olsen: else. All of the Homeowners Associations along the lake and everybody It's a public hearing. Emmings: Again, isn't this one of those issues for anybody that lives on a lake out to know? I would not get notice of this. Dacy: We have 10 lakes. We could be notifying over half the population. Emmings: Does half our population live on lakes? Dacy: We've got a lot of lake frontage. Conrad: It's about 27%. Erhart: But you're only changing the rural part of it. Dacy: Yes, but you're changing the whole Ordinance. I don't think it would be appropriate for the City to just notify the rural areas from the public perception standpoint. ~mings: Could there at least be a special notice in the newspaper or .mething? Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 39 e Dacy: Yes, but to notify every private landowner on every lake would be a nightmare. Emmings: I guess the question is how interested are you in getting comments from people who are going to be directly affected. Dacy: They will be here. I can assure you that they will be here. Emmings: You put 18 townhouses directly in my line of sight across my lake and I didn't know about it until it was allover. Dacy: But I think the beachlot issue in Chanhassen has been going on for so many years, it's tops. Emmings: But I don't trust people getting it by word of mouth. Noziska: On this beachlot access, for urban and rural we're limiting it to a maximum of 50 dwelling units having access? Olsen: Just the rural. Urban still is the same conditions. 80% within 1,000 feet or however many are in that subdividion. Noziska: Shouldn't we be doing the same rules for both? 4i'nrad: They are different areas. Olsen: One is spread out. They are completely different lot sizes. Noziska: So you're saying in an urban area, it's within a 1,000 feet. Conrad: The logic goes like this is you are trying to support it. Our current Ordinance says 1,000 feet contiguous or whatever. So far, using that standard, the biggest beachlot group is like 44 so that's where the 50. We said, the 1,000 feet got us to a 44 type of limit so we rounded it off to 50. Noziska: So they are equal. Conrad: So there is some kind of logic. Not a whole lot but there is something that's there. Emmings: I take it too that you are going to get rid of that second sentence too. RURAL STREET STANDARDS. Dacy: We have really come full circle on this issue. The last time we talked about it there were some good points made about looking at the length ~ the cul-de-sac. Looking at the number of lots to be served. Looking at .e amount of traffic to be used by private drives versus a standard public Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 40 e street and I guess the earlier issue tonight kind of points out most of the cons of a private drive situation. The Halla subdivision that we talked about. However, the direction that I got from the Commission was for Staff to come back and give us a number that we can stick by in the future as to when to cut something off between a private drive and requiring it for a public street. In my analysis I kind of go through the thought process that Staff went through, the City Engineer and in talking to other communities. Establishing a length in the rural area proved to be more difficult because, as Mr. Segal pointed out, you have different sized parcels. Different sized rural lots may be 10, 15 to 20 acres that you would have to have a 1,500 foot private drive. So what we ended up looking at was the amount of use. Typically, a single family home generates 10 trips per day according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers. It comes down to picking a number of lots. Clearly on one hand, 3 or 4 looking at a use standpoint onto the road surface and so on, is not as significant as 10, 12 or 15 so where do you come down to a point that one is better than the other. I guess what I'm saying is that just like trying to establish a setback or a lot area requirement, you try to establish some type of intent statement. You want to minimize the number of lots onto a private drive. Currently we are allowing four and Staff has come back and we're recommending that again, that you maintain that four and not extend it to five or six. Emmings: I thought it was three. We were talking about three tonight. 4IlCY: Yes, in the Subdivision Ordinance it is three. During the 1 per 10 discussion, there is a statement that will allow up to two landlocked parcels to be serviced by the private drive so you could have up to four but that was under the new restrictions of the 1 per 10 so in the Halla case that didn't apply. You will be getting requests at the next meeting. They have a pr i va te dr i ve serv i ng four lots and then they have another two 2 1/2 acre lots and another divided lot and another private drive so again, it comes down to where do you draw the line because you will always have requests for 5 or 6. If you grant a variance for 6 then the next guy in the door will say I want 7. These are hard decisions for the Commission and Councils to make but again, we just came full circle and said, Staff can't recommend that you go anything beyond four. Headla: Do you ask the Fire Department for their input before it comes to us? Dacy: Yes. Headla: For instance, if somebody wants to extend it beyond four, do you get comments from the Fire Department? Dacy: Yes. We get comments on all issues that affect the Fire Department. Typically, the Fire Department doesn't prefer private drives from an addressing problem because for example, if this is Audubon Road, you'll have ~our addresses off of Audubon and if you're just looking down the street, ~ey could drive right by and not realize the lots in the rear are off of Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 41 e Audubon so we're looking more and more to naming these private drive with street names so it's easy to identify. Headla: Do the police have a comment on those? Dacy: Our Public Safety Director typically is acting on behalf of the Sheriff's Department so through his office, yes we will get comments. Emmings: We talked about requiring, like we did on that one project, requiring a homeowners association, if they are going to have these roads and that they be responsible for maintainenance of that, do we do that even if there are only four? Dacy: I would suggest it. Emmings: We should do it in every case? Dacy: Yes. Emmings: What I was going to say, if you don't do it for 4, we should certainly do it if we ever approve any over 4 because then if they don't maintain it, we can go in. Dacy: Even if the association is responsible for nothing else than to make ~re and identifying who is responsible for maintenance and so on. Like ~at you're saying, a majority of the owners won't want to approve it in the future and they would have the right to do that. That's what we're doing with Bluff Creek Greens subdivision and it really is the City's only way to make sure that everything is done properly. Erhart: The major reason I'm on this Planning Commission is my overall concern about maintaining the amenities of the south Chanhassen area. The nice combination of agricultural yet realizing that this is valuable property for people who want to live out there and allowing us to do some subdivisions mixed in this agricultural property. The reason that I've been trying to find little devices to keep this consistency and beauty of a rural subdivision just like you guys would require in the urban area, is that I don't want south Chanhassen to end up like Prior Lake. Prior Lake has 10 acre lots, some 5, some 20. There is no system. There are all kinds of gravel private driveways. Some maintained, some not. It's just a hodge podge mess and land values are just zero relative to currently where we are here. My opinion is I think we ought to look at those areas where we are getting subdivisions and look at them with the same critical eye that we have for the urban area and I think we ought to void these private drives as much as practical. We've got a new Ordinance with good separations. We've got 1,250 feet on arterials. The only thing we missed there is a statement of how far that driveway had to be from an intersection. Looking at this Halla thing, you can have 1,250 feet separation in driveways but that driveway could be 300 feet from TH 101 and CR 14 intersection. We ought to ~onsider maybe adding that stipulation in here as well. In collectors we've ~t 400 feet so if you're looking for a number to corne up with, I think you Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 42 e look at one, the arterials, unless there is almost a hardship case, you don't want to have any private drives coming out to arterials. If you can avoid it for all practical means. Obviously there are going to be some cases where for a buildable lot it's the only way to get there and he meets the requirements and so forth but I think we can focus on the number on collectors. We have 400 feet. Our minimum lot frontage now is 200 feet. So if we have 400 feet along a collector and we want to break that into two lots, each having 200, that gives us two lots. It's going to make sense to have a common driveway for two lots and beyond that I think it ought to be an exception. When you get up into three lots, I guess I would like to see that we require a cul-de-sac although I guess I could be swung either way on three. But I'll tell you, on four, I think it was a mistake to change it to four because four absolutely should have required a public street to access four or five lots. Lastly, I think we ought to have a rule that says any subdivision over three lots can not have private driveways on collectors or arterials. Add that as part of the rules. Some guy comes in here with a five lot subdivision, you have to come up with a plan that has a street that serves all five of those lots. A case in sight there is the development of Bluff Creek Greens where you've got every lot along the highway there. You were all looking for a means to somehow, we all looked at it and said, awful. We had no means of forcing these guys to do something different and obviously they weren't about to show us any ideas either. Even Sever's there, he had five lots along TH 101. We all looked at that and said, isn't there some way we can do it better? We couldn't because we didn't have any _..,ols to force him to put in a street and he could have because I know ~tside this room they were talking to those people that had the land behind them and had they had enough pressure, they could have worked a dea 1 to get more land. I think we ought to think about putting the tools in. I would like to see it two lots. I think we have the argument that says two lots on a private driveway is enough. Anything about that requires a street and we can always make variances. Let's minimize them. The second thing is if we make just any subdivision of three lots or if it's four lots, that no lots can have private driveways on them. They should have an interior street system. However you word it and then the other ones go back and look at the driveway spacings from intersections and make that 400 feet for collectors and 1,250 for arterials. Again, giving us more power in our tools to regulate this. Noziska: I wonder how that would apply to the area that I'm living in right now. Would that mean that the streets would have to be city streets? We've got a private road off of Bluff Creek Drive and actually Bluff Creek Drive is just an absolutely disastrous road. We put 3 inches of asphalt down and then two years later we put a sealcoat on it and that's been a good road. As a matter of fact it's far beyond what Chahassen uses for their residential streets. It seems to be working out fine. Erhart: Maybe that's an alternative. You did that for a reason because you had a problem right? ~ziska: We did it for a reason, yes. For maintenance and we are .sponsible for the maintenance of this private drive. We had it in mind to Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 43 e do it basically as a homeowners association. We talked it up as people purchased lots and the only thing we were really waiting on was until the base settled down so the gravel had been in there long enough so we had most of the settling on the base. Once we did that we put the 3 inch of asphalt on top of it. Last fall, we filled the cracks. Erhart: Is there a possibility to create another class of road that would fall somewhere between the gravel and private road? Noziska: Require something other than just gravel on a private road. Dacy: What we've done as a result of some of the most recent applications, I showed the transparency last time, Tim you weren't at that meeting, but the Engineer came up with a street section standard for a private drive. Basically, everything for a rural section roadway, 60 feet of right-of-way, ditch section, 24 foot wide surface except that it's gravel and there is not the bituminous add on. So far, we just had a standard urban section, rural section and now we've come up with this section for a private drive. Noziska: How wide is the road? Dacy: 24 feet. Noziska: I don't remember how wide ours is .ve 21 lots that we're servicing off of it rs down and that's about it but even with somebody. but I know it's not 24 feet. We and it's wide enough to get two 21 lots, it's rare that you meet Erhart: To me it would seem to make sense that two lots share a driveway and then maybe from 3 to 5 lots, maybe you have some kind of other asphalt street but of a lower standard than of our current streets. Right now our current public streets require how much asphalt? Dacy: I think it was 2 inches. Noziska: Maximum of 2 inches. It used to be an 1 1/2 and they were breaking up allover town and it really got to be a problem for the City. I think they went 2 inches. Dacy: Even with the section that we came up with on the private drive, your 2 inches of bituminous is closer to a standard rural section. Mike Klingelhutz called up and said this is still too expensive for me. He was reconsidering even doing the subdivision because the gravel drive he felt was too expensive. If you are that close, you might as well go in and do it the right way and create a public street. The expense issue, you can argue that both ways. Staff, we originally started out recommending everything with public street and either you do it the urban section or the rural section but in the past, there has been approvals given for the private drives and if that's what the Commission and Council want that's fine. It's ~st that we wanted to reconfirm the commitment to what number of lots and a 1Ifpe of section that is required. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 44 e Erhart: All I know is I live on a graveled street and it's maintained by the City. I'll tell you, you drop your jaw every 15 to 20 feet. They come in and grade it once or twice a year. Noziska: I don't know what the solution is to dictate city streets or if there is going to be private roads, to dictate a proper cross section. Erhart: The first issue is how many lots can share a driveway. the main top issue that you're looking for an answer. Isn't that Noziska: I think four is appropriate. with the goofy Ordinance we've got allowing building on 2 1/2 acres, we're almost bound to four. Conrad: But four in the future means what? When does the 1 and 10 go into effect? Dacy: It's been in effect since February 19th. acting on all of these old applications. It's just that we've been Conrad: So in the future, and I couldn't quite understand what you were saying, in the future it's still three. We can still subdivide into three but there is a situation where it would be four. Dacy: The Zoning Ordinance in the 1 per 10 says four and the Subdivision ~dinance, which is a separate ordinance, still says three. We're codifying .H Ordinances at this time so the whole purpose of this was to make those consistent or to change them all together. Noziska: The thing that I'm looking at with three is okay, so then you've got three lots and you have another access adjacent so then you end up with two accesses on a major road rather than one and I think you're better off with one access when you split 10 acres into four parcels. Erhart: Except we're proposing that any subdivision over three parcels would require all of them front a public street so we couldn't do that. And I would have stopped this thing tonight too. Emmings: Tim's concerns are important ones but I don't agree with his solution either because it seems to me, I can see the concerns about a hodge podge of private driveways and obviously as we saw, it was a disaster but if you had four people along the five lots and have their own private drives and if it were well maintained. The maintenance seems to me to be kind of the key to the thing and if it was built to a standard that we set. So if it's built right and it's maintained, I don't see any problem. If we tell them that they are going to have to have a homeowners association that's responsible for maintaining it. If the City has to come in and do anything, we're going to assess it to them. Then maybe we can get a grip on it. Noziska: Tim, here's what I'm talking about. Here's 40 acres and here's 40 .res and here's 4 lots and here's 4 lots. If, by doing what you're saying, e we going to force this or wouldn't we be a hell of a lot better off Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 45 :e . . allowIng thIS? My contention is we're better off to allow these 2 1/2 acre lots then to be somehow gelled together if people are going to do that than to say, and believe me they will find anyway to take any advantage of this as they can possible do so. We may have maybe a cluster of three here or maybe have two here and two here, who knows. But whatever the situation, we're going to end with more rather than less as far as intrusions on our road system. That's where you guys came up with the four. Erhart: I think we're controlling the issue of how many driveway access more so by the regulations of distances between driveways. Noziska: But you can meet that by doing this. Erhart: Sure you can but I thi nk what you're trying to avo id is, I just don't think we want to have four or five people sharing a single driveway. Noziska: I think that in our infinite wisdom we have said that as long as you don't exceed 1 and 10, that means you can take a 40 and split it into four. That's where these gals came up with this method and I think it makes more sense to do something like this than it does to do something like that. Dacy: I would like to have a decision as to the number. Conrad: I guess Howie's argument is kind of persuasive for me. I think .ur works and has some rationale to it. I think the standards for building private drives have to be in place but I don't how those are addressed. Steve's idea on the homeowners association, I think is a good one and if that applies to this four, I think that's real smart. I think that makes a lot of sense. So those are the three things that I see. The four, the standards and the homeowners association. Emmings: I agree with you. That gives us a number that we can rationally justify. It gives us the standards that the road has to be built to and it gives us a way to enforce maintenance. What more do we need. Erhart: If we do that, is there any interest in taking subdivisions of five or more lots and require them to all have internal streets? Conrad: I assume that would happen with what we just said. Emmings: They can't have a private drive so what can they have? Conrad: Can you come back with a draft for us to see? Dacy: Sure. Erhart: So we're saying a shared driveway with two people, they essentially create their own standard. If it goes three and four, then we have to have some kind of standard. enrad: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 46 e Noziska: What do we have for a standard on private drives? Dacy: It's everything for a rural section except the bituminous. Erhart: If two lots came up here and they wanted to share a driveway, they have to meet that standard right now? Dacy: Just for two lots, we haven't been enforcing it. Erhart: Thatls what I'm saying. For one and two we haven't been enforcing it but for three and four we are and for five we will create a public street. COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE MEETING REPORT, DAVID HEADLA. Headla: I went to the meeting that turned out to be over at the Dinner Theater. Apparently there are 15 people on the Commission for this and from what I can tell, 14 of them are in this immediate area. One is from out west and nothing from down by Bluff Creek. People seems to be quite enthusiastic about it. Theylve done a lot of work on it. Theylve thought a lot about it. They are thinking about, currently we own a building, they are thinking about using that for racquetball courts and some swimming and hockey. The rationale for having it there is it supposedly will bring .affic to the downtown. Children can walk to the center and it supports e hockey association. Now lIve got negative comments. Bringing traffic to downtown doesnlt help us. Children donlt use a rec center. You don't want a youngster in there unsupervised. Racquetball courts they don't use and you've got to supervise them for swimming. On the Hockey Association, west of TH 41 they are all Shorewood and Minnetonka hockey. I donlt think the people that are on that committee are that sensitive to what's happening allover Chanhassen. They are very tuned to this area. They are with the flow right here but they forget that there is all this whole area. There is no room for softball. I think I probably use recreational centers more than anybody else on the community and the two that they had to compare, 11m very familiar with Eden prairie and New Ulm. Softball fields are extremely popular. You go in the summertime through Eden prairie and they are heavily used by the population. They did an analysis on putting in a swimming pool. They talked to Eden prairie and talked to New Ulm. If you look at New Ulm, there isnlt any swimming pools there. They put one in and it's used a lot. People are very happy with it and why wouldn't they be. Thatls all they have. In Eden prairie, we didn't have swimming pools around Eden Prairie. The school uses it, the community uses it. We didn't have the fitness centers around. If we put one here, what do we got? Welve got Eden prairie, the Minnetonka high schools and welve got a fitness center up on TH 4. We've got a lot of pools around here already and if we donlt put in a major pool there, it wonlt have any traffic at all but the point I was trying to make, the analysis for putting in a swimming pool, I talked to the lady on how did she determine to recommend the swimming pool. There wasnlt .set format. It just kind of associated pools in the whole area. I think ere is a value for a recreation center. We need the rationale for helping Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 47 e downtown but how you want to do it. I just thought you would want to think about it. Conrad: What's the direction that the committee is going in? This is sort of an informative meeting. Headla: Strictly informative. It didn't talk about money or anything else and it's going to be at least another month before I hear any additional information. I'm trying to talk to some people and just get a feel for how they look at it. Conrad: The uses of the facility again are? Headla: They are going to have racquetball courts, swimming and hockey. The rationale is bringing traffic into downtown, children walking to the center and supports our youth hockey association. Conrad: Will that be a referrendum issue? Headla: I don't know. We didn't get into that. Dacy: Yes, it will. Conrad: Okay, thanks for going and keep us informed. e Noziska moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e