Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
75-01 - Comp Plan Amendment pt 5
C I T"Y o F l5 I 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney; Russell Larson FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: April 20, 1978 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Security Agreement I would ask you to work in conjunction with Jules Smith in preparing a final draft of the security agreement for presentation to the City Council. I do not believe we will be prepared to present this by May lst (given potential changes considered by Dunn and Curry in phasing); however; such should be completed by May 15th to insure some portion of the public improvement project can occur in 1978. In reviewing the draft prepared by Jules Smith and the last draft from this office (the draft enclosed in the last council agenda packet) and considering comments made by the City Council at the April 17th meeting, I would request that you and Jules consider the following: 1). Both my.draft and Jules' draft appear to place an emphasis on the sanitary sewer construction, repurchase, credits, etc. As a dual draft, I believe it should be reworked to additionally place emphasis on the fact that the agreement is a security agreement providing for certain fiscal guarantees -that assessments will be paid by properties within the project area (not necessarily those owned by Lake Susan Hills) to insure the City has monies to pay principal and.interest on bonds when due, etc. 2). As I read the City _Council, the 3'0 year assessment period proposed in Jules' draft is totally unacceptable. I also believe that the 20 years shown in my draft would not be acceptable to the City Council and I would strongly suggest that Dunn and Curry consider proposing a.15 year term in a representation of this item to the City Council. Additionally, if at all reasonably possible, Dunn and Curry should consider providing for a floating five or other concession in lieu of the present first five year period. 3). I believe the examples of distribution of credit should be included in a final draft or in some other way referenced in the agreement document. I.believe this would be one reasonable means to assure that at a future date computations were prepared similar to those presently being considered. - Mr. Russell Larson' A -2- April 20, 1978 4). A section should be added to the contract clarifying the fact that, as a.security agreement under which Dunn and Curry would be paying assessments for other properties during such period as such assessments were delinquent'(whether by choice of owner, as a result of legal proceedings, State proceedings, willful non-payment, etc.),that Dunn and Curry would be repaid monies advanced by them plus any interest monies received by the City (excluding penalties for certification costs). 5). It may be desirable to have the number of years under which credits would'be repaid to Partners as a result of MICC purchase of the sewer line left at a longer period of time, i.e. 30 years. Having this period parallel the bond payment years may be desirable for consistency, but does not appear to'be necessary and, given the recommendation to reduce the assessment years to 15, it may be reasonable to leave the credit years at a 20 or 30 year level. cc: Jules Smith Rod Hardy, Dunn and Curry M. iJYN [ .ri'��: ao 1 G i °ice-u:3(ni-33ZM Mr. David Sellergren, Attorney Mr. Ed Dunn, Dunn & Curry Mr. Rodney Hardy, Dunn & Curry Mr. Russell Larson, Attorney Gentlemen: April 20, 1978 I have just had called to my attention my copy of letter dated April 18, 1978 from Nancy Salustro to Bruce Pankonin, copy of which was also addressed to you. So that your files will be complete, I am enclosing herewith a copy of my letter to her, also dated April 18, 1978. Noticeably absent from this batch of correspondence is the content of her telephone conversation with Mr. Pankonin April 12th, referred to in the first line of her April 13th letter to him. I am not impressed by her hope expressed in the last paragraph of her letter of the 18th. Very truly yours, M . J . Ward MJ�,g/sdm Enclosures cc: Na cy Salustro race Pankonin 0'I J. From, City Admhgistrator -� � � �� :��� NfNrrcd 1Oi =1320 DA IN 713WER st 2-2 2-0 ;r April Nancy Salustr0 r; environmental Planneri3?lcii�3 �- . Quality Board ngin' ncsota �nvironm�n��a1 Qua prws _ 100 Capitol Square Building �th�t;,,.• i�cl�-��/��f 550 Cedar Street 5t. Paul, Minnesota 55101���/ Lear Nancy: lT,y copy of your letter dated Thursday, April 13, 1978 to Mr. Pankoni an, Ci-i=.y Planner at Chanhassen, denying juris- diction, reached mein the morning mail Monday, April 17. You invite questions and i have several. On Thursday, April .13, the date of your letter, you tele- phoned me requesting that I attend a meeting at Chanhassen City Hall the following morning, Friday, April 14 at 9:00 A.I\,i. fo:- =the express purpose of discussing with several people involved the question whether the City of Chanhassen should request or iniulate procedure for an impact statement. I attended that meeting Your letter states you understand that the project is 276 acres "so no eilVironmental assessment worksheet %IEAW) is required". �-)Iy question is what investigation, study and research did you maiie to determine the facts, the accuracy and the truth of -, r -lr'.::e 2716 ! V acre figure? .inasmuch as your statement.of understanding of the 276 acre figure was Laade on April l3th, the day prior to the meeting on Friday, the 14th, and that meeting was for the express purpose ot�7 discussing the question of impact statements, we feel entitled to be informed of the facts on which your decision was based. My next question is what, if any, consideration and weight dic! you give to my disclosure at the Friday meeting of written Nancy Salustro April IS, 1978 Page Two documentary evidence, admitted by the applicant himself as accurate and factual, that the project did in fact consist of approximately 1000 acres, not 276? Again, what consideration_ and weight did you give to the fact that your jurisdictional regulation of 320 acres is a sham and open.invitation to any applicant with a 1000 contiguous acre parcel of. .and to simply an0repeatedly make applications from time to time for less :.hall 320 acres for sewers, temporary. sewers, roads, dumping grounds and 'Other objectionable and im- movable environmental installations until, by piecemeal tactics, the entire 1000 acre parcel is gradually consumed and thus the entire area of the neighborhood is destroyed and desolated, 320 acres at a time, by the very regulation of the Quality Board you rely on to support your decision of lack of juris- diction? Very truly yours, �: ; ,�-- M . J' . Tigard xI0`r7 sdm c - :truce Pankonin VILLAGP- OP. C}IA14HASS5t4j c NiMM. ,�` Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 100 Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone 296-8255 April 18, 1978 Bruce Pankonin, City Planner City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Chanhassen Lake Park Development Dear Mr. Pankonin: As we discussed at the meeting on April 14, 1978, this project is below the 320 acre threshold for an industrial park and does not require an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, as future proposals are submitted, each must be evaluated pursuant to our Rules on the need for Environmental Review. Thank you for scheduling the meeting on such short notice. As you are most aware, it is difficult to adequately explain both the process of the City and the Environmental Quality Board through a few short telephone conversations. Often petitions are submitted by concerned property owners only as a means of having the developer define his complete proposal to those most personally impacted by the project. I hope that through this short meeting, the positions of all involved are clarified and the time and costs associated with contested case hearing procedures can be avoided. Sincerely, Nancy tro Environmental Planner NS/dh cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ward, Attorney Jerome Raldt, Attorney Dave Sellegren, Attorney Ed Dunn, Chairman, Dunn & Curry Real Estate Mgmt. Inc. Rodney Hardy, Vice President, Dunn & Curry Real Estate Mgmt. Russell Larson, Attorney Inc. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Council Meeting .'%i1 17, 1978 -2- NORTH LAKE SUSAN SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STREET -AND STORM SF-WER _- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND REZONING -AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Ed Dunn, Jim Curry, Ste ios Aslanidis, Julius Smith, Rod Har y, Bud Andrus, Don Wisniewski, Pat Murphy, and several Lake Susan residents were present. RESOLUTION #78-18:-- Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution authorizing the proposed North Lake Susan Sanitary Sewer,, Water, Street, and Storm Sewer Improvement Project 78-3 to be constructed - in accordance with the feasibility study for the project as submitted by the city engineer's dated February 1978 subject, however, to the following,contingencies: 1. Lake Susan'Hills.Partnership preparing a. security agreement, agreeable to the city, reasonably assuring the -public interest is fiscally protected - all prior to the city awarding any construction contracts or approving bond sale for the project. 2'. Lake Susan Hills Partnership providing the city with a cash deposit or other.security agreement, agreeable to the city, insuring that non -assessable project costs are paid,-i.e. appraisal, engineering, and legal. fees associated with a law suit appealing the legality of the Lake Susan Hills -public improvement project. The amount of such security by at.least $15,000. 3. Lake Susan Hills Partnership sign an agreement expanding the project boundaries from Lyman Blvd. to Highway 5 to allow for spreading assessments for building acquisition over a larger and more representative benefit area. -4. The city officially adopt the alignment of new County State Aid H ghway :-17 . Upon -the-satisfaction of said conditions, the Council then will proceed to order plans and specifications and direct the.City Attorney to acquire the necessary right-of-way. Resolution seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. -COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 17: RESOLUTION #78-19: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution establishing a centerline for the right-of-way for the proposed extension of CSAH 17 from Highway 5 south to -Lyman Blvd. as Exhibit A dated April 17, 1978. Resolution seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Councilman Waritz moved to rezone Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from R-lA to P-4 and approve the preliminary plat as shown on Exhibit B dated April 17, 1978, subject -to the following conditions: 1. Successful completion of the installation of public improvements. 2. City Engineer determine the final alignment -and construction standards for all roads. 3. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration by the city council. The developer agrees to establish a no build line on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at an. elevation of 935 or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake, which ever is greater and Lots 8 and 9 at a distance of 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake. 4. That it is understood the uses permitted within the planned CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O BOX 147'6CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: April 14, 1978 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-054 In response to council directive, I have perused the April 3, 1978, city council minutes and feel all of the issues raised by the general public were, for the most part, addressed by the planning commission in their deliberation on March 22, 1978. I have, for the information of the council, attached a longitudinal section showing the relative building placement pursuant to the heretofore identified no build line. I believe the attached gives a more accurate representation of a local situation than the graphic portrayed by the residents at a scale of 5 to 1 vertical exaggeration. Note: The city engineer informs me that his office has staked the 935 and 945 elevations along the north shore of Lake Susan. Should the council desire to look at these stakes, the best way to gain access would probably be parking in the Lutheran Church parking lot and walking directly south to the north shore area. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 100 Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone 296-8255 1f' , L. h-1 April 13, 1978 Bruce Pankonian, City Planner City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Chanhassen Lake Business Park Dear Mr. Pankonian: From; City Adr lftft Referred To.. Mayor �+I -".- Cowndl Planner Building Attarnoy Engineer.-,_ - Tr6a§urer Firm VAW Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, we under- stand that the above mentioned project is 276 acres. This proposal is below the threshold of 320 acres for an indus- trial park, so no environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is required on this project. However, as individual indus- tries are proposed for this park, each must be evaluated on the need for Environmental Review and an EAW submitted on each that meets a mandatory category. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number. Sincerely,11_nn V Nancy Salustro Environmental Planner NS/dh cc: Mr. Ward, Minneapolis NN'►1l.�ia? n �? APR 1978 �ECE1VEL) VILLAGE OF � CHANHASsC �JJ' AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .000 (D REGULAR PLANNING ,.kMISSION MEETING APRIL 12,1978 n Roman Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dick Matthews, Hud Hollenback, Walter Thompson, and Mal MacAlpine. Les Bridger and Jerry Neher were absent. MINUTES: Members were reminded of the joint meeting with the Council on April 17 at 9:45 p.m. Hud Hollenback moved to approve the March 22, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Roman Roos, Walter Thompson, Hud Hollenback, and Mal MacAlpine. Dick Matthews 'abstained. Motion carried. COUNCIL MINUTES: CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: The reason for the Planning Commission recommending the 935 foot elevation instead of 945 is that this elevatio will shorten the height of buildings as fas as viewing from the south shore and will not encroach on the treed area. Hud Hollenback moved to note the April 3, 1978, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING PRIVATE BEACH LOT - CONDITIONAL USE ALLEN GRAY Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Joy and Jim Setzer, 13730 Kinsel Road, Minnetonka Bill Brezinsky, Schoell and Madson David Luse, 8056 Rose St., Victoria Adele Colich, 9217 Lake Riley Blvd., Chaska Francine Haille, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Mary Orman, 9211 Lake Riley Blvd. Ray and Jo King, 9391 Kiowa Trail Don and Betty Heath,-4942 Drew Ave. So.,.Minneapolis Eunice Kottke, 4441;Washburn Ave. So:, Minneapolis Mr. and Mrs. John Skranka, 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Mr: and Mrs. -Eugene Susemihl, 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. Richard Olin, 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. Roger Groth, 8429 Little Road, Bloomington John Kosmas, 6112 Excelsior Blvd., Minneapolis Allen Gray, 5220 W. 102nd, #324, Bloomington Judy Hungelmann, 9117 Lake Riley Blvd. Marlyn Goulett, 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Ben and Pat-.Swensan, 74 Judith -Drive. Chaska Lillian Hague, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Donna Tottenham, 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. Barry Bershow, 9271 Kiowa Trail Bob McCart; 9360 Kiowa Trail The Assistant City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver County Herald. Mr. Gray is proposing to create a private beach lot and construct a beach house on Lot 37, Shore.Acres, for.use by -residents of Sunny Slope Addition: The -.Planner recommended the Planning Commission look, with favor upon.this-proposal and that a building permit be issued contingent to the following grounds and conditions: Planning Commissi-1. Meeting April 12, 1978 ---) 5►42 1. That 2. That 3. That statement species,of the applicant is bound to the shelter plans as submitted. all plans meet the the applicant post or plan delineating plants. approval of the city engineer. a $5,000 landscape bond with a written the planting scheme, i.e. placement and Betty Heath - I'm Lots 34 and 35 of Shore Acres. I want to present to the Planning Commission a resolution, voted on and adopted by the Lake Riley Homeowners Association at their annual meeting last night. "More than fifty members of the Lake Riley Homeowners Association at their annual meeting, April 11, 1978, adopted the following resolution: The Lake Riley Homeowners Association opposes the conditional use permit for Lot 37, Shore Acres, due to the fact that a conditional use permit will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area and diminish property value." Of the over 50 people that were there, there was one negative vote and that man came up to me afterwards and said that he did approve the homes being built in the development but he had decided that he didn't want the shore lot being used for the recreational facility. Roman Roos - What factors brought it about? What are some of the elements that caused the resolution? Betty Heath - This lot is contained in a little bay area that is not safe, not adequate for the single family dwelling. If you got 12 canoes, 12 motorboats with their ten horsepower it would be a mess. It would be dangerous. If they built a dock out, any length at all, we build a dock from the point, we would intersect. We are opposed to the usage, not the building. We just feel it is not adequate, not even for the uses it is put to right now. Joyce Setzer - We are purchasers of Lots 38 and 39 and went through a lot to get a variance to build a home on two lots which are twice as big as Mr. Gray's one lot. We were told by both the Planning Commission and myself by Mr. Gray that the burned down cabin would not be built because 50 feet is to small to build a home on. It's zoned for homes. How can a variance be given when it's all R-1 and he is building not a home but a recreational facility on a 50 foot lot? Craig Mertz - This is not a variance. It's a conditional use and the ordinance recognizes that this type of activity is permitte in the area upon the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City. Bruce Pankonin - The Setzer variance pertained to'encroachment upon the front yard setback requirements. Roman Roos - I think it's in order, Bruce, that we reiterate exactly what a conditional use permit is. Bruce Pankonin - Conditional uses are really permitted uses provided the following conditions be met: 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort. or general welfare. C 2. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted �4 Planning Commissi ^ Meeting April 12, 1978 -3- nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. That the conditional use, shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. For the Planning Commission to recommend and the Counci to issue a conditional use permit it has to stand the test of these four points. Roman Roos - That's the purpose of the public hearing so that we have the views.issued from the residents in that vicinity. Don Heath - I -believe two of the items just mentioned by Mr. Pankonin would apply in -our case. The value of the property would not be enhanced by the recreational facility being built there and also the enjoyment of our property. Betty Heath - Could I ask how a homeowners association in a development like Sunny Slope that is served -by one homeowners assn. can build -in a development like Shore Acres that is served by another homeowners assn. when our priorities are opposed. We think it is unsafe. We think it will spoil our privacy. We think it will interfere with the enjoyment of our properties and this is not only us adjoining, it's on many directions. Why don't they build their recreation facility in their addition as long as they want it instead of down in Shore Acres under our association who does' not want it. Craig Mertz - Does this Lake Riley Homeowners -Association include owners in. -subdivisions other than Shore Acres? Betty Heath - It -certainly does. Craig Mertz - It is my understanding that the Lake Riley Homeowners Association is just an informal association of persons who happen to own property.on.Lake.Riley. The homeowners association that Mr. Gray is proposing would be a corporation that would be the record owner of this particular lot and the:Lake Riley Homeowners Assn. has no monoply over the lake. Mr. Gray is free to convey his land to a corporation if he so chooses. Jo King - The Lake Riley Homeowners Association has been organized since 1969 and we are very active. ::We not only work to try and -protect our property a.little.bit but also to keep the lake safe and -clean and we -have done some other.things. Eden -Prairie with their park on the other side have also benefitted from what the organization has done. We are very concerned because of the bay -is congested at this time and there are many 50 foot lots. There are also 100 foot lots-. If Mr. Gray put out a,dock which we were told would be 75 feet, we.feel that would extend out into the bay a great deal and cause problems with the traffic pattern of boats. Since Eden Prairie has taken over that side the boat traffic has increased on the.lake. Judy Hungelmann - I am opposed to Mr. Gray's usage of that small 50 foot lot because we have on our -lake an apartment building complex'(Lake View Hills) which has lake access, then Eden Prairie has bought up the old Dutchs and they allow any number of boats, they have no Planning Commissi, :'Meeting April 12, 1978 -4- control whatsoever, plus all the people that own on the lake have boats and then to add this which would be usage for these twelve owners and their friends. The lake is too small. We had a terrible accident there last summer. There is no control. Mrs. -DeWitt - I am quite concerned about this and I have written my thoughts down and I wondered if I-couldread what I have .Written. My husband and I live within the footage necessary -for the notification of a conditional use .permit so we are concerned. -We are concerned because of our nearness to this particular lot and also we are concerned -about the precedent that it may serve for future requests of this nature. Our words tonight are only about Lot 37. •In..no way do we wish to detract from what I understand is a fine project that's in the making by Mr. Gray and actually Mr.- Gray and/or the -people to whom he sells are going to be our neighbors so we certainly want to =maintain a spirit of neighborliness, but good neighbors should have the right to be -frank and speak out about what they feel if their interests are threatened.. Shore Acres is in an R-1 zoning: -Of all the zoning classifications that there are, this -is the sacred classification. It's the classification for the single family dwelling. It's an area where if you buy or you rent you can expect to live in the midst of other single family -dwellings without the threat of a different type of intrusion. Concern for ones home and property probably comes second only to the concern for the member of your own family -so when you change anything that threatens the enjoyment of ones home or property, it's not a trivial thing. Zoning departments recognize this and Chanhassen's department says it this way; conditional uses are those generally not suitable in a particular zoning district but which may under some certain *circumstances be acceptable and it then lists the number of .procedures, all of which'are being followed, and then some of the standards which should be met and it's on these points that as a resident of Shore Acres we differ._ We feel that the issuance of a permit does affect the safety, the comfort, and the general welfare -of those in the vicinity. We feel that it will be injurious to= the enjoyment- of :other property in the immediate vicinity and we feel that it will diminish property values in the vicinity. There are persons here tonight who are speaking on the specifics of these things; the noise, the traffic, the safety, the affects on the -=land value, so I will not go -into detail on those things but the overall affect is that someone who thought he was living next to a -single family lot is now living next to a recreational thoroughfare. You can landscape it beautifully. You can place the most sturdy docks and racks on it. You can build the most aesthetic building f but it's still will be used by many people, not just one( .family. Our sympathies go out to those who live in very close proximity to this lot and each of us can say, but for the grace of God there sit I. If a conditional Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1978 --5- use ±ermit is granted here I d, 't see why it couldn't happen at future time to any one of us. The last point I would like to make is that this conditional use request does not come from within the community in which this lot is located but it comes from an outside community. The surrounding neighbors have no control. Now, I am not bringing that up to suggest that if we shared in this control this would make it acceptable. I'm bringing it up merely to say that. conditional use permits should be carefully handed out and that they should come perhaps as a request from those in the area.- Not impose upon them -from without. - Barry Bershow - Bandimere Heights. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie governments have always thrown up their hands in regard to lake safety saying,.well, it's not all in our boundaries and it's not all in our boundaries and no one has really taken any steps to protect people who live on and who use that lake and for this Planning Commission to take a stand to -open up the lake to further use and more motors in an area that is already very heavily congested with children and swimming - children and other residents that I think would be ridiculous prior to certainly,. -this body and/or the Chanhassen City Council taking some steps to protect the people that are there already and the use of the lake which is already occurring. John Kosmas - We are doing the development work for Sunny Slope Addition. I understand the concerns that I have been hearing from people because it.was:the same thing we :. raised in the office;. hay, what are we doing to the properties around? Are we doing a -service, a disservice? Through our evaluation of the.property we tried to determine what it's potential use could be. Maybe a vacant lot collecting.weeds,,dirt, such like that. Could it be something that could be beneficial to the total area from a beautification standpoint and also from a functioning standpoint for Sunny Slope. Weighing the pros and cons, we did feel that we could properly handle the lot from an aesthetic standpoint. From a structural.standpoint as -far as referring to it being used for single family or for a shelter,as we are suggesting, we thought that we were decreasing the size; in other words the land coverage was considerably less than what a single..family would be on there and probably considerably less -than -what a lot of the single family homes are on the lots -.down there now. By its:- use being on a limited use, not necessarily a full day time activity as if it would be.used for residential function. There are kids that will.be living in the homes -An Sunny Slope which will during the day in the summer want to be going down to the lake. That's going to happen no matter what happens. With the lot or without the lot the kids are going to be at the lake. Boat access is going to be on the lake through public access areas on the lake or through the facilities that we are recommending here. The type of -boat access is considerably different than what I.hear people asking. We have discussed at length with Allen (Gray) as far planning Commissi,� Meeting April 12, 1978 1__� -6 - as, are we talking about runabouts, speed boats, things like that, as far as being an acceptable thing that is going to be used off of this lot area, that is not acceptable. That is written in *the association agreement that the type of boats we are talking about, we are talking about canoes and we are talking about sailboats. We are not recommending a boat landing here. We are talking about no access from the road for any vehicles whatsoever. We do not want cars backing down in there. We do not want trailers parked out there. We are just not hooking for that type of 'a situation from the people that are buying the property and Allen (Gray) is going to be one of the people living in that property and he does not want that around* him either. We are not trying to promote it as a dock setting, -as a yacht club type of thing and we are not trying to promote the type of boats, the speed boats. We can't stop speed boats on -that lake. If one of -the homeowners owns a boat and wants to dock it at a public landing, we can't stop that nor could we stop you 'people from doing the same thing. What we can control is where that boat comes in. This lot is not going to be allowable for that -purpose. What we are trying.. to recommend as f ar as the type of facility, we are not looking for it to be used as a long term type f acility. We are not looking for it to be sleeping area, things' -like that, for lots of people as a guesthouse. We are basically talking about a shelter. If it's being used in the winter for skating or cross country skiing or whatever, the facility will be capable of, if we go ahead with the idea of as far as fireplace heating and such, so it is a shelter. It is someplace to get out.of the -cold. It's someplace to get out of the rain.- We, are not; --looking for it to .be the swank beach house, the party house. There would be regulations as far as how the'facilities can be used in considering party use. No different than an apartment association does or a condominium association does with the use of their party room. The same type of regulations that govern those rooms will govern this type of facility. There will be hours of regulation and I understand for the noise level and such like that. That is possible in anyone of the houses down the line and I see that it is controlled the same way down the line. In this particular case not only is there the control factor of the people that are living on either side or along the area here but also the association that is behind this area. I heard the comment about working together and I think that is important. There has.to be some sort of a combination of all the people that are going to be -living there no matter what the use of that lot is and no matter who is living in here. A lot of the conditions no -matter what happens on the lot could very easily be happening in the houses themselves." The use ofithat particular piece of property to me does not see that change at all. They have to Work together. Neighbors have to work together. I " Planning Commissi,--. Meeting April 12, 1978 -7- There is lots of times people would love to build a ten foot solid fence between their neighbor and that does sometimes happen because we are human beings. It is not the intention of what we are trying to do. What we are looking at as far as - the landscaping and such as that, we do want to make it fairly self contained. We do not want to be an eyesore. We want the parcel to be a very aesthetically pleasing piece of property. Bruce Pankonin - Is it -your intent or Alley Gray's intent to allow an owner of one of the lots in Sunny Slope to moor a speed boat on this beach lot. John Kosmas - The only types of boats that could be moored would be sailboats:- As far as canoes,' we have considered the application of a canoe rack for maybe four to five canoes. We are not talking about a heavy use type facility. Bruce Pankonin - As a non-resident of Sunny Slope could I buy a membership and use this piece of property? John Kosmas - The facility is not open. It is open only to these twelve families or their guests.. Mary Orman - Do you intend to build up the beach area? The beach area as we know it is not in good shape. John Kosmas - We are not looking at it being a swimming beach type of thing. Bruce Pankonin-- Alteration of the lakeshore is not in the hands of the Chanhassen City Council it's -vested in the hands of the DNR. Any filling that goes on there has to be with -the approval of.the DNR. Allen Gray - I do really, honestly appreciate your concern and I have the same concerns that you-do...--_I..have lived on a lake myself and I have youngsters on the lake and I would in no way be interested now-or_.was Lever in a lot of speed:boat.activity or-water::skiing or anything that would be hazardous either as far as -I 'am concerned or anybody. else is concerned. We have written articles of incorporatic and by-laws and covenants and rules and regulations that are specifically intended to curtail any activity of any'kind that is going -to be obnoxious to anybody within the association or anybody outside the association. We don't want -any kind of activity going on that would embarrass"us or the neighbors. There are .to be no motorbikes -or snowm- biles on the.property. That is on the entire property. We'will take whatever other steps are necessary to invoke rules as far as the beach property i's concerned to at least leave the impression that the neighbors; their piece of mind their -good will is treasured is valued and must be kept. We -want to be good neighbors with everybody and I think in the -long run you will find we will find that we will increase the value of the property out -there substantially rather than detract from it." You are all welcome to look at the covenants and restrictions. They have been available out of the Planner's office. I would welcome your looking at them and making comments about them. If you find something that you think has not been covered we would certainly welcome your comments. I -would be very receptive.to Planning Commissi Meeting April 12, 1978 -8 - any. legal advice which would say that the rules that we are talking about with regard to boats and snowmobiles and -motor bikes, -those rules cannot be changed. If this is possible to do legally I would subscribe to that. I do not want to attract people out there. We are placing some fairly stringent regulations in the contract so that whoever buys knows they can't run a.snowmobile. They can't have a motor bike. They can't launch a boat from the -beach property. They can`t tie up a boat except during the daytime and it can only be ten horses and that's all that can ever be tied up to the. dock. We are doing these things -so as not to be attractive to the people that you are worried. about beinging in there. I look to the time in the not to distant future when Lake Riley will very likely be like.Lake Calhoun and Lake Harriet, restricted to non -motorized boats. I am anticipating that and -I am quite willing to live with that. Joy Setzer - Could the use of this property by'your residents be accomplished without erecting the shelter? That's the part that disturbs me more than the people using it for canoes. Allen Gray - I think the shelter gives us some discipline over the property that we might not otherwise have. If the land just lies fallow and it is a place for people to run back.and forth to get to -and from the water I don't really think it will be very attractive. I think with an attractive shelter there, there will be more discipline as to how that property is maintained. Dick Matthews moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson and unanimously approved. Hearing closed at 8:45.p.m. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPIfENT PLAN - ROBERT RITTER: Mr.. Ritter was present seeking approvai to subdivide 23.8 acres into 36 residential lots on property located in the southeast quadrant of -County Road 15 and State Highway 7. He is proposing duplexes on -six of these lots. The Park and Recreation Commission at its April 4th meeting voted that park dedication requirements be fulfilled in accordance with Section 2.03 of -.Ordinance 14A, whereby the park charge is remitted when a building permit is issued. - The Planner recommended the Planning Commission order a public hearing to consider the -rezoning from R-1 to P-1 and subdivision contingent to the following grounds and conditions: 1. That the applicant change the berm so that both rear yard availability and highway noise abatement are. accommodated. 2. That the lot lines of Lots 30 through 36 be extended across the marsh to the northeast boundary of the property..-- 3. That the applicant submit a plan for the public hearing that is in accordance with Sections 7 - 9 of Ordinance 33. Mal MacAlpine moved to hold a public hearing on May 10, 1978, at 7:45 p.m. contingent upon the Planner's recommendation to consider Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -2- Councilman Geving .,oved to note the January 2.;; 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. '_The following voted.in favor: Mayor -Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to note the February 2, 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded -by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,.Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the February 22, 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in'favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes.' Motion carried.. Councilman, Pearson -moved -to note the March 1, 1978,-HRA minutes. ?'lotion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs.,. Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved,to note the March 9, 1978, Community Facilities Study Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and-Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - APPLE VALLEY-RED-E-MIX: Math Fischer and John Ericson were.present-requesting reconsideration for a building permit to construct a fly"ash silo at their plant along Highway 5 and West 78th Street. The Council felt that no new information was presented this evening to necessitate -reconsideration at' this time. EAST LOTUS present: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-75-10 CONSIDER DELETING son., Omer-Nemitz, OSGOOD NEMITZ PROPERTIES: s. Sewall Osgood were Councilman Neveaux-moved to align the street (Tract D, RLS 18) off Lots A-and-B RLS 23 and use the present alignment across Lot B, RLS 18 provided easements are donated for sewer and water and defer one. -Assessment on Lot B,' RLS .18. -Leave-three assessments on the Sewall Osgood property to the north but defer one assessment until .such time as:�the property is -divided. Motion seconded by Councilman Pears.on_.-The following voted in favor:: Councilmen. Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. Mayor Hobbs voted no.'.- Motion carried. WATER RUN OFF: Frank Kurvers was present to complain about water running over is driveway. The engineer will have a xeport for the April-10. Council meeting. . REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHANHASSEN LAKES -BUSINESS -PARK: Ed Dunn, Rod Hardy, Stelios Aslanidis, and several residents from Lake Susan were present. Bruce P'ankonin - The criteria for evaluating this rezoning and subdivision is.the.adop'ted City Plan. The land use plan, as amended by the City of Chanhassen, indicates the subject property should assume an industrial identity. There'should be an open Council Meeting April 3, 1978 _:: - -.3- space linear corridor on the Lake Ann Interceptor trunk sewer alignment and our city plan also indicates ! a.system of roads. The Metropolitan Council, in October 1976, pursuant to the -recommendation of the Chanhassen Planning Commission.looked with favor.on delineating.this".area as -industrial. Subsequent to Metropolitan Council action, the. Chanhassen City Council duly amended the'city plan to indicate the subject property..to be-industrialWe have reviewed the specifics of this plan with the -Riley -Purgatory Creek Board of Managers. We have reviewed.this .-specific proposal in the context. of - the -environmental .:quality act. The Carver County -.Director of Public Works-has.reviewed this -plan as well as the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission. -and Planning. Commission. I:feel it.is extremely important for the city to implement a well thought out industrial plan such as being proposed.- I feel this industrial development will have many positive affects -on the city's economy and environment.- Specifically;:the emphasis will be ..placed on increased purchasing power of the residents, .employment opportunities of the community and expansion of the' city's tax base. To this end I strongly.suggestthe'City Council look with favor on Dunn and -Curry's planned industrial development. provided.--_(1) The city orders:construction for sanitary sewer, water and public roads to the subject ~ property-. . (2).. The: city- engineer determines the final alignment'.and:construction standards for all roads.-,.(3) -The developer be bound to the.time phasing plan as -submitted -for -consideration. In addition, --the devo-loper,agrees-to_establish a no build line on. Lots 3::,-- 4, 5, 6, 'and 7,:. Block 10 at an elevation of 935 feet.. or 200 feet_ of horizontal distance from the lake, whichever is greater. (4) That it is understood that the uses -permitted within the planned industrial_development..shall be governed by sections_ 17.02,_ Ordinance 47.. .-(5) Building design and construction-standards..shall be governed by provisions..of section 9..06,-.-..Ordinance 47. (6) Height, yard:, area and:lot.width_and development regulations be: governed .by :the: planned: industrial standards �as setforth-in section 12.05:,.._:Ordinance 47. (7) Parking -and -loading areas shall be governed by section ,9:.07-, Ordinance 47:: (8) ._ Landscaping standards for. future developments shall 15e:governed by section 12.09, .Ordinance---47.. (9)._Industrial:performance standards. shall.be_governed-by appropriate -:state, local and federal rules and .regulations . ..(10) It shall be understood that the outlots as shown in the preliminary { development plan are to be..used)-for public linear.trail purposes.... (ll): The -developer dedicate sufficient right"of-way as shown in the county engineer's. report (12) • It should -be mutually 'agreed that a development contract outlining -..the. -above conditions shall be entered into between the --City of Chanhassen and Dunn and: Curry. Real .Estate Management;: Inc . Upon the consummation of said development' -contract, the developer Council Minutes April 3, 1978 -4-- should proceed to final"development plans as specified in Ordinance 47.: Jim Murphy - 1.live - at. 8500 Great: Plains: Blvd.- and I was selected :.. to.make.the comments tonight._ I: also would like to thank the developer., _ he made: it - possible for us , for most of these exhibits. Mr. Murphy presented -a petition which _states as follows: "We the undersigned, members -..of _the -Lake Susan Homeowners Association are in complete agreement with the statements..made.by our spokesman James 0.. Murphy ,at the .Chanhassen City. Council Meeting, April 3, 1978.•":The petition.was.signed by_26 individual residents. Jim -Murphy What-we:.are.. interested- in, -obviously, is we would like: to keep the rural._character..and quality of life. We feel that" --the � recent.:: referendum on the public works facility was really a mandate in this direction in- that• the residents that_ are. -here now do want to maintain this, rural .quality -of life. We think at best that possibly this -,-development that is proposed is probably premature. It possibly shouldn't happen until'Highway 212 is constructed. We have also submitted two letters, one was more or less from the neighborhood -altogether and the.o.ther one was from the Robinsons:: First, I would like to talk about .- the. slope:- That_'s probably. our. prime interest. .Right now'the Planning-.Commissiori is proposing a 935 "-,,.contour-.as a --no buildable, no --grading line. We have some pictures that were taken and I am sure you have all seen this slope. 'It's very difficult to see from 101 but very -easy from our.b.ack.yard. I would like .to"pass these-around'to the Council and anybody else that wants -.to see them... -They display what we are talking about. They show the''slope. They show the wooded areas and they show how close it is to the lake. -I think in most planning textbooks this is obviously a choice of..something.you preserve. This :..is.a classic example'of.something.that should remain. What we are saying is.-we.would:.like to preserve the slope to the .945 elevation. The 935 is detrimental for several- reasons-.::. It_.would _remove the trees in .thisarea.. We:would see two.level.s of buildings. If. we could' get the slope,.preserved to the 945 elevation -we think this would be very desirable. This particular _-exhibit,. I am sure:those-out in front are not going to be able' to see it-; I _will pass):it around, we are showing the 945 contour: we -are-showing where this contour possibly shouldn't apply and then we are showing also where the.contour applies we are showing by a straight .line where -the outlot-boundary really, we believe should be. We 'are --showing the: 945" contour dotted where we . don't think -it should apply and then we are showing in -.-.brown the.'935 contour and.then:we are showing this 200 foot minimum proposed Planning Commission no build -_1ine:and then we are showing.the 935 contour -where it. doesn't apply. We see -this as'our proposal what's in solid red as what should be maintained and preserved. This -we would like.to say applies to more than what --the developer is proposing.. We are saying it should apply from . Lots- 2 to 9 and .we -show that here. Council Meeting Al 1 3, 1978 -5- Next I would like to mention .this -particular exhibit. This: is, proposed as an.-outlot.- This on the comprehensive plan:is'=shown as park and :then over here near Rice Marsh Lake it's also shown as park.: - -- Bruce-Pankonin - The sk.etch.plan map does -.not have any status; one day Z graphically jotted down some ideas that came to mind. Neither the Planning, Commission -or Council adopted that map. Further, the park you spoke of 'has not been : discussed. -by the city, it -is just.my idea. -The greenway_system, however, showing .a linear .corridor along the north slope -.of Lake Susan and the tributary of Riley Creek is'part of'our existing comprehensive pla Jim Murphy - Let's: -just .presume.. that this is .park::which is a natural place for it". , It -is! very - wooded and hilly, a natural place`for`a.park. What we propose.then with our particular corridor is rot only a-linear.bike.and trails way but actually.a wildlife corridor and this is also what this slope can be used for There. is not -any of the neighborb that haven't seen deer or other wildlife cross right here at 101.: This -is actually a. -path that -is now used by wildlife: -and -this .is something:.that -we would like to have preserved., It is. -very -important. whatever..this•:line is, wheree ever -this no build or .no grading. line: -is,- we -would like to see it as an, �outlot.. We feel then . that we..would be more protected. Anything.. -less- than .that, I don't -know what your . track . record. is on variances:-bdi;:'with most.-Council's it's not to good,: so we, .would; have, the -same. problem as with Apple Valley here..tonight., The _particular developer or the owner would.:come in and say'if I can't expand I am moving- Wewould-not-like this to happen. We would like' to :see .it -be an, outlot. and then ---there probably wouldn:'t .be -.a�-problem -with variances: so we would like, if at all possible; to have --something'.very definite in terms of ownership and that that ownership be the city's. One thing the developer.has mentioned.in his meetings to us that!there-is considerable:land now here that's outlot.. I. -..think -he _he -indicated, something:. like:=l4%. I would like to say this: oneething, .in._�the-.'storm.sewer plans that we haven_'t- seen. yet- but . from the -correspondence it is my understanding:that many°of--these--areas will be used as retention ponds". :The.se retention ponds then will really be a .benefit -,to. the. developer so when we come down to just the net acreage that'.s going.to be allowed for park or open space or whatever, it's considerably reduced. This:is:ac.tually these retention:ponds is a benefit to the .owner or:developer so we don-'t-really feel it's unreasonable'to.consider that this slope for an outlot. Bruce Pankonin:7- Chanhassen Ordinance 14A which governs park land dedication only applies to residential PUDs and does .,not encompass-the::industrial-.or-commercial lands in the -_city.. ,Tim Murphy - I�guess-I don't-personally-seethat-'s a conflict. There was a� much confusion .on- this 200 - feet . Initially when Council Meeting Apr. 3, 1978 -6- we had' .one week , to.. reply. to. the Planning Commission's public hearing -we had to get -.something together, it was mentioned by one -of -the -neighbors that they thought the -depth was`200 feet 1-think any one of us if. we, went :.out - to .judge: that : particular :slope,. how Long.! ,it is : right.: now, : would :-have . diff iculty . We would all .get:.different answers., :.We. had to determine where these contours were, and howAong-..this slope is or how far back.we:are taiking:-about zontally. I use the • aerial -here .which .I: believe. is- an aerial mosaic and it.:.hasn'.t_been_ rectified -so--it is not really to scale .-but-.,Jt's : pretty.l_close to -one inch equal 500. We. scaled .what -y.ou: see here as: the wooded :area and our particular:. -scale and then:.looki.ng- at the contours matches .up pretty_.well;-with- the 945� .or the heavy lines as we.show•them.. It's further back: than 200 feet there's no-doubt.about It. and :it.'s:probably .more like 300 and over: by: the -yard. -p.roper.ty maybe- 350•.or 400 feet back. Next: I_ would. like -to talk: -about. lot size if I may. We dislike' .the small ..lots . just_ -for .general reasons, energy conservation. . It' means -a---lot_.of ` small buildings. They are not going to be energy efficient. What's wrong: with -several tennants in: -one: Larger building? .They: are .very:.i.ntensive in -terms.: of :-roadways and utilities. This is- an ..excess- -roadway-,- -excess _.utilities . It's .really not necessary.:::_:.This. is -:also :backed up by the watershed district.-,.They.say that..the roads, you have excessive roads. crossing -the creek-. -.I agree. I have --never s.een-.anything like it as -.far as industrial. in terms. of the . size: lots :::: In: terms - of this being a new creation.as--something good-.1 really can't understand this, you have.got:excessive utilities, excessive services . -.- • To .me ; it': s :•not really.. a -,.good development in terms::of -the. u.se of. resources.—, We think it's going to be a problem for us in cooperating with the owners of that area irn:.making improvements for the lake whether- it:.be . stocking_ the -lake with fish, we think:.it's:-going. to.:be -a problem. -:.,_You are showing us a possibility.:of; 100- =: 200.,tennants-:that we would have to deal with. -,-Right: now it's: very easy the association of course -is small, we.realize.that_there will be changes -:but -:we :.would like �to see one .tennant I am sure then. it: would :be.. very: easy:-'forr.him: to- be our benefactor so ..to . speak.. One thing also that was -.mentioned in the minutes is that~ because : the .lots .. are small we are. actually going to have- less coverage.. -I. I feel . this-_ is a fallacy. I haven't worked it out but because the lots are small we have -more streets so_if die :are.talking-.about.gross i area.we don't have less coverage: 'We have got more coverage: in. -terms . of -.paved streets. One thing else that we feel is beneficial-for:larger size lots would be that a larger size operation would more than likely purchase excess property for future expansion. Many times when they.do-do.this they never expand so that land really remains open spaces in effect. Council Meeting Ap.�il 3, 1978 =7- The 'next" general, topic that I -.have that I would like to mention would be land -use We find in terms of zoning ordinances -that they_are very general. This is a concern of ours. We understand that just 17-.02 applies to this and not 17.03 the accessory uses permitted, is that correct?. Bruce Pankonin Accessory uses�w6iild1be permitted with the principal use.: Jim Murphy - Then `either 1�`:02:or 17.03 we find extremely broad and vague and it'could lend itself to'a problem expecially when -'it comes time for the assessments down the road and the developer_ needs to sell some -of these particular improvements"an-d then'. -what quality .of development are we going to get. We feel that;Chanhassen can do better.as a quality development, if it's industrial whatever we. feel that a better_ preliminary plan here could be done. Once this particular area.was shown -as a golf course of.'course that's something for sure we all agree on that we would rather have here. In discussions with Eden Prairie we, they also mentioned -to us that there minimum lot -size was.two acres. I am -not saying that Eden.Prairie doestthings.-better`but at -least that's their.criteria. Another thing'in terms of. Eden. Prairie and I think this is.the reason that many communities have gotten themselves into problems and the reason that we -have got the Metropolitan CounciT;'Eden Prairie is proposing at -their borders a. more rural development. Chanhassen takes off immediately -with industrial and high -intensity uses... It doesn't seem -'.like there is good -coordination to us. We would- like _to see- Chanhassen more rural. This is -also a reason we- feel. that -.you do now -have sanctions such Metropolitan Council. -They-are taking authority from you that -you Formerly had. I had one comment about the environment but it sounded. -li.ke that's- been -taken care` -of. - `There. has been .an. environmental worksheet prepared-. We would like to see that, at some particular'_ time.. - We are not sure what the impacts --are.."..._ _ Bruce Pankonin-- I -think the basic•key:rs the size of the industrial 'facility. The mandatory EAW starts at things.larger than 320 acres :- - This is 276 2- acres . The triggers on.sites specific industrial uses in terms of traffic,. energy-7uses. are that,... .- •.site;-: -specific. Jim Murphy - This is- '276� acres but .you- are . also. `showing the Ward. property and -the Schmieg property which will put it over the 320. So Iam sure if we are--talking-about an environmental. worksheet the' city has. the obligation. to prepare one. I think the Environmental -Quality Council- would. look on. it. in that. vain- because we..are talking about 80 more acres of Wards and I -am not -sure how many more acres with the ,Schmieg property. The next�comments-I have.deal`with design. We see that 'and this applies to --the city's-improvement, that for Animal Fair you - are running: out- n:. dead end .watermain. This -is-somewhat tndesirab-le.-- You- can have freezing problems it has to be flushed-. - Ve want -to make sure and I am sure Council Meeting Al ,1 3, 1978 you do but that you, require good design. Operation and maintenance . is much -more. -of .a problem these days and much more costly..:.; I,.would .like -to see for example, full depth asphalt in the roads storm sewers that are in concrete . in _ lieu.. of corrigated.'metal , We would like to see no storm sewer outfall--to'the lake just for the- offensiveness, it would„be"d -navigation problem. We were told by the engineer'that�-�this' would be the case...Sanitary sewer,,you are -proposing to construct the sanitary., sewer -line,_my:understanding'is to Lake A,nn.,_', I. see this:. to be : a'problem for'several reasons . Eirst.," it's 48 :into spmeaplaces . I am sure that the::rea'son:.that.it. is..is,.because it has a very gent le-grade.in it' at that particular spot but you are not hooking .much into.. it. and probably 'not for a long time.so you. are not going -to have minimum two feet per second velocity.. so .that sewer 'will not clean itself and. what .we will have then, .is a: `maintenance problem and because the., waste. control commission is not building that.: interceptor Chanhassen has.'th.e,-:r.esponsibility. for .the..ma:intenand&: If., the _Metropolitan Waste Control Commiss:iori dial build__the' interceptor -,-then they would maintain, it; '-The Metropolitan"Naste Control Commission now is, undertaking a 201 facilities -plan for this area. They may . change .-t.he, location for. this interceptor. It could p6ss.ib.1y, end up . that way. , This' 201 facilities plan, to consider--regionalization.or'no regionalization or. -transmission,- The result of'this'study could change the location. The -Metropolitan Waste`Control Commission may neverIreimburse-you,for this. I.understand the developer is•'going-to pay for -it but you do have to maintain. it.. If -you' do build -it :.there will be no possibility .for .federal "r.eimbursement by the Metropolitan. Control Commission: 'They `have to have approval prior to.. cons.truction.._ If you ,do., approve it, one other _concern that: we have. is. to make .sure that the concrete manholes .are. not above..the ground: I think many -of us have `seen this.-. It''can really detract from the area. We would like to make sure.even,.th:ough they may be below .the 100 year .flood plain .elevation that they be to grade. and then make'.sure I e risers "of' the' manholes are water .tight: and :T..am •sure'"this can be accommodated. We wou-id.-,lil-c-e .to .propose an 'alternative. We understand that :'Animal Fair .has a -problem.. ..We. -also understand that do nothing.. -is not practical.something has to happen. We would, like -it. -to be -.do ,ri.othing . " `.I. am sure you can obtain; that .,reasonirig'. from my comments but we would like -to ,see you ;go -with .Animal. -Fair, if they have to go with on site.systems, a well -and a,soil-absorption field possibly and ' if. the. ordinance Yids.: to. have a variance for this to be a temporary.use;..that's the way we would like to see. it 'go: - There is a lot of reason, f_or doing now. The Environmental.Protection Agency is saying in:1985 that we.'are 'supposed .to have zero discharge,of.pollutants.. There is -only really one way to technically" do that and that's.lan.d application. For land -application they.will allow"a 20% for Council Meeting At U 3, 1978 --9- technical and. innovativeness in the cost effective treatment or analysis. EPA is now taking a turn around and they are saying -on site systems aren't so bad especially in the rural- areas and anytime there is more than one family, more than one business that may go together on a system they may fund°possibly on site systems. This is something we would like you to consider. My -next � general item. -is financial -. I think I will .probably get more 'attention here. It's been mentioned many times -that this is'.a good tax base._ That's hog wash, it's not.. You know it. There are some people that don't know it but I am sure the Council is aware of it. What, happens is the__met council says 40% of this tax base -has to r back to -the general fund or the general kitty and it s redistributed based on population so in terms of tax base or that -our taxes are going to be lowered it's not going to happen and operation and maintenance. -costs are going up so it's going to be really a question here it you don't do it right whether you can even afford the operation and maintenance with the amount of revenue that we collect. In 1980, it has been -talked -that -right now Chanhassen wotild have $2 mi.11ion.in indebtedness. Eden Prairie has or,will have. $12 million: They are- in worse shape. If we go ahead'with something like this when it's premature we are going to be in that same situation and I am sure that is of concern'to"the Council: One other thing and it may have been brought -up by the engineer, I am not sure,,is fire flow. Normally you .want fire protection for industrial/commercial. Fire.protection you`are talking about 4,000-to 6,000 gallons -per minute fora certain duration like -a six or eight hour duration. That means a lot'of storage; large booster pumps, large oversize mains_.- What we are saying -is we hope there is. m a'prografor these capital improvements that does not inc lude.the..residential'-people: This should,go directly to the industrial and commercial because they'are the ones that have the requirement for the fire demand, not the -domestic user.' We feel there will be a future direct impact to'us. 'It's a selfish motive. Once this watermain gets down 101 it's going to be much easier for -it to come further down 101-to the south and I don't believe there'.is. any...o.f us .right now that feel that we need water or need water in the near -future. Ve are concerned about that,'future assessment: Another item i- have-is'this cooperation or communications which you mentioned you had a'problem earlier. We really had --a problem. We missed a couple of meetings. I don't bknow whose fault it was.- The only meeting that any of the residents received direct notification was for.the public hearing. For the special assessment hearing regardin the city improvements, I don't believe there was any personal notification to -anyone although it was in the Herald. Many of us don't -'get the Herald. It isn't Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -10- really the -local.newspaper. When we -were at the Planning. -Commission. -meeting there was -.no mention of the -next meeting, at least no one -cat recall this. All that-was'mentioned-is, in dne week we had to have in -our written comments. because of this we all missed the Planning Commission meeting and we are very regretful of that. We found it somewhat difficult to obtain maps .and- copi_.es of-minutes--so-it was very difficult say for -us to get _out .a -written. reply to certain items in a week: - It was - very difficult to .obtain these materials., -:- We want to make sure that when you consider this on the 17th.that you consider the long term affects of your decisions.. We are looking at soraething .in the Southdale area that -took 20 - 25 years to come about. We;know.that Animal Fair -has -impacting upon you. They want immediate decisions: -Make-sure, if you would, to consider the -long-term impact here. You are going to .open'up.an..area that -shows phasing up there but that phasing won't work. That's. a -sham: -You are running utilities -all the way out to Animal Fair, sewer and water. County Road 17 is -coming through. There is no.phasing.._.That will open up -everything. Right off.with.Animal Fair we ar.e,.out of.the phasing. There is really no phasing in- our-- estimation. We want;you to protect our quality:of life. The letter from Harley and Shirley Robinson.will.be included in the April 17 agenda packet. Mayor Hobbs-.- I don't think we can respond to --each and everyone of your points tonight.. The Carver,.County Herald is ..the, official. newspaper... While .we. may not all get it I think the_$6.00 or $8.00.a year-, you will know what's going on. In terms of.the assessment type hearing, .you weren'.t.notified because you weren't being assessed. Bruce Pankonin.- In addition.to..that., for a:zoning issue we have to notify..people.•within .350 feet.. -:We went beyond the ..350 feet.and made an attempt.to notify the people .on,the south shore of the lake... Mayor Hobbs - I guess just a question since:you.are here I think we hear from all over -.the -city that.most.people that have:moved,here would like to see it stay as it was when they moved.. I moved ten_years.ago. I have got a . lot. -off. ..neighbors now that I. didri't. have- ten years ago and - they .a.11 .want • to be the last ones. If you didn't.have something like'this proposed on that property, what.would.you propose as an alternative other than leaving it vacant -if you owned it and you were paying taxes - on it? Jim Murphy - I -think most of us aren't that opposed to the industrial use.. It's,the quality and then .some are. Some would rather see.residential...I personally would not. What they are really concerned about -is the transition from industrial -.to what. .Normally the Planner sees that a Council Meeting 1. it 3,. 1978 -11- Mayor Hobbs transition from industrial to high density residential to medium residential -to low density.and that's what we are concerned about. This is -a point that everybody has spoken to me -that I -should have made. That's what we are very concerned over, what should'be the west side of the lake. What's going to'happen. The•industrial wouldn't be so bad if you control it and .then if we are looking at single family over on the west side of the lake, not high density and.it's.a natural to have the industrial and then the high density.- This is.a problem. As we see immediately., there is going to -be surface restrictions on the lake.- With the industrial-, I don't see it that -way personally Industrial won't affect the lake whatsoever in terms of surface use. It will certainly affect it in terms of water quality and quantity but I am t.o.ld that that won't change because we do have some members here too that are on the low end of the lake and are in the flood plain and they certainly don't want to change in the.flood plain especially in the positive end of it. We have been told and anything I.read as far as from the minutes and so on, it says the quality and the quantity will -remain the same. - I was just -curious, if you had residential you would be looking at a 75.fo6t setback from the -flood plain level on possibly 100 foot lots. Bruce Pankonin - Those municipal shoreland management standards and Jim Murphy also the Chanhassen shoreland management standards. indicate the setback from the high water mark should be 75 feet. We, at the Planning Commission, recommended this no build line taking off where the plowed field was -and we thought it was about 200 feet, and then going -to that,935'e1evation whichever is greater which is considerably greater than our shoreland management standar.ds.-of "75 feet. .-If-you do grade ;into ,the slope it certainly is going to look inconsistent. There is -no doubt about it. If you could stay away from- the slope `and- the trees to the tillable area it would certainly blend in with the existing environment. Personally-, I -don't see that as - such a big problem except yes, it -puts that looped road in j' eopardy`. 'I guess; I would like= to put all_ those looped roads in'jeopardy•and I think the size of the acreages should :be larger' and- I understand from the notes from the Planning Commission that yes, the lots can be combined and you -can -go larger but'if you commit yourself -to building that looped. -road and- putting those utilities-- in there you are -commit ing yourself•to a lot size. It's going to be very difficult for someone to combine on the north -south -there: -faced with these utility assessments or the price.of the utilities in its.parcel. This is -sort of- an- isste in terms of whether it should be residential or 'i.ndustrial", •I personally felt it should be industrial but you have got`a lot of competition here too. You have got Jonathan -.''You have got Eden Prairie. Why can't we be somewhat of'a bedroom community in a -sense although_I mentioned earlier.'I am not really for the residential Council Meeting AT-7 1 3, 1978 -12- Mayor Hobbs— Ve have looked at -it in terms ..of the comprehensive plan and 1,think one. thing. the Council tries to do is create the.. type.oE1. environment,. -total environment, in this area where, if' possible, 'you can live here and work here.:.: Councilman Pearson - It,seems to me.we are much -worse off with residential. area. there -..as far as traffic is concerned than we are with industrial Jim Murphy - I -agree with..that,and industrial would not compete with -us -either for traffic. We wouldn't have them .on the week ends Bruce Pankonin I would like. the..Council' to be,: aware that staff - .;.has tried to ire- as-, cooPerative ,as possible -.with the Lake Susan Homeowners Association. The impression was_given.tonight that,there is a communicatio-a.s • problem. I have personally met with representatives of.this .organization. I have never.told- anybody to leave.,my office. I have answered, every phone call..,,. Anything you have wanted from my office, you have.received. Councilman Geving„-..There are some:very:-basic things I think you people are after -and that's.the:slope. I ...think this -,is. a. primary consideration this 945 as -opposed to 935..and what you might see from _your: lot .looking across. the lake. Another thing is adding the green space in the 8 and 9 block here. - Rod Volk - I am a Trustee from the church.. We.wanted you to be aware of the easement and we are concerned about what wi11. happen, 'we -can , see. that .someday the state might say we can't.use the -access to Highway 5 and then we are caught between, as I said in the letter, a concrete plant and a .body shop. to _try to go to 'chxarch..and. it. might. -look rather stupid at that time.. I don't know - what we -can: really do. I guess we deal. in. good faith. that something.like that can,be watched.out for. If there were..a: way that. some.; easement;.. could be agreed on;.right. now,." it. probably would. be. good if we could get out,with the City Engineer and find -out -where it is because looking at a map-At's,.probably a little clumbsy for. -us to really :know what's going to happen.._. Mayor Hobbs - The developer did meet with -the -church group. Rod yolk - Yes he did. They came -out and had,..a meeting at our church_. with the. homeowners... Ed Dunn That's been provided for schematically. We -will join with them in searching out a better an alternative, if there be one, we think perhaps there is one at another location. Councilman Neveaux - T do think that staff should respond to -the Lake Susan Homeowners Association letter and I am sure many of their concerns have already been addressed. Bruce Pankonin - The Planning. Commission, in their discussion and recommendation, addressed -all of those. issues. Les Bridger - That's correct.. Jim Murphy - Some things we'mentioned_tonight were new.... Council Meeting A, 11 3, 1978 -13 - Councilman Neveaux - Those issues that haven't been addressed then should be addressed by staff. Ed Dunn - You must realize.. I think I projected myself into this situation because I was motivated a very very high appreciation of what that lake is. I -couldn't possibly have gone as far as we have gone if we didn't feel at least as strongly about it as you do. Your photos are beautiful and I think they do make a strong. statement as to what -we all'need to be protective of. Our response to .these,.. -things, youpresented here. tonight will -be., . if we can., have copies now, we would like,to'study those.• I can't say right off hand whether this would be acceptable to us or ' n:ot but 'we will. study 'it. " I am.curious, is it the intention of -the Lake`Susan Homeowners Association of which we area member; the big green arrow. comes all -the way around, are we in this together? .Are we all going to have a trail eas.ement around the lake? That would be very..desirable,I-think, if we had a public trail easement all the. way around the. lake. =Is that the commitment implied by that big green arrow? Several residents,: - No. .. Ed Dunn-- Private property -rights rear their.ugly heads Then:I guess-- we back into the question whether the outlots shou'ld.or shouldn't be the city•'s-but you have already' commented on that. The--comment:-,about the excessive roads across the creek. As I see this it appears to me that there are two roads that cross the creek. As.to the size of -the lots --we would have to look at..that:- We have -come to - this by market: analysis. by two firms whose judgment we respect and we actually modified our plan -to. -reflect what you see there. We.. -are. certainly willing to take a look at. that:. - - The- statement that there.can-be,no reimbursement -on the trunk sewer, we. have had extensive talks with -"'the sewer.board on -the subject. - What their position is, they : will .not - commit - to any . reimbursement on th.e trunk sewer -but=that if: it were built to their specifications they could then considerit at some future - date. should it. -be - their decision -'to use the trunk. They rave -..told us if we, -build it _to- their: specifications they will not.`commit -but they could at'their- discretion: reimburse us, for -the oversizing...: In the area- of land -disposal.. of sewage. sludge, I think we -are W,V,!.ys=-awaay from that and I would refer you to the public record in Dakota County if there is any question in your mind about that'. .As to the question of high - density; - I think . that' s - a function . of what the market.five-years:out or ten years out tells -us is the way- people. then want to. l:ive.i. = I: am- not. -sure -,at- that. time energy- being what -it --is and -so. -forth, what -the life style might dictate . It's really hard to say . - - We - do ..think it - will be' residential - but -we may all find though if this is an attractive place, to. work"- and an attractive place -to, live that it must be largely residential.. :As-regard..to it being a golf course -I guess I would like tow=say, if the City of Chanhassen would -like.-to acquire this- .land and -install a gorgeous 18-hole golf.course., we: -will negotiate. Councilman Geving - If this were an industrial` development,'what types. of.. industries do.•you -envision?- E.d Dunn - First type would be Animal Fair. Another type would be MTS I think. - That's two examples. I can- give you. - We: have -had .1 Council Meeting A,.' �l 3, 1978 -14- :some good opportunities. and I am confident there:will be many others. -We,will.build a. -fine industrial park and the cement plant and the auto body shop are already located elsewhere.. in: Chanhassen:. The .Council will take.:action.on this proposal, at, -the April 17th Council meeting. ANIMAL FAIR PRELIMINARY;DEVELOPMENT.-..PLAN::.Dave Appelhof, Guy Sc oenec er, Bo ..Pierce; -an :Bo MacDona d,were:.present. Animal Fair, Inc. is-requesting.approval to construct..a 45,.000 square foot . building:near the ..southeast quadrant -.of , State . Highway 5 and County -Road 17 The Planning Commission secommende.d-the Council approve the.concept:as:proposed with.minor,modifications. The Planner recommended that if.the Council provides::-the•property with necessary utilities,,..sufficient.-energy sources are available to the property and-the.Couiicil rezones -the land to P-4, the -Council look'with favor on the. ,development provided: 1.. Riley-Purgatory:Creek.Watershed.District=Board of.Manager's approves the drainage plan.. 2 The access intersection is.-redesigned.,to conform.to.the_City Engineer's comments.,: 3. A detailed landscape plan is-developed.and submitted to the Planning Commission _for. approval_. 4. The parking areas:.and access roads..be-.-.designed to conform to the -City Engineer's standards 5. No outside .storage..be allowe.d...- 6. A11- roof ..top mechanical -devices, if .any, be screened from public view. - 7. The developer prepare a, ighting plan submitted. -for Planning Commission approval.-- 8. The developer -be bound -to the performance standards as setforth in local, state,., -and federal -regulations. 9 The City of Chanhassen _and ---Animal :Fair; Inc mutually agree to the above conditions in_writing. As this proposal.is to be.located in pr.oposed.Chanhassen Lakes Business Park,-Councilman.Neveaux moved to_table action until April 17, 1978:.. Motion.seconded.by Councilman_:Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,,;-Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving: No-negative.votes.-.Motion carried.- - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CARVERS.POINTE:- Rod -Hardy, Ed Dunn, and Ste ios As ani is were.present.requesting rezoning and subdivision approval to subdivide :the property -located south..of Carver Beach Road-into.100;residential lots. The Plann.ing.Commission held.a public hearing•on.the-proposed subdivision,and_recommended approval. The Planner recommended. the Council' .find. the ,proposed preliminary development plan to.be positively consistent-with.the City's - Plan for land use,.tra'nsportation, open space,:utilities, zoning and subdivision provid.ed::. 1.. Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board o-f Managers approves the surface water drainage plan. ` 2. .Construction traffic, shall be; limited to MSAS 101. 3. The subdivision.is shifted 30.feet-eastward and the developer is required.to prepare a landscape.plan which will.screen the lots abutting CSAH-17 and MSAS 101. 4. The developer work with..the building inspector to develop a To: Members of the Chanhassen City Council He: Presentation to be .made by Lake Susan Homeowners Association We the undersigned, members of the Lake Susan Homeowners Assoc. are in complete agreement 1 with the statements made by our spokesman James 0. Murphy at the Chanhassen City Council Meeting, April 3, 1978. k6 d-) I a'� &Zola' lew� 1978 RJECEIV v,�a$ �C r The Lutheran Church of the Living Christ State Highway 5 • Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Nate Castens, Pastor • (612) 474-332I April 2, 1978 Chanhassen City Council RE: Proposed Lake Susan Hills Industrial Park Gentlemen: Regarding the proposed Lake Susan Hills Industrial Park development and the rezoning of the property surrounding the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ from residential - Agricultural to Industrial property, we, the church officers, want the Chanhassen City Council to be aware of an easement agreement between the church and the owners of the property surrounding the church. A copy of the agreement is attached. We would request this agreement be a part of the plan for the land surrounding the church. Our concern for the proposed rezoning is that a proper future entrance roadway for the church property be considered at this time or at least before industrial buildings adjacent to -the church are erected. It is forseeable that Highway 5 would be enlarged and an entrance as it presently exists may be unacceptable to the State Highway Department. At such time, without planning now, a church entrance road could be required to exist between a concrete plant and an Auto Body Shop. We understand such industry is not planned for the area, but the example best explains our concern. We hope that our church is an asset to the city and request your help as the city council in keeping it a city asset. V APR 1978 .MCEIVED a ►�MUZACM On Robert A. Haak, President Lutheran Church of the Living Christ ( n� 0&4 Rod Vol;:, Chairman of Trustees RAH:ekh Encl. CITY OF !!5--,^ �7610 LARECHANHASSEN DO DRIVEOP 0 BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 u PLANNING REPORT DATE: March 28, 1978 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Preliminary Development Plan Review for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Planned Industrial Development (PID) APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-054 ORDINANCE REF: Chanhassen City Ordinance 47, Section 17 Do+-i i-i r-%n As shown in attached enclosures 1-18, the applicant, Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc., is proposing to rezone the subject property from R-lA, Residence Agricultural District to P-4, Planned Industrial Development District (PID) and subdivide the subject property into numerous industrial parcels, roads and outlots. Background 1. Community Location: As shown in enclosure 3, the subject property contains approximately 276.5 + acres of gross land area located south of State Trunk Highway 5, east of County Rd. 17 and generally north and northwest of Lake Susan. 2. Existing Zoning: The subject property and environs are presently zones R-lA, Agricultural Residence District. 3. Comprehensive Plan Proposal: a. Land Use Plan: Pursuant to the adopted City Plan, as amended, the future identity of the subject property should be an industrial park and associated open space to provide linear pedestrian movement along Lake Susan and a tributary of Riley Creek. b. Traffic Circulation: Pursuant to the adopted City Plan and Carver County's adopted Transportation Plan, local access to the subject property is proposed to be via new County Rd. 17 and a detached frontage road commencing at new County Rd. 17 and terminating at existing State Highway 101. Local roads are proposed to radiate Planning Case: P-05; -2- 3/28./178 of f of existing County Rd. 17, new County Rd. 17 and the proposed detached frontage road. C. Metropolitan Council Action: The Metropolitan Council in October, 1976,recognized and approved Chanhassen's Plan Amendment to consider the subject property as an industrial park. Subsequent to Metro Council action, the Chanhassen City Council duly amended the Chanhassen Guide Plan to indicate the subject property should be an industrial park. d. Open Space Plan: Pursuant to Chanhassen's Open Space Plan, a linear open space corridor is proposed for the north shore of Lake Susan and the drainage tributary of Purgatory Creek. This area is also the proposed location of the future Lake Ann inter- ceptor/trunk sewer. e. Utility Plan: As shown in the City Engineer's report, enclosure 13, we will have to bring trunk sewer service to the subject property prior to the development of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. 4. Physiographic Analysis of the Subject Property: As shown in enclosures 10 and 11, Chanhassen's future industrial area contains upland and clay loam soils with 0-40% slope, poorly drained depressional soil and peat and marsh areas. Staff Comments A. City Engineer's Comments: Please refer to enclosure 13. B. Building Inspector's Comments: Refer to enclosure 14. C. Fire Marshall's Comments: Refer to enclosure 15. D. Carver County Public Works Director's Comments: Refer to enclosure 17. Planner's Comments 1. As you know, the Metropolitan Council and the Chanhassen City Council jointly agreed the area north and northwest of Lake Susan should be industrial. At the time of plan adoption, Chanhassen recognized the vast majority of this area did not fall within the "typical" definition of an industrial park. Specifically, Chanhassen's industrial area has "too many natural amenities", (views and vistas), significant stands of trees and many other natural features. Recognizing these facts, the Chanhassen City Council knew that Chanhassen would not absorb the typical industrial users of property; but rather, absorption of Chanhassen's industrial system would be similar to Jonathan's industrial area and the industrial areas anticipated and under construction for Opus II,in the City of Minnetonka. 2. I am in total agreement and endorse the comments made by the City Engineer and Carver County Director of Public Works. Their comments are found in enclosures 13 and 17,respectively. 3. Carver County Director of Public Works should approve the intersection location of all proposed minor streets with county roads and curb cuts onto county roads. -, Planning Case: P-05s -3- 3/28/78 4. A linear open space corridor should be preserved for future development along the entire length of the proposed Lake Ann Trunk/ Interceptor Sewer. Further, it should be understood, at this time, said linear corridor will be dedicated to the City of Chanhassen during Dunn and Curry's residential development. 5. The time phasing sequence, as shown in enclosure 7, appears to be consistent with Chanhassen's ability to absorb new industrial uses of land. Parenthetically, it is the feeling of this planner that all improvements (sewer, water and local streets) should conform with this time phasing sequence. 6. Ingress and egress to the existing church (block 9) should be removed from State Highway 5 and a common driveway should be shared with future uses on Lots 1 and 2, Block 9. 7. The future design intent of County Road 17, as shown in enclosure 17, should be preserved at this time. Public Hearing Comments As shown in enclosure 18, the Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on March 8, 1978, to consider Dunn and Curry's proposed planned industrial development. As the record will show, the general public felt the generic use of the subject property should be industrial, however, concerns were expressed regarding industrial performance standards. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation Under separate cover I forwarded a copy of Dunn and Curry's proposed planned industrial development to the Park and Recreation Commission for their consideration and review. A perusal of park and recreation minutes reveal this item was discussed and no negative comments were forwarded to my office. Planning Commission Recommendation As shown in enclosure 19, the Planning Commission found Dunn and Curry's planned industrial development to be positively consistent with the spirit and intent of the city's plan for land use, zoning, open space, utilities, and transportation provided a number of conditions, as outlined, are met by the'developer. Planner's Recommendation From a planning perspective, I feel it is extremely important for the city to implement a well thought out industrial plan such as being suggested by Dunn and Curry. I feel this industrial development will have many positive effects on the Chanhassen economy and environment; with specific emphasis placed on increasing purchasing power of the residents, employment opportunities and expansion of the city's tax base. To this end, I strongly suggest the city council look with favor on Dunn and Curry's planned industrial development provided: 1. THE CITY COUNCIL ORDER CONSTRUCTION FORSANITARY SEWER, WATER AND PUBLIC ROADS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 2. City Engineer determine the final alignment and construction standards for all roads. Planning Case: P-054 -4- March 28, 1978 A . • 3. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration by the city council.. The developer agrees to establish a no build line on Lot 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, at an elevation of 935 or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake, which ever is greater. 4. That it is understood the uses permitted within the planned industrial development shall be governed by sections 17.02, ordinance 47. 5. Building design and construction standards shall be governed by provisions of section 9.06, ordinance 47. 6. Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations for the planned industrial development shall be governed by section 12.05, ordinance 47. 7. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by section 9.07, ordinance 47. 8. Landscaping standards for future developments shall be governed by section 12.09, ordinance 47. 9. Industrial performance standards shall be governed by appropriate state, local and federal rules and regulations. 10. It shall be understood that the outlots as shown in the preliminary development plan are to be used for public linear trail purposes. 11. The developer dedicate sufficient right-of-way as shown in the county engineer's report, enclosure 17. 12. It should be mutually agreed that a development contract outlining the above conditions shall be entered into between the City of Chanhassen and Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. Upon the consummation of said development contract, the developer should proceed to final development plans as specified in city ordinance 47. ,i23, Pa-� t CITY OF C8AN8ASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 March 28, 1978 Mr. Harley R. and Shirley M. Robinson 8502 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Robinson: I am in receipt of your letter of March 27, 1978, concerning Lake Susan Industrial Development proposed by Dunn and Curry. A copy of your letter will be forwarded to each of the Council members for their consideration on April 3, 1978. This office has no means by which to copy the delinquent tax list as submitted with your letter. I will enclose a memorandum to Council members referencing them to the March 22, 1978, edition of the Carver County Herald. I can assure you that each of the Council members presently receive the Carver County Herald. Additionally, I will have a copy of the March 22, edition available on Monday evening should any Council member wish to review such during consideration of the Dunn and Curry proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincere Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k .7 T`o the City Council, City )_ Chanhassen March 27, 1978 Re: Lake Susan Industrial Development proposed by Dunn & Curry Having lived on the south shore of Lake Susan for 21 years, we have some concerns with the proposed development on the north shore of the lake. The project should have good initial design to save future maintenance costs. To build Animal Fair on the proposed site at County Road 17 and State Highway 5 with water and sewer (construction to start May 1st and occupancy by October 1st 1978) would require a new well and sewer from State Highway 101 to County Road 17. Is it good planning to extend services so far with nothing in between? We understand that 40% of the tax base must be turned over to the Metropolitan Council. This being the case is the city going to go broke maintaining improvements and providing services for 60% of the revenue? Also, we would like to bring to the council's attention that it is very possible for developers not to pay their taxes as it is a method of financing their project. If is less expensive to pay the penalty than to finance through their regular sources. See attached newspaper clipping regarding the Jonathan area (and I understand that this has also happened in Eden Prairie). There are rumors that Dunn and Curry are considering purchasing the Ward and Schmieg farms, both properties beirq involved in this project. The Ward farm would carry a four lane highway to State Highway 101, as well as sewer and water. What is the rationalization for this roadway which would run parallel to and a comparatively short distance from State Highway 5? The Schmieg farm is involved in the new County Road 17 which has three routes proposed with the desired route through the Schmieg home. The county would construct the road, but it would be the obligation of the City of Chanhassen to provide the right- of-way. We believe the setback proposed by Dunn & Curry is a 200 foot setback from the lakeshore or an elevation of 935 whichever is greater. We would like to see this land dedicated to the city. If it is held by individual lot owners all that would be required to change this would be a variance, and it is our understanding that a variance has never been turned down by the city council of Chanhassen. And last, but not least, how many cities have the natural lakes that Chanhassen has within its boundaries? Is the council of Chanhassen aware of the natural beauty and resources of these lakes, and making every effort to preserve and use them wisely? The Lake Susan area has provided food and/or nesting sites for the great blue heron, the green heron, the pileated woodpecker, wood ducks, mallards, owls, hawks, and various gulls and songbirds. One spring day several different species of warbler were observed as they were migrating north. Muskrat, fox, deer, racoon, and woodchucks are a few animals we've been priv- eleged to observe from our own yard. What will the proposed industrial park do to the wildlife enjoyed by so many in this area? We ask not only for ourselves, but for future generations, that you would please consider all these things carefully when making your decisions regarding the industrialization of a lovely scenic area still providing habitat for wildlife that some people can now on erve in city parks and zoos. ` , Harley R. and Shirley M. Robinson 8502 Great Plains Blvd. �'`1R1g78 Chanhassen, Mn. RECEIVED' VILLAGE of CHANHASSEN, MINN.y�i,( , . CARVER SOIL AND vyATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT C 0. my of'Ice EiAoing 'Vucomo, Minnesota 5538; T,;�; ct- 61-1 44"-2614 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS mur--ch Mr. Stelios Aslanidis Urbanscope 261h Nicollet Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota ')5),08 Dear Mr. Aslunidj-: Received your -IEttt.i- urid ).J,tachmeijts Don Berg in re,-,ar-d t.o t.i-,e two Dumi ment, Tnc. properL.J.el ]created i:l I -iJr. Business Park und 1-aR,-,-- .1, i-ti,). V.re have not rece i vex i'l•lildin.- -Lite 'rd --!'t Share program tk- 15'H! i- .i ..t2 will keep you itnu We Wd:- i.L'- --;L informed on your With tI.ez(I In the future, 'St-'lld YOU.1- to Mark Cj::t-i1-'!)'ar1' Cacvel- ;" i! zilll District, County 1,11 11c, Ilui Hut'ct- I i ]I(-, he t. 1.1lu [.fill 11i s t 1• i �- t' -1 111! i I I i .; t I -,,I t. i \- (' I -( L: I I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER jKl k REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 22, 1978 an Roos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the follow' pq me Ks:,present: Les Bridger, Mal MacAlpine, Hud Hollenback, an alter Thomps Jerry Neher and Dick Matthews were absent. MINUTES: The y received a letter from Lake Susan perty owners. This letter is in ded as part of the March 8, 19 , Planning Commission minutes. Amend the March 8, 1978, pu hearin nutes on Carver's Pointe by adding the following: The Recreation Commission has requeste that when Dunn and Curry presen total development plans for the area south of Carver's P ' e tha ey be notified so they can make recommendations reg ng open space. Hud Hollenback mo to approve the March 8, 19 Planning Commission minutes as am d and note the letter dated March 1978, to the City Counc' lanning Commission signed by Lake Susan p erty owners. Motion conded by Les Bridger. The following voted in fa Hud Ho ack, Roman Roos, and Les Bridger. Mal MacAlpine and Wa_. r ompson abstained. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Jim Hill and Stelios Aslanidis were present. Bruce Pankonin - The Planning Commission, after the conclusion of a public hearing on the proposed planned unit development, whether industrial or residential, shall make a recommendation to the City Council which may include approval or disapproval of the rezoning petition, approval of the preliminary development plan, disapproval of the preliminary development plan stating reasons for disapproval or approval of the preliminary development plan subject to specified modifications and conditions. I recommend the Planning Commission find Dunn and Curry's request to rezone and subdivide the subject property from R-lA to P-4 to be consistent with the city's plan for land use, transportation, open space, utilities, zoning and subdivision provided Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves the drainage plan for the development. The City Engineer determines during planned development stage, the final alignment and construction standards for all roads. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. The developer agrees to establish a no build line on the lake shore lots including Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The permitted uses within the PUD district be governed by Section 17.02 of Ordinance 47. The building design and construction shall be governed by the provisions of Section 9.06 of Ordinance 47. Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations forthe planned unit development shall be governed by Section 12.05, Ordinance 47. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by Section 9.07, Ordinance 47. The developer should be aware of all state, local and federal regulations regarding smoke and particulate matter, noise, vibration, lights, etc. The developer agrees to these conditions in writing pursuant to a.development contract. Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -2- Roman Roos - What's the procedure for the drainage plan approval from Riley -Purgatory Creek? Bill Brezinsky - The plans have been submitted in preliminary form for phase I. The Engineer has written a letter. In this letter they have set some broad guidelines for design and outlined their regulations. The developer is submitting an overall drainage plan for the entire industrial park which will be considered at the next meeting on April 5. They will have some more recommendations and they will have to review the final plans. Roman Roos - Bill, there is no problems with item 2, final alignment and construction standards for roads? Bill Brezinsky - No. Roman Roos - The time phasing plan is what you proposed before. Why don't you go ahead with your comments on the no build line. .A telios Aslanidis - We met with the homeowners association and what we said we would be amenable to was a no build line on the 945 elevation which would be limited to Lots �► 3 - 7. V oman Roos - The homeowners agreed to that 945? .R telios Aslanidis - I felt that they were amenable to that. I takes generally half of those lots. It is way beyond where the trees are. Roman Roos - Does that hinder you as far as those lots being good usable buildable lots with setback? '� Stelios Aslanidis - In my opinion, yes. It severely handicaps the lots. jA Hud Hollenback - Is that where the field is plowed? 1� Bruce Pankonin - This is beyond that. Stelios Aslanidis - It takes actually more than half of the lot. I think for their concerns,which was the screening, we could have done it with 935 elevation as easily. oman Roos - The thing that's interesting is if you have a 45 foot minimum buildings and the buildings are going on the top .� of the hill they (Homeowners) are really defeating their X purpose by having you that far up. Stelios Aslanidis - In my opinion there is no way that they would see the buildings. There is so much foilage and trees along the slopes. Some of the trees are 30, 40, to 50 feet. Their homes are located at 910 to 920 elevation. They are really low. They are not on the same height. There is 30 to 40 feet difference. Hud Hollenback - Does that mean you might consider moving that road up? Stelios Aslanidis - We might have to do something like that for the final plat. We still have to meet the Zoning Ordinance for front setbacks, side yard setbacks. In the homeowners letter they were talking about some setback in distance of 200 feet. It would be placing it on the 930 elevation. Bruce Pankonin - It looks like that looped street will have to be moved northward and those interior lots will have to be constricted because you are not going to be able to have an adequate front yard and then building and then parking area Within the buildable area of those lots along the Lakeshore. Hud Hollenback - That's what I am concerned about. Roman Roos - I don't think the Fake Susan Association is really aware Planning Cammi.ssipn Meeting March.22, 1976 -3- of what they really think they have got. Hud Hollenback - Not only that, we are going to end up cheating on parking space where everybody backs into each others car. Stelios Aslanidis - I think a 935 elevation is more reasonable. When we screen, there is no way I can address there request for screening. The people that are going to be moving there like to have visual access to that lake as everybody else has. When you start screening them then you are depriving them of the thing you are trying to sell them. I think the distance of 1200 to 1500 feet across the lake in itself takes pretty good care of it plus the fact that we have all the trees that are already screening. I hate to see us deprived of the opportunity of some office being built to utilize energy conservation measures. C ruce Pankonin - In viewing the resource you are going to have the •� parking lot in front of the building off of the street and then the building and then the no build line'so you are not going to have cars and parking lots within b the back yard of those lots. The structure is going to be very similar to Gelco's building in Eden Prairie. '� Hud Hollenback - It's the same concept as a lakeshore home, the back yard is really the front yard. Bruce Pankonin - Exactly. I would say don't build beyond the plowed field. Hud Hollenback - What kind of trees do we have? AN Bruce Pankonin - Oak primarily. They are very mature trees. `A Roman Roos - I think that putting it at 945 is really detrimental to both the developer as well as the Lake Susan Association. I would like to see them gain another ten or fifteen feet in height over the maximum height of a typical building �Q in that project by ordinance of 45 foot. I would much V rather see them capitalize on that extra ten or fifteen feet by moving that no build line down still maintaining . the 200 feet that they are adament about requesting. telios Aslanidis - The 935 elevation is still way beyond what they had asked for 200 feet setback. ruce Pankonin - I do have problems with the 945 elevation. I think it's a waste of land. oman Roos - How can we be certain that 935 would fall outside the 200 foot barrier they are looking for? ruce Pankonin - Let's keep it either/or. Two hundred feet of horizontal distance or the 935 elevation whichever is greater. I would like to suggest that change in my report. The developer agrees to establish a no build line on the Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at an elevation of 935 or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake, whichever is greater. Roman Roos - When you say no build, we are talking about no build, no grading, no cutting, no nothing. Bruce Pankonin - Improving with new plant materials and things like that. They may have a walkway down to the lake. There will be a linear trail someday along the lake and I can see somebody walking to work. Hud Hollenback - I feel we should have the access around the lake at �` tire. dhow is that done at this point? Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -4- Stelios Aslanidis - We have done that through the fact that we have called it an outlot. Bruce Pankonin - That horizontal distance is 100 feet from the water up the bank that they are not platting at this time. Roman Roos - Does the staff have any overall comments on their (homeowners) comment about the 1.5 minimum lot size. Bruce Pankonin - Chanhassen is not going to be the typical .industrial park. We are not going to have large manufacturing facilities. It's going to be the topography, the views, the vistas', etc. are going to dictate a different type industrial use. If there is a large manufacturing facility they could buy three or four lots. It doesn't preclude that. Stelios Aslanidis - The point that was made in the homeowners letter is they are concerned that when you have smaller lots you end up with more hard surface. That's not true because you take 10% of three acres, let's say it's 20% buildable, it will all come come out the same. Bruce Pankonin - Actually you will have less coverage with these smaller lots because you have side -yard setbacks. If you had larger lots you wouldn't have all those side yard setbacks. You are going to have less lot coverage this way. Roman Roos - Their (homeowners) paragraph, we request that the maximum building and parking lot coverage be defined in terms of percent of gross area, what they don't understand is Ordinance 47 does really cover that whole issue as well as the next paragraph in terms of the usages of industrial development. Bruce Pankonin - Ordinance 47 requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. A side yard setback of 25 feet. A parking lot can't be closer then 25 feet from the front yard so that's going to be green space. There is a side yard `O restriction also. Parking can't be closer than ten feet from a building. When you go through all the numbers,the use coupled with its parking ratios that are demanded for the use there is maybe 60% coverage. oman Roos - My concern right now is to make sure that we have touched every issue that they (homeowners) raised in that letter. dud Hollenback - Would this be a good time to respond to the last paragraph where everyone wants to be copied with any action concerning this. Roman Roos - That's unreasonable. This is on record and it is a commission meeting and that record is here for their review. Bruce Pankonin - It was announced at the public hearing that it was going to be considered tonight. Hud Hollenback - I am just saying should we respond to that so that they understand it that it's the cost. There is no way that the city can mail notices to everybody that is affected by a development. They say that every resident in the neighborhood (see attached list) be notified of Council or Planning Commission agenda items pertaining to actions affecting areas adjacent to Lake Susan. Roman Roos - We made a statement that we would identify one individual, Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -5- Hud Hollenback - I don't know if they came up with that individual that would be contacted. Bruce Pankonin - Jim Murphy called me and wanted copies of these maps and I accommodated him. I don't know if he was the spokesman of that group. I talked to his wife and reminded her of this meeting. Roman Roos - I think we, as commission members, have done everything that we should have. Bruce Pankonin - Dunn and Curry met with them (homeowners) last Wednesday and again it was brought up that the commission was going to make recommendation tonight. Hud Hollenback - It is a fine letter. Roman Roos - Are any of these people here? Representatives from the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ were present. Roman Roos - Were you (Hud) satisfied on that last paragraph? Hud Hollenback - I just think we ought to be on record as a commission saying that it's not reasonable for the city to have to do that. Oman Roos - We covered the 200 foot setback. We covered the densities. ruce Pankonin - In my planning report of March 7, this is for the public hearing, I said;"Under separate cover I forwarded a copy of Dunn and Curry's proposed planned industrial development to the Park and Recreation Commission for their consideration and review. 'As of this date no information has been returned to the Planner's office. I do expect a member of the Park and Recreation Commission to be in attendance and voice any concerns the commission may have regarding Dunn and Curry's proposed development." As the record shows Park and Rec. was not at the public hearing. I have their minutes of March 7 and there was no mention of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Roman Roos - There are two other paragraphs, one covering the storm drainage which we have touched on. I am sure they are well aware of with your meeting. The drainage will be away from Lake Susan. The second thing was light pollution. That would fall under Ordinance 47. Item #5 in Bruce's report is uses permitted under the PUD. These are governed by Section 17.02 of Ordinance 47. Bruce Pankonin - We are bound by certain discharge limits from the Metropolitan Council for industrial sewage and these are going to have to be low water users. We can't generate more than .1 million gallons per day of industrial sewage. The uses on that list lend themselves for the most part to non -water users. Roman Roos - Briefly recaping them, manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembling of products and materials, but excluding uses engaging principally processing of used products or materials and excluding the processing of animals. Research, testing, experimentatie offices, wholesaling and warehousing, etc. The last portion of that, permitted use does not establish said use as a freight terminal operation. It is very clearly defined in a P-4 area what those uses will. be. Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 - 6- Mal MacAlpine - One thing I would like to see more specific would be the trailways. I know we have the land for that but I would like to see that more specifically stated. Bruce Pankonin - We have a problem here in that we cannot require park dedication at this time for commercial and industrial uses. They have offered to preserve this land and it's sufficient for a trail and the sewer and that will be given as part of their residential land which will come in towards the south. Mal MacAlpine - Can't something be put in there to indicate that the intent is to have this trailway? Bruce Pankonin - Something like, we agree that the intent of the outlot along the north shore of Lake Susan is to be used for public trail purposes at such time as determined by the City of Chanhassen. telios Aslanidis - Actually you can say not only the north you can say all the outlots shown on the preliminary plat. Bruce Pankonin - The outlots as shown on the preliminary plat are to be used for public linear trails. Hud Hollenback - I brought up at a meeting some time ago I observed in places like Edina when this type of building occurs IN there is a regular landscaping ordinance of some kind a whereby trees are planted, the ground is sodded before the building really starts and I was questioning D whether the City of Chanhassen might want to consider something along this line for this type of development. I have all the confidence in Dunn and Curry as a quality operation but if something should happen after this thing starts I would like to see somebody ' responsible or responsible to an ordinance. Bruce Pankonin - We have it in our zoning ordinance which is the umbrella of all this and it's in Section 11.08 which is part of the design review which says; All exposed ground areas of a permitted use which are not devoted to drives, sidewalks, patios or similar uses shall .N be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other ornamental landscape materials which shall be kept neat, clean and uncluttered. No landscaped area shall be used for parking of vehicles or storage or display of materials,supplies or merchandise. Hud Hollenback - That's fairly general. Stelios Aslanidis - I can't see how you can be more specific because you have different building and a landscape architect will have different design approach for different buildings. I think the way the zoning ordinance reads now is safe enough where you are concerned because it's also specific that you have to plant grass and have to do some planting. Hud Hollenback - We have had people out here plant dead bushes. In Edina, I think, if the plant dies within a certain length of time it has to be replaced. Bob Waibel - They review landscape and plantings for two full growing seasons. Hud Hollenback - I am saying that maybe at this time when Bruce is making a list of suggestions of things that should be adhered to, I am wondering if at some time we should consider something a little more specific toward 'andscanina. Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -7- Bruce Pankonin - Possibly in terms of the building plans besides an architect preparing the plans there should be a registered landscape architect signing off on a landscape plan. Maybe you want to put this in your conditions that a landscape plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect. Maybe what we want to do in terms of our ordinance update is give this a considered thought and apply it equally to all in .� the performance standards. ud Hollenback - I really think we should consider it. oman Roos - When a building plan comes in for review, is that not !� one of the steps anyhow? We do have an overall chance to control the overall project. Hud Hollenback - We don't have the expertise to do that. Roman Roos - We no not but we do have a chance to control it. Craig Mertz - When their first customer comes in for a building permit the city would be making some sort of development contract hwith that particular developer and you are going to attack siting, grading, and landscaping in your development contract with this third party who is not here yet. Dave Appelhof - One of the problems I see as you look to what Edina \� is doing with lawns and landscaping and whatnot, as v we get into our berming our building will basically be .j� bermed and therefore you can't really do anything, \\ any final grading until after the building is up. Hud Hollenback - Right. Les Bridger - Did we answer all the questions and concerns about Av� lighting that they had at the public hearing? 1k Bruce Pankonin - These are called out in our performance standards. It says, glare,whether direct or reflected,shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site of the permitted use. I guess that pretty well handles it. That goes for everybody. Roman Roos - Let me just touch on the last items of Bruce's report. Building design and construction shall be governed by the provisions of Section 9.06 of Ordinance 47. Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations for the planned unit development shall be governed by Section 15.02, Ordinance 47. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by Section 9.07, Ordinance 47. I think we have covered all of them. Mal MacAlpine - I think the amendments as indicated satisfy my concerns. Hud Hollenback moved to recommend the Council approve the preliminary development plan for subdivision and rezoning subject to the following: 1. Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves the drainage plan for development. 2. The city engineer shall determine the final alignment and construction standards for all roads. 3. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. 4. The developer agrees to establish a no -build line on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 at an elevation of 935 or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake, whichever is greater. 5. The uses permitted within the Planned Unit Development shall be governed by Section 17.02, Ordinance 47. J6. Building design,,anal construction shall be governed by the provisions Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1978 -8- 7. Height, yard, area and lot.width and development regulations for the Planned Unit Development shall be governed by Section 12.05, Ordinance 47. 8. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by Section 9.07, Ordinance 47. 9. The outlots as shown on the preliminary be used for public linear trails. development plan are to 10. The developer agrees to these conditions in writing. Motion seconded by Mal MacAlpine and unanimously approved. CARVER'S POINTE: Phyllis Pope and Pat Boyle, Park and Recreation fission, Stelios Aslanidis and Jim Hill were present. The Pl ner re mmended that the Planning Commission find Dunn and Curry's oposed pre 'minary development plan for Carver's Pointe to be positi ly consi tent with the city plan for land use, transportation, en space, tilities, zoning and subdivision provided: 1. Ril Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves sur ce water drainage an. 2.. Constr tion traffic shall use MSAS 101 only. 3. The sub 'vision is shifted 30 feet eastward and t developer is required t prepare a landscape plan which will reen the lots abutting CSAH and MSAS 101. 4. The develope work with the Building Inspecto to develop a street naming pla which will not be confusing. 5. The developer rees to submit a final dev opment plan incorporating all th conditions as outlined n Ordinance 47, Section 14.05, subdivision 5. 6. The developer agree to complete insta ation of all city streets, curbs, gutters, utilitie (sewer and wat ), underground electric distribution lines by 7. The developer agrees no 47, regarding the placement 8. Planning Commission resol Nez Perce to CSAH 17, if in t 9. Developer agrees to these Phyllis Pope stated that requested the developer's is planned in phase 2 as development plans have no the to reque 4 any variances struc res. the vacation of 68th he t interest of the coleitions in writing. ark a' d 1 plan ney feel i been submit from Ordinance Street from community. Recreation Commission had or the area to see if a park is very necessary. The total tw to the city at this time. Jim Hill - It juspt hans that Dunn and rry owns the adjacent lands. If we did not own the property. I ive other people owned t/,e nd I think it ehooves the Park Commis 'on to determine where is overall ne' hborhood they want a park, for what use and what sIn the pr erties that Dunn and Curry do wn adjacent to this wlooking higher densities so I imagine to be that if ye going o centrally locate a park with rega d to not land but mf peop it would be south of MSAS 101. I th k it's more pical t locate the park in the neighborhood and of just nsary the Dunn and Curry holdings but for the ne' hborhood and Ik 's more appropriate to be south of 101 and no in this le ity area. In the future if you wanted 10%, I tha k the rng holdings of Dunn and Curry are 100 acres, so we a talking is of a free ten acre park. With the single family ar we are tg about $21,000 that could go towards either the impro ment o ten and/or the purchase and improvement of 15 acres mor t - 9 _. - -- - -- - - . - .. n Z-r- ;e 4-1,, k.;9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, Staff, Rod Hardy, Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc., 4940 Viking Drive, Minneapolis, MN; and Stelios Aslanidis, Urbanscope, 2614 Nicollet Ave. South, Minneapolis, MN FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-05 CITY ORDINANCE REF: 47, Section 17 Please include the following enclosures with your copy of Exhibit 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park: Enclosure 19. City Planner's Report dated March 21, 1978. CITY0 F CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: March 21, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, Staff, Rod Hardy and Stelios Aslanidis FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) APPLICANT: Dunn .and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-054 CITY ORDINANCE REF: 47, Section 17 Pursuant to city ordinance 47, section 17, the Planning Commission after public hearing for proposed rezoning to P-4, shall make recommendation to the city council to either approve, disapprove, disapprove with qualification or approve with qualification a petition for rezoning. Planner's Recommendation I recommend the City Planning Commission find Dunn and Curry's request to rezone and subdivide the subject property from R-lA to P-4, Planned Industrial Development to be consistent with the city's plan for land use, transportation, open space, utilities, zoning and subdivision provided: 1. Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District approves the drainage plan for development. 2. The city engineer shall determine the final alignment and construction standards for all roads. 3. The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. 4. Developer agrees to establish a no -build line on lake shore lots. Said no build line shall be at elevation 945- 5. The uses permitted within the Planned Unit Development shall be governed by section 17.02, City Ordinance 47. Planning Commissic — -2- March 21, 1978 6. Building design and construction shall be governed by the provisions of section 9.06 of city ordinance 47. 7. Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations for the planned unit development shall be governed by section 12.05, city ordinance 47.. 8. Parking and loading areas shall be governed by section 9.07, city ordinance 47. 9. Developer agrees to these conditions in writing. (612)827-5893 _ Land Planning Environmental Planning JL Urban Design Graphic Design March 20, 1978 Don Berg Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District County Office Building Waconia, MN 55387 Dear 11r. Berg, As per your instructions we have perforri(A, a study t.o indicate which soil and water conservation practices need to be employed on the two Dunn & Curry properties located in Chanhassen (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park and Chanhassen Lakes North). The results of this study were submitted to the engineering firm of Schoell and Madson, Inc. for review and cost estimate. A copy of their review for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is enclosed with this letter as is one blueprint of each project showing the location of related facilities. The following is a short summary of our findings. Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Total cost of related improvements......... Breakdown as follows: 1-Storage Ponds (28.4 acre feet).. .. ..........$ 78,983 2-Channel Diversion (20'wide 3deep).......... ..$ 16,000 3-Channel Improvement (1000 feet) ...............$ 13,000 4-Temporary Sediment Traps........ ...............$ 2,200 Total- $110,183 Chanhassen Lakes North Total cost of related improvements ...............$ 803,386 The breakdown of costs is not yet available as the project has not reached the final design stage, however it will generally be similar to that for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, f Stelios Aslanidis President SA/k Enc. 2614 Nicollet Avenue/ Minneapolis. Minnesota 55408 n • 1ILLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISLE MAOSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON RAYMOND J. JACKSON WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY JACK E. GILL RODNEY B. GORDON THEODORE0 KEMNA JOHN W.EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT BRUCE C. SUNDING Urbanscope, Inc. 2614 Nicollet Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota Gentlemen: 19, SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. ENGINEER AN❑ SURVEYORS (612) 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 OFFICES AT HUHO(v, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON TEXAS March 17, 1978 55408 Subject: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Sediment and Erosion Control Costs. We have reviewed your plan for erosion and sediment control in the subject development. We estimate the total cost of the proposed improvements to be $111,213, as follows: Retention Ponds $ 79,013 Channel Diversion 17,000 Channel Rip-Rap,Jetties 13,000 Temporary Sediment Traps 2,200 Total $111,213 A detailed cost estimate is attached to this report. The proposed location of the retention ponds seems reasonable. Assuming the ponds will have capacity to store the difference in runoff between pres- ent and proposed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall, approximately 28.4 acre-feet of storage will be required. Outlet structures should be equipped with skimming devices and be designed to limit peak discharge after industrial development to that under present conditions. The diversion channels should be rip -rapped in accordance with S.C.S. Technical Release 3, "Loose Rip -Rap Protection." Our cost estimate assumes a 12 inch thickness of rip -rap and a 6-inch thick bedding within 20 foot. wide 3-foot deep channels. Since the location and nature of existing channel improvements (rip -rap, jetties, etc.) will require detailed on -site study, we estimate a cost of $1,000 at each of the thirteen locations shown. oCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. Urbanscope, Inc. March 17, 1978 Page 2 The temporary sedimentation traps will consist of an anchored straw bale barrier used during upland construction at a cost of approximately $2.00 per lineal foot. In general, we feel the preliminary elan is adequate for submission, to the Soil Conservation Service and R ley Purgatory Creek Watershed. District for review with the following changes and additions: 1) A larger ponding area should be reserved for the following ponds: Outlot E; Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot 3, Block 1; 2) A small pond (1.0 acre-feet storage) should be added on Lot 5, Block 1; 3) The storage capacity of the ponds should be as shown on the plan. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. WJBrezinsky:bk attachment 3CHOELL & MADSON, INC Urbanscope, Inc. March 17, 1978 Page 3 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK COSTS SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL I. RETENTION PONDS A. Pond 1 - Lot 2, Block 9 (4.3 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 1,000 C.Y. @ $1:00/C.Y. Outlet Structure Lump Sum Estimated Construction Costs Engineering, Staking, Inspection Contingencies Total Estimated Cost B. Pond 2 - Outlot E (12.8 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 20,600 C.Y. @ $1.00/C.Y. Sodding 4,000 S.Y. @ $1.50/S.Y. Outlet Structure Lump Sum Estimated Construction Costs Engineering, Staking, Inspection Contingencies Total Estimated Cost C. Pond 3 - Lot 1, Block 5 (4.9 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 7,900 C.Y. @ $1.00/C.Y. Sodding 1,000 S.Y. @ $1.50/S.Y. Outlet Structure Lump Sum Estimated Construction Costs Engineering, Staking, Inspection Contingencies Total Estimated Cost $ 1,000 $ 2,000 200 $ 2,200 22b $ 2,420 $20,600 6,000 2,500 $29,100 2,910 $32,010 3,201 $35,211 $ 7,900 1,500 1,000 $10,400 1,040 $11,440 1,144 $12,584 SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. Urbanscope, Inc. March 17, 1978 Page 4 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK COSTS SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL I. RETENTION PONDS - (Continued) D. Pond 4 - Lot 1, Block 3 (4.1 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 6,600 C.Y. @ $1.00/C.Y. $ 6,600 Sodding 800 S.Y. @ $1.50/S.Y. 1,200 Outlet Structure Lump Sum 1,500 Estimated Construction Cost $ 9,300 Engineering, Staking, Inspection 930 $10,230 Contingencies 1,023 Total Estimated Cost $11,253 E. Pond 5 - Lot 3, Block 1 (5.6 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 91000 C.Y. @ $1.00/C.Y. $ 91000 Sodding 11000 S.Y. @ $1.50/S.Y. 1,500. Outlet Structure Lump Sum 1,500 Estimated Construction Cost $12,000 Engineering, Staking, Inspection 1,200 $13,200 Contingencies 1,320 Total Estimated Cost $14,520 F. Pond 6 - Lot 5, Block 1 (1.0 Acre -Foot Storage) Excavation 2,000 C.Y. @ $1.00/C.Y. $ 2,000 Outlet Structure Lump Sum 500 Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,500 Engineering, Staking, Inspection 250 2,750 Contingencies 275 Total Estimated Cost $ 3,025 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF RETENTION PONDS $79,013 --)CHOELL & MAOSON, INC Urbanscope, Inc. March 17, 1978 Page 5 CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK COSTS SEDIMENT AND EROSION C014TROL II. CHANNEL DIVERSION Channel Excavation 1,200 C.Y. @ $ 1.50/C.Y. $ 1,800 Rip -Rap 1,000 Tons @ $10.00/Ton 10,000 450 Tons @ $ 5.00/Ton 2,250 Estimated Construction Costs $14,050 Engineering, Staking, Inspection 1,405 $15,455 Contingencies 1,545 Total Estimated Cost $17,000 CITY OFC;ANHA;: Eft CARVER Ar•D HENNEP.: COUNTIES, `a i';N F.907 A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING UN PR0P0SF i! REZONING AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOP DUNN & CURRY REAL ESTATE MANAGEMF'; INCORPORATED, CHANHASSEN, MINNESO r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plat Commission of the City of Chanhassen, MihnesoU meet on Wednesday, the Bib day of March, 1978 p m. at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, Char-- Minnesota, for the purpose of holding a public hear. consider rezoning the following described property f 1-A Agricultural Residential District to P4, Plat. t :dustrial Development District and to subdivide property into 73 industrial lots and 7 ofutlots. rroposed rezoning and subdivision of land ihvolvt: F�Ilowing described parcel of land: PkRCEL A: hat part of the northwest quarter of Sectie wnship 116 Range 23, Carver County, Minne :,;ng northerly of the northerly line of the Chi. Mawaukee, St. Paul and Pacif c Railroad, excep t n ken for Minnesota State Trunk Highway No. 5 Su ti County Road No. 17 ucef the westerly 33.00 feet. PARCEL B: That part of the northwest quarter and of the hcdf of the southwest quarter and of the soutt quarter of the northeast quaruc and of Governmen ., all in Section 14, Township 116, Range 23, Ca .:ounty, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said north h the southwest quarter; thence N 8? degrees 23' i:? bearing assumed along the south line of said north of the southwest quarter, a distance of 1089.62 : ,.ence north a distance of 483.02 fee. thence •iegrees 26'05"E, a distance of 1118.03 feet; thence degrees 05'45"E, a distance of 640.96-feet to the wes line of proposed County State Aid Highway No. . thence N 31 degrees 10'50"E, along said westerly, in:•, a distance of 971.42 feet; thence northeasterly and aor- :herly, along said westerly line, on a tangential curse concave to the west having a radius of 1070.92 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 30', a distance of 644.84 f; . thence N 3 degrees 19'10"W, along said Westerly !,-Le and tangent to the last described curve, a distance of ).09.33 feet to the south line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence westerly and southwesterly along said south line of said raflr:nd to the west line of said north half of the southwest garter; thence S 2 degrees 11'01"E, along said west line of said north half of the southwest quarter to point of beginning. EXCEPT: Part of the north half of the southwra quarter of Section 14, Township 118, Range 23, Car ,•L County, Minn„ described as follows: Beginning a: point on thewest line of said north'half of the south- r : quarter, 821.90 feet, measured along said west line, southerly of the northwest corner of said north hat c'- the southwest quarter, said west line assumed to bea: 2 degrees 11'0111E; thence N 84 degrees 48'59"E distance of 550.00 feet; thence N 2 degrees 11'01"W, parallel with- said west litre, a distance of 180.00 feet; thence N 32 degrees 05'05"IV, a distance of 682.31 feet to the southeasterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, as recordc3 in Book 23 of Deeds, Page 266; thence S 55 degrees 32141"W, along said southeasterly right of way line, s distance of 260.00 feet to said west line of the north half of the southwest quarter; thence S 2 degrees 11'01"F, along said west line, a distance of 615.32 feet to the point of beginning. And also except that part of the said N%- Sw ke lying northwest of said rolroad right of way Soblect to existing County Road No. 17 in the westerly portion of said north half of the southwest quarter. PARC EL C: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 13, Townsip 116, Range 23, and of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 14, Township 11€,, Rangy 23, and of Government Lot 1, said section 14 and of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of . rl Section 14, lying southerly of the south line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Raiir->a?, lye g south of that part of State Trunk Highway : o. 5 which Iles southeasterly of said railroad and i,ing easterly of the easterly line of proposed County Si:?te Aid Htgbway No. 17, said easterly line being descrrhr-d so follows and hereinafter called Line "A": A line parallel with and 75.00 feet easterly oi, measured perpendicular to, the following descrih-d line: Commencing at the southeast corner of the •.c:a: ha11 of the southwest quarter of said Section 14; tit"rice o, an assumed bearing of S 89 degrees 25'18"W, along r Ah line of sajd east half of the southwest qui.. a di ft,,net of 145.00 feet, to the beginning of the If:.,, is !:escribed; thence N 0 degrees 19110"W, a distance _f 140M 4e !eet; thence northerly and northeaster`, diet sC, a of 830.00 feet, along a tangential curve conchs to the east having a radius of 1145.92 feet and a central a r, il;e of 31 degrees 30'00' ; thence N 31 degrees 10'50- , t r.g ant to said curve, a distance of 1110.25 feet; thence i,_ru-easterly and northerly, a distance of 690.00 feet along a tangential curve concave to the west havinz . radius of 1145.92 feet and a central angle of 34 degree~ 30'0C"; thence N 3 degrees 19'10"W, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 783.95 feet and there terminating. tacept from the above described tract, that purl cen %, yed to the Minnesota south district of the Ltitt�era T, Chur(h-Missouri Synod by deed filed in Book B, of Deeds, page 439, Carver County. Together with that or rt of Government Lot 2, said Section 14, lying easterly 4 the rnsterly line of proposed County State Aid H.igitwap No said easterly line being line "A" as previnusly described and lying northerly of the following des-ribed line: Commencing at the southwest corner of the north ha If. f th- southwest Qv tr of said Section 14, thence N °v Grffidavit of Publication Sate of Minnesota ) ) SS County of Carver ) W i l Z-i-aI[1 M C Garry _ , being duly sworn, on oath says he is and during all the time herein stated has been the publisher and printer of the newspaper known as Carver County Herald and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 900 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is a weekly and is distributed at least once a week. (3) Said news paper has 50% of its news columns devoted to news of local interest to the community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publication and is not made up entirely of patents, plate matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality which it purports to serve, has at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average of at least 75% of its total circulation currently paid or no more than three months in arrears and has entry as second-class matter in its local post -office. (5) Said newspaper purports to serve the City of Chaska in the County of Carver and it has its known office of issue in the City of Chaska in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the gathering of news, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained by the managing officer of said newspaper, persons in its employ and subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at which said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the State Historical Society. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions for at least one year preceding the day or dates of publication mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to January 1, 1966 and each January 1 thereafter an affidavit in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State and signed by the managing officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper. He further states on oath that the printed Public Hearing hereto attached as a part hereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published therein in the English language, once each week, for One successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed. the 22nd day of Feb. 1978and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including the day of _ _ _ 19 and that the following is a printed copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of said notice, to wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this -. (Notarial Seal) LORRALIC LANO tl� i NOTARY PUBLIC — MINNESDTA t' { CARVER COUNFY ``:iP My Commission Expires June 29, 1982 ♦ . �v tit::. IMF Notary public, T County, Mumesytra My Commission Expires a_�l 19 ;,— MAR 1973 March 13, 1978 °p RECEiVEpi VIUAGE CM City Co,znell & Planning Commission kCHAINIIHASSE*, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 MINMGentlemen: ��11It 2 This letter is being submitted in accordance with the Planning Commission Chairman's request of March 8, 1978; and generally represents the views of the existing Lake Susan association residents as signified by their affixed signatures. We appreciated the opportunity to hear the developers presentation and allowing neighbor- hood input regarding the proposed Chanhassen Lakes Bussiness Park, Planned Industrial Development at the March 8, Public Hearing. In general, we are in agreement with the Planned Industrial rezoning and believe this to be a compatiable land use with our neighborhood and surrounding areas. However, we have certain concerns about the plat as proposed and other recommendations regarding development criteria. We desire yolir concurrence in our recommenda- tions and request that the developer be required to comply with these conditions in writing as a stipulation for granting the rezoning. In the -Pollowing paragraphs we will attempt to present some o,' our concerns relative to the proposed plat and present recommended development criteria for your consideration. our major concern is the steep sloped and wooded area adjacent to the lake and extending along the south end of Block II. �`rom an environmental and technical viewpoint this area should remain undisturbed. We recommend that a no grading line be established at the intersection of the present tilled land and the wooded pasture. A no build- ing line should be established even farther back from the lake. We estimate the distance between the recommended no grading line and the lake to average 200 Feet in width which is considerably more than the unplatted width shown on the Preliminary Plat.. We are disturbed over the density o' the.proposed plat. Lots are as small as 1.5 acres and most in the vicinity of the lake average 2.0 acres which "or industrial develop- ment are small. We prerer an earlier exhibit prepared by the developer which illustrated a single east west road between the tracks and Lake Susan. As you know the proposed plat contains an additional U-shaped road to serve Block II which in effect reduces lot sizes. Lot sizes co!ald be Increased and a single b+zilding utilized to serve several business, similar to existing industrial development in page 2 Edina West of County Road 18 and North of I-494. It is noteworthy that a 200 x 200 foot building occupies nearly an acre of land. The larger buildings or lots are more capital cost and energy efficient and require less public streets and utilities. Therefore small lots require excessive streets and utilities, and even if constructed by the developer Chanhassen will undoubtedly assume operation and maintenance costs. In many instances our residential lots equal or exceed, the lot sizes proposed +'or this development. We request that the maximum building and parking lot coverage be derined in terms o" percent of gross area. We believe something equal to or less than 75 percent represents a. reasonable coverage. The proposed Planned Ind!.xstrial Development (PID) is extremely general, we request that the permissable land used within this PID be listed and that certain commercial and other uses be speci`'ically excl+.i.ded. We request that the neighborhood (residential areas) be screened from the PID by physical, vegetative and other methods; including establishing maximum slab elevations, limiting building heights. planting, etc.. It would be desirable for the developer to plant numerous coniferous trees on top of the slope in Block II and in outlote, providing both winter and. summer screening. It is our understanding that storm drainage will be collected In retention ponds, treated and outfall sewers or pipes will not flow to the lake. ^urther, we understand that the quality and quantity of surface water directed to the lake will remain unchanged. We agree that pond outfalls should Flow to Riley Creek and the storm drainage enter the lake naturally throlzgh the Creek. No storm sewer pile should be permitted to out"all into the lake because of visual of -Pensiveness and potential navigational hazard. Again, Chanhassen will probably assume operational and maintenance responsibilities "or the storm sewer treatment facilities including periodically removing pond sediments, especially daring constrl?c}ion. Finally, we are concerned abort light pollution. This may be minimized by limiting exterior light height (30 Teet) not allowing drop or cobra light-'ixtures, and requiring fixtures with specs"led c!it-o"f `'eatures. Also, night lighting should be reduced to a minimum security level. page 3 We recognized that many of the concerns previously discussed. sho,ild more appropriately be matters for latter p,.zblic hear- ings regarding building permits, etc.. However, we request that these items be inctided as conditions for rezoning and thus remove the need -"or the neighborhood to attend, numerous subsequent meetings. Many o" otir concerns may also presently be inclTded in various ordinances, however even at the risk o-' being redundant, we req,zest that they again be incl!ided as conditions -or rezoning. I-' there are additional items within the ordinances pertaining to the PID which the neighborhood may desire inpr.xt we would expect the City Starf to point out our oversight. In the future, we would appreciate that every resident in "he neighborhood (see attached list) be notified of Council or Planning Commission agenda items pertaining to actions affecting areas adjacent to Lake Susan, Again, we sincerely appreciate your interest in preserving and protecting our neighborhood. Very truly yours, Lake Susan Association 1;&eti &CV14',Z7 lgj4x-e-� C-1 A4r 17 e n � J�J/4y, MEMBERS_O'i LAKE STTSAN HOMEOW14ERS ASSOCIATION Armstrong, Robert W. Jr. R*diger, Bernice 8400 Great Plains Blvd. 8516 Great Plains Blvd. 474-2854 474-7869 Gale, Donald 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 474-5185 Bach, Hobert E. 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 474-4488 Bartz, Keith D. 8411 Great Plains Blvd. 474-5.525 Klingelhutz, Al H. 8601 Great Plains Blvd. 474-8913 Klein. Cornelia 8412 Great Plains Blvd, 474-8977 :Murphy, James 0. 8500 Great Plains Blvd. 474-2805 Robinson, Harley R. 8502 Great Plains Blvd. 474-6363 Bloemke, Douglas R. 8504 Great Plains Blvd. 474-97 37 Casey, Roger 8506 Great Plains Blvd. 474-6425 Slathar, Donald A. 9508 Great Plains Blvd. 474-7 590 Nieland, Richard 8510 Great Plains Blvd, 474-3543 Lawrence, Russell C. 8520 Great Plains Blvd. 474-8586 Clark, Terril C. 8522 Great Plains Blvd. 474-6185 Holtmeier, Wayne E. 8524 Great Plains Blvd. 474-6185 Paulson, Walter E. 8528 Great Plains Blvd. 474-5674 Ward, Martin Chanhassen Mn. 474-9123 anning Commission Meeting March 8, 1978 -5- the last year. Walt,-:i don't. -know if 15,000 is a number or not. There is people say 12,000 sh be, .s say 10,000. I guess if we are.looki t a PRD smal lots can be used and used ver fectively in terms -.of type -of housing the-, on it. It appears there has bee fairly effe a layout procedure to give you a lot t is n ery narrow but has a reasonable squareness to it or to it. On that basis I can't see anything wr with Walt -Hobbs - i am not hu p on 15,000 s e foot lots either. I do thin at you have to look a w they spacially wo ithin the plat.. Jerry N moved to table action until later this evenin until the xt meeting. Motion seconded by Les-.Bridger and unanimo PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK Roman Roos called -the hearing to:order at-8:45 p.m. The following interested persons were present: Keith Bartz, 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Don and Jeff Slathar, 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Alex Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Ivan Payne,.7612 Kiowa Jim Benshoof, BRW Harley Robinson, 8502 Great Plains Blvd. Don Gale, 8402 Great Plains Blvd. Al Klingelhutz, 8601'Great Plains Blvd. Walter Paulson, 8528 Great Plains Blvd. Rod Volk, 17141 Cedar Crest Dr., Eden Prairie (Lutheran Church of the Living Christ) Richard Muggli, 410 Santa Fe Circle Wayne Holtmeier, 8524 Great Plains Blvd. b Roger Casey, 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Al Sinnen, 8150 Grand View Robert and Priscilla Armstrong, 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Doug Bloemke, 8504 Great Plains Blvd. 1� Don Schmieg, 7703 Erie a` Robert and Suzan Bach, 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Russell and:Edna Lawrence, 8520 Great Plains Blvd. y otice of the public hearing was published in the Carver County Herald n February 22, 1978, and notices were mailed to property owners within 50 feet of the subject property.', he public hearing is to consider rezoning approximately 276 acres rom R-lA to P-4. The property is located generally north and northwest of Lake Susan, south of Highway 5 and east of County Road 17. Traffic circulation to the property will be via'existing'County Road 17, new County Road 17 and a detached frontage road parallel with Highway 5. The initial area for development'is just south"of the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ and north of"Lake Susan.' The Metropolitan Council has approved Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan that indicates this area to be industrial. Included in the plan was a'provision for linear green space movement along the north shore of Lake Susan. This right- Planning Commissic ~ Meeting March 8, 1978 -6- of-way is being preserved for future use: -The .shoareland area of Lake Susan is not a part of this plat. There is a 100 foot right-of-way easement for a.future trail -bisecting the property. Bruce Pankonin - I feel as City Planner, this development will have .. many, many positive far reaching implications for the City of•Chanhassen. It should provide an excellent place -for residents to work; it should be advantageous -for the city's tax base and it should generally.be a-total'asset for -the community. Mr. Jim Benshoof, BRW, presented the traffic study along Highway 5 as authorized by the City Council. Traffic -generated by the Dunn and Curry development (Chanhassen -Lakes Business Park), MTS Systems Corporation, future development of Chanhassen Estates Outlot 2, and the Sinnen'property directly south of the.American Legion Club warrants a detached continuous frontage road from new CSAH 17, on the west, and terminating at 184th Street on the east. The City Engineer gave his report. He has reviewed the traffic report and agrees with it and it agrees with the Engineer's previous reports. The proposed frontage road west of Highway 101 could be - built to a 44 foot minimum up to 52 feet with four lanes. The developer would be required to pay the cost of a 36 foot street to standard. The remainder would be paid for out of state aid funds. He recommended this street be designated a municipal state aid street. Sanitary sewer would be provided by extension of a sewer line from east of Highway 101 along the north shore of Lake Susan following % the creek up to Highway 5. Trunk water would be provided by construction of a well, pump house. The total cost for sewer, water, 'X storm sewer, street to serve this property is $2,600,000. That cost would be distributed in accordance to benefit to the properties that receive benefit from the improvements. The hearing was opened for comments from the floor. - Don Slathar - Anything in the planning on Highway 5 traffic in terms of language I can understand. How much longer do I Ll have to wait at Highway 5 and 4 to get to work? oman Roos - I think Highway 212 will alleviate part of the problem. ruce Pankonin - Right now Highway 5 carries a lot of inter -regional traffic. Hopefully the through traffic will be on Highway 212 located south of Lake Riley. That is a top priority road in the State of Minnesota. Highway 5 is proposed as a minor arterial to handle subregional trips. od Hardy gave a presentation of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. he industrial area has been divided into three phases covering a period of between ten and twelve years. In the first phase there would be a road to be connected from new County Road 17 east to Highway 101. County Road 17 is presently projected for construction commencing next April, for completion in the third quarter of 1980. The industrial sites will be no smaller than an acre and a half and no larqer than five acres.* The closest point of approach between the shoreline of Lake, -Susan and the southern property lines is 100 feet. All of that shoreline will be retained.by the partnership to be contributed,.at some point in the future,for.park purposes to the city. Dunn and Curry has an agreement with the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ to provide access through the proposed industrial development. Planning Commission Meeting March 8-, 1978 -7- In the proposed covenants, tiunn and Curry will provide for substantial setbacks along -the steep slope overlooking the lake and maximize the existing ground°cover. Railroad access will not be provided in the first phase. Rod Hardy - The county has proposed that the intersection on Highway 212 that serves Chanhassen will be the new County Road 17. That being the case, the major access for all industry will'be up County Road 17'or down County Road 17 to Highway 212. That was very key in our planning because we felt it'was imperative to move traffic away from the center and out to the regional highways as quickly as possible. Harley Robinson - I am an elder at the church and also a property owner on Lake Susan. As far as your easement for the road going into the church, who would be paying for that? Rod Hardy --I don't know what the terms-under.�the agreement are. I think it's provided for in our agreement with the church. Ed Dunn - The easement is provided to the church at no charge. Road construction of whatever nature is left to the church. Harley Robinson - That is my only concern as far as the church is concerned.' As far as the property owners on the X south side of the lake, I think most of them are here this evening, their biggest concern is they Vi are going to be looking north and looking at these `C high banks over there and you say you have allotted 100 feet and the trees -go back as far as 200 feet. .v Rod Hardy - 100 feet between the edge of the lake and the edge of the I property. We have not designated the setback requirement - from the edge of the property for any construction at this t ime . Harley Robinson - Is there going to be any grading of that area? Rod Hardy - Any grading would probably be done would be on the level. We have not made any final definitive commitments in terms of the setback from the property line, where they can build, but it would be unlikely, at this point, that there would be any construction once the grade starts to change percipitously. There would be no reason for an industry to build'on the side of a hill. Harley Robinson - Are there any regulations that the city has as far as how far they build back from a lake or can they build right up to the lake? Bruce Pankonin - The minimum setback according to shoreland standards for Lake Susan is 75 feet from the high water mark. These people are proposing a 100 feet, a public area, rear lot -line, and then the rear setback. Harley Robinson - What about regulations as far as parking lots? Is there anything in -that as far as your sites or can you build 100% on, they site?• Bruce Pankonin - At the present -time we�are considering whether the property.shouid be'industrial or not. That's a zoning issue, -and we .are , also: deciding what should the -lot and street -.configuration be. Site plans for buildings on a particular site is handled at the time of building permit application. All ,Planning Commissic Meeting Maroh'8-, 1978 -8- Harley Robinson of the setbacks; parking ratios and lot are regulatedrby-the Chanhassen Zoning We-are'not•at that stage at this time. area coverages Ordinance. - I feel that, as far as industrial, if it's protected from our view as far as lighting and environmental I" I"believe that as far as providing sufficient setbacks Z would like -to know,,what are they and if it is approved industrial. As far as screening, is there any regulations?'•Is'there going to be any limiting of height of elevations of buildings? Is there going to be a limit to light pollution? Are we going to see the lights of an industrial park or are we going -to seethe moon? As far as restricting light heights, is this in any planning? ruce Pankonin - All the questions you are raising are covered by'the performance"atandards,of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. arley Robinson - Are they allowable for industrial area? Bruce Pankonin - Yes. Harley Robinson -:What are your heights? Bruce Pankonin - 45 feet. Harley Robinson - What about lighting? Bruce Pankonin - It can't penetrate over the property lines, and light sources can't be visible, they have to be screened. Harley Robinson - Vvaat about the grading along the edge of the lake? Rod Hardy - We are not proposing to do anything within at least 100 feet of the -lake. There will be a sewer line which is going to be put in which is going to be a public hearing next week. The final alignment of that sewer,I don't know where the centerline of the sewer will go, but from our point of view in terms of development, we would not come within 100 feet of that property. Harley Robinson - What about storm drainage in that area? Is there any provisions for this? Bill Brezinsky - There will be two ponds. The storm drainage requirement will be in accordance with the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District rules and regulations. Basically, there will be in the first phase two ponds. The existing pond will be used as a settling area. The runoff from approximately 30 acres in the industrial park*and from the property to the east will be directed to this pond and then there will be a Smaller outlet pipe which will restrict the flow from this pond into a storm sewer system that will outlet into a second pond. It will eventually outlet into the creek. The maximum flow will be restricted to -no more than what it is now from the raw land. There will have to be provisions for cleaning the water as it goes through the pond. It will probably be necessary to have skimming devices, etc. The quality of the -water entering the lake will be different than it -is -right now.' The plan was submitted to the watershed:d•istrict the first part of this month.-'They'have•reviewed it and are going to discuss at their*neet:. la ^.', Y;h of 7:,-p-ril. Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1978 -9- At'that.-time they will give the developers their specific requirements. Harley Robinson -"What cAn gbJn there? Bruce'Pankonin - Primarily anything that doesn't have any outside storage and develop toxic waste that go in the sewer system and are low water users. Harley Robinson - Is there any provisions as far as the city about keeping a green area or grass or shrubs or trees? Bruce Pankonin - In`the industrial areas there is a 30 foot front yard setback where nothing can happen except for access drives. There is'a rear yard. There are side yards. No more than 30% of the site can be covered with buildings. Harley Robinson_ - What about blacktop for parking? Bruce Pankonin - There is'a parking ratio depending upon the use. Roman Roos - Martin Ward could not be here this evening. He would like to hold the record open. We will hold this. record open for one week -so that letters could be entered into the record. im Murphy - You are asking us to accept something which we know very little about. We would like to see those land uses listed. Regarding setback,,we would certainly like to see that V defined prior -to you approving the zoning. AI Roman Roos - The setback is defined. Jim Murphy - Why can't it be more restrictive for this particular case? Bruce Pankonin - We have asked the developer to define the no build lines. This has not been done. What we are leaning towards is when you start going down the slope would .�1 be the no build line. X Jim Murphy - No build and no grading. That's what we are really looking for. Another thing that's very important to us is elevation, not only the slab elevation but the top of the buildings. Light pollution, we are interested in definite cutoffs. What are you going to do with lighting at night? Can it be reduced to a minimum? When I look out my bedroom window I like to see the moon. Regarding the storm sewer, is it true that there would be no culverts that outlet into Lake Susan? ill Brezinsky - There will be none that outlet directly into Lake Susan. im Murphy - Has anybody done a study on what is the ratio in Jonathan? I think most of us like it. od Hardy - This is more in keeping with the Jonathan plan. im Murphy - You are talking about awfully little establishments, a lot of roads. is it really necessary? Soon you are going to be talking about water and sewer and then streets that are put in, then you are committed. Do we have to be -quite as hard and fast with this lot size? Can it be something more flexible? I think the neighborhood is very concerned that all these conditions be laid out prior' -to your approval. I am concerned about some vague ordinance.' Bruce Pankonin - The city, in agreeing with Dunn and Curry, at some point in -time; -will enter in'to a very specific development contract -where every -one of these issues will'be articulated., -`Right now we are at the fact gathering stage: 19 Planning Commission Meeting jiaxch. $,.:1978`. Keith- Barg - r When. do we; have another •,.,opportkiiiity to review further? Roman Roos - That's important-:ta:Q.ufi feelings:here. We all have concerns about-the,,natural state -of the north boundary -of Lake -.Susan -staying as it', is.... We all'have concerns about the,height of,th+s'buildings: I think everybody to this.room would-be agreeable--if-you have a lot down setback where any.building would begin and if you have -height limitations and answers to our light questions and,we•,have another chance to talk to you once ,you have -those proposals -before any -contracts are signed. ,,-If we don't have -:that agreement -that we get another chance at it when these specific issues are proposed, not signed, then I think we are not through tonight. What we'are trying,to do tonight is gather the general sentiment of the community in respect to that property in terms of rezoning that property. The issues raised by Mr. Robinson are very relevant issues and will definitely be considered., GO Al Klingelhutz - In listening to the neighborhood in the past week or so, there concern is mostly on the south slope on the north side of Lake Susan, I am wondering if .� the Planning Commission and the Lake Susan Hills Partnership wouldn't consider having a deeper setback on their rear setback line than the present (Q ordinance. If the people down there could be given some such statement that that would be considered, ,1 I think a lot of their concerns would be answered. Harley;Robinson - I think that's right, Al. I feel that certainly Dunn and Curry have•a lot invested in the land and I think it should be zoned industrial but the thing that we are trying to do is protect it so that it doesn't look like this from where we sit in our living rooms. Roman Roos - We know what you are looking for. You would like to keep that back slope isolated. That's really the overall concensus and I am sure the Planning Commission is well aware of. That issue will Dome up but not at this point in time. Harley Robinson - Is there a way all of the landowners on the south side of Lake Susan can be notified of other meetings? Bruce Pankonin - We made a concerted effort to notify people within 350 feet of the property. If we missed someone, we apologize. There is only one official public hearing that has to be held. More could be held. I can make an attempt to write a letter to the spokesman for your group everytime this issue is to be considered by the city. Rod Hardy - May I make a suggestion? During this process we would be more than happy to meet with those residents and discuss these issues in particular. It is a forum for them to express their concerns and to get down and really get at some of the other questions. Roman Roos - Excellent suggestion. Rod•Hardy - I think they have to�•underatand as -we do that there are a lot of decisions such as;location of street lights or lights on buildings-andr•parking lots, that we don't know the answer to and we won't know themn,until that time two or three years from now when a persons comes and buys I - a Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 1978 -11- that particular property: However, I think the covenants, the zoning ordinances- that are An affect for the city and other covenants which we feel would be beneficial to ourselves and not to deter any capacity to sell the land I think would be important to us. I would say again, we have as much long term interest in the success of that particular project,I think,as a lot of the present residents do. We sympathize with you because we see that there is a good deal of land which we will also be turning into residential, many of whom will have the same concerns. I would offer our company's assistance and whoever the spokesman might want to be, we would be happy to meet at your convenience. We will bring these maps and a lot of the other working maps. We are about to complete a water quality study of Lake Susan which is being undertaken by Hickok and Associates. That study will be complete by the end of this week. The findings of that we would be glad to make available. Don Slathar - Has the Park and Recreation Commission submitted a study on this project? I am wondering if this is infringing on the previous plan. Roman Roos - The Park and Recreation Commission is quite aware of this project. As far as their recommendation at this point in time, no. Don Slathar - Could that be done prior to, so we could get a look at that? Roman Roos - It is one of the things we would need also. Bruce Pankonin - The city's plan shows a corridor along the north shore of Lake Susan. That concept.is not being aborted by this development. Rod Volk - I am from the church also. I am Chairman of the Trustees. I would be interested to know how firm your boundary lines are as far as the church is concerned as to where the road would be. Hardy - I think, having been about where the best commit that until it Volk - I think we would like people. over the property, I can define access point is, but we wouldn't was with the churchs approval. the opportunity to meet with you Rod Hardy - We have the obligation to -provide you the adequate easement. Ed Dunn - The question has come up about Mr. Ward. He is aware of our plans and our activities. I have taken probably not less than a dozen times that I have visited with him. I have kept him advised every time we had another specific that we could discuss such as the feasibility study, etc. He is aware. He has these materials. We are trying to stay in touch and are very willing to meet again with the church people. The easement was a two year negotiation. We think we have very precise mutual rights there which we intend to respect.- We will -meet with anybody who wants to talk about this, preferably in groups. We would be glad to+came and tell'you everything we know as of that date: - Hud Hollenback moved to Close the public hearing with the provision the bublic Y'P_[_'f'17^a 'e^cAmatn nncn r,+,o r.,eelr at..a-4�., -.,..r...a..a r Planning CommissL Meeting March 8, 1978 e^) -12- CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Dick Matthews moved to table action until later this evening. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING AMEND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION Roman Roos called the -'hearing to order .at 10:.1.5 p.m. with the following interested persons present: - Alex Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Jim Margerum, 8005 Cheyenne George Schroers, 8080 184th Ave., Eden Prairie Jim'Benshoof; BRW Robert MacDonald, Animal Fair, Inc. Don Schmieg, 7703"Erie Al Klingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Paul Strand, MTS Fred Richter, Ellerbe and Associates Bob Dill, Ellerbe and Associates This public hearing is to consider amending a previously approved industrial development contract for Ken Beiersdorf changing its context for the consideration of the MTS development. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Carver County Herald and notices were mailed to property.owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Paul Strand gave a -brief presentation. MTS:has outgrown the present site in Eden'Prairie. They are in the final stages of an addition to the present building and have room for one more limited addition because of the Highway 212 corridor. They intend to initially construct a 160,000 square foot facility that would be an energy efficient building in that it would be earth sheltered. The initial building would employ a maximum of 480 people. Half of the proposed building would be office space and half electronic assembly and warehouse. Fred Richter = This'site encompasses approximately 70 acres on the south side of Highway 5. The land is presently cultivated. George Schroers - Several years ago we had a meeting here to get multiple dwelling on it. Bruce Pankonin - The city has an agreement with'Ken Beiersdorf where he has rights to build a number of apartment units. The proposal at this time is to consider amending that agreement with the city. George Schroers— If we change the zoning to industrial, then anything can go on there. Bruce'Pankonin - In the P-3 these uses are permitted that MTS is proposing. 'If -the -city agrees that MTS's site plan -and uses are in the best interests of the city they would not -have rights to go out and build any.other"uses other than those approved by the city. George Schroers -'I own the property just south of it and I am.awful interested in what's going in there. I would like to be shown where the water is going. They put in buildings, they put in blacktop, storm sewers; where :--is that water going?. Planning Commissic Meeting March 8, 1978.-13- - Fred Richter -'-The site plan we are proposing is a building of approximately 160,000 square feet with parking initially for 385 cars. Half of the building roof area will be grass. Runoff will be,minimum in that.area. The other half of the roof area will be parking.- The parking lot and road'runoff will go into -a holding :pond which will be baffled and have an --oil sk5_mmer and this water will go into the creek and down to the lake. The runoff will not exceed what is presently going into the creek. The Riley Purgatory Creek agency controls this and must issue permits. George Schroers-- I am -awful concerned because you.know Chanhassen when they -put in their storm sewer system that all comes down there and that comes right now. That all comes on my property and everything and anything comes with it.. It used 'to come and'run right straight -into the lake but now it comes with such a force that it spreads out over five, six acres = down there. I don't want to be a dumping ground for everybody. Fred Richter - The only increased water we will be putting in would be the water from the runoff of the parki_ng*.lot and from the road.' The rest of the. building will be grass. That will go into�the pond and it will -be released at a rate -not exceeding the present runoff into the creek: The rest of the site will be grass or it may be agricultural. Paul Strand - We have an obligation not to dump water on your land. George Schroers ,-- What goes on that- land: is going: to: -affect- the value CY of my land. I am very interested in.which way that's -going in' there. and -.how it's -going in -there. Jim Margerum - 'I think -in --the presentation you referenced something about the frontage'road. Is ---that. right_ behind- the property line? Fred Richter.- The frontage road has-been revised -per' -earlier presentation tonight. Paul -Strand -'That particular diagram was drawn early in-our'discussion. We have a number of changes in -that road. The whole, concept is dependent upon a satisfactory solution to the traffic problem-. Bruce Pankonin-- Bob Mason, who owns Outlot 2 Chanhassen Estates, stopped and saw me today. He asked that I relay his concerns regarding the traffic study. He doesn't have any problem with it. Dick. Matthews moved -to -close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Jerry Neher and unanimously approved.- Hearing closed at 10:40 p.m. MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION: -'-Hud Hoilenback moved that provided adequate access in- accordance. with- the- stand-ards -of the -BRW study. are provided to the' MTS prbpert�,,, the Planning -Commission recommends approval of the--MTSprel mihary development -plan s -as presented. Motion seconded by Les' Bridger,.and unanimously approved.- Planning Commissic'-)Meeting March 8, 1978 -17- p Bruce Pankonin -'It is a road that ends at the lake. Wilfred Goran - Since you guys made such a beautiful landscape down there we have been having a lot of problems down there. In'fact before when it was all grown up with brush people would try to get down there and park their cars on the curve but now it's beautiful. You can drive down there with a four wheel drive which I don't think should be allowed. That originally was a fire lane. Hud Hollenback - If this is vacated at this time, the only access to Lotus Lake through Carver Beach. Bruce Pankonin -This was never used as a public access. Wilfred Goran - You'get your nuisance traffic. Hill climbers. A couple tried to back* their boat trailers -down there Just after it was improved and of course they didn't make -it. All they did was push the new sod all over the place. *.It is much to steep a grade for that kind of purpose.- Hud Hollenback - I am not arguing against vacating it. I am saying, if it is vacated people do have access to the lake 'over that land. If it is 'vacated and the neighborhood : takes' -it over the only thing left.until this public park is built is the access in Carver Beach. Wilfred Goran`-'Is this what you are trying to encourage, the use _of this for boat launching? Hud Hollenback - No; but I think every lake should have some sort of access. We are erasing them' -pretty --rapidly on this lake.- I think we should prepare' ourselves if we vacate this, which we should probably do, we are going to hear from Carver Beach and this: _other -=, area -(Merry Place) this summer.:- - _ Dick Matthews - On'the other hand it wasn't set up .for that and --it's a public nuisance as far as he is -concerned. Hud Hollenback I--have-no problem._ Roman Roos - I am not too concerned about the impact on the other boat ramps on Lotus. I am concerned about the right of .-the publ'ic-to-use that area if it was designated that initially,:however,:being a -.fire lane I feel there is no problem. Dick Matthews --.I don't have any problem with -it -as long as the owner would not put up fencing -that would be objectionable or out of context with the area. A split rail fence or shrubbery or something like that I don't have a problem with,but a six foot high chain link fence or something in that category doesn't fit. I don't have any problem with it as long as it's tastefully done. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: The Planning Commission has kept the record of the public hearing open one week for comments from the public. Dunn and Curry will meet with the residents around Lake Susan and representatives of the Lutheran Church next Wednesday evening to answers concerns that were expressed at the public hearing held earlier this evening. -Planning Commissic,")Meeting March 8; 1978-18- members commented -on -the question; What do you think about an industrial area at'that location? Jerry Neher - Definitely. Dick Matthews - I don't have any problems with -it. Les Bridger = I think it's needed. It's,a-good land use and I think it should be rezoned to-P-4:--The questions brought up by these people tonight should be answered and will'be answered as the process proceeds. Hud Hollenback - I agree. I think the city ought to get a dandle on it and find out what this means in the ways of. dollars and benefits besides money. There is quite an impact here and we really don't know ..what they - are , going : to - contribute . Jerry Neher =-If you.are going to hide your head in the sand because of traffic, we realize traffic is a.problem, you -cannot pass -up good.tax base because of that. I still maintain industry is good tax base. We haven't begun to pay taxes out here. We haven't started building schools yet compared to what we are going to -have to build. Les Bridger --There is no doubt in my mind that.traffic is a problem but we are.going to have -to live with it and we are ..going to -have to plan for it. - Roman Roos - I don't think that problem is ours. I think we have to live with the existing system. We don't' have any -control'down the -road in Eden Prairie. There is one access into Chanhassen, that's Highway 5 and new County Road 17 and that's what we have to live with. r Jerry Neher moved that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 462 the Planning Commission duly reviewed the Feasibility Study for North Lake -Susan -Improvement Project 78-3 and finds this to -be positively consistent'with-the spirit and intent of Chanhassen's plan for land use, transportation, and utilities.' Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback and unanimously approved. Al Klingelhutz; President of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce, requested'a copy•of-Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes. Dick Matthews'moved-to-adjourn.. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously approved.' Meeting adjourned at 1:30 a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8886 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, Staff, Rod Hardy and Stelios Aslinidis FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ": Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-054 CITY ORDINANCE REF: Ordinance 47, Section 17 Please include the following enclosures with your copy of exhibit 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park: 17. Traffic Access Plan For Area South of State Highway 5, East Of County Highway 17 and West of City Limits. 18. City Planner's Report dated March 7, 1978. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 PLANNING REPORT DATE: March 7, 1978 TO: Planning Commission, Staff, Rod Hardy and Stelios Aslinidis FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) APPLICANT: Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. PLANNING CASE: P-054 ORDINANCE REF: Ordinance 47, Section 17 Petition As shown in attached enclosures 1 - 18, the applicant, Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc., is proposing to rezone 276 acres from R-lA, Residence Agricultural District to P-4, Planned Industrial Development District (PID) and subdivide the subject property into numerous industrial lots. Background Pursuant to Planning Commission request, notice of public hearing was duly published in the Carver County Herald and adjacent property owners, within 350 feet of the subject property, were duly notified of said public hearing. Traffic Analysis As shown in enclosure 17, the city retained Bather, Ringrose and Wolsfeld, Inc., to analyze the impact of Dunn and Curry's proposed Planned Industrial Development on the city's transportation system. Included in the analysis are suggestions as to access location, frontage road location and continuity and projected traffic loads. Jim Benshoot, Traffic Engineer from BRW will make a presentation at the public hearing regarding his analysis and suggested recommendations. Planning Commissic -2- March 7, 1978 Carver County Director of Public Works Recommendation On Tuesday, February 28, 1978, I met with Pat Murphy, Carver County Director of Public Works, to discuss Dunn and Curry's proposed planned industrial development. Mr. Murphy approved the concept of new County Road 17, access acing, etc. but requested Dunn and Curry be required to dedicate seven additional feet along the east right of way line of existing County Road 17 for future improvement purposes. In addition, 17 additional feet is requested along the east property line of Lot 5, Block 1. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation Under separate cover I forwarded a copy of Dunn and Curry's proposed planned industrial development to the Park and Recreation Commission for their consideration and review. As of this date, no information has�been returned to the Planner's office. I do, however, expect a member of the Park and Recreation Commission to be in attendance and voice any concerns the commission may have regarding Dunn and Curry's proposed development. Planner's Recommendation From a planning perspective, I feel it is extremely important for the city to implement a well thought out industrial plan such as being suggested by Dunn and Curry. I feel this industrial development will have many positive affects on the Chanhassen economy and environment; with specific emphasis placed on increased purchasing power of the residents, employment opportunities and expansion of tax base. To this end, I strongly suggest the Plannig Commission look with favor on Dunn and Curry's planned industrial development provided adequate access, according to the concepts as outlined in BRW's report are provided, Dunn and Curry mitigates the problems as outlined in the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District letter dated April 7, 1976 (enclosure 11), and Dunn and Curry incorporates any concerns the Park and Recreation Commission may have on the proposed development. I Riley- Purgatory Creek WatershedI�istric 89SO COUNTY ROAD ; r EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553, March 6, 1978 Dunn & Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. 4940 Viking Drive, Room 608 Edina, Minnesota 55435 Re: Chanhassen Lakes Business Park P.I.D. Attn: Mr. Rod Hardy Gentleman: The Managers of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District reviewed the concept plan for the above referenced project at their. March 1, 1978 meeting. The District's concerns about the project are generally as stated in the -'April 7, 1976 correspondence from the District's engineering advisor to tor. Brozinskcy of Schoell & Madson, Inc., consultants to the City. In summary these are: 1. The District's 100-year frequency floodplain delineation for Riley Creek and Lake Susan is based on Chanhassen's land use - plan in effect at the time of the delineation. This plan indicated single family residential land use in the area south JI t%e =__ lraod and norLa a :.ake Susan. As the (Zit;' is con- sidering revising this land use through the proposed zoning change, the 100-year frequency floodplain for Riley Creek and Lake Susan will have to be redefined using the proposed land use. At the March 1 meeting, the District Managers authorized the engineering advisor to redefine the floodplain in this reach based on the proposed land use. All building floor elevations must be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year frequency flood level. 2. Once the 100-year frequency flood levels have been redefined, the developer will be required to submit a plan to the Watershed District showing any proposed encroachments into the floodplain. The District will determine whether this proposed encroachment meets the Watershed District's floodplain encroachment criteria. These criteria are outlined in Section F(1) of the District's Overall Plan. Copies of thy' Overall Plan as well as the District's Dunn & Curry Real Estate Mgmt., Inc. Page 2 March 6, 1978 Rules and Regulations are enclosed for your information. 3. District policy is that no structures be built within 100 feet of the centerline of Riley Creek. 'Information must be submitted to the District showing that this policy will be adhered to or justifying why this policy cannot be met. 4. The conceptual storm sewer plan submitted to the District does not indicate that storm water storage will be incorporated into the storm sewer plan. Because of the close proximity of the development to Riley Creek and to Lake Susan, permanent storm water storage and sediment control ponds should be a part of the storm sewer plan. Since the development will likely gener- ate a significant quantity of oil, skimming. devices for the settling basins should also be included. We note that Chanhassen's consulting engineer has recommended that a storm water storage area be constructed in Outlot E. The Watershed District supports this recommendation and will require that additional storm water storage ponds be constructed at the outlets of the other major storm sewers in the development. The Managers also expressed concern about the proximity of the trunk.sanitary sewer to Lake Susan and about the fact that the trunk sewer will likely be constructed below the level of the lake. This sewer must be carefully designed and adequate measures must be included in the specifications to prevent the movement of sediment from the construction area into Lake Susan and to prevent the movement of ground water along the sewer trench or into the sewer itself. S. As with all developments within the District, a grading and land alteration permit must be obtained from the District for this project. The permit must be accompanied by a detailed erosion control plan. The plan must show how erosion will be controlled during and after construction. The grading and land alteration permit application should be submitted after the project has from the City but before construction begins. 6. The District notes that three road crossings of Riley Creek are proposed for the development. It is the policy -of the District to discourage needless crossings of the Creek and other water areas in the District. Further information justifying the need for these crossings must be submitted to the District for review. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the District is April S, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. at the Eden Prairie City Hall. The Managers expressed an interest in discussing this project with a representative of the developer. Please Uunn S Curry Real Fstate 119vit. , Inc. Page 3 Narch 6, 1978 contact our engineering advisor, Allan Gebhard, at 920-0655 if you plan to attend. If you have any questions, please also contact our engineering Advisor. Sincerely, 0� ju a Allan Gebhard Approved by'the Board of Managers RILE'Z,PURGATORY CRgK WATERSHED DISTRICT AI .lit %�/JJ _President Date: Gr� 7 /� 7Y AG/dd Enclosure cc: Mr. Bill Brezinsky City of Chanhassen Mr. Allan Gebhard All Managers Mr. Frederick Richards W W l� TRAFFIC ACCESS FLAN FOR AREA SOUTH OF STATE HWY. 5, EAST OF COUNTY HWY. 17, AND WEST OF CITY LIMITS PREPARED FOR: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhsssen, Minnesota 55317 PREPARED BY: BRW, INC. 7101 York Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 MARCH 2, 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DEFINITION A14D ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SOLUTIONS . . . . . . 7 Alternatives and Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Analysis of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Roadway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Staging of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen is anticipating considerable future development in an area bounded by T.H. 5 on the north, City limits on the east, Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake on the south, and County Hwy. 17 on the west. Two specific development proposals that are expected to be under construc- tion soon are: ® Office/manufacturing facility for M.T.S. Systems Corporation on a 69 acre site just south of T.H. 5 and between the Chanhassen Estates and the east City limits. This facility is expected to employ 480 persons when initially opened, with employment ultimately growing to 1,700 persons. ® Lake Susan Hills Planned Industrial Development. This is a 276 acre site which is planned to be developed for multiple office/industrial uses in three stages between 1979 and 1990. In order for these and other future developments to function successfully in conjunction with existing land uses, an effective traffic access system must be provided. The City has retained BRW to assist in developing an access plan to meet existing and future needs in this area. APPROACH The approach to completing this project consists of the following three steps: 1) Determining the number of trips generated by future developments in the area and the origin/destination patterns of those trips. 2) Defining and analyzing alternative access solutions to serve existing and future developments. 3) Developing a recommended access plan which includes the recommended roadway systems, design guidelines, staging of improvements, and potential funding sources. 1 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION In order to develop an access plan it is necessary to know the number of trips that will be generated in the study area and the origin/destination patterns of these trips. For each area of developable land a projection was made of the daily number of trips generated based on the anticipated type of land use and the following trip generation rates: Type of Land Use Industrial MTS Office/Manufacturing Facility Cimmercial Residential Trip Generation Rate I/ (Vehicle Trip Ends/Day)— 80 per acre2/ 3.46 per employee3/ 240 per acre4/ 10 per household'/ Applying these trip generation rates to the anticipated future land uses results in the trip generation projections shown in Figure 1. This figure shows that, at full development, the study area would be expected to generate 32,300 vehicle trip ends per day. These trips do not include present trips generated by the Chanhassen Estates and other existing developments. This number of trip ends is about the same as generated at the Southdale Shopping Center-!� which demonstrates the substantial level of the projected tripmaking activity. The Lake Susan Industrial Park and MTS Office/Manufacturing facility are proposed to be developed in phases. The projected trip ends associated with each phase are: 1/A trip end is either an origin or destination. For example, one trip end is generated at the MTS facility when an employee arrives and a second is generated when he leaves. -�/' 4/Source: NCHRP Report No. 121, "Protection of Highway Utility", 1971. 3/, 5/Source: ITE Informational Report, "Trip Generation", 1976. 6/"Travel Behavior Inventory for Metropolitan Council," BRW, 1970. 2 ilT S- CD E r-_ E 0 L3 L j 0 0 E > — CL 0 Q) :3 F- u _0 4- QJ 4-3 — 4-) C) (cl r ro C:> c 4- C: 0 4...) H 4--) (o H ro -P S... H S- c (D w = ai c E a) V) 0) CL V) ro O) o >1 O. 0- 4--) 0- Qj r- .- > S- 4- a) S.- (D 0 F-- C'j C C) a) kD a) 0) 2n -P co Ln C� -ELI- ru ea C\l to w -le ro __j Daily Vehicle Trip Ends Lake Susan Industrial Park at completion of Phase I (1984) 6,490 at completion of Phase II (1987) 14,630 at completion of Phase III (1990) 19,210 MTS Office/Manufacturing Facility at opening with 480 employees 1,660 at full development with 1,700 employees 5,880 The next step was to distribute trips from each parcel shown in Figure 1 to other parcels in the study area and to routes leading away from the area. The bases forithis step are the distribution of residential loca- tions for persons who would work in the study area and the distribution of employment opportunities for persons who would live in the study area. The results of the trip distribution process are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for the MTS facility and Lake Susan Industrial Park, respectively. Similar travel desire patterns were developed for the other four parcels in the study area. 4 FL •r ..�.�....-.�........ w. w. ��.......—._.....�......__«.....-__ •r 0 r 0 O .r F > S.- {_f ra O flf a U U O � O CL •r � t/1 C r- ✓ ( 5- O f1 O •N S- •-) S 4-) (S 4-3 rO In O U •r > •r co U 4--) r- 4 -) 4 °p v s v � �-+ � LO LIO r"i.10 r` ro 0-1 cu . l CO w cm ra It CL rd LL— ©aj �_`► f� 4-3 N LO 1p CV Ln 1 rt% 1 Rt 1 t } flo n -' e'll\ M 5W u (D 5- o n 0 0 ro o m; -0 L) u 0 0 o 0- 0 4-.> S- 4-3 z S_- c Q) .— >, .— C) 4-) r 4--1 S- m r 0 as ro a) CD � CY) CV a) CY) lfl LE�_.i _---_- - �10 CO Z,5� ,00" �o 7E� ,::�' 4" = Z�Q 5. C\j zj Ifil a� 00 (0 DEFINITION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SOLUTIONS ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA Based on a review of land use plans and on previous access related planning, three alternative access plans have been identified. These alternates are shown in Figure 4 and described below: Alternate 1 - Minimal Frontage Road. This alternate includes only the roadways necessary to provide access to parcels in the study area. No continuous east -west road on the south side of T.H. 5 is provided. Alternate 2 - Complete Frontage Road. This alternate provides a continuous east -west roadway between Co. Hwy. 17 and 184th Street. a Alternate 3 - Complete Frontage Road with median on T.H. 5 Extended Across Dakota. This alternate is the same as Alternate 2 except for the median closure on T.H. 5 at Dakota. The intent of the median closure is to improve traffic safety at the intersection of T.H. 5 and Dakota. To provide a basis for evaluating the alternatives, four evaluation criteria have been developed that attempt to address needs on a local, site access basis, on a City-wide basis and on a regional basis. Descriptions of the four criteria follow. o Access to affected properties. For all existing and future developments, it is important that direct and convenient access be provided to and from all major approach directions. • Safety and efficiency of traffic flow. The roadway system should provide safe and efficient operation for both through and local traffic in the area. a Separation of local trips from through trips. T.H. 5 and County Hwy. 17 in the study area are designated by the Metro- politan Council as Minor Arterials. Under this classification, these routes are intended to provide mobility between sub- regions, with limited direct land access. To enable these routes to fulfill this function, short, local trips (e.g. between the Chanhassen Estates and MTS facility) should be able to utilize local streets and not have to use T.H. 5. o Impacts on land use. It is important that the roadway system complement and support land use activities and not split parcels into unusuable sites or create serious noise or safety barriers. 7 FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS PLANS Alternate 1 Minimal Frontage Road To MTS Development QD C.) i To Lyman Boulevard Alternate 2 - Complete Frontage Road,. r 4 j)l��C;t--. N __j �Vj Alternate 3 Complete Frontage Road with Median on To Lyman Boulevard T.H. 5 Extended Across Dakota F-7 I L Median on T. H. 5 V-4 Major roadway To Lyman Boulevard !�_' mniny- fell mmipmant intprcprtinn ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES For each alternative, a year 2000 traffic assignment was developed to show total projected traffic (i.e. traffic generated by the anticipated develop- ments plus other trips) on major roadways in the area. The assignments were based on the trip generation and distribution characteristics previously documented and on the features of the roadway system for each alternative. Analysis of Alternative l_- Minimal Frontage _Road Figure 5 shows the year 2000 volume projections for Alternate 1. At the intersection of T.H. 5 and T.H. 101 volumes on T.H. 5 would double and volumes on the south leg would increase by 72 times over existing volumes. The left turn volumes from the east to the south would be very heavy during the a.m. peak period at the intersections of T.H. 5 with Co. Hwy. 17, T.H. 101, and Dakota. The Dakota Avenue intersection would be the sole access point for the MTS facility, creating an especially heavy burden at this intersection. An assessment of this alternative relative to the evaluation criteria follows. Evaluation Criterion Comments Access to affected Reasonably direct and convenient access for all properties. properties except MTS, where traffic from east has to proceed beyond MTS and then "double -back" via Dakota and new access road. Safety and efficiency Heavy traffic load at T.H. 5 and Dakota and on of traffic flow. Dakota just south of T.H. 5 likely would cause operational difficulties. Satisfactory sight distance would be available at all intersections on T.H. 5. Separation of local Due to lack of continuous east -west roadway south trips from through of T.H. 5, many local trips would have to use trips. portions of T.H. 5 (e.g. between Chanhassen Estates and Lake Susan Industrial Park). Such usage would conflict with the regional function of T.H. 5. Impacts on land use. Concentration of all MTS trips on Dakota would cause negative impacts for nearby homes in the Chanhassen Estates. 9 \ r! •.-r C G N ' w C� C.7 C- 1-1 O r {.-) 4-� S_ r U S. ref O r () O 4- O V) a C � S- to C71 ro O r0 4 N O O •I--) G 0) Q) >> Cal •r- QJ 0-0 C 4J > C) O S N p 4-3 p ro •r L Cn C.� Q1 X r } W r f1 S- r Q) QJ Q) 3 C _I-J > Q1 >) ro (n C> 0 o O \ \ CD o r-) N ro N r-1 tf) � QJ U TTfl� to 'y�% I11 rl � i 11LI-�• 1 � t r--L -1L l� (OczlZ) W 000`9T ❑f -T -1 00\ 0r Cl nnq`i - nnn`q r— S. r O QJ E -O a. w O In r-•- ro w -0 > N S_ (0-0 QJ N •F-l' • --1 U U N QJ 'n •r7 O O S- S- E 4- ro r to Q) O 4 S- > to rii ro 0 1 j , ro cc Anal sis of Alternative 2 - Complete Frontage Road As shown in Figure 6, year 2000 volumes under this alternative are lower than Alternative 1 at the intersections of T.H. 5 with T.H. 101 and Dakota. As a result, Alternative 2 would involve less likelihood of congestion at these intersections. This alternative is evaluated below. Evaluation Criterion Comments Access to affected Reasonably direct and convenient access provided properties. to all properties. Safety and efficiency Provision of one additional major access point of traffic flow. (T.H. 5 and 184th St.) would relieve traffic burden at other three intersections on T.H. 5 that provide access to the study area. Satis- factory sight distance would be available at all intersections on T.H. 5, except at 184th St. where regrading of T.H. 5 would be needed to provide adequate sight distance. Separation of local Continuous roadway on south side of T.H. 5 would trips from through provide separate route for local trips such that trips. this traffic would not have to use T.H. 5. Impacts on land use. Additional roadway right-of-way required. Analyses indicate that roadway could be aligned so as not to require acquisition of any existing developments or not to deter future development. Analysis of Alternative 3 - Complete Frontai.,e Road with Median on T_.H.5 Extended Across Dakota As shown in Figure 7, this alternative would dramatically reduce volumes on Dakota at T.H. 5 since only right turns in and out of Dakota would be permitted at this intersection. An evaluation of this alternative follows - Evaluation Criterion Comments Access to affected Median on T.H. 5 across Dakota would seriously properties. restrict access for Chanhassen Estates and for locations served by Co. Hwy. 16 north of T.H. 5: - Motorists traveling from the east on T.H. 5 and destined to the Chanhassen Estates or commercial area immediately to the north would have two choices, both of which involve 11 problems. They could turn off T.H. 5 at 184th St., which is about 3,000 feet east of Dakota; this intersection is so far re- moved from the Chanhassen Estates and adjacent commercial area that many motorists would not realize they had arrived at the entrance to these developments. The other choice would be to proceed past Dakota and either make a U turn at T.H. 101 or a left turn onto T.H. 101 followed by a left turn onto the frontage road. Either of these latter two maneuvers would require about one mile more travel distance than if the motorist could have turned left directly at Dakota. - Motorists using Co. Hwy. 16 to travel east- bound on T.H. 5 would have to use T.H. 101 instead, creating an increased traffic burden at the intersection of T.H. 101 and T.H. 5. Safety and efficiency Operations would be improved at intersection of of traffic flow. T.H. 5 and Dakota, through added burden at inter- section of T.H. 101 and T.N. 5 would largely offset this benefit. Separation of local Continuous roadway on south side of T.H. 5 would trips from through effectively separate these two types of trips. trips. Impacts on land use. Restricted access at Dakota and T.H. 5 would detract from attractiveness of properties that use this access point, especially the commercial area immediately north of the Chanhassen Estates. 12 C, I LL- CD Co co ootlt Q.) 0 p F (1) ra Z5 P 4--) O jaj ci 0 N 0- V) 4-3 ro ro � 4� >) C) 4-3 CD 0) aJ C_- C) :5 >1 CQ r (1) 0 -0 4--) > u = 0 4--) I-_ U) LLA (1) >) S- r V) 0 0o CD CD rIi 01 ro C\j 0 V) - I t-LLLi-I 1-1 �rJC-a 000ICT 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---C- rA_ al ro 4- S: C) O S7-- :5 0 CU S- ro .1 ell Co __j C—ic 1— LtJ LL M LLI w� J Li.. 0 t� U LLJ 0 Lu 0 0 0 L►J O lD p > O N 4- 0 S= U M C •U its i= O � Y -4-J c[f 4-> 4- \` En GJ \ r- LO O U � O O CO M wl (D O -_> 0) .- «3 r U 5- O — N O 1 S_ U) >> UJ f= r 4-> rO f--- 4--t >> O f= +.) O tT N C) S= N N 0-0 .0 > U S- N O 4-3 R5 �- c ul v x CL F L. c O Q O \ CD t` O1� N v V1 QJ U 0 0 C�' 000,91 i- rj QJ ru S CD O S_ O H a� S= O U S- (D S- U , I�' N 'l, J nnc4l _ nnncc RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN ROADWAY SYSTEM The preceding evaluation of that Alternate 2 - Complete criteria. This alternative properties. The spacing of would be adequate to provide necessary regrading on T.H. complete frontage road would than forcing these trips to local traffic, and would not Therefore, it is recommended be implemented. DESIGN GUIDELINES the alternative access solutions indicates Frontage Road best meets all evaluation would provide convenient access to all affected intersections on T.I1. 5 and sight distances safe traffic operation, assuming that the 5 near 184th St. would be completed. The effectively accommodate local trips, rather T.H. 5 which is not intended to accommodate cause any significant negative land use impacts. that the access plan as shown in Alternate 2 To provide the City with a framework for implementation of the recommended access plan, several design guidelines are presented. T.H. 5/Dakota Intersection and T.H. 5/184th St. Intersection A review of traffic signal warrants revaled that present conditions justify installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. A.M. peak hour traffic volumes for existing conditions and after Phase I completion of MTS are shown in Figure 8. Analyses of these volumes indicated that the intersection essentially would operate at capacity after Phase I completion of MTS. This result indicates that planning should begin soon for extension of the frontage road east to 184th St. and for upgrading the intersection at 184th St. and T.H. 5 such that when MTS employment grows beyond 480 persons, 184th St. will be available as an access point to relieve the traffic burden at Dakota. Upgrading the intersection of T.H. 5 and 184th St. conforms with the State's policy to implement safety improvements at major intersections on T.H. 5 when problems develop. Alignment of Frontage Road For the frontage road to be effective in accommodating local trips and in providing safe operation, the roadway should be continuous between Co. Hwy. 17 and 184th St. That is, the road should not have a jog or offset at any intersection along the route. Intersection Spacing Standards In order to accommodate the projected volumes safely and efficiently, s The T.H. 101/Frontage Road intersection should be at least 500 feet from the T.H. 101/T.H. 5 intersection. 15 i 00 w CD t t . i f a _ I I a 1 a .— c u LLn L0c 9T8 M�N�Flo M I M M l0 I LL 1 Lo � t I t 1 LT 'o ILT E aD (0 o o a. O � .. N 00 1 00 d- O O � C QJ aJ r-• Q > 00 > L/) 4 0 0 ro N m 4-- N ro LL E ro �C ^ O ro N E +� C] v ro � C E O U ro � co 0 ro O O t \ •r i � O d•) O _Y cn S- O rtj •r =3 .. d X O •• U N U L O N n o The frontage road/Dakota intersection should be at least 200 feet from the Dakota/T.H. 5 intersection. Cross -Sections of Frontage Road Recommended typical cross -sections for the frontage road have been developed based on the volume forecasts and are shown in Figure 9. Conceptual Layouts for Frontage Road_/T.H. 101 Intersection and Dakota/ T.H. 5 Intersection The two locations on the roadway system that require special design treat- ment are the frontage road/T.H. 101 intersection and the Dakota/T.H. 5 intersection. Applying geometric design standards, conceptual layouts have been developed for these intersections as shown in Figure 10. STAGING OF IMPROVEMENTS The recommended frontage road should be constructed in stages as the study area develops. Generally,each link of the frontage road should be con- structed in conjunction with development of the land adjacent to that segment of the road. Two potential exceptions to this staging process are: ® The frontage road through the MTS site east to 184th St., in conjunction with upgrading the intersection of T.H. 5 and 184th St. should be implemented when the intersection of T.H. 5/Dakota becomes overloaded, which is expected to occur when MTS employment reaches the 500-600 employee level. o Other segments of the frontage road should be constructed through undeveloped land if necessary to relieve traffic problems at other locations. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES In situations where the frontage road is constructed in conjunction with land development, the City may require the developer to provide the road. In other situations different funding sources may be needed for right-of- way and construction, e.g. MSA funds if the roadway is designated on the Municipal State Aid System. 17 FIGURE 9 TYPICAL CROSS -SECTIONS FOR PROPOSED FRONTAGE ROAD Between Co. Hwy. 17 and T.H. 101 — ROW = ` �-- roadway = 52' --i Between T.H. 101 and 184th St. ROW = 60' I .roadway = 28 NOTE: These cross -sections assume that parking would be prohibited on both sides of the frontage road. ��/�U�� l� /xuu^��v ^ p 2/ CONCEPTUAL INTERSECTION LAYOUTS Frontage Ro8d/T,H, 101 62/--------p` N � | | | ' l5O1801 '| -` ~`~ \' 28' 521 \ -- '360/ -------'- � | , 28.. -- 0lO Dakota/T.H. 5 - � -��----4O/---'+� ^o. 28' ' -----'----- '�-2d' | 0iD. �