Loading...
08-18-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1993, 7:30 P.M CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DF FILE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Milltronics for a site plan review for a 13,653 square foot addition to an existing building for a total square footage of 33,453 (formerly known as Industrial Information Control), on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at 7870 Park Drive, Milltronics. 2. Nick Jacques to subdivide 1.18 acres into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and _ located north on Lake Lucy Road, west of Powers Boulevard, 1210 Lake Lucy Road, Jacques Addition. 3. Concept Unit Development for mixed high density (190 dwelling units) and neighborhood commercial uses on 62.05 acres of property zoned RSF and vacation of a portion of 86th Street. The property is located east of Hwy. 101 and north and south of 86th Street, Mission Hills, Tandem Properties. OLD BUSINESS 4. JMS Development for a preliminary plat to subdivide 6.1 acres into 13 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road, west of Troendle Circle, east of Peaceful Lane and north of Lake Lucy Road, Tower Heights. 5. John Przymus for an Interim Use Permit for expansion of the Golf Driving Range Maxi- Mini Putt complex to include expansion of the building and a batting cage located on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located at the northwest corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Swings Golf. 6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 - 20-595 regarding lot sizes. 7. *Item Deleted. 8. *Item Deleted. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 9. Revised Plans for the Hanus Site, Fred Hoisington. 10. Update on Hwy. 101 Alignment Study, Fred Hoisington. 11. Additional Facilities Proposed at the new Elementary School, County Road 117 and Hwy. 5. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those — present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Items Deleted 7. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to clarify the landscaping ordinance. — 8. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapters 18 and 20 concerning tree preservation. C I TY 0 FPC DATE: 8/18/93 l' CIIAPACN CC DATE: 8/23/93 CASE #: 87-1 Site By: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Amendment For a 13,653 Square Foot Office/Warehouse Addition to achieve a total area of 33,453 Square Foot building Z - Q LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park - 7870 Park Drive J - LI APPLICANT: R. J. Ryan Construction Milltronics Inc. 6511 Cedar Avenue So. 7870 Park Drive — Q Richfield, MN 55423 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 2.93 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP; Component Engineering S - IOP; Drainage pond outlot - Q E - IOP; vacant dW - IOP; Dunn & Roos — (.1 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w �- "' PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site abuts Riley Purgatory Creek and is heavily wooded with (f) mature trees. The site slopes generally to the southwest. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial '.- �; L •At »i ���A s y s2 LAK1 � '.At - ANN w p0 ' PA Kal • / --)l ...... n_n / ,, Sub� c� Q AR :OR l'' BOULEVARD _ VO ,., // pb ti , I l R° o 1 GLYNN RIt' iiio7 f _ worm o=kiiT4.'t,* ier- WESTERN ,,, w I isw%.e% , pt, iiiii WI PO o _ ^ , S PAR ii . 4410, _ -� • . OW- - 44,__ Rioc,eg._ No a; is. �� ^ 1,,, r„, . , / N,r , ..„..... ., ,,,t) talk 't 411111. pipe t, co risk Au __ov_,grovi . ..(v t. Ila►. z, . N : u Pill 11111211111F4 Q��, lel Villa %`�'� 11 Iliglio,� o etiiit■ 1■14V, 3.u'- `ZK E Q **ont s!s vi�� 1 � w PARK ariiIr4tirs, t ,. IF- 3 4E01 °- ; 1 1 J , 4%*silookaera 1 I ____Y V _ 4 -J.2.27 / ?AisvaIn msi u ►%tai , 0\ , I -*' • 407 ! ail may _^- FL•MINGO DR L &°8-‘ 16 AV V C 11165 , OURLhi N Oprirr..7,40/111 MI6 1111 -..71' 1141 "SC I ..„.1.4Q 1 Air 1 ..0.?.• ., t t Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL On April 6, 1987, the City Council approved the site plan for a 15,888 square foot office and warehouse facility for Industrial Information Controls, Inc., and on October 22, 1990, the City Council approved a 4,260 square foot office addition to the existing building (Attachment #1). The firm's business is assembling machines and computerized controls. The site has an area of 2.93 acres and contains a low area adjacent to Riley Purgatory Creek. They are currently requesting a second addition. The proposed addition will have an area of 16,320 square feet and will be utilized as warehouse and assembly space. It will be situated on the west side of the existing building. Additional parking will be provided along the west portion of the site. Access will be obtained from Park Drive through an existing curb cut. An additional drive-in loading dock will be added to the west of the new addition as shown on the site plan dated July 14, 1993. This new dock has to be screened by landscaping materials. The Watershed District requires a 100 foot setback from the creek centerline for all hard surfaces. All proposed hard surface coverage maintains that distance with the exception of a few locations where the setback is reduced to 95'. An appropriate condition has been provided. This situation must be corrected to achieve the required setback. A second variance is required to the hard surface coverage. The Shoreland Ordinance allows a maximum hard-surface coverage of 25%. This regulation was brought to our attention by the DNR staff. The Shoreland Ordnance also requires a 50 foot buffer strip from the creek. The applicant is providing a 100 foot buffer strip. The surface drainage runoff sheet drains over the 100 foot buffer strip before it reaches the creek. The underlying industrial park was approved over 10 years ago. The water is treated in two ponds. All this was explained to the DNR staff, and they have no objection to the city granting a variance. Architecturally, the addition will be a mirror image of the existing building. The same materials will be used on the exterior. The applicant will clear cut all existing vegetation to prepare the site for development. The majority are scrub trees. Additional landscaping will be added to the site along the southwest and north. Additional landscaping will be required along the north edge of the site in addition to what is proposed by the applicant. The amount of chemicals on site are minimal and are stored in the building in one or two gallon containers. A hazardous waste permit is not required as the chemicals used are not toxic in nature. Circuit boards which require hazardous chemicals are sent out for manufacturing. According to their management, Milltronics does not and will not manufacture their own base circuit boards, however, they do assemble these boards by installing parts into them. Staff is recommending that the request be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 Page 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The site is located to the west of Park Drive. The site plan is fairly straight forward. Access is gained from Park Drive. The proposed addition is a continuation of the existing building. Parking is located to the east of the site and additional parking is proposed to the west of the building. The truck loading area is located to the south central of the building. The truck loading area is completely screened from off site views by the existing building. On the west elevation, the applicant is proposing a 10' x 10' door to be used for the purpose of wheeling in machinery. The building architecture is functional and will compliment the existing building. The main material used for the exterior facade is rock faced concrete brick with a single score concrete brick that will be used to accent the building. The single score concrete brick will be extended from the existing building. There are no units proposed for the roof top equipment. No additional signage will be added to the site. The applicant has not shown where the trash enclosure will be located. A condition requiring an acceptable one has been provided. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION With the addition of the new building, some functions will be shifted from the existing building to the new addition. The total office space with the new addition will be 5,100 square feet, the warehouse area will occupy 23,253 square feet and the manufacturing area will occupy 5,100 square feet. Parking requirements for the office portion of the building is 3 parking stalls per — 1,000 square feet which amounts to 16 parking stalls. The manufacturing facility is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 30 employees. The ordinance calls for one parking stall per employee which requires a total of 30 stalls. The warehouse and shipping has a total area of — 23,453 square feet which translates to 24 parking stalls required as the ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 1,000 square feet. The total number of required parking stalls is 70. The applicant is proposing 97 parking stalls which satisfies the minimum requirements. Four handicapped parking stalls have been shown on the site plan. The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly parking lot are dead spaces and are not to be used for parking. In order to reduce the hard surface coverage, staff is recommending they be sodded and the curb be extended around them with the exception of the triangle located to the southwest of the parking lot. This triangle should remain bituminous striped "No Parking" with no curb in order not to impede sheet flow of surface drainage. The curb along the southerly edge of the site encroaches 5 feet into the required 100 foot setback from the edge of Riley Purgatory Creek. The design of the parking lot must be adjusted to eliminate this variance. Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 Page 4 PARKING COMPLIANCE TABLE Use Area Parking Total Office 5,100 s.f. 3 stalls per 1000 16 Manufacture 5,100 s.f. 1 stall per 30 employee (30) Warehouse 23,453 s.f. 1 stall per 24 1000 s.f. Stalls required -70 Stalls provided -97 Based upon this analysis, staff concludes that the parking requirements have been satisfied. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is well conceived although it is deficient in some areas. The landscaping plan shows a concentration of trees along the southwest portion of the property and along the southerly portion of the new addition. The majority of the existing vegetation (scrub trees) along the westerly portion of the site will be removed to prepare the site for development. Staff is requesting five additional overstory trees along the northerly portion of the site and the building. Under the site plan ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements are required. These financial guarantees shall be submitted before a building permit is issued. LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plan. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 candles of light at the property line. SIGNAGE The applicant is not proposing any additional signage for the site. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Said expansion will involve relatively minor grading to the west of the existing building. Due to the difference in elevation between the lots, a retaining wall may be required along the north Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 Page 5 property line behind the building to make the grades compatible with the adjacent property to the north. The proposed site drainage is similar to the drainage patterns in the past. The applicant is proposing to sheet drain the parking lot from north to south through a curb opening in the south end to maintain sheet drainage into the wetland area (Riley-Purgatory Creek). Staff is comfortable with the way it has been functioning in the past and therefore is reasonably comfortable with the proposed drainage pattern. However, this does invite and enable parking vehicles outside the parking lot. Staff is concerned that vehicles may park beyond the paved section and create a parking nuisance as well as potential erosion problem. Staff recommends that this be monitored and if a problem arises, that segments of concrete curbing be put in front of the parking stalls to control it. The landscape areas should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb and the remaining areas may be seeded and mulched with the exception of the outlet of the parking lot drainage. In this area two rows of sod should be placed behind the parking lot and the remaining slope area (towards Riley-Purgatory Creek) should be seeded and protected with erosion control blanket. In order to promote a consistent sheet flow across (north to south) the parking lot, staff recommends eliminating the curbing along the south line of the parking lot. PUBLIC UTILITIES City water and sewer are available on Park Drive. The applicant intends to route sewer and water lines internally. Staff is requesting additional landscaping along the northern portion of the site. A drainage easement exists along the northerly border of the site. Staff is requesting that the applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement with the City to acknowledge that the City will not be held responsible for any damage or restoration costs to the landscaping while performing maintenance. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Setback N-10' E-30' N-10' E-170' S-10' W-10' S-70' W-90' Parking stalls 70 stalls 97 stalls Includes 4 handicap spaces Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 Page 6 Parking Setback N-10' E-30' N-10' E-30' S-10' W-10' S-25' W-10' Lot Coverage 30% 67%** Lot Area 1 acre 2.93 acres Creek Setback 100' 95'* * Variances Required - The parking lot curb along the southerly edge, encroaches 5 feet into the required 100 foot setback from the edge of Riley Purgatory Creek. The design will be adjusted to eliminate this variance. ** The Shoreland Ordinance allows a maximum hard-surface coverage of 25%. This regulation was brought to our attention by the DNR staff. The Shoreland Ordnance also requires a 50 foot buffer strip from the creek. The applicant is providing a 100 foot buffer strip. The surface drainage runoff, sheet drains over the 100 foot buffer strip before it reaches the creek. The water is treated in two ponds. All this was explained to the DNR staff, and they have no objection to the city granting a hard surface coverage variance (Attachment #1). STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #87-9 with a variance to the hard surface coverage, as shown on the plan dated July 14, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. 2. A retaining wall may be required along the north property line between the proposed building and adjacent property to the north. 3. The Surface Water Management Fee currently charged to the parcel will increase accordingly when the site expansion is completed. 4. Provide 5 additional overstory trees along the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re- established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site, especially along the creek. The site should be restored with two rows Milltronics Site Plan Amendment August 18, 1993 _ Page 7 of sod behind the curb line with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the parking lot. In this specific area, the two rows of sod should be required as well as seed — and erosion control blanket on the slopes toward Riley-Purgatory Creek. — 5. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. 6. Delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, the applicant shall be required to install segments of concrete curbing in front of the parking stalls to control _ it. 7. The design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to eliminate the 5 _ foot creek setback variance. 8. The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly parking lot shall be sodded and _ the curb shall be extended around them with the exception of the triangle located to the southwest of the parking lot. This triangle shall remain bituminous so it will not impede drainage." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 10, 1993. 2. Letter from the DNR dated August 13, 1993. 3. Staff report dated October 3, 1990. — 4. Site Plan dated July 14, 1993. 1 CITYOF oli000CH AN HASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer/ DATE: August 10, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Building Expansion of Milltronics, 7870 Park Drive File No. 90-26 Land Use Review Upon review of the site plan dated July 13, 1993, prepared by Lampert Architects, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE Said expansion will involve relatively minor grading to the west of the existing building. Due to the difference in elevation between the lots, a retaining wall may be required along the north property line behind the building to make the grades compatible with the adjacent property to the north. The proposed site drainage is similar to the drainage patterns in the past. The applicant is proposing to sheet drain the parking lot from north to south through a curb opening in the south end to maintain sheet drainage into the wetland area (Riley-Purgatory Creek). Staff is comfortable with the way it has been functioning in the past and therefore is reasonably comfortable with the proposed drainage pattern. In order to promote a consistant sheet flow across (north to south) the parking lot, staff recommends eliminating the curbing along the south line of the parking lot. However, this does invite and enable parking vehicles outside the parking lot. Staff is concerned that vehicles may park beyond _ the paved section and create a parking nuisance as well as a potential erosion problem. Staff recommends that this be monitored and if a problem arises that segments of concrete curbing be put in front of the parking stalls to control it. The landscape areas should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb and the remaining areas may be seeded and mulched with the exception of the outlet of the parking lot drainage. In this area two rows of sod should be placed behind the parking lot and the Sharmin Al-Jaff August 10, 1993 _ Page 2 remaining slope area (towards Riley-Purgatory Creek) should be seeded and protected with — erosion control blanket. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb line with the _ exception of where the drainage outlets in the parking lot. In this specific area the two rows of sod should be required as well as seed and erosion control blanket on the slopes toward Riley-Purgatory Creek. _ 2. A retaining wall may be required along the north property line between the proposed building and adjacent property to the north. — 3. The Surface Water Management Fee currently charged to the parcel will increase accordingly when the site expansion is completed. — 4. Delete curbing along the south side of parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, the applicant — shall be required to install segments of concrete curbing in front of the parking stalls to control it. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer _ DNR METRO REGION 6 TEL : 612-772-7977 Aug 12 93 16 : 12 No .011 P .01 STATE Of /& - DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106tENo. pHONENO. 772-7910 August 13, 1993 Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: STORMWATER TREATMENT, MILLTRONICS ADDITION, RILEY CREEK, CITY OF CHANIIASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: This letter is to confirm your telephone conversation with Ceil Strauss of this office on August 12 , 1993 . We understand that the stormwater from the project area is proposed _ to flow through a 100 ' buffer strip and two treatment ponds before it reaches Riley Creek. These two methods of treating stormwater are approved by the DNR and we will be flexible in dealing with the issue of impervious surface for this project. The DNR does not object to the presence of more than 25% impervious surface on this project site. Thank you for addressing this issue. Should you have more questions concerning this matter contact me 772-7910. _ Sincerely, .t_. n 41•oe Richter Hydrologist cc: Bob Obermeyer, Raley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Joe Yanta, USCOE Chanhassen Shoreland File Chanhassen Floodplain File AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER la . v ITY O f F-• DATE: 10/3/90 . C 11 A H A EN CC DATE: 10/22/90 ' Y CASE # : 87-1 Site By: Al-Jaff/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Amendment For a 4 , 260 Square Foot Office/Warehouse Addition F Z LOCATION: Lot 2 , Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Q 7870 Park Drive V APPLICANT: R. J. Ryan Construction Industrial Information Control 6511 Cedar Avenue So. 7870 Park Drive Cl. Minneapolis, MN 55423 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 2 . 93 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP; Component Engineering LQ S - IOP; Drainage pond outlot r E - IOP; vacant W - IOP; Dunn & Roos Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site abuts Riley Purgatory _ g ry Creek and is C]� heavily wooded with mature trees. The site slopes generally to the southwest. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On April 6, 1987, the City Council approved the site plan for a 15 , 888 square foot office and warehouse facility for Industrial Information Controls, Inc. (Attachment #1) . The firm manufactures machines and computerized controls. The site has an area of 2 . 9 acres and is adjacent to a low area that drops away to Riley Purgatory Creek. The creek is located south of the site. The applicant is requesting a 4 , 260 square foot addition which will be utilized as warehouse space. It will be situated to the west of the existing building. Additional parking will be provided along the east edge of the existing parking lot. Access will be obtained from Park Drive through an existing curb cut. An additional loading dock will be added to the west of the existing loading dock. The docks are concealed from Park Drive by the existing building. The Watershed District requires a 100 foot setback from the creek centerline for all hard surfaces. All proposed impervious surfaces maintain that distance. Architecturally, the addition will be very similar to the existing building. The same materials will be used on the exterior. The applicant will preserve all existing vegetation outside of the buildable area . Staff is proposing that additional landscaping be added to the site along the southeast. Additional landscaping will be required along the north edge of the site in addition to what is proposed by the applicant. A drainage problem exists from the property to the north of the site due to improper grading. The adjacent parcel drains toward the creek through the IIC parcel across the area proposed for the building addition. Staff met with representatives of. the IIC site and Component Engineering to the north and it was agreed that IIC would correct the grade on Component Engineering' s site (Attachment #3) . The amount of chemicals on site are minimal and are stored in the building in one or two gallon containers. A hazardous waste permit is not required as the chemicals used are not toxic in nature. Circuit boards which require hazardous chemicals are sent out for manufacturing. According to their management, IIC does not and will not manufacture their own base circuit boards, however, they do assemble these boards by installing parts into them. Attachment #2 shows the type of chemicals used and stored in the building. The applicant indicated that should the need arise, a disposal site is available for them. The site plan complies with all ordinance standards. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the site plan. Staff is recommending that it be approved without variances, subject to appropriate conditions. IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The site is located to the west of Park Drive. The site plan is fairly straight forward. Access is gained from Park Drive. The proposed addition is a continuation of the existing building. Parking is located to the east of the site. The truck loading area will be located adjacent to the existing dock. The truck loading area is completely screened from off-site views by the existing building. On the west elevation, the applicant is proposing a 10 ' x 10 ' door to provide access for heavy machinery. The building architecture is functional and will compliment the existing building. The main material used for the exterior facade is rock- faced concrete block with a single score concrete block that will be used to accent the building. The single score concrete block will be extended from the existing building. There are no HVAC units proposed for the roof top equipment. No additional signage will be added to the site. On October 4 , 1990, staff met with the IIC owners and discussed the trash enclosure on site. The applicant agreed that the trash enclosure will be located south of the existing loading dock. It will be screened by the existing building on the north and west side. The southern portion of the dumpster will be screened by an extension of the southern wall of the building. The material used on this extension will be of the same materials used on the existing building which will satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Trash enclosure detail must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a building permit. PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION With the addition of the new building, some functions will be shifted from the existing building to the new addition. Office space will total 5, 000 square feet, the warehouse will occupy 7 , 000 square feet and the manufacturing area will occupy 8, 000 square feet. Parking requirements for the office portion of the building is 4 . 5 parking stalls per 1, 000 square feet which amounts to 23 parking stalls. The manufacturing facility is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 28 employees. The ordinance calls for one parking stall per employee which requires a total of 28 stalls. The warehouse and shipping has a total area of 7, 000 square feet which translate to 7 parking stalls required as the ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 1, 000 square feet. The total number of required parking stalls is 58 . The applicant is proposing to provide 50 parking stalls. Staff does not support a variance for parking noting that there is ample room to construct additional stalls at the rear of the building. We are, however, willing to accept a "proof-of-parking" plan to avoid creating unnecessary hard surface coverage. An appropriate plan should be provided for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Handicapped parking stalls have not been shown on the site plan. The applicant IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 4 must show the designated handicapped parking. The applicant is adding 13 parking stalls to the east of the existing parking lot. PARKING COMPLIANCE TABLE Use Area Parking Total Office 5, 000 s. f. 4 . 5 stalls 23 per 1000 s. f. Manufacture 8 , 000 s. f. 1 stall per 28 employee (28) Warehouse 7, 000 s. f. 1 stall per 7 1000 s. f. Stalls required - 50 Stalls provided - 58 Based upon this analysis, staff concludes that the parking requirements have been satisfied. Access to the loading docks is adequate with proper turning radius for trucks. Some drainage problems exist in the vicinity of the present loading dock area, reflected by pavement deterioration. The applicant is proposing to repave that entire area. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is well conceived although it is deficient in some areas. The landscaping plan shows a concentration of trees along the northeast corner of the property and along the southerly portion of the site. The majority of the existing vegetation along the westerly portion of the site will remain undisturbed. Staff is proposing that a "no cut" tree preservation line be established, clearly marked by snow fence and approved by staff prior to the start of grading on the site. Staff is requesting additional landscaping along the northerly portion of the site and the building. This area is currently devoid of plant material . The plan should be revised to carry the north side parking lot landscaping west across the north elevation of the building. When staff met with the applicant on October 4 , 1990, it was agreed that revised landscaping plans would be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded. Under the revised site plan IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 5 ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements are required. These financial guarantees shall be submitted before a building permit is issued. LIGHTING Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plan. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 candles of light at the property line. SIGNAGE The applicant is not proposing any additional signage for the site. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site generally drains to the southwest into Riley Creek. Existing vegetation acts as a natural screen to remove sediment from the runoff prior to reaching the creek. A small portion of the site is anticipated to be graded as a result of the current request. Carver Soil Conservation District has located two contours of 930 ' and 928 ' for possible silt fence locations to prevent runoff. Plans show erosion control around the construction site. Type III erosion control shall be used on the site due to the nature of the area. Currently, a drainage problem exists within the existing building. Water runoff from the northern site located on Lot 1, Block 1, is penetrating the building and filling the basement of the Industrial Information Control Building located on Lot 2 , Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition. On September 10, 1990, Engineering and Planning Staff met with owners of both sites and a decision was reached to correct the existing grading on the property located to the north adjacent to Industrial Information Control . On October 4 , 1990, the applicant submitted an agreement letter (Attachment #3) permitting the applicant to do the necessary grading to eliminate the drainage problem. PUBLIC UTILITIES City water and sewer are available on Park Drive. The new addition will be serviced internally off existing lines. Staff is requesting additional landscaping along the northern portion of the site. A drainage easement exists along the northerly border of the site. Staff is requesting that the applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement with the City to acknowledge that the City will not be held responsible for any damage or restoration costs to the landscaping while performing maintenance. IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Setback N-10 ' E-10 ' N-10 ' E-30 ' S-10 ' W-10 ' S-70 ' W-220 ' Parking stalls 58 stalls 50 stalls Includes 1 handicap space Parking Setback N-10 ' E-30 ' N-10 ' E-30 ' S-10 ' W-10 ' S-25 ' W-N/A Lot Coverage 70% 48% Lot Area 1 acre 2 . 93 acres Variances Required - none PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On October 3 , 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan amendment for the proposed addition and unanimously recommended it be approved. The applicant raised the issue of trash enclosure and the agreement between IIC and Component Engineering to correct the drainage problem. In response to the first issue, the applicant requested that the dumpsters not be screened from all sides because currently the dumpsters are located behind the building and will not be visible from Park Drive. The Planning Commission disagreed with the applicant and stated that it is city ordinance that all dumpsters be screened. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the conditions proposed. Staff met with the applicant after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss these issues. The applicant informed staff that the southerly building wall will be extended further to the west to screen the dumpsters. In response to the second issue, staff had originally requested that the owner of Component Engineering grant a temporary grading easement to the owner of IIC to conduct the necessary grading work to eliminate the drainage problem. Staff also requested that the applicant receive legal access onto Component Engineering site to the north to perform grading operations to resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department and Component Engineering. The applicant requested that the letter be signed by both parties. The City Attorney confirmed that a letter that is signed by both IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 7 parties would have the same effect. The applicant submitted a signed copy of the letter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4 , 1990, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. The enclosure is to be made of masonry compatible with the primary structure. Plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 . Designated handicapped parking shall be shown on the plans. Provide proof-of-parking plans for 8 stalls for staff approval . These stalls shall be installed upon request by the City after there is evidence of a parking shortfall . 3 . Provide additional landscaping on the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and an erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site, especially along the creek. 4 . The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than . 5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. 5. The applicant shall provide the required security to guarantee the erosion control, grading, including grading on the adjoining parcel to correct a drainage problem and restoration operations are completed as per approved plans. The dock area drainage problem must be corrected. Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and replaced in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and concrete pad area. The agreement letter must be signed prior to issuance of a building permit. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report dated April 6, 1987. 2 . Type of chemicals used by IIC. 3 . Agreement letter between owners of IIC and Component Engineering. 4 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated September 21, 1990. _ IIC Site Plan Amendment October 3 , 1990 Page 8 5. Application. 6. Memo from Building Official dated September 11, 1990. 7 . Memo from Fire Marshal dated July 11, 1990. 8 . Letter from Carver Soil and Water Conservation District dated September 18 , 1990. 9 . Letter from Watershed District dated October 9, 1990. 10 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 3, 1990. • A. -. _, I TY O F DATE: March 11 , 1987 1T \\� C�1, ` al C.C. :: 87 :: 'P :: _GlIA• : O Z E!1 CASE Prepared by: Olsen :v — STAFF REPORT w r PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 15 , 808 Square Foot Office/Warehouse Building F- 7.: , j LOCATION: Lot 2 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park i 4th Addition Q APPLICANT: R.J. Ryan Construction 630 International Plaza 7900 International Drive Minneapolis , MN 55420 PRESENT ZONING: IOP ACREAGE: 2 . 9 DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP; Component Design Q S- IOP, J & R Radiator/Day-co Concrete CZ: E- IOP; vacant (� W- IOP ; vacant LU (_ WATER AND SEWER: Available t� the site Cr) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site abuts Riley-Purgatory Creek and is low land with a sloped area to the north. 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial .,,_ cs. o 0 m 1 C. LAKE ANN RSFI ill.k 5 RD r . v I 1 r _ R i C R4 R1 ' ' '' 'T''' ,.. ., IIRRI S R12 . R12 4 1111111 rlihr 1 •r"„ r-'IA R. _ 611111173111111........_G up Lam- I W P «7 D s _P AM y •�: ss -01 1,, Lir • pAC la \IPA 0 11 %err 7 . \--• ' P , o IOP C ,______ A J ' �i ..117.4 _ , ob �,,,,��� R 12 / R H LAKE SU: G J S a, RD R8 . 1 RSF ,:c= ,,__ Yi —- 1 1 _ 11111 mew o . RSF I. `J R4 IQ A .. J PUD—R Ryan Site Plan Review _ March 11, 1987 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 5-16-2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows office and ware- house as a permitted use in the IOP District (Attachment #1) . Section 5-16-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard set- back of 30 feet and a rear and side yard setback of 10 feet and a — maximum lot coverage of 70% in the IOP District (Attachment #1) . Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per 1000 square feet of floor area up to 10 ,000 square feet and one additional space for each 2 ,000 square feet thereafter for warehouse establishments (Attachment #2 ) . — Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires three parking spaces per 1000 square feet of office floor area (Attachment #2 ) . Section 8-2-1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a strip of land at least 10 feet between right-of-way and vehicular use area with one tree every 40 feet plus a 2 foot hedge or berm (Attachment #3 ) . — Section 8-2-2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one tree every 40 feet for interior lot lines abutting industrial land (Attachment — #3 ) . Section 8-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires interior landscaping for vehicular areas containing more than 6, 000 square feet (Attachment #3) . REFERRAL AGENCIES — City Engineer See Attachment #4 ANALYSIS Site Design The applicant is proposing a 15, 808 square foot office warehouse building for Industrial Information Controls, Inc. ( ICC) . ICC assembles machines and computerized controls. The site is 2 . 9 acres and contains a low area adjacent to Riley-Purgatory Creek and a sloped area adjacent to Component Engineering to the north. The proposal shows a proposed and future development. The — current proposal maintains an impervious surface of 34% ( building, parking and sidewalks ) . The future building and parking area will increase this to 58%. The Zoning Ordinance — requires a maximum of 70% impervious surface. The Zoning Ordinance permits the building and parking area to be located 10 feet from the north property line and the Watershed District requires a 100 foot setback from the creek centerline. Ryan Site Plan Review March 11, 1987 Page 3 Therefore, the building is located as far from the creek as possible. Due to the limited area, the existing hill and mature vegetation will be removed for the proposed building. The Zoning Ordinance requires that, to the extent possible, the site design shall preserve woodland areas and that shade trees over six inch caliper shall be preserved unless there is no other way to develop the site . The site conditions require the removal of the existing hill and vegetation . The ordinance allows the City to require the replacement of removed trees. At a minimum, the site plan must provide for landscaping required by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is recommending the applicant submit a plan showing existing vegetation which will be removed prior to final plat approval . Parking and Landscaping A total of 35 parking spaces are required and the site plan is providing 37 parking spaces . The site plan is providing the required 10 foot landscape strip around the south and east side of the building. A 10 foot landscape strip must also be maintained between the parking area and right-of-way. A two foot berm with a tree every 4 feet is required on this strip. The applicant has provided for this requirement. The Zoning Ordinance requires one tree every 40 feet along the interior lot lines . The applicant has provided a strip of trees along the south lot line . Such a strip of trees must also be provided on the north property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires interior landscaping for parking areas over 6 , 000 square feet. The parking area is approximately 17 , 000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires 5 square feet of landscaped areas for every 100 feet of parking area for a = total of 850 square feet required ( the applicant calculated 887 square feet required) . The applicant is providing 920 square feet of interior landscaping. Grading and Drainage There will be extensive grading on the site. Erosion control silt fences and hay bales will be required around the contraction area to minimize sediment from leaving the site. The erosion/ sedimentation protection will be required to be maintained during and aster construction until the landscaping and vegetative cover has been restored. It appears that drainage from the entire site is proposed to be brought to a catch basin and directed through a 12-inch storm sewer where it will then be conveyed to Riley-Purgatory Creek. Staff and the Watershed District are concerned with the piping of Ryan Site Plan March 11 , 1987 Page 4 the runoff of the site through the 12-inch storm sewer. Staff is recommending that a portion of the runoff from the site be directed to Park Drive where catch basins are available. This would minimize the erosion impact to Riley-Purgatory Creek and — provide for sediment removal. If the drainage is directed from the site to the creek through a storm sewer pipe, the applicant must receive a permit from the DNR. Component Engineering is located directly to the north. A por- tion of the drainage from Component Engineering is directed to Park Drive and the rest is directed to the south over the site in question. There is a drainage ditch from Component Engineering on the proposed site, located approximately where the future building is proposed. A drainage easement for this ditch has not been provided for and Opus is working with the applicant to remedy this discrepancy. Utilities — A 10-inch municipal sanitary sewer service is available from Park Drive and municipal water is available from a 10-inch watermain also located in Park Drive. Miscellaneous The Watershed District requries a 200 foot greenspace along Riley Creek. The 200 foot greenspace is measured as 100 feet on either side of the creek centerline. The proposal has some impervious surface within the 100 foot setback and must receive a variance from the Watershed District. The Watershed District reviewed the variance application on March 4 , 1987, and gave preliminary approval if the applicant can obtain deed restrictions from the properties to the south to — maintain the 200 feet of greenspace. The properties to the south ate owned by the city and Day-Co Concrete (Attachment #5 ) . There are outlots throughout the business center along the creek. These outlots are owned by Chanhassen and are used for drainage and stormwater holding ponds. The outlots will never be improved and deed restrictions can be granted for the outlot owned by the city. To maintain a 200 foot green space a portion of Day-Co — Concrete' s property must also have a deed restriction and the applicant must work with the owner to obtain this. Recommendation — Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan #87-1 as shown on site plan dated February 18, 1987, with the following — conditions: Ryan Site Plan March 11, 1987 Page 5 1 . The applicant submit a plan showing existing vegetation which will be removed. 2 . The applicant shall provide one tree per 40 feet along the north property line. 3 . The applicant shall provide an acceptable grading plan to accommodate drainage from the Component Engineering site to the north. 4 . The applicant shall provide revised site grades to force the easterly half of the site drainage to flow to Park Drive thus eliminating the 12-inch storm pipe and maximize the sediment removal/erosion control for the site. The westerly half of the site shall be graded to allow "sheet" flow into . the creek setback. 5 . The applicant shall provide an acceptable erosion control plan for the site. 6 . The applicant shall install erosion control measures prior to initiating construction; to be maintained throughout construction until the landscaping/vegetative cover has been restored. 7 . The applicant shall provide all necessary drainage and uti- lity easements . 8 . The applicant must receive permits from the DNR and the Watershed District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with staff' s conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Section 5-16-2 and 5-16-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 . Section 8-2-1 , 8-2-2 and 8-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4 . Memo from City Engineer dated March 6 , 1987. 5 . Location of City owned outlot and Day-Co Concrete. 6 . Application. 7 . Reduced copies of elevation and site plan. 8 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 25 , 1987 . 9 . Site Plan dated February 18, 1987. CHEMICALS USED AT MILLTRONICS May 7 , 1990 Paints : DMR-475 orange 1 qt DAR-2185 white 2 qt DMR-487 yellow 2 qt DAR-25032 Havanna brown 1 G DAR-24574 beige 2 G DSX-100 bonding clear 2 G DP-40 epoxy primer 1 G — Spray paint, 12 oz . cans 18 Hardeners : DX-77 fisheye eliminator 1M pt — DXR-81 accelerator i 334 pt DU-4 catalyst M pt DXR-80 catalyst 2'h pt DP-401 epoxy primer catalyst 1 G — DTR-600 enamel reducer 5 G DTR-601 enamel reducer 5 G Thinners : DTL-10 lacquer thinner 5 G DX-330 acrylic cleaner 5 G DX-474 spray gun cleaner 5 G Miscellaneous : DX-54 road guard 2 qt DX- 520 Galva prep metal conditioner 1 qt DX-579 metal prep 3 qt — Anti-rust film, 11 oz . cans 6 7870 Park Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 ASEMING FAX NO.(612)474-7289 CO (612) 474-8100 AMNONOFNC October 15 , 1990 Mr. Charles Folch City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 Dear Charles : This letter shall serve as confirmation of the agreement reached Monday, September 10th between Industrial Information Controls , Component Engineering, and the City of Chanhassen to resolve part of the drainage problem which exists between Component Engineering and Industrial Information Controls . 1 ) Component Engineering has granted Industrial Information Controls and its general contractor, R.J . Ryan Construction , Inc . , permission to enter its property and construct a berm approximately 80 ' long and 2 ' high on its south property line . The purpose of this berm shall be to contain Component Engineering' s roof water on its site and direct it west toward the Component Engineering parking lot . A small amount of material will be pushed against the south wall of Component Engineering to direct water away from the building . Work will be done at the expense of Industrial Information Controls and will be done to the satisfaction of the owner of Component Engineering, Jerry Gens , and the City of Chanhassen. 2 ) Component Engineering assumes the responsibility and costs associated with sod restoration and relocation of any affected landscaping. 3 ) Additional drainage problems which exist on the undeveloped western portion of the Industrial Information Controls site will be addressed upon further development by either C••mponent Engineering or Industrial Information Controls . aiv .117 yaerr Gens Ti Rashlege Component Engineering Industrial Information Controls We Take Pride in Meeting Your Metal-Cutting Needs CITY OF 11 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I FROM: Charles Folch , Assistant City Engineer 4, DATE: September 21 , 1990 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Industrial Information Controls File No. 90-26 Land Use Review The plan proposal submitted involves an expansion of the existing building and the relocation of the loading dock area for Industrial Information Controls located in the Chanhassen Lakes Industrial Park . The location for the expansion is on the west side of the existing building . This new building area will primarily be used for storage of components for machines assembled at this facility . The existing loading dock area is proposed to be relocated approximately 60 feet to the west and incorporated into the construction of the building expansion . Drainage The majority of the pavement area south of the existing building drains to the Riley Purgatory Creek via sheet flow. This condition is acceptable to the Watershed District and is believed to be the most practical approach given the conditions of the site . Erosion potential is minimized by not concentrating the runoff . The vegetation between the site and the creek will act as a natural screen to knock down the sediment prior to reaching the creek . In order to maintain this condition, curb is not proposed to be installed along the southern edge of the pavement driveway area immediately south of the building. In accordance with this condition and staff ' s previous recommendation , the applicant is proposing to install a split-rail fence to act as a guard rail and delineate the driveway edge. The plan proposal submitted shows that the existing bituminous pavement in the loading dock area will be replaced with a concrete slab. Due to flat grades , this bituminous pavement area appears to have experienced drainage problems in the past and has deteriorated significantly. The applicant may be required to remove and replace the bituminous pavement immediately south of Sharmin Al-Jaff September 21 , 1990 Page 2 the proposed concrete pad in order to allow for proper drainage . The applicant is also proposing to widen the existing pavement turnaround area and extend the pavement driveway to the west side of the proposed expansion area . Grading At this time it is anticipated that only minimal site grading around the expansion area will need to be performed. However, the submitted proposal does not show planned or proposed grades to verify this . Staff is recommending that the applicant resubmit the grading plan showing the proposed site grades in conjunction with the building expansion to verify the extent of = the grading operations . The revised grading plan to be submitted shall also designate areas to receive sod , seed , etc . This existing site is currently experiencing some drainage problems which may be somewhat contributed to by runoff from a small portion of the property immediately north . Staff has recently met with representatives of these two properties to discuss measures to remedy the situation . The property immediately north is owned by Engineering Components Incorporated . Their representative , Jerry Gens , has verbally agreed to allow the grading contractor for the Industrial Information Controls expansion project to access their property and perform minimal grading operations to correct the problem. The grading correction will involve detaining the majority of the surface runoff south of the Engineering Components building and redirecting it to the west into a natural drainage course as proposed on the original site plan approval . Staff recommends that the applicant acquire a temporary right-of-entry or some other acceptable written agreement which specifically grants the access for this work to be performed. Since a specific grading plan for this remedial work is not being submitted , the applicant shall work with and complete the operations to City and Engineering Components , Inc. satisfaction . Erosion Control The plans propose erosion control along the southern border of the project. However , the type of erosion control is not specified ; therefore , the revised grading plan to be submitted should include the type of erosion control to be installed . Given the nature of the area and the close proximity of this site to the creek area , it is required that Type III erosion control be installed . Recommended Conditions Sharmin Al-Jaff September 21 , 1990 Page 3 1 . The applicant shall resubmit a grading plan showing the proposed contours and extent of the grading operations over the site . 2 . The applicant shall provide and maintain Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site , especially along the creek. This detail should be incorporated onto the new grading plan sheet ( see attachment) . 3 . The applicant shall document that he has obtained legal access onto the adjoining property to the north to perform the grading operations to resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of the City and Engineering Components , Inc. 4 . Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and replaced in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and concrete pad area . 5 . The applicant shall provide the required security to guarantee the erosion control , grading and restoration operations . 6 . The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed District for review and determine if a permit is necessary. ktm Attachment: Erosion Control Detail c : Gary Warren , City Engineer Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician 'ET POSTS FIRMLY (POST SHALL OE OI). STEEL) •NJ .1ObN1 HOG WIRE TO POSTS. •t CC41.!FmOr0 TOS-IN 1.4ET2400 4IWRAF"( 1005. FASTEN T:/woG P11:25, •-0 //-It•tLS OR ST•PLEi. N^ .+'r =. �f / ,ry /./ / %//// ).141N.0EPTN J A.OIG TREIICH B.LAY IN FABRIC B EACKFILt < EL LLI EROSION CONTROL I- FENCE-TYPEI < 2 w J CD ITEC ((INCE POSTS < SHALL. It MO TO 11•000•T µ0.KKt 1 flnflP1 1 1111nlncr W m ��� Rai'll CV W G _ �� Z. wIT a ST,,. N•L(i TWO •t-OI•S Dal VT11 Tw•OUTy t.c? •4t II,[-S i•TO 412)Oufto •.ICS TO it •t[CSSIO . . R t'•CLO. GR IO( ...TO .I110 r0 PK. s1 C[ EROSION CONTROL _w r FENCE-TYPE 2 ~ I W . CO ITER trio n .es O S.I.1.L It Vito TO I �suPPD• w r o. PIACILU , I1 I 1 01111 II CC IIIIIItIN...1.1 1111111PJI1111191 I SILT FENCE T��� J 4'4,414-'41111000.111101510.1 .. .c co W )- I f ...o• STRI. "•L[f i = TWO •t•Oa•i ORI,E•1010 . t/Cw OIL[ Zvi-Y ,0 C.n2•0 •ILtt TO St ITCtSSre •'M.O. &R•O( moo ..q0 TO Sue. ttKE f EROSION CONTROL FENCE-TYPE 3 141) OF \ ' - - HANHAENMS IMMINEMIIIIIIIM=MI SILT FENCE SCALE 1 DATE PLATE NO. 5-89 5212 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE _J CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: fr. re-14J (k/5' i- OWNER: -.4.1r (f. ADDRESS: 6S// CQq et.. A ' - pD ADDRESS: 717 / ? . /(/L- 7.(z_4( A,.4)5-55/013 .0 4,4 s TELEPHONE (Day time) "a- 5/t1‘.� TELEPHONE: %W/0o REQUEST ♦ Conditional Use Permit - $150 ♦ Subdivision: ♦ Interim Use Permit - $150 Preliminary Plat: ♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 ♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 - Create more than 3 lots - $100 + $15 acre + $5 per lot - - Preliminary Development Plan lot created $300 + $15 acre - Final Plat - $100 - Final Development Plan - $200 - Metes and Bounds - $100 - Amendment to Final Development Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $1.00 TOTAL PUDTOTAL SUBDIVISION ♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit: - Individual Single Family ♦ Vacation of Utility or Lots - $25 Street Easement - $100 - All Others - $150 ♦ Variance - $75 ♦ Rezoning - $250 ♦ Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - No Charge A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. / � // PROJECT N OVA ' /4 /�?b /� �� �c 6 J LOCATION i7-70 2 " 4 lair /( c. LEGAL SCRIPTION / �/Qcik// C�l�t 4/ /f�6�S�1,� ZAL6- 541LSS ,t, � L PRESENT ZONING -�-�/DUJ �t�A / o/4 l«- 4 REQUESTED ZONING-0,- OdJL/ 0 1t/G1C- e.t-i__ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement) , or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. //)(2 Signature of Appl ' nt Da re Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on - 41 — + Fee Paid /5C>_ OC) Receipt No. 3;L-15'/I This application will be co s dered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on L C7 3, N (,) . CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman , Building Official qi<. DATE: September 11 , 1990 SUBJ : Planning Case 87-1 Site Plan Review ( IIC) 1 . Entire building must be fire sprinklered. 2 . Floor plan of existing building must be submitted at time of building permit application. 3 . One handicap parking space and curb cut must be provided. CITYOF 11011111r CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I -- FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 11 , 1990 SUBJ: I . I .C. If the building were extended an additional 80 feet to the west , a fire hydrant would not be needed provided: 1 . If a third addition were to be built , additional fire hydrants would then be required per Fire Department location. 2 . The existing building as well as the new section be brought up to code, i . e. paint spray booth, egress paths , — emergency lighting, monitoring of the fire sprinkler system ( if not already being done) , posted fire lanes , lock box , other fire sprinkler work if needed. — CARVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECEIVED 219 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD 191994 WACONIA, MN. 55387 SEP TELEPHONE 442-5101 CITY Ur EhANHASSEf� Sept. 16, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Pox 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Planning Case 87-1 site plan review. I located two contours 930 and 928 for possible silt fence or other planned sediment barriers. Silt fences should - always be installed on a contour line and have the ends turned up towards the next contour line above. They should be used to contain sediments from sheet flows from the _ construction site. If excavated soils are to be stored west of the building site the sediment controls should be extended to cover the additional area. On the upper barrier a pair of X ' s in boxes indicate points which should be located by the construction engineer so the barrier can be installed as close as possible to the construction arid yet be out of the way so it will not be disturbed once it has been installed. Excavated soils and topsoil to be saved should be stockpiled _ and have a temporary seeding applied if they are not to be removed or used within 30 days. An annual ryegrass will produce a good temporary cover crop under normal conditions. The location and type of sediment barriers are my opinions and not inter.oed to be an absolute solution to a sediment problem from this construction. See the attached sheets on silt fences and temporary seedings from the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Se ment Control Planning Handbook. a/..c Paul Neumann Dist . Tech. r•ko-r- 1.yO p'J.4L- OP s-I CSN 1 A`•AT-'-r' • ` J �. —� _ � — � \ 544.44 _ N i7 0 rE. - / \ — wh?ems`- �" ' ............ - --_ . 1 oe __ / EXISTIP1C 1 I a(/ BUILD..4 ASI ► { 4 , / F.F. 930. • — — 1-...„... lin . t•ts-Tp.x..-- Li trisea.g.--,. A ---‘:---------:; - \ *.411.°A:41.:‘ r \ .. .. . 611.1000. / / \- 4vreAdif 42.14, - 2 0127 — wia6 oP / J � - ii N EI Tu IvsZ. ry 0S — r- 9 .5b1t riL422"41 liag°1 a U .Ns;) L.--IZSINtos.b.Zi.b..,_ -321. 54 — 5e1 '2.;1o°I„W FACT Silt Fences _ United States i • Department of �e Agriculture SHEET ENG- 1 November 1987 4SCOOINLSERVATION SERVICE Intent This Fact Sheet is not intended to replace the information contained in the Soil Conservation Service Technical Guide. It is intended to provide general information on this practice. Purpose Silt fences are temporary sediment control measures installed on the contour to intercept and detain sediment from small unprotected areas. Silt fences are constructed by attaching a synthetic filter fabric to supporting posts. The bottom of the fabric is anchored in a trench to prevent water and sediment from passing underneath the silt fence. Silt fences may be used where: (1)the drainage area is less than 2 acres; (2) the maximum slope length above the silt fence is 150 feet; and (3)water reaches the silt fence as sheet flow without significant concentrations. Silt - fences should not be used in channels,waterways or other concentrated flow paths.The useful life of a silt fence is generally no more than one construction season. When properly installed and maintained, silt fences are effective sediment barriers.They should be used only below unprotected areas where it is impractical to prevent erosion. Design Silt fences should be installed on the contour, and constructed so runoff Considerations cannot bypass the ends. If the silt fence is longer than 600 feet,the silt fence should be constructed in separate, independent units, with each unit having a length less than 600 feet. Silt fences may be constructed with supporting fences, such as snow fences or wire mesh fences.The supporting fences should be strong enough to withstand the load from ponded water and trapped sediment. The support posts should be spaced at 10 feet or less, and should be placed or driven at least 2 feet into the ground. Posts should be 4-inch diameter wood posts or standard T-or U-section steel posts weighing not less than 1.3 pounds per lineal foot,with a minimum length of 30 inches plus burial depth. When a sift fence is installed without a supporting fence,the posts should be spaced at 4 feet or less. Posts should be placed or driven at least 2 feet into the ground. Posts should be 2-inch square or heavier wood posts or standard T-or U-section steel posts weighing not less than 1.0 pound per lineal foot, with a minimum length of 30 inches plus burial depth. -41 R_ A trench for anchoring the fabric is dug along the upslope side of the posts. The trench should be about 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep.The fabric is laid in the trench,which is then backfilled and compacted. The filter fabric should be furnished in a continuous roll cut to the length of the silt fence to avoid splices. When splices are necessary,the fabric should be spliced at a support post with a minimum 6 inch overlap, folded over, and securely fastened. • • The synthetic filter fabric should be a pervious sheet of propylene, nylon, polyester or ethylene yarn uniform in texture and appearance and free from defects, flaws or tears that would affect its physical properties. The fabric should meet or exceed the following requirements: Property Test Method Requirement Grab Strength' ASTM-D-1682 90 lbs. min. Elongation' ASTM-D-1682 15% min.to 50% max. at 45 pounds Permittivity ASTM-D-4491 0.01 sec.-' I - Equiv. Opening Size CW02215 20 to 80 (Corps of Eng.) Sieve No. Ultraviolet Resistance ASTM-D-4355 700/0 min. Width 36 in. min. '12" per min. strain rate Maintenance Silt fences require maintenance to preserve their effectiveness. All silt fences should be inspected immediately after each runoff event and at least daily during prolonged rainfall.Any required repairs should be made immediately. When sediment deposits reach approximately one-half the height of the silt fence,the sediment should be removed or a second silt fence should be installed. For More Contact the local Soil Conservation Service(SCS)or Soil and Water Information Conservation District in your county. (This fact sheet was produced by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Minnesota) All programs and services of the Soil Conservation Service are offered on a nondiscriminatory basis.without regard to race.color.national origin,religion,sax. age.marital status,or handicap. -42B- 1 . 3 2 acres ...------7 Maximum drainage area/ ` ' ' r \/'Z." Top of hilly/ — - / \\ '.. t , oma, .0' I i r r / 9 \s.. =— i � i � + -: % y.- 9ii ' 9 ' - i / :: =i'�'� Silt fence placed on contour \ ,, '/ - Turn ends upslope to / prevent flow bypass / Typical Layout for Silt Fence Steel or wood post - Filter fabric securely fastened to post Y Lay fabric in the 30" minimum height trench Backfill over the top 6" I Of fabric and compact - the soil 24" minimum depth / J. Construction of Silt Fence -43B- 1. Set posts and excavate a 6"x6" 2. Staple wire fencing to trench upslope along the line the posts. of posts. .1. 10' max :::'; amass:r iHI. als•alio M u, r f - ,�w. aaau.aW �NI� I.>.:— _--- +- _ - '` r...1, Qat'�l�111 ._wwl�, - j -,••• '/ �� // ��i11lirW � �/ -:::--.17-...7:-.-- I 1� �1' ,,,,..----:4.1_,� �- 6" �'� 3. Attach the filter fabric to 4. Backfill and compact the the wire fence and extend it excavated soil . into the trench. .%I-fes• ���5'•M _ I- ., ;,! 1 - , ';ice�. ..i.l��,l Extension of fabric and wire into the trench. W,lil . Filter FabricitiAri ifc.t.'i —' :,,.'.' 'ire =ill! i-i1!iEE 111 1- CON•STRUCTIO` OF SIL: FENCE MITA S7-"PORTING WIRE FENCE Source: Adapted from Installation of Straw and Fabric Filter Barriers for Sediment Control , Sherwood and Wyant ( -44B- Temporary Covers Recommended on areas that will be re-disturbed within two years. (All soil types and fertilizer levels) RATE SEEDING COMER SEEDING DATES BU/AC L8S/AC DEPTH (IN) f+1+11-1 Oats 4/1-9/15 3 96 1 1/2 Rye 4/1-6/1 & 8/15-10/5 1 1/2 85 1 1/2 Spring 4/1-5/15 1 1/4 75 Wheat Winter 4/1-5/15 4 8/1-9/15 1 1/4 75 Wheat Annual 4/1-9/15 10 1/2 Ryegrass Perennial 4/1-9/15 10 1/2 Ryegrass May be beneficial to fertilizer if no/little topsoil is present, 20 + 0 + 0 minimum. Compiled by: Dakota County SWCD -6B- CIIw� Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District o a Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis. MN 55435 830-0555 c- �� Gc r Legal Advisor: Popham. Haik. Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis. MN 55402 333-4800 October 9, 1990 Mr. Tom Ryan R.J. Ryan Construction 6511 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis , MN 55423 Dear Mr. Ryan: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the plans as submitted for the parking lot expansion for Industrial Information Controls in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park area of Chanhassen. Because this project does not propose on altering or disturbing more than one acre in surface area, a grading and land alteration permit will not be required from the Watershed District. If you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call at 830-0555. Sincerel , Wit R er C. Obermeyer arr Engineering Co. Engineers for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mrs . Jo Ann Olsen: City of Chanhassen RECEIVED OCT 1 0 1990 CITY Ot- t;r1r, ri SEN Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 42 Erhart : Okay , is there a second? Ellson : Second . Wildermuth moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as shown on plans dated September 4 , 1990 with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall provide a drainage , utility and a conservation easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding areas and the 866 contour shall be the edge of the protected wetland . 2 . Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will provide the 866 elevation with verification that the home and any further improvements such as porches or decks will maintain the 75 foot setback from the 866 contour . 3 . A development contract will be recorded against the property and will protect both the Class A wetland and the ponding areas adjacent to the wetland with a conservation easement and not allow any alteration to these areas . 4 . This approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of Preliminary Plat #90-10 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously _ PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 4 ,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE , INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION CONTROLS . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order . Erhart: Is the developer here , the building owner? Okay , do you have all the conditions? Have you seen all the conditions? Tom Ryan: Can I speak to a couple of them? Erhart : Alright . Go ahead . Tom Ryan: My name is Tom Ryan and I represent R .J . Ryan Construction , the general contractor for the building . There 's two issues that we 'd like to , a couple issues we 'd like to address . The first regards the drainage problem which exists with the neighbor to the north . We feel it 's important that we go on record as stating that Industrial Information Controls and R .J . Ryan Construction did not cause the drainage problem which exists . The drainage problem which exists is a result of the failure of the previous engineering staff of the City of Chanhassen as well as the contractor for the Component Engineering building which allowed the water to run up against our property . In the interest of solving the problem we agreed with Component Engineering and the City staff that 's presently in place that because we have a lot of excess material , we would provide the Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 43 grading and construct a berm on the Component Engineering site but the Component Engineering people would be responsible for the restoration of the sod which is really the major portion of the cost involved here . We have about 2 hours worth of work but there 's a couple thousand dollars worth of sod that 's going to be replaced . The last issue under this item is , we really question the need to retain an attorney to grant an easement to us to do what amounts to 2 hours worth of work when we would hope that a simple letter from Mr . Ganz , the owner of Component Engineering would suffice and I 'm sure he would give us a letter that says yes we have permission to do the grading . The grading will be done with his agreement . Erhart: That 's it? Tom Ryan: That 's all I 've got . The owner has a couple more issues he 'd like to speak to . Erhart : Why don 't you go ahead . Tim Raschlager : Hi , my name is Tim Raschlager and I represent IC Incorporated . I 'm one of the three owners of IC Incorporated . First of all I want to thank the people who represent the city for coming out to the site . I think there was more than one visit by several . It 's nice to see they go out and see firsthand what 's involved with our application . This application started as a bigger addition which has been scaled down , probably more to do with business conditions than anything and our need to improve our facility for our current number of employees . Some minor issues that surfaced are I think the problems with the dumpsters . I 've kind of got into a big ordeal about dumpsters here . Not what I want to spend my time on but I kind of got into this whole ordeal because we were trying to do some recycling . We work with a lot of cardboard as a lot of industries do and I found that the area doesn 't have , at least from what I could determine from the people that handle our trash , there seems to not be a real comprehensive plan for how to handle the trash . The best way to handle the trash ended up to sort it by us and place it in different dumpsters . In other words , to eliminate all the landfill on the cardboard which is probably at least 50% of our waste , it required an addition of a second dumpster on the site . As I spoke with them with a longer range plan of what they think will be required for a manufacturing site like ours will even include more separation of material and may include a third or fourth kind of container so I think there 's not a good plan maybe for looking forward for in general dumpster problems on industrial sites recognizing the need for more containers and how to hide them and all those kind of things . In addition , I don 't know quite honestly , never noticed this either but there 's all kinds of different dumpster designs . One backs the truck up and pulls it on and another one takes it from the side and no matter how you try to package this dumpster , if you change either the company you do your trash with which we recently did , or have to change the size of your dumpster , whatever plan you had doesn 't work anymore so it really makes it difficult to figure this out . However , on page 2 in several places it references our loading dock which it states that it 's completely screened and off site from appearance from the highway . We have currently put our dumpster and now dumpsters in that same area which is non-visible from the highway . It turned out that the design of our building and the way we hid the loading docks works well for this plan so we would like to take exception to building some kind of a permanent Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 44 structure as it indicates in here which we 're not quite clear where we 'd build it and what we 'd do with it and what we 're hiding . Other than that I think all of the other areas are addressed appropriately . I 'm amazed at the complexity for the addition size we 're making here but I think we meet all this other criteria as far as I know . The landscaping issue , given the linear footage that we 're going into amounts to 2 or 3 trees . I 'm not clear being a good resident of Chanhassen and polling many of it 's staff , why we 're required to put up what appears to be some kind of proof of planting 3 trees . It 's almost kind of an insult to a sense I think here and our hope with this addition is to improve our , I think the people that came over recognized our problems is to improve our working conditions and we would like to improve our site in general . We 're having to store things outside that should not be outside right now. We need more area in our manufacturing . Thank you . Erhart : Thanks Tim . Before this gets too far away , why don 't we address the issues brought up before we get any other people up here . Number one was this drainage thing . Krauss: The drainage thing being the letter instead of the filing? Erhart : Yeah . Is there any problem with that? Krauss: I guess there isn 't . I mean we want to know that the adjoining property owner has agreed to the alteration of their property because we 're approving a grading plan that requires alteration of somebody else 's land and we don 't have the authority to do that unless that property owner agrees . - Emmings: But you don 't need an easement? You can get a license and the property owner over there can grant a license by simply writing a letter . Krauss: I would concur . As long as we have some verification , I 'd be willing to accept an alternative so I think we can resolve that . As to the garbage dumpster , I had never realized that it was as complex an issue as it appears to be . Nobody 's raised that before . You tend to build those things oversized . It 's a requirement that I think staff feels very strongly about . There are also parcels southwest of this property that remain undeveloped . The back area may not always be invisible . Got a lot of tree cover right now . The city always has required dumpster enclosures and I think where we don 't have them. problems occur in the long term. Erhart: But your statement here is that , are you saying that has to be not visible from any direction? Krauss: No , it 's got to be in an enclosure . I mean the enclosure can be visible . Erhart : Yeah I know but how does a guy , he 's got to come in from some direction with the truck . Krauss: Yeah , you put masonry on three sides and you gate the fourth . Erhart: Do we do that consistently? Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 45 Emmings: We 've never approved buildings without them. Ever . That I know of . Krauss: I know in the time I 've been here we haven't . Erhart: Okay , does the building currently have that? Krauss: I don't believe so . There 's dumpsters , at least one out back . Erhart: Okay , and when was the building construction completed? Krauss: 3 years ago? Erhart : So apparently we approved it at that time without . Emmings : Well go back and look . Did we? Maybe we should check . Maybe they just didn 't build it . Erhart: Well I think Tim 's got a real problem . We 're looking at the same thing on , our building is adding another dumpster to separate trash but we 're fortunate to have a U shaped building so everything is , well it 's invisible from 3 sides but not 4 . I don 't know that that 's really , I guess I don 't know . Al , what 's your situation there? Is everything enclosed in your , from all sides? Al Iverson: On 3 sides but not on 4 and I can 't say that . . . 3 sides but not 4 . Tim Raschlager : We are invisible right now on 3 sides . The problem with a gate , do you ever notice what happens to those things after one season? They look more rickety than the dumpster does . Quite honestly I 'd be happy- if all the dumpsters in the community were painted the same color but I can 't get the trash people to paint their dumpsters but I don't know if you block them from 3 sides , can the trucks come and access it? And the large trucks with big forks on it , I don 't know where you 'd open the gate to if you 've got the big . . . Krauss: That 's fine as long as the open side faces the interior which it does on the PMT site . I mean it faces , as I recall , the rear of the building . As to the letter of credit , concern about letter of credit with landscaping , that 's a requirement for any developer in the city . That 's not a matter of trust . It 's a matter of contract and it 's a standard requirement . Erhart : Thanks . Is there any other public input on the proposed development? Okay , if not is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ahrens moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : Let 's see . Steve , why don 't we start with you . Emmings : I essentially concur with the staff report . I didn 't see any reason not to take into account , but if there 's some other way to do the trash storage it makes more sense than what 's here . If it 's okay with the Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 46 staff , it 's okay with me so you can wrestle with them as far as I 'm concerned before it gets to the City Council and if you come up with some kind of a plan that suits them , I wouldn't be opposed to it . Then my only other comment I guess I 've already made on number 5 . You don 't need an easement . You don 't need to do anything very formal . I think a letter from those other people setting forth a time period during which you have the right to go on their property and what the purpose of going on the property is and when it expires . A lot of meet the purposes will act as a license to allow you to do that and should address Paul 's concerns . That 's all I 've got . Ellson: You know I suppose this trash thing , I guess everybody else didn 't think it was such a big deal but it is something that I 've just automatically see that we do and I 've never seen a problem with it . I guess I don 't remember if it was 3 sides and a gate or exactly how it 's been done but I guess from a consistency standpoint I 'm not opposed to Steve 's ideas of trying to work it out but maybe we should relook at it consistently then as to how we state it or something like that versus give one an exception because they brought it up and then make it a boiler plate for everybody else but in general I go along with all the recommendations . Emmings : The Code , Section 20-912 for the IOP area states that there will be , I 'm quoting now , "no exterior storage of trash or garbage is permissible except in an accessory building enclosed by walls and roof or enclosed containers within a totally screened area . ' That 's what our ordinance says for that section of town . It 's pretty clear . Erhart : Jim? Wildermuth: I 'm glad to see industry in Chanhassen is building so well they can warrant an expansion . I support the staff recommendation . Ahrens: I support the staff recommendation also although it 's very difficult for me to recommend that someone doesn 't need a lawyer to draft a very difficult easement agreement . . .but I 'll go along with staff recommendation . Emmings: Food out of our mouths . Ahrens: That 's right . Erhart: I think it 's important to be consistent on this trash enclosure . If screening is using gates , I adamantly oppose putting that requirement on people . I mean a truck hits the gate , the gate 's bent and that 's it . Ellson: It doesn 't really say in what way . Erhart: Well , how do you screen 4 sides without . . . Krauss: I think you really have to take the site into account . A dumpster enclosure that appeared in what was not the approved location on the Country Hospitality Suites Hotel . It sticks out like a sore thumb on Market Blvd . . Ultimately we had to agree with it in that location but it 's going to be gated on the front because it 's visible from our main street and we 're having them cut it down and reside it so it matches the building Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 47 but that 's an example of when you 'd want it . Erhart: Okay . Two, I agree with Steve there that we could use a licensing and last , I think on this landscape we 're talking about how many trees , 4? Al-Jeff: It 's 1 every 40 feet . We won't hold them to 1 every 40 feet if they could show us a landscaping plan that . . . Erhart: Okay , well . The issues in my mind, if staff found some other way to guarantee in minimal really small landscaping job . There 's some alternative that the developer could propose to guarantee that it 's going to get done , you know we could take a look at that but other than that I think the staff report 's adequate . In fact it kind of makes me feel good that this building isn 't going and someone else is having a little downturn in their business too. So with that , is there any other comments? Tim Raschlager : If we 're required to do something with this dumpster problem , how is it determined. . .what kind of material do we do this with and , I 'm going to bring up an example . Across the street from us there 's a site which has their 's inside and there 's a . . .and all kinds of things associated with boat storage . That site looks far more unsightly in terms _ of . . .in terms of structure and the nature of the . . . Erhart: I think where we 're going Tim is the staff will take our comments and essentially work with you to come up with something before it goes to City Council . Would you agree with that Sharmin or Paul? Yeah . Anything else? Do we have a motion? Tom Ryan: If it 's of any value , we would be glad to do the landscaping prior to the . . . Erhart : That 's sort of what I had in mine . Okay , is there a motion? Wildermuth: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval for the Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4 , 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 6 with 5 being changed to wording to the effect that the applicant will collaborate , cooperate with the adjacent property owner to the north to resolve the drainage issue . Erhart : Is there a second? Emmings: I 'll second it for discussion . Jim , let me ask you on 5 . I 'm not sure I exactly understand how you're changing 5 . Wildermuth: Well what we 're saying there is that it doesn't have to be legal access granted . They can cooperate together or collaborate and perform whatever grading has to be done . Ahrens : Maybe just change that one sentence to read , where it says the applicant shall document? That he has obtained approval from the adjoinging property owner to the north to perform grading operations . Wildermuth: That sounds good. Take the legal access business out of there . Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1990 - Page 48 Ahrens : Is that okay with you? Emmings: Yeah . No, I think they should do something to show the City that they 've got some kind of a written agreement but I don't care what form it is. A letter 's good enough. Wildermuth: The attorney in you is coming through . Erhart: So are we talking an amendment here? Emmings: No , as long as I understand that 's what he 's doing . Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4 , 1990 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage . The enclosure is to be made of masonry compatible with the primary structure . 2 . Designated handicapped parking shall be shown on the plans . Provide proof of parking plans for 8 stalls for staff approval . These stalls shall be installed upon request by the City after there is evidence of a parking shortfall . 3 . Provide additional landscaping on the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and an erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established . Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit . Also , provide Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site , especially along the creek . 4 . The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line . 5 . The applicant shall work with city staff and the adjoining property owner to the north to resolve the current drainage problem . The owner of Lot 2 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition shall grant_ the owner of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition a temporary grading easement to allow the owner of Lot 1 to do the required grading . The applicant shall obtain approval from the adjoining property to the north to perform grading operations to resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of the City and Engineering Components , Inc . . Also , the applicant shall provide the required security to guarantee the erosion control , grading and restoration operations . The dock area drainage problem must be corrected . Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and replaced in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and concrete pad area . 6 . The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed district for review and obtain a permit if necessary . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , CITY OF PC DATE: Aug. 18, 1993 ;, \ I . iG CHANHASSEN CC DATE: Sep. 13, 1993 CASE #: 93-17 SUB _ --_\...,, By: Al-Jaff/Hempel STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.18 Acres into 2 Single Family Lots, Jacques Addition. zLOCATION: 1210 Lake Lucy Road. West of Powers Boulevard and north of Lake Z — Q Lucy Road. V APPLICANT: Nicholas Jacques 1210 Lake Lucy Road — Cl. Chanhassen, MN 55317 a_ - 4 PRESENT ZONLNG: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 1.18 acres (gross) 1.03 acres (net) DENSITY: 3.43 u/a (gross) 3.0 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family Residential - Q S - RSF; Single Family Residential E - RSF; Single Family Residential QW- RSF; Single Family Residential W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site — PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site generally slopes to the southwest. Trees are (I) scattered throughout the site with a concentration along the northern portion. An existing single family residence occupies the northeast portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential • - ,_. d ., .. . • . E . • . _ . • o o o 0 0 - O 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 ,.. , v_ On 0 O p 0 0 4 G 1 A I 1 �' '•.1; iic \. i, •n" s• , ,,., } CHRIS rmA - 1 - 1 M,.N.11.�. �..,F , -_ i� , . A E i FiD tke:: 44‘ .114 .► /—,, Pok, - `- 1 Ise �* ., f f i i ik ; �% _ ..., :. , .' _ 1170111i414.111111tikup# .�!•.� _ ., ;_PARK r .i ,� i �,� " . � f.--- r- 0 – Aie. , . • . - i.. ..- -, ,,,i(J_ . vo iii. imig 2 riVr a `II.- , -� � - �. ?FAINT! .�.:I', , --,,,,,, -_,/ ;, • 11---.;,, dal - • LIFE :- . \ c ,ej a • -4:// . .4\-< :1 :54 01WIL1.)41L. ,i,iVilig.".F4tia — • ; - - • -._ ir .4Th'-`,....i:: . _ 1 .-.:1-_-.:,,,,, t.,. , "2:: ,...."---..,\_,j .,...r.,--r---- --r , :151, -__4:1-5_, ...,,ir ..ocikt- 4. IP ., _ V • • LAKE- LUC Y . _ - , _ .� ..., , \ \\ p �; . RD t� :t _ ' : .0,', Is/ mo i , - - 9 = -- i.,_ W talk_iWi 1 .� 1V _ REENWO i i ----� f I'46•0' ; 1 Yrf �v . SHORESi ±-114L1. vv. PARK `_ _U7 4 - I ��'` 1 Jacques Addition August 18, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 1.18 acre parcel into 2 single family lots. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard and north of Lake Lucy Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Lake Lucy Road from the south. A single family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2. The residence is proposed to remain on the parcel. The setback for the existing residence meets the minimum setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Both lots exceed the minimum lot area requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The average lot size is 22,525 square feet. Sewer and water service to this area is available. The applicant currently has fee ownership of Lake Lucy Road right-of-way (33 feet). Staff is recommending that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way be dedicated with the final plat to give a total of 40 feet of right-of-way. The northerly portion of this site is heavily wooded. Staff is recommending a preservation easement over this area as it is entirely wooded. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park fees be paid in lieu of park land. Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the report. PRELIMINARY PLAT • The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.18 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 3.43 units per acre gross, and 3.0 units per acre net after removing the road. Both lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 22,525 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE No site grading is proposed at this time. Staff anticipates only minor lot grading will be done at the time of house construction. The lot is suited for either a split-entry or walkout type dwelling. The site drainage consists of a sheet flow from east to west across the parcel. Development of one lot will not adversely increase runoff to the adjacent properties. Jacques Addition August 18, 1993 Page 3 UTILITIES The parcel is able to be serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water service. Sanitary sewer service is extended to the lot along the west property line. The city's watermain is located in the north boulevard of Lake Lucy Road. No service was provided; however, an individual water service may be extended by the property owner from the main to service the lot when it is needed. The parcel was previously assessed one sewer and water unit assessment along with a street assessment. The lot subdivision will create another lot which should also be assessed one sewer and water unit assessment. The City Treasurer's office will calculate the assessment amount based on the original assessment plus interest accumulated from the date the assessment was levied. STREET/ ACCESS Currently, one driveway access to the lot exists. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Lake Lucy Road is designated as a collector road. To minimize curb cuts on Lake Lucy Road, the existing curb cut should be utilized by the new parcel as well. A cross- access or driveway easement, including maintenance responsibilities, should be granted in favor of both parties. The common portion of the driveway access should be constructed to 7-ton design per ordinance. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 33 feet of public right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road. Staff is recommending that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way be dedicated, for a total of 40 feet of right-of-way, which is consistent with a roadway system of this nature. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION Mature trees occupy the northern edge of the site. Staff is recommending that no alteration or tree removal be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear property line. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. EROSION CONTROL As with all new home construction sites, erosion control measures in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook will be required at the time new home construction commences on Lot 1. Jacques Addition August 18, 1993 Page 4 PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval of Jacques Addition. Fees are to be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of building permit application. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 20,793 90.01 231.03 Lot 2 24,257 105.01 231.03 136'/68' 25'/42' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #93-17 as shown on the plans dated July 18, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear property lines. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground foot print of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. 2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final plat over all drainage areas. The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided: a. The southerly 40 feet of the parcel shall be dedicated to the City for Lucy Road right-of-way. b. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. Jacques Addition August 18, 1993 Page 5 3. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a common curb cut access onto Lake Lucy Road. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7-ton design and 20 feet in width. A cross-access or driveway easement,including maintenance responsibilities,shall be drafted by the applicant in favor of both lots. 4. Lot 1 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible at the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer's office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against the parcel. 6. All disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2'/" in diameter at the time of installation." ATTACHMENTS 1. Preliminary plat dated July 18, 1993. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: NICHOLAS JACQUES OWNER: HELEN JACQUES ADDRESS: 1210 LAKE LUCY RD ADDRESS: 1210 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 937-4704 TELEPHONE: 474-2767 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ i A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. _ * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME JACQUES ADDITION ' LOCATION 1210 LAKE LUCY RD , CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION S' 1/4 OF NE 1/4 OF SEC. 2 TOWNSHIP 116 • RANGE 23 PRESENT ZONING S REQUESTED ZONING StzNn.,e. PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION S T `� ,,� v REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION S eA✓+-t REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying- w", a!; City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the parts the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of c =hip (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the_ a.r.hcrd person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I -myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further unders ::,. that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. / 1IL1 -l�[.[�1 /(o p Signature of App cant Date /ZA"-/-, I 13 Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on =� 11i TI . , PAR _ -- 1:711 i `L +1]'-1+i. 110:1--� ,.�` 4t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ^ r—__a ''----'7'` 1*t - , - '� .,ie`' d c - Lu r tt GSe'liR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � =�- (sd�. r_,14: Wednesday, August 18, 1993 r1, .47:30 P.M. �♦. City Hall Council Chambers aiv, =•:Cs��j _LtH 690 Coulter Drive - �� i , .til-,71 . ., 1. _ .-44: 1 Project: Jacques Addition - - - - ' �=4 r L Developer: Nick Jacques 1 - i± - t �'v r� Location: 1210 Lake Lucy Road =. LAKE LUC -J�--K _ � Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.18 acres into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located north on Lake Lucy Road, west of Powers Boulevard, 1210 Lake Lucy Road, Jacques Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: _ 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. — Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 5, 1993. Lundgren Bros. Const. Richard C. Ersbo Ruthanne W. Owens 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. 1211 Lake Lucy Road 6535 Peaceful Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver County Auditor Marlow & K. Peterson Gregory & Marsha Cook 600 East 4th Street 1180 Pleasant View Road 6471 Devonshire Drive Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark & Wren Feyereisen Stephen & Jacqueline Lorch Frederick Kenyon, III & Nancy 6461 Devonshire Drive 6451 Devonshire Drive Christianson Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6500 Welsley Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Stuart & Tammy Flolid Susan Arndt Thomas & Debra Given 6510 Welsley Court 6520 Welsley Ct. 6521 Welsley Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - James & Mary Jetland James & Carolyn Hesketh Steven & Sheryl Kullander - 6511 Welsley Ct. 6501 Welsley Ct. 6541 Devonshire Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Patricia Potter Stephen & Mary Bielski Jeffrey & Mary O'Neil 6531 Devonshire Dr. 6521 Devonshire Dr. 6511 Devonshire Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Judith Schaffer Jeffrey & Sharon Critzer Geroard & Jeanne Brower 6501 Devonshire Dr. 6491 Devonshire Dr. 6611 Arlington Ct. - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 E. Samuel Chase, III James & D. Olson John & Barbara Spiess 6621 Arlington Ct. 6620 Arlington Ct. 6610 Arlington Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Sylvester & Mary Roerick Brian & L. Nelson Cheryl Burda - 6600 Arlington Ct. 6551 Devonshire Dr. 6480 Devonshire Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Jerry & Valorie Harlow Dwight & Rhonda Schneibel Kent & Carol Peterson 6490 Devonshire Dr. 6601 Arlington Ct. 6460 Devonshire Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ronald Haglind Dane & Lias Doescher Timothy & Katherine Clarke 6470 Devonshire Dr. 1280 Stratton Ct. 6510 Devonshire Dr. —Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 John & Deborah Flood Boeck-Kevitt Partnership Melvin Allrich & Bonnie Thomas 6500 Devonshire Dr. 7441 Jolly Lane 6681 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Crystal, MN 55428 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas & Anne McGinn Conrad Eggan Wendall & B. Gravlun 1121 Lake Lucy Road 6500 Peaceful Lane 6270 Blue Jay Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Harry Murphy Lawrence & Kathleen Kerber Ronnie & Teresa Hagen — 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6420 Powers Blvd. 1200 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Christopher S. Eiman Todd & Diane Gerhardt 1206 Lake Lucy Road 1180 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY O F PC DATE: 8/18/93 \ 11.1 CCC DATE: 9/13/93 CASE #: 93-4 PUD angimmimmgmnimmisimmmmmimmgwwmmmwimiawoBy: Al-Jaff/Krauss/Hempel STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development Approval for low, medium, and high density (190) dwelling units, and neighborhood commercial uses. - I- z LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street. Q V APPLICANT: Tandem Properties 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Bloomington, MN 55439 Q— PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 62.05 acres(gross) 39.86 acres (net) DENSITY: Single-Family 2.58 u/a Multi-Family 7.26 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND Q LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm �— S - Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family Q E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor Subdivision - W- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family w WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site. (f) PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently being farmed. It contains three wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial-High Density Residential), Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential Mission Hills PUD • August 18, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This is a Planned Unit Development concept request to create a mixed use (commercial and mixed density residential) development. Tandem Properties will be the developer of Mission Hills. The site is located east of existing Highway 101, and north of proposed Highway 212. West 86th Street, which is a gravel road, bisects the site in the middle. A horse farm is located to the north of the site. To the east of Mission Hills is Rice Lake Manor, which is a large lot subdivision zoned Residential Single Family, containing 8 parcels, served with city sewer and equipped with on-site water wells. The site is located within the MUSA line. The applicant is proposing to rezone the Mission Hills site from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the site into 4 blocks and 1 outlot. The entire Mission Hills property is approximately 62.05 acres which includes a 9.2 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial uses, 23.68 acres for multi-family housing, and 6.98 acres for single family housing. Block 1 is proposed to have 1 four-plex, 3 eight-plexes, and 7 twelve-plexes. All proposed units within block 1 are 2 story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 18 single family lots and will act as a buffer between the medium/high density units and Rice Lake Manor subdivision. Block 4 is proposed to contain 5 four-plexes and 5 eight-plexes. All proposed units within block 4 are single story. Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot has not been included with this submittal. This is an area for major concern to staff who views the site as future neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. The commercial site is — located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212 interchange. The proposal is for a PUD so that flexibility can be applied to wetland areas, improved pretreatment of storm water, offer a range of housing pricing options, and allow mixed uses. The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning ordinance. The net density is 2.58 units/acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is — 16,400 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area guided for 4 to 8 units per acre in the southwest quarter of the site and 8 to 16 units per acre in the westerly half of the site. The proposed multi-family lots have a density of 7.26 units per acre, however, we are unclear as to whether the applicant has included the wetland area when calculating the density. It is city policy to subtract wetland and right-of-way area when calculating the density. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4 in order for staff to achieve more accurate results. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. The site is impacted by the adjacent right-of-way of Hwy. 101 and future Hwy. 212). Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the site. Highway 101 is located to the west of the site. This highway will provide a major link between proposed Hwy 212 and Hwy 5. Increased trips on Hwy. 101 will be inevitable once Hwy. 212 is completed. MnDOT will be responsible for the development of Highway 212. Existing Highway 101, however, was classified by MnDOT as a temporary highway in the 1930s. Therefore, State funds cannot be Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 3 appropriated for any improvements with the exception of absolute minimum safety improvements. Recognizing that the city needed to be proactive if appropriate planning was to be done for Hwy. 101, the city commissioned a study in 1988. Prepared by Fred Hoisington, this study established proposed new development and design parameters. It also suggested land uses for the area. These recommendations, which called for a new alignment east of old Hwy. 101 with a 4 lane plus trail design were incorporated into the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the road near Hwy. 5 have already been constructed in accordance with the plan. Due to MnDOT's design refinements on the Hwy. 212 Plan and approval of the ISTEA legislation, the City Council/HRA determined that the study should be updated. Urban design improvements promoted under the ISTEA regulations could diminish impacts and improve the design. Consequently, Fred Hoisington is currently working with staff to update his original study. This work has yet to be completed and the ultimate alignment will have a bearing on the design of the western edge of the PUD. The project conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as we currently understand them. Grading plans of the site indicate that proposed highway elevations have been taken into consideration during the plan preparation stage. The area impacted the most by the highways will be the outlot containing the commercial uses. This is the location where the highways are proposed to intersect, although final plans for this intersection have not been adopted yet. Based upon the foregoing, the applicant will develop the outlot last. Types of commercial uses permitted in the outlot will be outlined later in the report. As mentioned earlier, West 86th Street is a gravel road. This road provides the only access to Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor has an easement for the public right- of-way of this road. When Rice Lake Manor was approved, it was believed that this was a temporary situation and that once the area surrounding the subdivision develops,West 86th Street would be realigned and improved. The applicant is requesting the alignment of West 86th Street be changed by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy 101. This will provide for better sight distance and alignment. The existing intersection will be eliminated, which will allow for improved development coordination and traffic safety. The right-of-way on all public streets in the proposal have been shown at 60 feet. The applicant must demonstrate that the 60 feet allows for two through traffic lanes, required turning lanes as West 86th Street approaches Hwy. 101, and a sidewalk that would connect this proposal with parks and trail in the vicinity. Staff anticipates that additional right-of-way will be required. The street servicing the single family lots is shown terminated along the northern property line of the site, with a possible future extension when the property to the north develops. This street alignment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The roads servicing Blocks 1 and 4 are proposed to be private roads maintained by a homeowners association. Staff has been meeting with the developer since late spring. We believe that they have produced a concept that, while still quite rough, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 4 further note that it provides a mix of housing types that we believe to be in short supply in our community and appears to provide much needed, moderate cost housing. We believe that with continued refinements it can meet or exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community. There are however a series of concerns that must be addressed before the project comes back for formal approval. These include the following: 1. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 2. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. Landscaping, both internally and externally, is inadequate. Mass grading of the multi-family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. Open space around the multi-family units appears to be minimal. Aligning units along 86th Street with access via multiple driveways is not acceptable. 3. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal development plan is submitted. 4. The applicant should hold a neighborhood meeting with area residents to gain a full understanding of their concerns and attempt to address them. 5. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hopped to have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is not impacted by this issue. 6. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 5 would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 7. Incorporate recommendations of the Park and Recreation Commission which is scheduled to be reviewed at their August 24, 1993. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the PUD Concept Plan be approved. This approval should be contingent upon responding to the issues outlined above and elsewhere in this report as well as those raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Site Characteristics This site contains rolling hills and three wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site that need to be located and identified at the time of formal plan submittal of the PUD. The site is bordered by two major right-of-ways. Hwy. 101 to the west and Hwy. 212 to the south. Those two highways are proposed to intersect southwest of the subject site. Highway 212 is proposed to be built with four lanes by the year 2000. Subsequently, this will increase the number of trips on Hwy. 101 and push the need for improving this substandard highway. The city has retained Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best alignment for Hwy. 101. Background The parcels that are included in this plan include areas that were studied in depth during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city in 1991. The site is identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan as mixed use (commercial- high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 62.05 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 6 Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. There are significant rolling hills throughout the site. Also there are three wetlands on the site. Grading plans indicate that those hills will be extensively graded. The applicant will place the units on a relatively flat terrain as a result of site grading except on 'A' street and court. The grading plan should be revised to maintain the existing topography to the extent possible and minimize impact on the hills. The wetlands on the site are proposed to remain intact with the exception of the wetland shown as #15. The widening and improving of West 86th Street will cause an encroachment into the northerly edge of the wetland. The roadway (86th Street) should be moved northerly to minimize disruption to the wetland. Although the applicant is providing additional sedimentation basins to replace or actually exceed the 1 to 1 wetland replacement for the anticipated encroachment, staff is recommending the applicant examines the site further to possibly avoid this encroachment. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The site is guided for mixed use (commercial-high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. The advantage in the PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned concept. If this were to develop separately as individual parcels, landscaping, lighting and architecture would not be compatible. The coordination of the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 7 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The plans and narrative submitted by the applicants propose to build different types of multi-housing units that will be architecturally compatible. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well planned manner. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. The way the proposed plan is designed is reasonable. Low density, detached single family housing separates the existing subdivision to the east from the proposed multi-housing. This also creates a buffer between the two densities. A landscaping buffer is proposed by the applicant along the Hwy. 101 right-of-way. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for mixed use (commercial-high density residential), medium density residential, and low density residential. This area is adjacent to two major right-of-ways that are proposed to intersect along the southwest corner of the subject site. The proposed uses are appropriate for such an area. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The Parks and Recreation Commission have not reviewed this application yet. It will be reviewed on August 23, 1993 and recommendations will be made at that time. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The variety of housing types offered within this proposal has been identified in several studies as a need in the City of Chanhassen. For example, in 1989, the city conducted an open ended Senior Needs Study. As people age, they lose their mobility, especially stair climbing. One of the main deficiencies identified was the lack of one story housing units, which this proposal is offering. A second study involved employees within the city's business community. Staff contacted several businesses in the city to find out where employees in Chanhassen come from. The results indicate that more than 9067c of employees surveyed live outside the city and commuted to work. The main Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 8 reason was the lack of first time home buyer housing. The city could consider creating a housing district within this project and initiate a First Time Home Buyer program or other similar programs. The proposal indicates different types of units pertaining to size. This will cause the units to sell at different prices and will appeal to different income groups. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Chanhassen is developing an intensive trail system in the city. The Public Transit study for the city, which was prepared by Southwest Metro Transit, identifies the site south of proposed Hwy. 212, and across from the subject site, as a Park and Ride lot that will be improved concurrently with Hwy. 212. Sidewalks should connect the site to this Park and Ride lot. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Access to this site will be from Trunk Highway 101. The existing West 86th Street is a dirt road and the city does not have ownership of the right-of-way. The intersection of Hwy. 101 and West 86th will be improved considerably with this proposal by improving roadway geometrics, right-of-way dedication, and paving the street. The city has retained Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to prepare a study showing passable alignments for Hwy 101. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Also, staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right-of-way as well as traffic lanes and signalization if applicable along 86th Street. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Screening of undesirable view of potential loading areas within the commercial district Preservation of desirable site characteristics (rolling hills and wetlands) Improved architectural standards Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts Improved pretreatment of storm water Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 9 An offering of mixed income housing General Site Plan/Architecture The concept site plan proposes two different types of uses on the site, commercial and residential. No information regarding the commercial portion of the site has been submitted with this proposal which tends to concern staff. Staff will provide some guidelines and standards under which the development can occur. The residential/multi-family portion of the site is described in the proposal summary submitted by the applicant. The building exterior material is a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is proposed to be generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two story windows. On a similar project in Eden Prairie, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia and gray velour brick. Detailed plans showing the facades of all buildings will have to be submitted at the time of formal proposal. Each unit shall have an enclosed attached garage. PROPOSED PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The applicant has proposed the following development standards in their PUD plan. Staff has reviewed these proposals, made comments or findings, and then given the staff proposal for language to be incorporated into the final PUD plan document. a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium sized restaurant, office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store or other similar uses. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 10 c. Setbacks Applicant's Proposal. The applicant is proposing to have all buildings setback 50 feet from the exterior parcel line of the PUD and 30 feet from the interior lines. This setback is consistent with the setback requirement of the PUD ordinance. Finding. In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way, parking along right-of-ways shall be setback 20 feet. Buildings located in the Outlot must meet these standards. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the commercial portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. Staff is recommending the following setbacks. Street Commercial Residential Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' d. Development Standards Tabulation Box BLOCK USE Lot Area Density* Outlot Commercial 9.2 acres 1 112 Multi-Family units 14.76 acres 2 8 Single-Family units 2.89 acres 3 10 Single-Family Units 4.09 acres 4 60 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres _ ROW Street and A court 1.34 acres West 86th St Right-of-Way 2.17 acres Hwy 212 and 101 Right-of-Way 18.68 acres TOTAL AREA 43.37 *To be provided by the developer The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for commercial uses and 30% for medium and high density residential. Plans should be prepared accordingly. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 11 Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 10' sides BLOCK 2 Lot 1 18,300 105 175 Lot 2 15,700 90 177.5 Lot 3 16,400 90 182.5 Lot 4 16,200 95 180 Lot 5 16,100 95 170 Lot 6 15,400 95 161 Lot 7 15,200 95 159 Lot 8 15,700 95 165 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 18,300 105 175 Lot 2 15,500 90 172.5 Lot 3 15,000 90 167.5 Lot 4 15,000 90 167.5 Lot 5 16,800 110 157.5 Lot 6 15,000 97 152.5 Lot 7 21,500 60 145 90 at setback Lot 8 15,000 65 125 Mission Hills PUD — August 18, 1993 Page 12 95 at setback Lot 9 15,000 70 125 — 120 at setback Lot 10 18,400 110 150 (Lots 5-10 are cul-de-sac lots) e. Building Materials and Design COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. The developer is proposing that the building's exterior material be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two-story windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Finding. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels. 2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. 4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated. 5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components. 6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 13 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum siding and brick. 2. Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. 3. Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4. Each unit shall have a minimum of 1 overstory tree within its front yard. 5. All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. f. Site Landscaping and Screening Applicant's Proposal. The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. Finding. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right-of-way. These berms shall be seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 21/ inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 14 3. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4. The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. g. Signage COMMERCIAL Applicant's Proposal. None. Finding. Staff is proposing one monument sign be permitted for the outlot and one monument sign for the residential section of the PUD. 1. All businesses built within the outlot shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed (24 square feet). 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 6. No illuminated signs within the outlot may be viewed from the residential section of the PUD. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. RESIDENTIAL One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. the sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 15 h. Lighting Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than lh candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. Light fixtures within the outlot shall not exceed 25 feet. 2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. 4. The outlot light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The proposed grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the multiple and single-family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 904 and 907 which is relatively uniform in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety in elevation will maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today. The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered in order to be compatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted in elevation to give some variety and different appearance. The plans also propose on grading single-family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split-entry to walkout-type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 16 The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right-of- ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The plans propose a series of pretreatment ponds for storm water runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. These pretreatment ponds should be constructed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for water quality and quantity purposes. The plans also propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff in to the pretreatment ponds. The proposed retention ponds will be further addressed once a preliminary plat is submitted with storm drainage calculations. The retention ponds should be designed and built in accordance to the City's storm water management plan (NURP standards). The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The — final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP) ponds be left in the homeowner association's hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. UTILITIES Back in February of 1992 the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this project as well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz (Lake Riley Hills) as well as the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. Mission Hills PUD _ August 18, 1993 Page 17 The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the sewer from the adjacent property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and/or be limited in service area due to downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8-inch water line extended east from Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12-inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street. If the applicant included installation of the 12- inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between an 8-inch watermain and 12-inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right-of-way and "A" Street is be assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10-year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds, wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right-of-way or easements over Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 18 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and therefore the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The preliminary plat proposes on dedicating a 60-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single- family) that the 60-foot wide right-of-way may be insufficient. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right-of-way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staff's initial reaction is that an 80-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60-foot wide right-of-way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32- foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36-foot if not 44-foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th Street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose a number of individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units. Staff is concerned with the number of individual access points along 86th Street. Staff strongly recommends these individual access points be eliminated and the driveways be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street. As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th Street alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant _ should be aware that a trail and/or sidewalks will most likely be required along 86th Street due to anticipated pedestrian traffic. Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards/comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way will require a permit from MnDOT. MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. Mission Hills PUD = August 18, 1993 Page 19 The applicant should be aware that in conjunction with the public improvements for this development the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for future extension of Trunk Highway 101 as well as 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission has not reviewed this application yet. It will be reviewed on August 24, 1993, and recommendations will be made at that time. RECOMMENDATION CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the — subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 20 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12-inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8-inch watermain and a 12-inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year 24-hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. Mission Hills PUD August 18, 1993 Page 21 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 16. Incorporate conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission." ATTACHMENTS 1. Mission Hills Project Summary. 2. Letter from David Nagel dated August 10, 1993. 3. Memo from Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant dated July 14, 1993. 4. Memo from Fire Marshal dated August 9, 1993. 5. Memo from Building Official dated August 6, 1993. 6. Plans dated June 21, 1993. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 June 21. 1993 612-937-5150 FAX 612-937-5822 MISSION HILLS PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Ref. 93321 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Mission Hills (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Highway 101 at 86th Street West _ OWNERS _ • Al and Mare Jane Klingelhutz Keith D. and Carol S. Bartz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and 2209 Acorn Court _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lexington, KY 40516-9645 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SITE PLANNER, SURVEYOR,AND ENGINEER Tandem Properties Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7808 Creek Ridge Circle. Suite 310 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Bloomington, MN 55439 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 941-7805 (612) 937-5150 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Arteka Natural Green 15195 Martin Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344 (612) 934-2200 Wesnwue Prolessonel Semces.IM a an equal oppartuney englo,er LEGAL DESCRIPTION The northerly 800 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, and: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and Government Lot 3, of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the centerline of State Trunk Highway #101 and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 519.26 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described: thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 — degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 300.00 feet; thence South 30 degrees, 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 489.69 feet to the centerline of State Trunk Highway#101 and there terminating, excepting therefrom the following parcel: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East along the east line of said southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 519.26 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 187.31 feet; thence South 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 239.59 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 143.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 265.45 feet to the point of beginning. Page 2 DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING: — Existing Zoning: Agricultural Guided: RSF — Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: _ Outlot(C... ercial) 9.2 Ac. Block 1 ( ) . du Multi-Family) 14.76 Ac. Block 2 (8 du Single-Family) 2.89 Ac. Block 3 (10 du Single-Family) 4.09 Ac. Block 4 (60 du Multi-Family) 8.92 Ac. R.O.W. A street and A court 1.34 Ac. 86th Street R.O.W. 2.17 Ac. TOTAL AREA* 43.37 Ac. * Using estimated new R.O.W. for Highways 101 and 212 TOTAL AREA (including Planned R.O.W. for 101 and 212): ±62.05 Ac. — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Outlot: Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Site is largely governed by adjacent R.O.W.s (not yet acquired) -- Approximately 9.2 acres Block I: — 1 -4 du(2 story)attached residential buildings 3 - 8 du (2 story)attached residential buildings 7 - 12 du (2 story) attached residential buildings — Block 2: 8 single family lots — Block 3: 10 single family lots — Block 4: 5 -4 du (garden units)attached residential buildings 5 - 8 du (garden units) attached residential buildings Page 3 PROPOSED DENSITY: Multi-Family 172 du on 23.68 ac. 7.26 du/ac net Single-Family 18 du on 6.98 ac. 2.58 du/ac net Lot Size Minimum: 15,000 s.f. Range: 15-21,500 s.f. Average: 16,400 s.f. Combined 190 du on 43.37 ac. 4.38 du/ac gross PHASING: Phasing will begin at the north and east working south and west. Phase Block 2 and 3 (single family) East half of Block 4 Half of Block 1 Phase II Balance of Block 4 Balance of Block 1 Phase III Commercial piece (Oudot) PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project is a 43.37 acre parcel of rolling open agricultural-use land located east of Trunk Highway 101 and north of the proposed Highway 212. The site area is substantially impacted by the realignment of T.H. 101 and the proposed Highway 212 right of way. 86th Street West, which bisects the site, is currently a gravel road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed project follows very closely the pending land use guide plan prepared by Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. The proposed outlot and Block 1 south of 86th Street West, proposes Neighborhood/Highway Commercial along T.H. 101 and Medium Density Residential along the south and east surrounding a preserved wetland and open water pond area. The residential units in Block 1 are 2 story condominium style units in 11 buildings of 4 to 12 units each. Page 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT(continued) Blocks 2 and 3 consist of 18 single family lots which act as a buffer along the east side of the project. Block 4 consists of 10 medium density garden style (single level) attached residential units varying from 4 - 8 units each. All attached residential units will be owner occupied and the surrounding yard area will be in common ownership. In final platting the units may become condominiums. Association covenants will be developed to govern the two areas. At this time, the nature of the proposed Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial parcel remains subject to a number of other planning issues. This will probably be the last piece to develop. Its perimeter, being formed by highway right-of-way and residential developments, will clarify the shape, size and access options of this parcel. At this time, no architectural character proposals or site plan concepts are available. The site plan respects the proposed alignments of T.H. 101 and 212. 86th Street as the site access, will be realigned to meet both the existing and future alignment of T.H. 101. This will require a vacation and replatting of a portion of 86th on the new alignment. PARKING Each unit will have a 1 or 2 car garages and a 1 or 2 car wide bituminous driveway of at least 20 feet from the garage door to the access drive aisle. This will provide for two to four parking spaces per unit. Additionally, off-street parking spaces have been proposed to equal 1/2 space/unit. PLANTINGS The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. ARCHITECTURE Two styles of attached residential units are proposed - Villas (south of 86th)and Garden Homes (north of 86th). The Villas are two story units and the Garden Homes are single story. The exterior materials for both styles will be similar, i.e., a combination of 5" aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and soffit returns over the entries of the garden homes and horizontal transom windows over the villas' windows. On a similar project elsewhere, exterior finishes were soft gray and creamy white, featuring pearl gray siding, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Page 5 GRADING — The site is graded generally to take advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site grading with the proposed grades of Highway 101 and Highway 212 in consideration and tried to buffer the site from their impact. The site drainage will be directed through 5 sedimentation ponds throughout the site which are strategically located above the recognized wetland areas. These sedimentation ponds will pre- treat the storm water, recharge the wetland areas, and flow in the natural existing direction. UTILITIES The water main service will be connected to the proposed trunk water main extension by the City of Chanhassen in the southerly right of way of Highway 101. 8" and 6" D.I.P. water main will be constructed throughout the site area with 6" hydrants as required. The 8" water main along 86th Street is proposed to be looped to the east to provide the necessary fire protection. The sanitary sewer service will be connected to an existing manhole located in the southerly right of way of Highway 101 near the residential lots on the southeast shore of Lake Susan. 8" P.V.C. sanitary sewer will be constructed throughout the site to serve the proposed buildings. 6" leads will be stubbed out for each multiple-unit building and 4" wyes for the single-family homes. STREETS Bituminous paved streets will be constructed throughout the development as shown on the site plan. The width of proposed 86th Street (public) will be 32' wide with the remainder of the streets being 28 feet and 20 feet wide (public "A" street and "A" Court and private streets). All streets shall be built with concrete curbs. The alignment of 86th Street is proposed to be revised as shown on the preliminary plat. Access to the site will be at existing Highway 101 until the new highway construction is completed. PROJECT PHASING The first phase of the project will begin with the east end of the project and include all the single family lots (Blocks 2 and 3) and roughly 1/2 of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 2 will consist of the balance of the attached residential units (Blocks 1 and 4). Phase 3 will consist of the commercial site at T.H. 101. WETLANDS Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on June 2, 1993 using the Federal Manual for Identif'ing and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Wetlands were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979). Page 6 The site includes part or all of three wetland basins. The two wetlands recognized by the City of Chanhassen and located south of 86th Street have been designated as A24-2(1) and A24-3(1) and classified as PEMF (Palustnne emergent semipermanently flooded; Type 4 deep marsh) and PEMB (Palustrine emergent saturated; Type 2 wet meadow) wetlands, respectively. With the exception of a small area of unavoidable linear encroachment to wetland A24-2(1), which will be due to the upgrading of 86th street, these wetlands will be totally avoided. West 86th street excepted, the site plan will also comply with the buffer zones and structural setbacks applicable to these Ag-Urban wetlands under the current Chanhassen wetland ordinance. Because existing 86th Street flanks the wetland edge with no buffer zone or space for improvements, the wetland can not possibly be avoided without substantial changes to the road alignment. The five sedimentation basins proposed will provide more than 1 to 1 wetland replacement for the anticipated encroachment, and will also provide pretreatment for storm water draining to wetlands. The third wetland basin, which is located north of 86th Street, is not shown on the official Chanhassen City Wetland Map, but is shown on National Wetland Inventory Mapping. The applicant understands that City staff have indicated they do not consider this basin a City-regulated wetland. In addition, the applicant submits that, because this basin is a Type 2 (PEMB) wetland less than two acres in size and located on agricultural land, it is covered under exemption 8 of the interim program of the Wetland Conservation Act. Because this 0.42-acre isolated basin encompasses less than 0.5 acres, it is covered under Section 404 nationwide permit 26 without predischarge notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus, the proposed development will comply with all applicable wetland regulations. Page 7 _, i . . • RECEIVED _ AUG 1 1 1993 - (IDF-CR HASSEN -- / 0�_y 12 -6 AK_ PLAN A/N G Ca/4.155-LP V_ /14 13 - - Coivcit A4 eA4 tQtAi Hom _ -LIES /KA (r CO/11 C6RAl - 45 A //O iEow,vEie Lk'pi PoPeleT ' OA/ THE 11/69_ftTlf-5.45T BORDER—C �_ TH6 PRoPo5_CP T= 14 XPL OPS/?T 1 F5 PC116-4(2P__ __6011; wE ARE 1/ RY (Alva/ AAP 6-creP C3' £ T tv114 GfeA/ TuALz. y BE HOME5__TES - _130j_(2.) /f T `C"H' 1-C31- CUR- Hou56 /S ©4 /iv /922 4 �. � ED Roug 5 ' ���f T 50.E 6 A.A1? (3 5 By!`r ©AJ THS 14i/ out? tort A/o 1/ THAT TMf 7-/AiE f/I 5 CoA t-t 'C HAUS 5or4 E 56. Too u5 Q 7 5rlcc'v5 r? -c- SAI P JAI 7"815 /24,4_77-&/ , U POA/ Utica/A/6 17FE pRo Po$CP PL. w/, L F 5 7-10T 5'ucH A ['loll 1&A/5/rf 01 /&5iP iJT/+L vuir5 I>OE5 J/° T .T/ T j /t/ w/ re./ rH5 C ft. 1 Aciu 12& ©r TH/5 I4 5_A ( J F )I2 AA/ y ARR6-A Iry rile c cap Cy-,4AJ T(!/ 5 0 R6510661/ UAL C,ly! p - F1 Nr Teo' -Row 7`61-6 •56R6-Airrcf r 1 _ ✓t"T l`EiA 4 �a IfeRY_ I.A. PoR i--A-iv r" eo,vctRNf_ F. 00R 5 50'i '5 /No OF 00. P5ie & 11,(,55A, Gor_ -WP 1:1- PRoPoseP IA/ 11/EL4 Ai PRoP0_ 4s,P PIA-A/ (t' 55ç 5 Neur /-07-5 BoR176:1e//v 6 c)uk - YARD ( 77j/5 CAM 5nA46r1A4&S- cREA- Te, A LJlay 5TR •651./ti- CoNPRoivr6D t4// 711 ciicH HAPP6.-Ln/i4/6_1_ A 5 (Wit_ pl?EA/ U A/ Wi? (t4IA5 A Pt.44/ 6Roump_r_lio&S - YARD____112T2eP&c4r& ANP e21/-&R INuAsick R PRI VA ü/& 6_61 IL *widow c - G Loiv buk bor AS • r - 77/6 PrzoPo 5 6D Pe v et-0p.m EtV , Ate, 0 F pic _ • :.:.• h-t15 /6,1/B0/Z/100P 6,4-5 r Przope:66--p P-Gv6wPA46--Air PO Nor HA-C'e C-/ r-Y- tuAr6R, rkii 1er/I-1W? 14A/55 AR6 /Ai _7-1/0 rte6 •6-r, f3t'-r Nor froreP uP ro rife A 4 A7M w 116-m Rci-iAc CSR tor, p, FOR 71-115, WITH rHe P1zoPos -0 P , -i&v7 Cam! iv o AR 6 fORc-5P 7-0 PAY HooK P To TH-6 ,A4A-1il, — - - - 41-5 0 comic&E G -155 6_5s 5v r 5 .42 E T`1-tC PAL 60 5T1?e5r5lye L-'J]_ C10E6cr-Ft) TO H & -P PAY fQ' , T/ C1 4- f OAA P - A IA. A A. 6Ho 42P f 5 005-r nive i rN vs, 7-1 2e.Poi , A-6 AM/ CL' /42& Pir2RceP to PAS' 1-0�-moo_ ��UE1/0P&2 A/ AA /A4 PfK al(L i &7 - F&61- THAT IF T-4NP& 1 PRoeE riL 5 c,,AN7-5 to 7&v7"H/s e/ECE ©,c L -4Np, 7--H& �... �_ t c.A-5 T 7 tf&Y Coci LP Do l 5 TRY Y 7-0 ' ACC©tic , PATE rftE Piz- PeE5�Nrty G'011!/6_ J PI/5 }R&4 , tire ALSO E6-4 A /Liu 1_ 71 -A4 / t i JoAJD-91-LAR __126 &_CIPA t& ' 7' �oc ll A y T1-0 couL D ABsor?B THE C05 7' 0.P AM) A55 E 55,E t Nr L'fr/ P A cApts7' Ty 656= 54A1 Pr?oPirzrj c)(4,Ai xre5 , TO c, r6r2A,t 5 , )f TAA/ f7RM 4ivcT 1_?l u Fr TIt& 1/ R (?r�,4 sou 5 LAE C f 5 To t-i 'o /A/ Tff/5 AR 4 , TfrE t ei cr rft cvut c)o foR (-95 15 5H04v So.�-r 5 coA/c6 /t/ 4per TH 6 POoPL 6 PIA T l /iv w-4,y r reo 5 D&eaPitt &N 5/Nc6 ev(2 (-fouSE � ,. Du -r", (, ' E f I-65v comPARI 5° L4. p'W&D l-1/(�M6/ T If•4N NO?A-L.A-G r4-Y6)- FaZ Pg.07-t( - rt-t& 5' n N/ POu, 1 / r F — L-lcY/A/6 /Ai 71-,/5 A &A . (,c. ' "fit& /W t`z 'VA G o 7-1-10 PoPo5_ J2 PPUet6P, /-� 1-t o5 rH/5 H.4 5 / A/ .5>V4 /V CON Ce-vs/ t7/15 (P& z0/9Ai civ r Sffo t-P /35- z_coKcv VERY CA�p o L t f' (4--/ AAJ (I7L 7 CD.A1 `4v`o1. dLP A A4a? A7r/z4cr/Ue AGTT2A/44T1 '6 - . ,F you /4i ANY Gv&5 TW ALS of W7cL-V ' /z6 /NPc,! f/zo C 2 , Lv -- 0.06004 C3& ,4 PPy ru fib4g. } / -i SI/VG 6R_. Y -- -- 9 3 - -5-0 T1 WA C1-14IVM456&4/ A4®V 55-31 , • � - 4 r Imo- LOOKI A/6 7- 7-i& EvVLa P r T ,4 1-r TTL - C _5 6-fc A CoA P g15o,V chi 65 TO /ti7 ` 574N775, TAA/PeA 1 F20PeeT7ES E-145 CRoc '(2 ? 19 O — _ RE S I Den/ r, rL V /l// TS cr?N TO ( GR 6-5 OP 1-.14kt7, -I-HE E)c/lTi& A/ _E?ci.oOP (,zi 1..11/-e r Al /MS 5_614e r• • P ©/v Circ P r-y Lor © 1(0 AC k' 1T LS 1 V A S(9 Ti 6 QPI,AfetZAH D&N5/ ry N 1?&LA- t1 oN io T1/ C1-05%i1/c5S THI 5 PRO c7EGT. TO D51 A/ 6 yo.-LA 6 oc.� ,v6R5 vUzy 4A1 vCH A, PECT -i7 L Tit")/) (PRoPo36.7' - P Ev e1pA4 t-N 1 Th/ 5 1PiI-7P P& s l T Y k/,kR R eN rS /+ e2 55rz 1-oofc 4-r -N-u5 -T-Lip ©F Devezzemtzakir c`f T7J 6-7 PbANAHA/ 6 cDMA4I55/oAt/. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. / H K g • - i MEMO — To: Paul Krauss and Sharmin Al-Jaff — From: Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant Subject: Meeting on 7-13-93 Re: Mission Hills Date: 7-14-93 Present: Don Ashworth _ Paul Krauss Michael Schroeder Fred Hoisington _ Mission Hills will be on the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission Agenda. I am to — call Mission Hills and explain the following: 1. The proposed new interchange alignment at TH 212/101 is acceptable. — 2. Mission Hills must be able to accommodate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 until such time as one can be selected. — Don Ashworth authorized the cultural resources analysis so that the Highway 101 alignment study can be completed. Paul Krauss suggested that we do some additional land use analysis as part of the Highway 101 study to get a better grasp of the uses that may be allowed at the TH 212/101 interchange. If at all possible, some input should be available for the August 18 Planning Commission meeting. • We are scheduled to present the Highway 101 Alignment Study at the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Sharmin, I called Dick Putnam on July 14, 1993 to explain the above. He was agreeable but asked for a letter status report (enclosed). Land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design — 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H I( g July 14, 1993 Mr. Dick Putnam Tandem Corporation 2765 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Re: Status of Highway 101 Alignment Study Dear Mr. Putnam: Per our discussion on Wednesday, July 14, 1993, I submit this letter as a summary of the current status of the Highway 101 Alignment Study as it relates to the Mission Hills project. We fully expected to have an alignment established by this time but after discussions with MnDOT, it became apparent that the Study would have to be expanded to include the delineation of wetlands and a cultural resources study. The wetlands have been identified and staked but the cultural resources study was delayed pending a meeting with MnDOT on July 7, 1993. Since then, we have received authorization from the City to proceed with the Study. Once it is complete, we will be able to finish our evaluation and establish an alignment that will become the subject of official mapping. What this means to Mission Hills is that it must build some contingencies into its plans. You can assume that the reconfigured interchange is acceptable but you should incorporate Alternative Alignments 2 and 3 into your plans for the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. We should be able to give you an answer on an alignment by August or September at which point your plans should be modified to reflect the selected or preferred alignment. We are sorry that the process to select an alternative has taken so long. As you probably already know, the letting of TH 212 has also been pushed further into the future so the urgency in establishing a Highway 101 alignment is less acute. Your project is forcing the resolution of some issues that would normally not need to be addressed until a later date given MnDOTs revised schedule. • Land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard I Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 I hope this gives you a better indication of the Highway 101 Alignment Study status while providing you with an option to proceed with your project. If you have any questions, please give me a call. — Sincerely, Fred Hoisington, AICP — Planning Consultant FLH/glh — cc Al Klingelhutz Keith Bartz — Paul Krauss Dennis Marhula Sharmin Al-Jaff ` I ." / -gill".yi„ .'. v ,. 1-./)-, \'', -. 3 ar...".- ..,..,'a 1c1. .---...1._&-w\l".... _ _/., t\_ • — ‘-'-- ,:-iir .%,, ..a.ier..- t Iv__ \••••"Airm. m ...,,___ it", , At ' ,1„-. . $ ' / -7- r" c �..T . • �..'. \iria1- Y'::::: :' -----,-_` Study Ar.a Boundary EXISTING 101 ''r 1V • - -J ` ` `a'` Suaan ALIGNMENT _ _ 100' R.O.W. /, . ''_ `� -77-----N. ;J .G ,fir% ► \ .s..\ - ".. ''4/7 4 tL":4: 1-i-r-=1 :• , \ ... 4,,,,iy,.....A. . „.....t.:....,,,,,„..z,a .:r.,.--„ ,„__, ,.- , ,,„ . .. , ' � q.., .... ....,.. . _ c,:, _ ,� �y �1:::'. •••••=, ' _ - 1 .. i',,; .•, NNII1,4• , ." AO ...,..-'.;.%.)1t.: ..., i• ` 's- \ Mr,tt(i ,..„....„f-..:',...01,:d".'"i4o, ,..,44- -- -- 131 ir, "W II'' '''‘ '' ,..dll''' -''.. �' �.moi p!..3 `�� '_<�.'..:.e..‘��/� /�/!� ^�.__ ?•�Q:. --� '�• %�•�' .-�+. R .\ C". 'fir. ��:`a'F �• .t1 - 11 * ..'J raw., �, / , ••• Al ';,--7.--- • - .... + .'I • ��_ �/i /,� � \\ rr:;�� 010 °' - -1 -+ �L- C. km_- __ s. - ;w,, , J i '+ �� d 1 _- Boundary, Q i ,``VVV// •(- 1 10121 1 1. 1 • \�,.-az.........,,,..„,.....101‘‘%, �\rV� • ,�.� �t k\ _\. (.� • Ilia J,r'& 1r NI V`'• r 1 I ' �,L� ��.-.lye' 11 (. - •"' ?i .4, , ., ,. , /..,„-,.._ , 4,6.g. +,' g spa ���_i„, ), -/I /► ��,\�� /,r c� IAA b � -..- --,---.-..,-z...:,t`-• \ ' / r /(pii I , {nO)/' X11 c.v-- _ ALTERNATIVES ® & - :2_,,' N'rr47 y: k CITY OF CHANHASSEN I. 0 c--- el ., ,. .., .4= — ,�\\ e f • `. UPDATE FOR :_-,--v::-4::_.`i _ �__. L� _ - - _— HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT .••• AND LAND USE STUDY r� '' HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP Fii„13.rS4�i_i i(/ 4'i>1J lMi�[ T'S"+aC3d1"f•di.a3i:aCi�. +771 , .1/. L <.- I,.-..0* 0 1 - • >.- .---- :es, ..; (.T-• r,Lfe. ...: . 1-.. - ki •• . 1 ,.-. K1 - -:Ali;dr/i.t6i1. 4.,ilt. --,4" . - -,......, r - " c•,,' ;4,0 fk--,•,'‘‘, 1 11.F.,-,--•,\\VIrviaq: CI Z'-- AV A '14. - • ,—••••• ,0.4 II -% . , • .0 . 44 . r(-04 / "..:-` y \,. q--- ,.. _,--_,- .-..-__-,-,.... • _.,..,-,K. .....:,.,,-1,......_;./ __ _.9 . / - 0-11:1r N . , vh..... -.--...r.„..,..._ ...... .,-/..„, ' „ ••••••,___. ... _ / ... ------- A,:•:4- 11(-5.,. 7,--- 4 III' .:. _ \ 1N. 4 .-J., Nom— ----- ---- Study Area Boundary ---- _.0.‘ a.... , ri.,- i , 1 -.. , (46 ... Lake Sutan 100' R.. it,;;;.---'• ' ..'i • I.1/”:. k -..- ---- 1\ •• ' _ ,••-,,, 4 ,...'-'.-::i 4/, . 111.1.4 Axawc....11 ---fl 1:13 ,i.: / ' ,91;.•44\i.D le 1.1N \. il /....„ . _ 1-- jo- .. . --,...•: !...: ir.-----1.- ---41r7::---_V- ' .. ;; _ ii 467: .C. / •,•'-' , 2 , ,—. ../ 1 ,,,, / . .. z>,:<./0. . -- 'L., ..... r ,V.-.,- -N, •:::.7 ' 4,41 .• • 4, ci i„,, : , 'r ,-.* , — — 1 . 1 . •,. ;w14,1,r, • i . • # J.Adki.,40, 1.-;ri . , ..- _.. :: . ftw9% 'I, 0 ,i)E4e • .14\ ji, • . fi-- --. ' -'.NN:‘ ''' thjtO ••• A • r„,„....•_• _-- .. ..,.. v...11...V., Nolli 4AVIP.- 4 7.71, _.... . ...., ....'st. i ili:li 01:• t /X*: - - *r..;: jfrIV.j, ,.41t - . ..___ 9 (tit -\g-/ 441111111:19 * .Jr•"--- _"c...'''g4511% -' . ..'' :. •••' ....."'..-- . — _,,•:..‘'AT7--:-.: —if; -,- . 1 -' . ; .... • ‘ - . .s.- ,.:-_.,. 1_.:1 illa • trel ..• .-•• ilD\,.: . .... . : _-"-- 4- --::.,--*'-•\ .-..,•,.-- It,,,, ...‘s-Z.3 ....•- .s.-..- .1-\,.• ''.-s -_--.4t1 0' ' (•'''• ( fi "7. . (7.•;; „.•-• (___ •• ' _,..N.' .....a ........---:'—/-----;,,A. 4-• -,,..,..,, • Qn --r- ii.V!. • ) a 1 ....4 */,/ • 1) "....4• o -...... s, „.....-•-•`..-••••--•.-4• 4 fr c!•:-..g), 7 '1 • 141:0\\_ 4: _,),-,.... - . •....:66,\, ,,t•-, ...: . ( •,( • -.. ., -. • • I . n.....----,• •\,1 Qii... ----s,„/ -.. 60 . Stud,Arear• ' - I. ' ,..„--dem • .-----)--—*'L.'''. ,---,.. --1,,,, pouridary—4 ' ,all 6 N,. • ,...smata •I. k k r - -___. ---- -"Vt--....... ..7 ? '--;„•-,.,• .." • 'Qs ' -:f• ' '' - 1' t i \-‘N.... --.. .. -11 iidob ... ill - 1,-- ' 10111-..1 '''''''"54 . tes , • . -, _ i A' . .. els ' - ! -'./-I _ . • ‘ • ,}. . „till , .... 1 ^,iv--,•,4--A.- ---v , 1 k.:-) ' • %,zills...111110.22." • r> ' -- • : . " • . "r li t:,!-- -Li.---..V N - _•_ _ , .., •• _.__ -..,.... .....•at.gWo.r.h ... f:/c„,,„•___. • jr..‹ / — . •1`•-..-S--'-t.,--•'---:?.% i VI* • .1 e . -iv • ••' 61 1,4141,,ket 1 v-'-----r-------- ; \ . !.5:6e.:6,11% / --.' • II 1 d - -..x...-0,‘,4.... ,.. .000 _...,00 eh.. - IE.._ ' •-•=7•---7-4.4 - - :- ,„e"- -- •'-'1,,,,pli l i ,,,../40•A '---‘•-••:,;0::kv....- r„,•,::::,,, ).., ‘0,..1, isr....... ... ..r. i. ....,. ..........„ • „. 4,. : , .... \: ir- ....„....,,, r.,-p-z-s.,,w,„.a.1, 7, :'41 .L.Or,;..-.4. :Y.-:!.--:•••":nr-••=e1 "--- 114 i .. ' "1"--1 • \•744•ftf. , ALTERNATIVES 3 & IN k, ..,___L 1 dt.i . e ..... _ip§ ..;7), (, ---,.-Ni 1. i --."-- ---• CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ .•_......m.a. .., _ ._.-----..-„,g .------_,_-_,-:...v.--4,--,:- HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT ---.... .. • ..._.....,„„s,.. ,\.. -\,.... .._ .. AND LAND USE STUDY --.*:".: ' ---o'''i"- -- --,---- ------... -------._/ . '' •'= .- . '--- --- _, _ - HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP ,.. ,!,' -- t - -t' •(1 . ' AI I ttikvp ivQ, o:,:‘, . is 1�r `r I I✓ f`` �� • *. •\'•air __ .-,-, F=- I 11�ti ri t l-.---_R. Study Area Boundary \Mir lc --''N . .- c 1 i ':., T/Oji. ($q- - r\N . K- ©6---- .�.J rte, Lake Susan 100'R.• ,1 k, 7 ,` 0444\ .. / :// 'e+E G r L f-� p '`_ ' • Oaf; `` J 11 I- . - �� • C:‘ . � llt orf��� ` 1 ‘ Mb ;. ikwciv1�I`�` ���'�{1(, a, o I /74,1. _ �;- J 1 �,.. ' ' IA7131i fa rA��l. �ll : VII/P•4447 CZ yC� __._i �t�'. ': j _-_,,77\`_= impl + : "... . G -- - �- .. /7„ ICV _ • 7.v.: i /„,,_ --: ,\----1, . .:. ....,„ .,..,:* . 1 - !I. • •si c—, ' ..... /-''''''N/. .._ A \••• ) f . ‘i ll 1 A. 41.1-- -.I, --5-.7. ./ % '\,:::1\...\Cs7 -7,5 6., ,,--- ,,‘,,,,....--,_"_46,„,..,:iii,:.-), ,/.-. ( .$4,, ,10 i . ,...- 4------.„1 ' Study Area.r., .•`.0 l� .'ADii-r—:r----� 1 �—� ei�.� `� ; JBoundary—=4. / S - u I. ..tea V ,)J: ti . „, iii' ll' hh' .".... .....i V-,-„:.13,fg. , f. -\/0 1_!s'it 1 \s` 4 1 J -11"---;.- / '•"*y AT �� moi= �; � .. . ordill ; ;:�I1 l 11.4 ),/ .]�rl�!'), )' .1 t.) y -,......-. .- x,:,,g, _._ .../ I '''.- . ,.... .41.-s%+7-\:--,., :0:ti... .:0• :-...---.....„, ....., -,. .. /.....V/ tA / TT-) r / r -= ALTERNATIVEST J& 4 — I -`t ! I I \\ . CITY OF CHANHASSEN - . p j „0z n 4 i \‘• - V ` 1,1 W� y UPDATE FOR HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT .AND LAND USE STUDY HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP -... .,... CITY O : CHANIIASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal — DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJ: Planning Case #93-4 PUD & 93-5 VAC Mission Hills I have<reviewed the concept plan for the proposed Mission Hills project, and basically the only item that would need attention at this time would be a second means of access to the development, at least a secondary emergency entrance/exit. — • As the project develops the concerns will be determining which buildings will be fire sprinklered, the addition and relocating of fire hydrants, "No Parking, Fire Lane" signage, _ access during construction, proposed street names, and building identification numbers. These requirements will be forthcoming as the project develops. �s — ��I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY of ,. ‘-= - . -, : - t) CHANHASSEN 1- -_ - .4_-j. _ `i 'Y 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-�j -.',_ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ,..,3 - MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official 4 �-, DATE: August 6, 1993 — SUBJ: 93-4 PUD & 93-5 VAC (Mission Hills by Tandem Properties) I have been asked for comments on the above referenced Planning Department application. Background: — City Ordinance #82 adopted in October, 1987 adopted appendix chapter 38 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Appendix Chapter 38 provides more comprehensive fire sprinklering requirements for buildings than UBC Chapter 38. Analysis: Buildings 1. UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires R-1 occupancies of 8500 or more gross square feet of floor area to be fire sprinklered. MSBC further states that in the case of a mixed occupancy the threshold number of the most restrictive occupancy applies to the entire building. The buildings as shown on the preliminary plat would all be classified as a mixed occupancy; R-1 and M-l. Floor plans showing area were not provided, but it appears that buildings of more than _ four units will exceed 8500 sq. ft., and, as such, will be required to be fire sprinklered. 2. Minnesota Rules Parts 1800.5000-5700 set limits at which buildings must be designed by professional designers. R-1 occupancies exceeding 5000 sq. ft. are required to be designed — by professionals. It appears these buildings will exceed the 5000 sq. ft. threshold. is Z0? PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff August 6, 1993 Page 2 Site Proposed street names need to be submitted to the Public Safety Department for review _ in order to insure no duplication or confusing names occur. Recommendations: 1. Buildings must comply with UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by MSBC 1305.6905. 2. Structures must be designed by an architect and structural engineer. 3. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department for review before final plat approval. _ - TANDEM James L.Ostenson PROPERTIES Richard A.Putnam BROKERS•PLANNERS•DEVELOPERS • June 21 , 1993 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Gary Warren 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Watermain Extension Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We hereby petition for municipal water service to our property described as per attached. We have also attached a map showing the location of the property. We respectfully request that the previous study (Project 90-10 ) be updated to comply with this project. Sincerely, Al KlinCutz Ji Ostenson, Tandem Properties 2765 Casco Point Road • Wayzata,Minnesota 55391 • Office&Fax(612)471-0573 7808 Creekridge Circle • Suite 310 • Bloomington,Minnesota 55439 • Office(612)941-7805 • Fax(612)941-7853 1 CITY OF :,.. , CHANHASSEN .__.„, •..„, ,.,_ ., , 1 .G 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 .. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 744: DATE: August 12, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Mission Hills - Project No. 93-23 Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plans dated June 21, 1993 prepared by Westwood Engineering, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is currently employed in agricultural practices. The proposed grading plan indicates mass site grading with the exception of the outlot in order to develop the house pads for the multiple and single-family dwelling units. Elevations of the existing ground contours lying north of 86th Street range from 924 on the west end to 900 at the east end. The grading plan proposes building floor elevations north of 86th Street between 904 and 907 which is relatively uniform in comparison to the existing terrain. The existing ground contours lying south of the proposed 86th Street range from 920 to 898. The proposed building floor elevations of the multiple dwellings range from 910 to 901.5. This variety in elevation will maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today. The area lying north of 86th Street, the large knoll (924 contour), is being significantly lowered in order to be compatible with future proposed Trunk Highway 101 grades. Staff does believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted in elevation to give some variety and different appearance. The plans also propose on grading single-family lots along "A" Street and Court. The plans propose the lots to be a variety of split-entry to walkout-type homes. The overall grading plan does maintain the existing drainage pattern through the site. The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. A large earth berm is shown between the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor and the development. The plans have the berm labeled "by Others" which is assumed to be Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 2 constructed in conjunction with Trunk Highway 212. No berming is proposed along Trunk Highway 101 with this proposal. Staff believes some sort of berming should be proposed at this time by the applicant. The plans propose on realigning existing 86th Street northerly to a line perpendicular with the future Trunk Highway 101 alignment. There currently exists a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel roadway which serves Tigua Lane to the east. The City has no dedicated easements or right-of-ways for existing 86th Street. Tigua Lane on the other hand has been dedicated with the plat of Rice Lake Manor. The plans propose on expanding 86th Street in its current location. The result will be partially filling the wetland which lies immediately south of existing 86th Street. Staff recommends that 86th Street be adjusted northerly to minimize or eliminate impact to the wetland. There appears to be sufficient room to readjust the alignment of 86th Street to do so. The plans propose a series of pretreatment ponds for storm water runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. These pretreatment ponds should be constructed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for water quality and quantity purposes. The plans also propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff in to the pretreatment ponds. The proposed retention ponds will be further addressed once a preliminary plat is submitted with storm drainage calculations. The retention ponds should be designed and built in accordance to the City's storm water management plan (NURP standards). The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for accessing and maintaining the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the preliminary plat and construction plan and specification review process. It appears most of the streets, with the exception of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court are proposed to be private. Staff is unclear at this point whether it would be prudent for the maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention (NURP) ponds be left in the homeowner association's hands. This issue will be further investigated at a later date. UTILITIES Back in February of 1992 the City prepared a feasibility report for extension of municipal water service to this area. However, due to problems with easement acquisition along 86th Street, the project never proceeded. Since a year's time span has elapsed it will be necessary to go back and update the feasibility report. Staff has received a petition from the applicant for extension of utilities to the site. The City will be updating the feasibility report in conjunction with this project as well as the pending projects of John Klingelhutz Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 3 (Lake Riley Hills) as well as the future Lundgren Bros. development which lies south of Lyman Boulevard. The combination of these three projects should make it feasible for the extension of trunk water and sewer service to this development. The extension of utility - service to the site would not be available until late spring/early summer of 1994 assuming the project proceeds with the normal public hearing process. The City has recently adopted a comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan which indicates sanitary sewer service should be brought up from the south along the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment. Since this utility project may not coincide with this proposal, the applicant appears to be proposing an alternate sewer connection to the existing sewer line located east of Lake Susan at Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose on extending the sewer from the adjacent property to the north into the development. The appropriate utility - and drainage easements would have to be conveyed to the City for this extension. The applicant should also be aware that this connection may be only an interim connection and/or be limited in service area due to downstream capacity restraints of the existing sewer line. The City will have to conduct a study to determine if there is excess capacity available in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan prior to this connection being approved. The cost of the study would be forwarded on to the applicant for repayment. The plans propose an 8-inch water line extended east from Trunk Highway 101 through the development along 86th Street. According to the City's previous feasibility study, a 12-inch watermain line was required to facilitate looping of the area. Therefore, the City would require oversizing of the watermain through 86th Street. If the applicant included installation of the 12-inch watermain along 86th Street with their overall site improvements the City would apply a credit towards the applicant's assessments. The oversizing would be the cost difference between an 8-inch watermain and 12-inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right-of-way and "A" Street is be assumed to be a private system. Due to the magnitude of the project, the City would require that the utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement should be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. All storm sewer systems should be designed for a 10-year storm event. The applicant shall supply the City with storm sewer and ponding calculations for review and approval. The applicant should be aware the City has implemented a policy regarding drain tile behind the curbs to facilitate household sump pump discharge and also to improve roadway subgrade drainage. On the streets that are proposed to be private, staff will only recommend to the applicant that provisions are made to accommodate for sump pump discharge. Staff will require that a drain tile system be installed along the public streets Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 4 where the adjacent dwellings have no other discharge point such as ponds,wetlands or storm sewer. STREETS The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. 86th Street currently exists today as a 20 to 24-foot wide gravel street which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards with blacktop and curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right-of-way or easements over 86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over 6 years and therefore the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The preliminary plat proposes on dedicating a 60-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street as well as "A" Street and Court. Staff is concerned due to the land use (commercial, multiple and single-family) that the 60-foot wide right-of-way may be insufficient. Staff is recommending that a traffic demand study be prepared to determine the adequate right-of- way width as well as number traffic lanes necessary to support this area. This report should be authorized by the City at the cost to the applicant. Due to the intense land use, staffs initial reaction is that an 80-foot wide right-of-way for 86th Street should be dedicated up to "A" Street. Beyond that, the 60-foot wide right-of-way should be sufficient. The applicant is proposing 86th Street to be upgraded to a 32-foot wide urban street. Again, staff feels that due to the intense use it is more likely the street will be increased to a minimum of 36- foot if not 44-foot lanes to facilitate turning movements with the anticipated commercial use on the outlot west of the development. Again, a traffic study should be required to determine the number of traffic lanes as well as check warrants for a traffic signal at 86th Street and Trunk Highway 101. The plans propose a number of individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units. Staff is concerned with the number of individual access points along 86th Street. Staff strongly recommends these individual access points be eliminated and the driveways be redesigned to take access off the interior private streets versus 86th Street. As previously mentioned, the existing wetland immediately south of 86th Street is proposed to be partially filled as a result of upgrading the streets. Staff sees no reason why the 86th Street alignment could not be adjusted northerly to avoid impact to the wetland area. The applicant should be aware that a trail and/or sidewalks will most likely be required along 86th Street due to anticipated pedestrian traffic. Prior to final plat approval, detailed street construction plans will be required for staff review and formal approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance with Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 5 the City's latest edition of standard specification and detail plates. Street construction plans should also include construction of interim deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 101 pursuant to MnDOT standards/comments. All utility and street construction within the Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way will require a permit from MnDOT. MISCELLANEOUS All site restoration and erosion control measures should be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer should be encouraged to pursue acquisition of the City's handbook to employ said practices. The applicant should be aware that in conjunction with the public improvements for this development the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. As a result of the City's extension of trunk utilities to the area, this development will be subject to assessments in accordance with the feasibility studies. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for future extension of Trunk Highway 101 as well as 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tiqua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. 2. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. 3. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right- of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 4. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 6 The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 6. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 7. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 8. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. 9. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 11. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12-inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8-inch watermain and a 12-inch watermain. 12. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 13. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year 24-hour storm Sharmin Al-Jaff August 12, 1993 Page 7 event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan - provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. 14. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. - 15. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed _ Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 16. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 17. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. 18. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing - homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer f , CITY OF CHAN' HASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 13, 1993 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 7.1 Acres into 13 Single Family Lots, Tower Heights Addition, JMS Development. On July 21, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat proposal for Tower Heights Addition to subdivide 6.1 acres into 13 single family lots. The Planning Commission tabled action on the proposal as there were issues related to grading and tree removal raised by the Planning Commission that needed to be resolved before a vote could be taken. The applicant was directed to meet with staff to resolve those issues of concern. Issue: The grading plan that was originally submitted appeared to remove the majority of the trees on site. Those plans also failed to show which trees were proposed to be removed and which were proposed to be kept. A reforestation plan was also missing. Solution: On August 13, 1993, staff met with the applicant. The issue of mass grading the site was raised and to eliminate this problem, the use of retaining walls along Tower Heights Drive was discussed. The applicant agreed to submit new plans on August 17, 1993, showing the location of the retaining walls. The impact this will have on the trees on Lots 1, 12, and 13 will be considerable. Also, the applicant agreed to custom grade Lots 12 and 13. Possible house pads will be submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting. Issue: The second issue that was raised at the meeting was a tree inventory and reforestation plan. Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 2 Solution: The applicant has submitted a plan that shows the location of the trees on the site. Trees that are proposed to be saved have been circled. The inventory does not include total inch caliper that will be lost due to the grading. The applicant will submit a list that will include tree species, inch caliper, trees saved, and trees lost. This list will also include the total inch caliper replaced. Staff will have a chance to review this list before the August 18, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, and comments will be provided. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Custom grading on Lot 12 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. The same condition will apply to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the grading and frontage issues. Issue: Lot 13 has a street frontage of 75 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. Solution: The applicant has agreed to submit modified plans reflecting a 90 foot lot frontage on Lot 13. This will be accomplished by moving the side lot line between Lots 12 and 13 to the south. Issue: A petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been requested for the extension of Nez Perce. Solution: Pursuant to the City Attorney's Office, the City Council will determine if it is warranted to prepare an EAW for the extension of Nez Perce which will coincide with this project of Tower Heights. Approval of this project by the City Council is contingent upon satisfactory resolution of the Nez Perce issue. Since the City Council has not yet acted upon the EAW petition, it is unclear at the time of writing this memo, how or if this action will affect the plat request. Therefore, the Planning Commission action should be contingent upon the resolution of Nez Perce issues which may include the need for an EAW. Roadway and drainage issues pertaining to the plat are contingent upon the City Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 3 Council's action. The City Council will be acting on the request at their August 23rd meeting. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 2. The developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 3. Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: a. A 20-ft. easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 4 conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. A retaining wall shall be incorporated along the front property line of Lots 1, 12, and 13, in an effort to preserve trees immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility — plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. Street right-of-way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 10. The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce Extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon its completion and resolution of issues raised therein. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface between the existing driveway and the street. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens). An additional fire hydrant — shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 13. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. The Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 5 applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 15. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to approval of the final plat or and escrow if $5,000 shall be included in with the financial securities to insure the removal of the garage. 16. The city shall sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer for a price to be determined by the City Council. 17. The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed to an address on Tower Heights Drive. 18. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane." ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report dated July 21, 1993. 2. Reforestation plan. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 7/21/93 1 � � G 8/9/93 CC DATE: �\ CHANHASSEN . CASE #: 93-12 SUB By: Al-Jaff/Hempel STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 6.1 Acres into 13 Single Family Lots, Tower _ Heights Addition F" LOCATION: South of Pleasant View Road, East of Peaceful Lane, West of Troendle Circle, Z and North of Lake Lucy Road. A portion of Lot 5, all of Lots 6 and 7, Vineland Addition, and a portion of city owned Water Tower property. 7.1 V APPLICANT: JMS Development 4806 Park Glen Road 0. Minneapolis, MN 55416 4 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 7.1 acres (gross) 6.5 acres (net) DENSITY: 2 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - RSF; single family E - RSF; single family Cs; W - RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern and northwestern portion of the site is heavily �--- vegetated with mature trees. The site generally slopes to the south. Some steep slopes are located along the west. An existing single family residence and a swimming pool occupy the northeastern portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.1 acres into 13 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF. The average lot size is 21,780 square feet with a resulting gross density of 2 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Troendle Addition. Access to the subdivision will be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive. The extension of Nez Perce Drive is consistent with a conceptual access plan developed by the City during review of the adjacent Troendle and Vineland Forest plats. The extension will connect Nez Perce Road to Pleasant View Road via the currently dead end Peaceful Lane. A cul-de-sac, Tower Heights Drive, extends south from Nez Perce to service all of the proposed lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13, which has a lot frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot lot frontage. Also, the proposed grading of this parcel appears to remove all the existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends this lot be deemed unbuildable. Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 has an existing residence, a swimming pool, and a shed. Presently, access to this site is gained from Peaceful Lane and a private driveway that encroaches onto the parcel to the north. There is an existing driveway access easement for it. When Tower Heights Drive is constructed, the existing residence will gain its access of off the cul-de-sac. All the existing structures on the site meet the zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest corner of the site. The plans indicate that the majority of those trees will be removed. The applicant must use design measures to preserve the trees. We are recommending the applicant provide an inventory of all trees proposed to be removed. Those trees will then have to be replaced on a per inch caliper basis. A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The access issue relative to the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View is a primary concern and the focus of considerable city input and support for the past four years. Recently the City Council acted to initiate condemnation of the right-of-way required to complete the connection. Mr. Beddor, the developer of Troendle Addition and owner of the lot in question, currently objects to the connection in spite of the history of the street and written and verbal commitments to support the connection in conjunction with his Troendle Addition. He requested that the City Council reconsider their action to initiate condemnation. The City Council declined and Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 3 condemnation is currently proceeding. Based upon these actions, staff believes that issues concerning the Nez Perce connection have been resolved. In summary, staff believes that the proposed Tower Heights Addition represents a good quality plat that is generally consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and with city plans concerning this area. While revisions are required, we believe they can be accommodated prior to City Council review. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On September 11, 1989, the City Council approved an access concept plan for Vineland Forest. The background of the city's involvement in the access issues concerning the plat are very _ involved and explored in earlier reports. A number of hearings were held with extensive public notice and input at every stage. The concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west parallel to Pleasant View Road and hook up with Peaceful Lane (Attachment #1). As designed, _ the access concept created a road that provided access to the Troendle site when it was going to develop. The Vineland Forest plat was approved on December 18, 1989. The plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the Troendle property line. On August 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Troendle plat. Again, the plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of the Owens' property. At that same meeting, the Carver Beach Estates neighborhood appeared before the City Council and voiced their concern regarding construction and residential traffic which would be generated due to the development of the Troendle subdivision. The end result was that the developer of Troendle subdivision posted a Letter of Credit in the amount of $10,000 towards assessments for the ultimate extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. The Council requested that the residents seek to have a meeting with the applicant to discuss issues of concern. The neighborhood meeting took place on October 2, 1991, and staff attended the meeting. Representing the applicant, Frank Beddor, were Attorney Julius Smith and Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates. Council members present were Mayor Chmiel and Councilwoman Dimler. Mr. Fortier opened the meeting by presenting a summary of the Troendle plat. He then stated that Mr. Beddor had made an offer to the State of Minnesota to purchase the northerly half of the Owens' property located to the west of the Troendle plat. A draft plan was presented that _ showed the Owens' property divided in half by the extension of Nez Perce. The northern half was divided into two lots with frontage on Peaceful Lane to be purchased and developed by Mr. Beddor. The southerly half was divided into four lots and proposed to be served by a private driveway extending from Peaceful Lane and to be developed by another developer. Mr. Fortier did not indicate the name of that developer. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 4 A second subdivision scenario prepared by Fortier was produced, which showed a road connection between Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road via the southerly half of the Owens' property. Staff was asked if this was an option. Staff replied that this proposed connection would have to cross a steep hill to make that connection. The city has adopted a policy that would limit street grades to 7% or less. Furthermore, at the time Vineland plat was approved, the City Council adopted an access concept plan. The option proposed by Fortier was reviewed and dropped. The approved concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west, parallel to Pleasant View Road, and hook up with Peaceful Lane. Currently, Nez Perce terminates in a temporary cul-de-sac at the easterly property line of the Troendle plat. When the Troendle Plat appeared for subdivision before the Council, the access concept plan was implemented. When the Owens' property develops, city staff will request that the City Council consider and complete the adoption of the access concept. A resident of the neighborhood pleaded that the city not change this plan. On April 13, 1992, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road. The cost was not to exceed $10,000. On August 10, 1992, the City Council reviewed the feasibility study and official mapping for the extension of Nez Perce Road. The Owens' property was in bankruptcy court at the time the hearing took place. Jules Smith, who was representing Frank Beddor, stated that they intended to purchase the northern portion of the Owens' property and they are ready to proceed as soon as the bankruptcy court settles. He also stated that he had some concerns about the location of the street in terms of its broad sweep or its straight cut into Peaceful Lane. He requested that the hearing be tabled until the property has been purchased by Frank Beddor, at which time, the applicant would meet with staff to work on an appropriate location for the extension. On April 21, 1993, staff met with Jeff Schoenwetter, the developer of the proposed Tower Heights Addition, who was interested in subdividing the southern half of the Owens' property. Through the meeting, the applicant was briefed on the history of the parcel and informed about the street extension. Staff also explained that the desired alignment falls entirely within the northern portion of the site which is owned by Frank Beddor. Staff setup a meeting on April 26, 1993, with representatives of Frank Beddor and Jeff Schoenwetter. Frank Beddor's representatives stated that after a closer look at the property, they have come to the decision that the only location where a house could be located on the property is where the city intends to locate the Nez Perce extension. The party interested in the southerly portion of the subject property explained that they would work with Beddor's representatives to allow for a smooth process. However, it appeared that the intention was not to allow the extension to go through. Staff informed all parties that this item will be brought before City Council for discussion. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 5 On May 24, 1993, the matter was brought before the City Council for review. After some discussion, the City Council voted to condemn the northern portion of the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and complete the final piece of Nez Perce as was approved in the 1989 concept. On July 12, 1993, Frank Beddor appeared before the City Council and spoke during a visitor's presentation, requesting that the Council reconsider their decision. He presented an option that would connect Nez Perce with Lake Lucy Road via Tower Heights Drive. The City Council maintained their position on the condemnation and the implementation of the Nez Perce Road alignment concept plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 7.1 acre site into 13 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.54 units per acre gross, and 0.5 units per acre net after removing the roads. There are no wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 21,780 square feet. The applicant is also requesting to trade land with the city. This trade would take place between the city owned water tower parcel and Lots 8 and 9 of the Tower Heights Addition. The city can relinquish the land in question but has no need for the piece of land proposed for the trade, however, the applicant will benefit greatly from the trade by creating a buildable lot. Staff is recommending the applicant purchase the land rather than trade it for equal square footage. The value of the land shall be determined by an appraiser. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13. This lot has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. The proposed grading of this lot appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends Lot 13 be deemed unbuildable and merged with adjoining parcels. Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. Access Access into this area of the City was explored in detail as outlined earlier in the background section of the report. During review of the Vineland Forest and Troendle subdivisions, it became clear that the City wished to maintain continuity of north/south flow between Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive and points further south to maintain reasonable access for emergency vehicles and residents. At the same time, residents along Pleasant View Road were concerned Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 6 that if traffic were introduced too far to the east that Pleasant View Road would have an undue burden from increased traffic. Consequently, an access concept was developed whereby Nez Perce Road would be ultimately extended through the Vineland Forest plat and over to adjacent parcels where it would intersect with Pleasant View Road at the current site of Peaceful Lane. The ultimate completion of this roadway connection was to be contingent upon the development of adjoining parcels. Vineland Forest plat was consequently built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Troendle property line. The Troendle plat was also built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Owens' property line. The current proposal is fully consistent with the approved access concept. Nez Perce Drive would be extended through the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and connect with Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane to implement the last piece of the concept adopted by the City Council in 1989. The temporary cul-de-sacs were barricaded with a sign indicating that the road will be extended in the future. In addition, this condition was placed in the development contract which is recorded against the chain of title. This was done to put all future residents on notice of the City's intent to extend the street. A new cul-de-sac called Tower Heights Drive will extend approximately 600 feet south from Nez Perce Drive to service all of the lots in the subdivision. Preliminary Street Design The preliminary street designs are generally consistent with city standards. Tower Heights Drive needs to be increased from the proposed 50 feet to the current 60 foot requirement by ordinance. All the lots will have direct frontage on Tower Heights Drive and will gain access from this street. An existing driveway serving the existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 should be removed. This lot will gain direct access from Tower Heights Drive and there is no longer the need for the driveway connection as a result of the driveway being relocated to Tower Heights Drive. The address of Lot 1 (Owens' property) will need to be changed accordingly. Street grades are proposed between 6% and 2% which are within the city's standards. Final street plans should be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. Peaceful Lane currently serves three existing homes. The realignment of the road will require relocation of the driveways. One of those driveways is within the proposed subdivision which serves the existing home, and the other two just outside. As a result of this development, the southerly two driveways will need to be relocated so they are perpendicular to the new street alignment of Peaceful Lane. With relocation of the driveways it is recommended that the applicant be required to have the new driveways paved with a hard surface. Peaceful Lane currently dead ends off of Pleasant View Road. Peaceful Lane consists of a 24- foot wide bituminous surface without curb and gutter or storm drainage improvements. The city has begun condemnation proceedings on Lot 5 (Beddor property) to extend Nez Perce Drive from Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 7 the Troendle Addition to Pleasant View Road. It is anticipated that condemnation proceedings will take up to 3 months and construction scheduled for next spring. Peaceful Lane will also be upgraded to city urban standards with the extension of Nez Perce Drive which includes concrete curb and gutter, and storm drainage improvements. In conjunction with this project, additional street right-of-way will be provided to access this proposed subdivision from the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The easterly 33 feet of Peaceful Lane right-of-way was vacated in 1987. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along the vacated tight-of-way, out to Powers Boulevard. The City will also want to have a drainage and utility easement dedicated for existing sewer and water lines lying along the previously vacated Peaceful Lane. The city has received a petition from the applicant to have the city construct the street and utility improvements necessary to serve up to the proposed subdivision. The city has previously performed a feasibility study for officially mapping the alignment of Nez Perce Drive. The study laid out two alternatives for the upgrading of Nez Perce Drive (Attachments #3 and #4). Both alternatives provide access from Nez Perce Drive into the subdivision (Tower Heights Drive). Staff supports Alternative "A" which the applicant has shown for access to the development. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to this development, as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. The estimated assessment against this development will be determined with an updated feasibility study forthcoming. The applicant has expressed the desire to begin construction on the development as soon as possible. However, due to the anticipated delay (3 months) expected with condemnation of Lot 5 which the applicant needs for full street access, construction will not be possible this year. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the development from Peaceful Lane. The applicant is proposing to extend municipal utilities into the site. The existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens' residence) is currently connected to city sewer and water. As a result of utility construction in this development, it will be necessary to relocate the connection point for the sewer and water for this residence. The applicant should include the relocation of the sewer and water service as a part of the utility construction. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal. Typically, fire hydrants should be spaced 300 feet apart. It appears an additional fire hydrant will be necessary just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. — Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval. Both street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 8 and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. Grading/Drainage The majority of the site is proposed to be graded which will result in tree loss in the northwest quarter of the development. The overall site grading is consistent with the neighborhood drainage from the site. The proposed grading on Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 are such that runoff will be directed fairly close to the adjacent house pad. It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed along the common property line to divert lot drainage away from the neighboring property. The plans propose a series of catch basins to collect storm runoff generated from the street as well as the front yard portions of the lot. Proposed storm sewers will carry the runoff to a discharge point which lies west of Peaceful Lane into a small ditch section which runs into a retention pond/wetland near Powers Boulevard. Staff is concerned with the quantity and quality of water proposing to be discharged into the ravine area. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of surface water detention/retention facilities. This may result in creating a temporary on-site water quality and quantity retention pond by the developer until the storm drainage improvements involved with the extension of Nez Perce Drive are constructed. In lieu of constructing permanent on-site storm drainage facilities, the developer would be assessed their fair share of the drainage improvements constructed in conjunction with the Peaceful Lane/Nez Perce Drive upgrade. The storm drainage plan will have to be looked at in greater detail by the developer's engineer in order to meet city standards. In this case, water would be discharged into the pond located near Pleasant View which would need to be modified for the purpose. It is anticipated that this will be possible after the condemnation is completed. The City has not received soil boring information on the site as of writing this report. As with other typical developments in the city, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the city has implemented the use of drain tile behind the curbs for both improving road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for sump pumps from the new homes in the development. The applicant should be aware that the city will require that street construction plans include a drain tile system. Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of Tower Heights (JMS Development) on June 22, 1993. A copy of the staff report presented to the Commission is attached. Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter of JMS Development was present responding to questions of the Commission. The construction of a trail in the right-of-way of Peaceful Lane was discussed. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 9 _ Both the applicant and Commission were in favor of this trail segment. The construction of this trail will allow for an off-street connection from the neighborhoods in this area to the future trail — corridor on the east side of Powers Boulevard. The easement necessary for this trail would be the same easement called out for utilities. The present description shall be amended accordingly. At the conclusion of their discussion that evening, the Commission made the following recommendation. Parks: It is recommended that the City Council accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication. — These fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to trails: 1. A 20-ft. easement for trail purposes shall be reserved during the abandonment of Peaceful Lane. 2. The applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. 3. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the _ city. Easements The following easements and rights-of-way should be provided: 1. Right-of-way for all street improvements. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements. _ COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 27,000 119' 223.5' 45'/120'/30 _ Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 10 Lot 2 19,000 110' 227' _ Lot 3 17,300 100' 160' Lot 4 15,100 73' on curve 145' — 90' front setback Lot 5 26,000 70' on curve 213' — 90' front setback Lot 6 25,000 106' cul-de-sac 235' — 110' front setback Lot 7 18,700 71' cul-de-sac 161' — 94' front setback Lot 8 17,700 65' cul-de-sac 150' 105' front setback Lot 9 26,100 80' cul-de-sac 260' 96' front setback _ Lot 10 16,500 177'corner lot 140' 70' Lot 11 20,000 102' 199' Lot 12 28,600 104' 375' Lot 13 26,600 75' 300' * * Lot 13 has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. The proposed grading plan appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the — grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff is recommending the lot be deemed unbuildable and merge with adjoining parcels. — Tree Preservation The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains — significant concentrations of mature trees along the north and northwest areas of the site that should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods. The Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 11 forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site. Some of the vegetation is in locations where extensive grading is required to develop the site. The grading of the site for streets, utilities and lot preparation is resulting in the loss of a number of trees. Custom grading on Lot 12 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. The same condition will apply to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the grading and frontage issues. A tree preservation plan will be required. All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. Staff is also requesting a tree inventory of all trees proposed for removal on the site. This list should show what type and size of trees that are on the site and the type and size of trees being removed. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and placement of services. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 2. The developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 3. Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: a. A 20-ft. easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 12 4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4'-height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 6. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 10. Street right-of-way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 11. The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 13 13. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens). 14. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. 15. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 16. An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 17. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 18. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to or concurrent with the approval of the final plat. 19. The city may sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer. 20. The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed an address on Tower Heights Drive. 21. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane." ATTACHMENT'S 1. Memo dated September 8, 1989. 2. City Council minutes dated September 11, 1989. 3. Nez Perce Alternative A 4. Nez Perce Alternative B 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 8, 1993. 6. Preliminary plat. } CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss , Director of Planning Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician DATE: September 8 , 1989 SUBJ : Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest Subdivision #89-8 BACKGROUND On August 28 , 1989 , the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision ( see location map) . The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single family lots accessed by a cul-de-sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing homes are shown on an attachment. Access into the plat is the primary issue . Area residents raised concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from — the plat, using Nez Perce right-of-way to intersect with Lake Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north/south connection between Lake Lucy Road _. and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives . Development of Alternative Access Plans Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a number of issues . These are described below as follows : 1 . Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- - poses of this analysis , we have defined the study area as the E 1 c., 0 . 0 0 . . . . 0 v o 0 0 0 o m 0 0 8 c.J0 I I I - • I LILAC _A_E ( I CHRISTMAS I I HENNEI N :IR L= EA • ' -� IMO211-111111.L LAKE E I ,-- ``. C 141 L /11 •110.. _n� ` Illir T��NE • CT CHtCLE— ST..., oN. �� AP I ., --2__Lil: . Jim ierwg. -, ,te. --,,,, Ham 1 , i [ STUDY AREA `,� 41111,!: --r���,.� %•0 i_k _ ,...,,,_ \� win A E LU Y -•A. .°■rf' . . .. ..-.,, 1 1, 61 \ .44 4 , 'C,I i'.:-:.• . ...4 I AlOttrigi 1 =- # # '' PROJECT LOCATION .t '1.��ISl1►` �4 �� /,I -,, , i` 1 tit A a-a „�t J , 1 , cage at 01 " 40" , / '- Faal ISI I Lfiri a L• -'1 rr'177;71%11:7.7174% *4 ' 1� , UM; Lc .r�a *: = t•f\ IV .. .'r=1/0 �Rc 5itmw. HIL1R 11$74* 111OR' L LAKE LUCY B! �- y:� ��� ww� -R. i` _ __ '. �� :i i � �' P Em. S RR• ,14,,arprq- - ibis% ..e:c!...01 0 9P Pi =_--_i� t _4 e;:t.Z "IIIII�NIow `►tea . f RY li 1�`Avon.w• 's=f!BIW`e .iEa. LA91"!.* , ' ( \ M1 1 J ��.levate; alIto I ,I imig 4-* 'kw I gessinte ,:r WO�� 3 • /' .___- P;ifiiiiiMa • LOCATION MAP 7,,.,-qap ��,,- ,L. 1 Ilia. ss .">#411(.611W � tv al jN LAKE ANN �� �� IQ L_1�- 10...- ` m Ri7A�� .-Fwv$.1fogiiiii, , rill �� Mill j 0r,�,4l� °COWS � ■ tri . / 1 gilike...Te P6441 .' .•,/ 4e S.lee SiAnm.•, . ... . ...................mi. ..v ont.. .......... .r...... ......... .......... ......1,.....)t /4174 4040;41/4/T V Ew 1 1 ` ' 1 � / -' iI 4. . . I I V I r - V r ” • I \ i 1 I \ \ . \\ ,� ,---� �-- \ \ Pao` , ` T_ EACE U\L _ - F..` \ � �- +1 o. VINEL / i ', ---- - \ \ .a 4 � ND FALA'�/ V /1 - - - \ ` - -F0R-E T ;� ' --- -./- -\ [. ! < AT \ 1 -vw T� ; ' �, ' i / I 1 1 1._______1.�E2 _( / ' L ,' \ C 1 .— \ \ 1 ,.,./ %, _ 1 i I \ L\ a N. ) __ . •CJk Lacy Ro.4o ----, .% PROPOSED PLATS / EXISTING HOMES FR' Mr . Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 2 land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant View Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood on the east , and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However, we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions . Existing platting and _ neighborhood ' s development pattern should oe taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption . 2 . Given the size of the study area , staff estimates that approximately 55 homes could eventually be built. Each . single family home will generage approximately 10 trips per day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report. The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development standards . In our opinion , to adequately serve this large an area a through street connection is warranted . The connec- tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle response times . From the standpoint , of the larger , surrounding neighborhood a north/south connection is con- sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency - vehicle access since it would be the only connection between Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. 3 . Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city' s state-aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT ( average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets . Portions of the street exist as _ a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems . 4 . The access concept should result in a high quality residen- tial environment . Significant stands of trees and wetlands should be protected . Cul-de-sacs should be created where feasible . Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights-of-way that could provide access into the study area ( see attachment) . Each was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the area . These are described below: 1 . Pleasant View Drive Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east/west access . Grades and sight distance make access . feasible along much of the frontage. Oct r� — •M.. \` ilii t• - i /�• w.w s S. •. `fit ' • ;' • _...:.,. y 1, I i g *moo mat I • • • i `97ss•ii�/4'�. a.. - �{ .i ,I CtJr` -'".... PIP1:44.6 i '•e' ns.- • Ir J iU'OLE A �...; ��� I � , • # .•,3' I ,, i s MT•.• • ii \\ t __ •5 z f. 400. '' • 74 A ., a . i. IVe. 1•% . /at, CHRisrmAs 1 . ,s i!, .. .."... 4- it, - . ZO - Z si' • ! 1 is � ,• _ ___ _. y TT r• . iii �, ,.y .3 +moi - • 1 % _-1� ^ p j, ' _• ntP9` C 1 li3 F I : • ' me. �, y� • r,3.- r orcv, 2 v -2 . •1„ w Q .1 y OttIt vFA., ill a cr • a. 1414111300 Q-11140, - rt 4"47. - - r` 9P a‘ '�y �°4rbikr..:,,,,,.,.. 7 • r poi • IllpozifoA. s. F o ; a2 , . lirlr in I s? 26 Lucy ^ - V I Y : .� '• • • Al ROAD 0 c- ` • '^ .1 -� .•,• fe a - - Z: ; " _"Tyr. i _ ... .- .-• � H • 7. • i.. J . JJ , ••�s'NEi�Eioi,4N�`- I, �s ,. It,• :Y••1 • t I :.;;; x`I .. EK ...... - POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 3 Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes . Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations . 2 . Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped, dedicated right- of-way, north/south alignment that could serve to create street connection , while eliminating an existing over-length cul-de-sac. Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts . Also, potential neighborhood opposition in - Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. 3 . Park Drive (Nez Perce) Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped dedicated right-of-way ( 40 foot) and has - access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road . Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern . However , upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long _ landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- section could be provided and that grading limits are acceptable . Staff believes this is a reasonable alternative from a design stand- point . Sketches showing street profile options and grading limits are attached. 4 . Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right-of-way following similar alignment to but east of Park Drive. Disadvantages - Very difficult grades are present. Street construction would result in extensive tree loss . Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct. The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes . Although right-of-way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to wetland and ponding areas . 7 \\ -):\\\*.t j, \ 4 .5, , . ,,,,:, i \ , , , , ..r., 1_ . ti 1.____ 11 �/ /I r �f O6 MM II \ ISII 7 ••••••1111M: r■. ---- - __---...■..:,..._:,..,1.. - r I/10 V a■NN�N Tu■rlf9.Cs■1 G _ .■■■s- _• ■■■Y - 41/ Fli id• i.1j "41 OIVOMMOCP _ N�. .. _-v�. / ... ❖ -a.--.+--acme / _— —— -.c- 11 NOON WWW. tn▪ ./ il/ / !A 6 4. / V ' __.• .MOSS .16. ■■■ / M. 141 - r - / . M' ■.■.N.N■...rr7■■■M _• -:.J...■ NN�ie.a►. - .. ' I 20, / / .r,-z z .IA MEMM N i■.�..r:r r' • SCALE /SON \ / _ 1 1 NC H = 0 FEEL ., 1 .r. .....■.. — / ./. . _ N. NN.■N..rr... ■■r MOWISIOSS ■ G MOOS SUMS/ . ...N.■...■■N L...■N. -U.. r.N..■N ..NN SI ■ OWLS NNMN • MONO../ ■....NNL . . ■I+ ... ....N■ ..■ - U.S / ■.....■. TAMS.■■..■.r.■■N■■Y■N..•..■ — / u ■■■.NN..■MN■N■.■ ■N..N■.■N.MII.. ...N w..iMH■ r. • wen■ M. N■■ N■..NN / mesas N. - .•■..N ...■NN N. N. ■.N.N.■.■ - ,' ■...N ■.■ �II111111L ■■N......... ■.NIN■.w►- ■-Neer.lT�sl....NN.N..■ ..N■..... .rW.N...■.ra.■.■N� OSSOIIMM -1110•1 , T 1 ` SUM ••••� _ N■■._SOON.ESSOOSOM r— \ \. ..NNN.N.M.N......GrrmmiM _ _ 41----L - 1 LAKE LEGEND ♦ 1 ! - /---\ 1-- '� , , _ - ' i /Developer ' s Grading Limits VS sA' • ,v-v..,,. :: 10% Grading Limits li / F .I�� 7% Grading Limits / .4 . ' .4°P -----,... . — --/ /ti I / v033 31 4.3 4124 R0 . , DR VE ,°378 TJEZ� PERGE 616.'4. l6.n4. rn .,-,. 2..11,A m y, ` NI- 1.4V z 10 28 49 _ I S GRADING LIMITS • � P.P 4G.-0,e —. - • O 4ga:ts�oSr er - . , i f (1) ' f 8 ii'. f+ , - : mi 0 t fi I / . Ai' 10 __.. 0 C' l'\1 - III 1%) .n)) $ I / I Q I 1 / i Cin D i a `" g i 1 / iti 0 Z Zi .i i r I O III $ 1 x -N N.c) t- v tit N ti•I T1 M 31sof Mr . Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 4 5 . Peaceful (Redman ) Lane Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not been filed. Plat approval will expire in October . Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east/west connection via Pleasant View Road at a good location . Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire October ) may limit design options . Would still result in the introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View but this is off-set by short distance to Powers Boulevard . 6 . Outlot A , Carver Beach Estates Advantages - Undeveloped right-of-way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south . Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult . Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- dant . Alternatives/Comment There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study area . Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative , that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining option . The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria established earlier : 1 . This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul-de-sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment - The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ Pleasant View intersction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west . The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area . Construction of the street loop would be con- tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land . As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since , as proposed, it N '�To p ................... .................„4................................„rj ....j CRS.Sc v0 eke./=1;4N 7- V Ew fV-T---. ,/ s I , a p ' _..... �, . ,' v r -- 1 • IF �' - 1 ti i ik Q.„, - EACE 1 F.. - VINELA!ND P •�A "� / ' ORS T 111111111111 PEAT WC 1 1 TTia �•wER - Ilk 1 Ns........_ ,C.49iiCE Lucy R o.4-,z, IIII v;,‘ ALTERNATIVE 1 N •T P . 1 L11414es E„.0 ��E-h�.a v T 0 Ew • f 1 III p v f IP Qtr ' 1 f 1 L I M.FACE I-IiLL l / ?a1 1iI N � EL ' ND i li P 1 A\T ....,1,------ \ €: = - T 1 - r 1 PLA - 4'±TaQ L...E.2.. f ,� It r / . ,./Ci M Rs am N .C„,irz Lucy 20.4 F ALTERNATIVE 2 N , ------..-..-...i........... .,.. .....---------"..--------------"Pi PC.E•dizriRN T 0£4..., 1 t W111c . Ilk .,. -1 � J t ,r, / I •i o r \ 4 If w 1 4 \ . PJOL 1 0 1 J I �Q ! 1 I la s ii , 1 1 - i 1N&Tilt. 1 ` c t .... a .4.0.L Lucy 2 0.4� '..- \11-7-' ALTERNATIVE 3 -a N STP 0 .../ /.....:4414e-C AK vp. r--------J i' - - r----9 i . , A , / 0 p v Ti_ 1 i kk is l . ADPSL ' • EACE • 1 F � o\ VINELND IPA ' r` GR-E, T PLAT . W5TZ r • I i I I _ \ . '• *N....\ 1 m lib a .CwCE L uG y 20.4,0 , -.---.-7--\;.\ ALTERNATIVE 4 r Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 5 _ cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel . This revision has been repeated in the three remaining alternatives as well . — Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then the original Vineland location to the east, could have a _ beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane ' s proximity to Powers Boulevard that should help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive . There are two significant problems with the alternative . The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north/south street connection. 2 . The second alternative is the dual cul-de-sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View area homeowners . To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane . A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion . This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal residential development . There is a north/south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements . Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times . Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners . 3 . Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to _ create Alternative 3 . The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy/Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2 . Street construction is reasonable , all study area parcels are served and high quality residential environments will result. The south } of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful Mr . Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October ) . As with Alternatives 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is ,contingent upon development decisions of adjoining property owners . 4 . The final alternative is the original staff recommendation expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road/Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant = View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of adjoining property owners . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to support the original access concept illustrated as Alternative 4 . Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north/south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners . The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized . Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is often a controversial process . If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north/south con- nection . Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access . The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns . We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information , it would involve additional time and cost. The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option is selected , easements must be provided to construct sewer and water lines north to Pleasant View. City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITION. Paul Krause: At the last City Council meeting there was discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to the chase but there was a lot of background investigation that went into this in terms of creating a study area and reviewing existing plats that had been approved in this area. There was one in particular to the west side of the study area that has bean approved. It has been final approved. It has not been filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights-of-way. Bordering roads. Whatever and tried to define which of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in terms of what sort of goals we would have for the access system. We wanted an access that provided ideally same thru movement on the north/south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of homes eventually in this area and that it was warranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Same information the City developed in terms of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is carrying a considerable amount of traffic so providing another means of outletting that neighborhood becomes a concern. We basically wound up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as recommended or proposed by the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable { extension of that. ..how that could serve the remaining undeveloped ground in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland plat showed two stub rights-of-way oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a problem because the only way to build it is to take out the house on the adjoining property which is something we were concerned about; We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point and assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing service. . .recommending the position of coming up with something that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're recommending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties withJa street connection that would come through the Peaceful Hills plat. That is a stub right-of-way that had been provided coming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. The proposal has some merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The major problem as we ice it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long term is rather short sighted. Again, all these trips.. . We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more traffic you have on Pleasant View. ..it's reasonable to assume that the percentage of that is going to travel east. . . • Councilman Johnson: Before you move on Paul. Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be assumed that we're down to Alternate 2 or 3? — 61 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 - Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? E Paul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... Councilman Workman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting option. Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub coming off of Lake Lucy on the west side by the water tower there. That wasn't considered in any options. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it + doesn't scam to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is - again an if, which is a huge 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? Paul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 concepts. Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. There's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is some difficult grade there. It's probably something that could be accommodated. - One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. — Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's hearing you out there. Paul Krause: one of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north/south connection between Powers and the lake. If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of promoting that north/south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is potentially viable from a _ grading standpoint. We just didn't feel it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after seeing how the whole area functioned. Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north/south connection up to a road that we don't really want people going on that much? Paul Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off some — of this traffic to the south. Right now the way the original plat was proposed and presumably the way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant View. The north/south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think it's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate ways in and out of an area that's going to have that many hares. There's also questions of emergency - vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north doesn't resolve that question for them. Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 62 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 going. Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative we looked at was a variation of the a theme that was presented by an architect working for the homeowners association where they illustrated two cul-de-sacs. One caning in from Pleasant View. The other caning in frau Nez Perce. We took that design and tried to modify it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. What we did is we took the southern cul-de-sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hills. This goes a lot further to providing that north/south routing. We see two problems with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the more complicated you make this, the less likely it is that people are going to use it. The second issue, and this will come into play a little later, is that the completion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of two other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We would continue to advocate stub rights-of-way being dedicated so we can extend roads in the future and we'll often push for those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult problem. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatted and what we tried to do is cone up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Powers Blvd.. Rather than further to the east and we think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So this is an option that we felt had some merit. The final one is basically the one that was presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were sane questions as to whether or not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of work on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're comfortable that a good safe street can be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has sane merits and it has sane problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north/south connection in a very centrally located point between - Powers arra the lake so we think the utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The down side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to recommend that it be selected for the two reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that problem. Our recommendation further though is that if this alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those -- criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce yet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like they were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and - 63 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 somebody walking. If another car comes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally would rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Sometimes you may+not be able to get in from Pleasant View so� I can't sce everything`coming off of Pleasant View but I'd hate to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant View as far as I'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's same areas where the trees. Pleasant View just scans wider even though pavement wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pavement but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce just seers narrower. I really have a problem with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where coming south. That's 3 up there but even 3. Coming south it was a right turn only so it doesn't become a short cut to cane from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're coming south it's a right turn only and going north on Nez Perce, you could leave it to where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. Tb where you have a one lane to the right both ways. Dave Hempel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right-of-way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only so we're not getting people coming off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this + neighborhood and then running through Nez Perce to go to the grade school or come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and the collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want to see that people coming out of that and going south are forced to go over to Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, do yo.l have an alternate, which one are you proposing? Mayor Cbmiel: He said 2 or 3. Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some _ modifications on 4 so so'ithbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would even. . . Councilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. Councilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left turn. Councilman Boyt: Well You know that doesn't work. Councilman Johnson: Pleasant View? Councilman Boyt: That's right. 64 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Near Mountain. But see the signs never went up there. That was the problem. When you build the road and day one on the road you have F a sign saying right turn only. At Near Mountain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. Or left turn only sign. Thatjdidn't work after you had 3 years of people making right hard turns to cane in and do it. If on day one you put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I - won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. Mayor Chmiel : Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. What you're saying is that the right turn only is for people caning out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Ging south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Road down to Powers. Councilman Boyt: ...option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook-ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that everybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are living there will fight that diligently when the day comes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us sane sort of assurance that the other property owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to cane up with a, what did you call it Gary? Some kind of a comprehensive road plan or something? a Gary Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a concept layout here. We didn't take that any further but what I suggested or my comment would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, remaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they - involved in any of this discussion or have they been talked to at all? Frank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want me to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. He's lived there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I know on who owns the property. The property next to it is Art Owens and he's here tonight. The property next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Trundle? i1 Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did cane in quite same time ago and spoke with me about - i it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. z Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still talking the future here. 65 City Council Mooting - September 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Did he have any objections to the proposal? 01 - Dave Happel : Not to my recollection, no. Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? Mayor Chmiel : Frank, go ahead. Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council - people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked very hard in giving some alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in all the years I've been here where staff came up with same alternatives so we didn't have to start frau scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View Road to try to enforce the speed limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pilled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the+other way around. - Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck, the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so that we can .,-.;cc when we come out both ways and+also the people can see us when we pull up. Now we're - having to tear up this driveway, tear out all the electrical and then we're going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. People come up that road. It's wide and so they come up fast and they don't realize it narrows down a little later so safety is a real issue. This is the developer's property directly across the road from, we call it the farmhouse. This is a borderline and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. This house sets 30 fact frau the road and this driveway comes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living room coming out on the original proposal. When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips - per day per household so with 21 houses, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't know how many of those are at night but somebody who lives there is going to have a nervous breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into - their front room. And it's so close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but+ I think that would be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce Drive and we clocked it from the southerly access that we could like to see down to Kerber and that's 5/10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as Pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and that's where Western Road comes in. Then we went back and clocked it from the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and we went to TH 101. Now we only went as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and wide. And the first 5/10ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're - tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic coming down Nez Perce road to Kerber. Now I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so 66 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 - obviously we are not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on 4 this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff is reporting that there were 360 to 1,300 cars a day going by this area of Vineland development. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're already at some point in time, 300 cars over on Pleasant View Road so we are very much against any more traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've - already gone through, we really recommend Alternate 3 and when I picked up this material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It needed to be fine tuned and the first thing we noticed was that in the property that the _ developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots and then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does come out with 18 lots. At the last meeting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you Chuck? You don't want a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really - think we should have to hold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and getting the other owners position. I would think that in the future if anybody wanted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is _ dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at some future date there. While we were waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take the end of this cul-de-sac and this is very steep right here but you can come at an angle like this and go over and cane back down so maybe you could have another access here. You'd have this - access which would relieve part of the traffic this way. You'd have this access and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. I said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you _ accept it? +It's my understanding that Chuck said he was not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would vote on this plan and accept this plan with a temporary cul-de-sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. What's the difference between the - City's 3 and your 3A? Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. See when the City did it, they were doing it and they were under pressure and they were concerned about the roads but obviously the developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so Daryl Fortier developed this so it would come out to 18 lots in that area. Not - counting the 3 that go up here. Councilwoman Dimler: I assume all those lots are standard? You don't know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this e afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,000 square feet? Daxyl Fortier: They're all in compliance with the City ordinance for depth and width as well as the square footage. 67 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That top - green one then? ` Frank Beddor: Yes. There would be a driveway here to go into this one and this - would probably be 2 lots with a driveway caning in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. yOne of the things that wedidobject to in Plan 2 and some of the other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways coming out. I don't think the City wants that either. That doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and getting this worked out. Mayor Chniel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? - Chuck Van Eeckhout: My name is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that represents the best use of this property after considerable study and evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Homeowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further comments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you caning down out of - that, even on Option 3, if you're coming down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much problem? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. - Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got one comment. I think that what I would really - be committing to here would be some sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we're calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different topic. Whether the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed to come up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could - put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the west. — Councilman Johnson: When in October, or Mr. Owens is here isn' t he? Is he going to let that expire? 68 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 - Mayor Ctmiel: Do you want to address that? Arthur Owens: There's no way I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have you looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that affect your property? I'd like to hear from you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A would be the most effective. ..I think for all the properties. Councilman Johnson: That's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreement. That's better than usual. Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor Ctmiel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would word it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we,jI think if the rest of you agree, that the S curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and+the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. Mayor Ctmiel: Yes. Definitely. ' Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have... Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. Very good point. I missed that completely. Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. - Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well when it was a straight through. With Alternate 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Vera at one time. You haven't? Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not a short cut to me. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Road. Nez Perce coming down here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and everything else. It's definitely going to be a chute going down there. 69 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've sccn quite a few people walking that area. Mayor Chmiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best one but it's not that it's necessarily... Mayor Chmiel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of item 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. Councilman Johnson: Item 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that we also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No problem. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. — All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Chuck Van Eeckhout: One question. What is the correct procedure at this point? We have a preliminary plat. . .We take it you will approve a preliminary plat. . . next time? Jo Ann Olsen: Normally we would go back to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission essentially gave. ..configuration to the Council so I think we could just bring it back to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. APPEAL DECISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTT. - Carl McNutt: Carl McNutt. Dirly McNutt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can some of these mathematical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest — piece of property from between TH 101+and the curve on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. The legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods of that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. Consequently leaving me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn' t 70 a Q O CO,j WCC (n (>) M4 0 W L.H Q w in ch QQ >3a 0za a _ ~ Sa I QQ � wo 0 W1- Wn z a w UZuj W ZZZ a a0a IiZaN J WJE a � O W} a U Q m I Y o+ `$ J t\�J—� VIEW ROAD - Z Q _ - )/ FL Nom -T--�--_ a __ 0 ' °o ii,/ „,/ -- — --- - - i —i __ � 'moi 1 \ ` 1III r / //ice- - - - ' ... _.2 //1, I 1/ // / / ' _ _ ‘` A / III // II' �, / / �� - - � rl / -fi \ \ •,[ /I I, el / I"7 /... -- / 7 ` \ ' CCU � ' _�� _I / IW o /////� / / i / / IA / to / � di W //_y �/ I1-Z Wa / // f / // // ' r1 • Ivy -' / / // i l /li r/, /r Ig3 / l 1 r / ��/� _, I -, - i / 7 / / . I i r 4' '<y k V' .y I 80,... /11/ 1 \ \,,....... .�. / \ I Icr i'r()/\ i\I i i/ \ .-- I / .\ i \ (%, , , \ ,,,- / / k 1 N, /...._o__, i N \ 0) ) / i \ .., / N. - -- N _____ .____ \ .,,..,,. .. \\ ,i„,„. \ \_.... !V.-4 __..- 11 i le ,/ 1 r. i VN �^ /l Le iii -�� �- -- - 1//� % I �� ! - - ii/ / , // / �_r''' r - - - -� ,� ) 0 / l� 1/1: 1 / � / l / / / //.�_- __- -i 1� / / / / /o / / '/ J / / /// / ( [' L `,/ Z � 1,f / / / � x 1 • I i i I W I 11/ I // � / / �� j. y / I I I I . ATTACHMENT 3 O ZV ., a O co W I z 1 1 d' 0 o ro U w QCCLn v, CO La F- W In V LLI Q < - • m 0 Z Q C _ L C � � f- Z ZO �� w = Zo c aWw a WWW Z UZWW ,z4_, � ZZ r.,(1..: I -'-' ' O I 0 g N a c=n Lu c� _______t= ...-% /.9 >- z, Z °% J � A [ VIEW ROAD a ° y `_ LEASN vQ o I. \,'' i NNN \ \ A /- -_ - _ --- \ i �\ ../ !+, .� f l/ / / ,' � -- _ `��� / /// / / / Ltl �` \ Z N ill,J / I // // / / / J 7 / 1 W ,��� III I l f ! / / i � IJ A • I / /// / / ' I /I I hil I'. j /I / / / / % -_--_ s. ' • / 1 o / 1 / I I b M / ki t" I •!8A) T \ �`i // \ ri I >E 1I� I 1 a \`/ I ,i �c o N ? I l 1 f / ,,_i N \ \\ Io Xol / I I , �^ \ \ � :`' 1 rz Wzl / / I \ \ Z I aF-21 / I l \� w� . I 1 zea( / I \\ - • o oCwQl / ` \ ,�-- A.414.!...- 231;. / /! / i i 01. 2 •�•N it / / / al 1 1/ / _ //// i girl l'i // I� ' iI O / / � � tel— �— \�� -- S` N. . 1 / , lam' / /// / Y _ l/i/ // , , ///////,"/i// ,,,_ --- \\ // / / / / / / / \ I \ 1 1 :.111 1 1 / � / / / 1 / : L ' 1 I f I / ( / // I re •` I �` 111 j I / / / I% / I 1 H I �� I 11 ),...! II // // � l /� I W l ` I I . , / , \ W g , I II I I • ATTACHMENT 4 oto ,„, CITY OF - _11 CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - • (612) 937-1900 S FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I - FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -� ^l\ DATE: 07/08/93 SUBJ: 93-12 SUB & 93-4 VAC (Tower Heights) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval . Analysis: Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, garage floor elevations and lowest floor - elevations should be indicated on plans to enable staff to perform accurate plan review of the project. The approved drainage plan will be used by staff during permit issuance, and standard - designations lessen the chance for errors. The lowest floor elevation or dwelling designation appears to be _ incorrect on lot 9 . This should be clarified. Existing Peaceful lane is proposed to be attached to existing Nez Perce Drive. Different name designations for the same street cause - confusion and delays for emergency personnel. Since a large portion of Peaceful Lane is proposed to be vacated and only one house exists on the street, the remaining portion should be renamed - to Nez Perce Drive. Please note that the spelling for Nez Perce Drive is incorrect on the preliminary plan. Recommendations: - 1. Submit grading, drainage and erosion control plan with standard City designations for dwelling types. I have - included the 01/29/93 memo referencing this subject. This should be done before final plat approval. 2 . Clarify dwelling conditions on lot 9. 0. «, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - t Sharmin Al-Jaff 07/08/93 Page 2 3 . Change the name of the remaining portion of Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce Drive. This should be done before final plat approval. CITY OF al ' '.7-14 !, ..-. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMO' • r UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official - DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO o:RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level — approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. — SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. R sEwO wo � LOQal .---------------‘ Mb. - � - , :SE rRLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. n t>.�. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER S. CITY OF 104‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJ: Przymus Interim Use Permit On July 7, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the application of John Przymus to expand his Swings Driving Range/Miniature Golf facility. The two options that the Planning Commission was asked to review was to either deny any expansion of the site or to approve of an Interim Use permit to allow the expansion of the site. If the Planning Commission wanted to approve the expansion as an interim use permit, staff requested that the item be tabled until the correct conditions of approval could be provided. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the application until staff provided a recommendation with the necessary conditions. The applicant stated at the Planning Commission that he did not want an Interim Use Permit if it meant ending the use at a certain date in the future. The Planning Commission questioned whether an interim use permit had to be tied to a termination date. An interim use permit must be tied to a termination date. Should the Planning Commission/City Council feel when the termination date arrives, that the use could continue, then a new interim use permit must be issued. Therefore, if the Swings interim use permit is tied to expansion of the MUSA line and/or to construction of the frontage boulevard, there is the possibility that the use could be extended beyond those occurrences if approved by the city as a new IUP. The Planning Commission also had some concern as to the extent of expansion, i.e. the batting cages and hours of operation. When the ordinance was first amended to allow driving ranges and miniature golfing in the rural district it was done so because it was felt that these uses were compatible with the rural setting and maintained a fairly low profile. Although the batting cages are mostly just netting, they are quite large and imposing structures. Staff does not feel that they are as compatible with the site as are the miniature golf and driving range. Therefore, staff recommends that the batting cages not be permitted as part of the expansion. The city has consistently denied the expansion of hours at the site due to the necessity to have tall lighting fixtures with lighting which can be easily seen off-site. The applicant has Swings Interim Use Permit August 9, 1993 Page 2 requested expansion of hours beyond sunrise to sunset, and in fact, already is keeping the business open beyond sunset with existing, illegal light fixtures. Staff again is recommending that the hours of operation remain as originally approved and not be expanded beyond sunset. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit # 91-1 to allow expansion of the Swings site in the form of an accessory building, expansion to an existing building, and expansion to the parking area with the following conditions: 1. The accessory building cannot exceed 800 square feet, must be painted earth tones and can only be used for golf videos in conjunction with golf lessons. No batting cages are permitted on the site. 2. Lighting may be located only on the buildings for security. In no case shall any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. No lighting shall be permitted to extend the hours of operation beyond sunset. Existing lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the site. 3. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 4. The applicant shall comply and receive any permits required by the Watershed District, DNR and any other legal jurisdictions as it relates to utilization of the site. 5. No storm water may be routed directly into Bluff Creek. A storm water sedimentation/treatment basin must be included in the storm water management plan. 6. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of Bluff Creek. 7. The structures shall be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation , color, and other means approved by the city. 8. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken during construction of the site. 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter. Swings Interim Use Permit August 9, 1993 Page 3 10. The interim use permit shall be valid until the MUSA line is expanded, construction of a frontage road across the property and/or the property is rezoned, whichever comes first. 11. The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the city's Surface Water Management Fund for downstream water quality improvements if the on-site storm water treatment facilities fail to meet the city's water quality standards (NURP). The city's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, will calculate the contribution based on the site plan. 12. The applicant must submit a copy of the current pumping contract and receipts from previous pumping. A pumping contract must be submitted annually to the Inspections Division. Pumping receipts must be submitted when tanks are pumped and when the annual pumping contract is submitted. 13. The applicant must submit an application for a fence permit. The fence must be shown on a registered survey and all property corners located by a surveyor at final inspection. Alternatively, the fence may be removed. 14. Permit applications are required for additions and/or buildings approved for construction. The applicant should contact the Inspections Division for building permit application details before beginning or continuing any construction. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site plan reduction. 2. Memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated June 25, 1993. 3. Staff report. - ‘34te CI* `4, 'i _ _ as` • iir � • • 16 .. Vilia;iii. 1.N.------------....1::r0 i • ,. . )*,--At.) . o .'• - ,! 7 .. —A * -ty - -.. . 4 r . �- Lf i Ili V a. :Pt / . - - if V A • . *. . / --,--- I MB. if . - ; I 441 i:-'et./g/ -�� t: _ „F II d ; � • " -. 4' 6.iI ' if 24 AV •4.'4/ 1 * J7 ar7 k.ht _A ,. 1� .4 -.fit . , .. : v? _. i I ,/ i , 4 t 1 ' / i 7 14.-- 3 I - ji . it # . . r ., _ . /1:-.7.7 . s 0, . av) ,._,, ell,_ 1 ...-7"---..7.,_,4..- -... vii--,.-6--t.- _ 1,.... . ..7...._ ill • . . .144. . , -....._ - , , -vr.4 i./ . . . i . :.:._ -?---.... .! i - •- - . ellb se 4 . t i •. - _. __ i; - et- --• e- # _v _ . . - : ., ,.. • ... *Vie , it' iiii 0.41, .64...i • :"7.f i* :7 ... * 6. • A j 1 • r ..i.zig Y .;+ . /7' -IV / . - � . .► 0t CITYOF " ott,to, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJ: Swings Interim Use Permit The report submitted to the Planning Commission for the June 16, 1993 meeting, recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed expansion of the facility. One of the difficult issues with this proposal is that we would prefer that the facility be an interim use permit rather than a conditional use permit, but we do not necessarily want to allow expansion to a site which has had so many illegal alterations. An interim use permit allows the lifetime of the use to be tied to a date, change in zoning, etc. Since this site is in a location were the surrounding uses, street alignment, sewer and water, etc. will be greatly changing in the future (due to the Hwy. 5 corridor planning process), an interim use permit may be more appropriate than maintaining the existing conditional use permit. If the city should choose to permit the expansion and have the use become an interim use permit, the approval for the expansion must be for all expansion that is being proposed by the applicant with this application. The interim use permit does not give you the ability to choose only certain proposed expansions to the site. Thus, in excahnge for being able to establish a termination date, you lose the ability to restrict the intensity of use below what is currently in existence. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following recommendations: 1. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any other improvements to the site for the following reasons: a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site should be properly serviced by a septic system site. b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city. c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits. Is . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission June 25, 1993 Page 2 2. Approval of an Interim Use permit for the expansion of the site allowing the sign, video games (not to exceed 10 games), the two additional buildings, additional parking and batting cages. The IUP is conditioned upon the applicant meeting all requirements of the Planning, Engineering, Public Safety Departments of the city and any conditions of the DNR, MNDOT, etc. The IUP allowing the use of the site as a miniature golf course, driving range and accessory uses will be valid until the property is brought into the MUSA line and when the northern Hwy. 5 access boulevard is constructed, at which time the IUP becomes void and the use is no longer permitted. _ 5, C I T Y O F C. C 6/16/ \ I CC DATE:DATE: 7/12/9393 C HANHASs EN CASE #: 91-1 IUP By: Olsen:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit for Expansion to Swings Golf Site Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course F- Z LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard Q 7750 Galpin Boulevard U EL APPLICANT: John Pryzmus Q.. 642 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONLNG: A2, Agricultural Estates IOW by City Admfnistntt, ACREAGE: 18.1 acres sriciorsed— U.' DENSITY: iteiecte, est — G' ADJACENT ZONING peL submitted to Commission AND LAND USE: N - A2; contractors yard S - A2; single family residence pore Su Toted tc Council Q E - A2; single family residence �.. W - A2; vacant 1.2 WATER AND SEWER: There are no municipal services available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class A wetland in the northwest corner }-� and has been improved to contain a miniature golf course and driving range. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 1995 Study Area Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, John Pryzmus, is requesting permission to expand the Swings Driving Range and Mini-golf facility which was approved as a conditional use permit in 1987. The expansion to the site will be processed as an interim use permit in the A2, Agricultural District due to ordinances that have been changed since the original approval. The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to permit expansion to the site in the form of an accessory building, expansion to an existing building, batting cages, parking area, and berming and landscaping. Much of the expansion requested for approval has already taken place illegally (expansion to existing building, slab for new building, parking area and berming). The city has a long history with this site. Some of the past experiences include revocation of the conditional use permit (1987), denial to reinstate the conditional use permit (1987), approval of a new conditional use permit (1987), and review of conditions of the conditional use permit showing conditions not being met and illegal expansion of the site (1988). In the fall of 1990, the applicant started new activities on his site. Staff placed a stop work order and processed a grading permit. As part of the grading permit, the applicant was required to receive amendments to conditions of approval and permission to expand. After several contacts by staff and the initiation of legal action, the applicant submitted an application for amending the existing conditions and for expansion of the site in 1991. The application was tabled by the Planning Commission because there were so many original conditions of approval that had not been met and/or had been violated. Mr. Przymus was directed to meet all original conditions of approval prior to continuing with the process. Mr. Przymus did meet the three outstanding conditions (as follows) but did not pursue continuing the application. 1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. 2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank. 3. Apply for a fence permit. In 1992, staff contacted Mr. Przymus, stating that he must complete the application process since he had expanded the site illegally. Mr. Przymus wanted to wait to see the outcome of the Hwy. 5 Task Force since his site is in the Hwy. 5 Study Area. While "waiting" for the outcome of the task force, Mr. Przymus again made illegal improvements to the site (storage and building slab). The city cited Mr. Przymus for building without a permit and he has now submitted another revised site plan with the proposed improvements. The site is now designated as 1995 Study Area by the Comprehensive Plan. The Hwy. 5 Task Force is reviewing suitable uses from the subject site and a frontage road will be impacting the site. At this time, the Hwy. 5 Plan has yet to be completed and there are several viable routings for the access boulevard that are currently being evaluated. Underlying the proposed expansion are two facts. First, everything has been illegally performed prior to receiving approval from the city, and secondly, the site is using a holding tank. Holding tanks are to be used only as an Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 3 alternative system. Mr. Przymus had two areas for septic sites which are the required systems but with alteration of the site, the area for the two septic sites has been disturbed. The following report goes into detail with each subject. Staff is recommending denial of any expansion to the site. The applicant has continued to illegally expand the site, so that approvals are after the fact and the site improvements are not always up to city standards (holding tanks vs. septic, etc.). In the event that the PCA determines that approval is warranted, staff is establishing conditions we believe should be considered. BACKGROUND On November 16, 1987, the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment to permit golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural Estate District. The Council also adopted standards to evaluate conditional use applications. They are as follows: a. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212, an access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. b. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. c. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping plan in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. d. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence. e. Buildings on the site may not exceed 800 square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. On November 16, 1987, the City Council also approved the conditional use permit for John Pryzmus for a golf driving range and miniature golf course subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987, showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary indicating the size and revised location of the parking lot and club house 150 feet from the centerline of Co. Rd. 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 2. Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1, 1987, to add a 2 foot evergreen hedge and 6 foot trees in front of the proposed parking area. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 4 3. Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in height unless authorized by a conditional use permit. 4. The two septic system sites along Co. Rd. 117 shall be protected from grading activities and shall be staked and protected in the field. 5. The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior to issuance of the septic permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and any other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the site. 7. There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for the planting of grass seed and periodic disking of the site. There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration permit process. 8. The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the amount of 1109c of the cost of the improvements to the site prior to December 1, 987. 9. There shall be no light standards on the premises. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 10. The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource Engineering by December 1, 1987, and shall be responsible for future fees if services by Resource Engineering are determined to be necessary. On August 22, 1988, as part of the conditional use permit, an annual review of the conditions was performed by staff. Several conditions of approval had not been met. The applicant requested Council approval of the changes he had made to this site. The City Council tabled review of the Pryzmus conditional use permit until the Planning Commission could review an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and the conditional use permit to permit the items that the applicant requested. On September 21, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment request to standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses and an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Swings Golf Driving Range and Miniature Golf. The applicant was requesting approval for installation of light standards, installation of a sign, installation of video games and extension of hours of operation. Most of these improvements were already installed by the applicant. The proposed improvements required amendments to the approved conditional use permit and amendments to the zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 5 ordinance amendments were to the standards for conditional use for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses to permit: 1. Installation of a sign advertising the facility is permitted, however, in no case shall the sign exceed 32 square feet. 2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical or electronic machine be installed. This does not include vending machines for food or soft drinks. The Planning Commission was then asked to review amending the conditional use permit to allow the following changes to the original conditional use permit: 1. Light standards on the property shall be limited to 75 watt lights not to exceed 3 feet in height to be located in the miniature golf course area. Lighting may be located on the building for security and to illuminate the driving range tees to the west. In no case shall any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. 2. No more than 10 video games, including pinball machines or other mechanical, electrical or electronic machine be installed. Vending machines dispensing food and soft drinks may be installed. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 4. Installation of 22 six foot evergreen trees along TH 5 and Galpin Boulevard. After discussion of the item, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended tabling action on the zoning ordinance amendment and the conditional use permit amendment until staff came back with more information. The Planning Commission had the following comments: 1. The Planning Commission was fairly unanimous in requiring the applicant maintain the originally approved hours of sunrise to sunset. 2. The Planning Commission agreed that the applicant should be permitted some form of signage but the sign should not be illuminated. The Planning Commission also directed staff to come back with a proposal for an acceptable sign within the agricultural district. 3. The Planning Commission agreed that ten should be the limit of number of video games allowed. The Planning Commission also discussed whether or not video games should be licensed by the city. The Planning Commission directed staff to come back with information on whether or not licensing should be required. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 6 4. The final item of discussion was the lighting. The Planning Commission felt that the applicant should only be permitted lighting for security purposes. With the turnover in Planning Staff, this item was not further pursued. Since this case was last reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the ordinance has been amended to allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses as an interim use permit in the A2 District instead of a conditional use permit. The reason for this was that golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses were considered more of a temporary use which should have a set termination date. Therefore, any expansion to the site must now be considered as an interim use permit and will have a termination date established as part of the permit. In October, 1990, staff noticed grading activity taking place at the Swings Golf site on the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and Hwy. 5. The applicant, John Pryzmus, was creating a berm along Galpin Boulevard, clearing out an area for potential future parking/drainage area and providing a second area of driving tees for the driving range. The City required the applicant to stop work on the site and to apply for a grading permit. After working with the applicant, a grading permit was issued with the following conditions: 1. The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (Co. Rd. 117) shall be continuous two-tier, two foot high rock retaining walls, not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu of the three foot high earth berm previously required. 2. Provide the city with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration. 3. All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or sodded prior to November 15, 1990. 4. The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the 1988 Uniform Building Code Table No. 70-B for grading 400 cubic yards of material. 5. Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained throughout until vegetation cover has been fully reestablished and removal is authorized by the City Engineer. 6. Any future expansion or grading activities will require another permit application and will also require an approved site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to commencement. 7. The grading activity that has occurred adjacent to the creek located on the northerly portion of the property shall be removed back to a point to be determined in the field by city staff. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 7 8. As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range is not permitted without receiving an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing facility. This expansion is not included in the administrative grading permit. Therefore, the driving tee and parking lot must be removed or transformed into berming purposes. 9. A building permit is required for the installation of the fence proposed around the site. The activity occurring at the site was an expansion of the conditional use permit for the golf driving range and miniature golf course. As part of the grading permit approval, the applicant was required to submit an application for an amendment to the conditions of the conditional use permit and for expansion of the site. On November 28, 1990, staff sent John Pryzmus a letter stating that the grading completed on the site was acceptable if approved as part of the amendment. A condition of the grading permit was that an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit must be submitted and approved by the city. Staff requested the applicant to submit a complete application by January 7, 1991. Attached to the letter, staff also enclosed an application form and a list of the required information for a complete application. Staff did not receive the required application by the January 7, 1991, deadline. On January 11, 1991, staff submitted another certified letter to Mr. Pryzmus again reminding him of the condition of approval of the grading permit and that the deadline of January 7th had not been met. Staff provided the applicant with a second opportunity to make an application by Tuesday, January 22, 1991. The letter further stated that if a complete application was not received by January 22nd, the city would place the conditional use permit on a future City Council agenda for consideration of revocation. As of March 20, 1991, an application had not been submitted by the applicant nor had the applicant made any effort to contact staff. Staff then scheduled this item on a City Council agenda as consideration of revocation of the conditional use permit. The problem with revoking a conditional use permit is that any of the conditions regulating the use of the site are then void and the activity then becomes a non-conforming use. The city must then either pursue discontinuing the use on the site or have the applicant go through the conditional use permit process again with new conditions to bring the site into compliance. The preferred option is for the city to initiate enforcement action against the applicant. The applicant will be criminally cited and, if found guilty, will be required to bring the site into compliance. Initiating the enforcement action will start the process immediately instead of being postponed until revocation of the conditional use permit has been processed. Therefore, staff has initiated the enforcement action through the City Attorney's Office instead of pursuing revocation of the conditional use permit. In March, 1991, the applicant submitted an application. The enforcement action is still in place should we need to use it if the applicant does not complete the application process and meet any conditions. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 8 PROPOS AL The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for expansion to the Swings Golf Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses used to be a conditional use permit in the A2 District and are now an interim use permit. Interim use permits allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained, or while the permanent location is under construction, and allows a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. An interim use permit is permitted if the following is found: 1. Meets the standards of the conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City Code. 2. Conforms to the zoning regulations. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. 4. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. 6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of use. The items for consideration as an interim use permit is the expansion to the driving range (expanded illegally), a proposed building (not yet constructed, but the building slab has been illegally installed), parking lot expansion (expanded illegally), batting cages (proposed), the sign (installed illegally) and video games (installed illegally). INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE SITE The main issue with any type of expansion on the site is with the provision of bathroom facilities. The site is located outside the MUSA line and service connaot be provided at this time. Currently, the site only has a holding tank. Two septic sites were shown and approved with the conditional use permit. The applicant constructed the existing clubhouse prior to receiving City Council approval for the conditional use permit and the building was constructed without a building permit and without required bathroom facilities. The city permitted the installation of a holding tank instead of requiring hook up to a septic system. It is unclear why Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 9 exactly this was permitted. The City Code requires buildings to provide bathroom facilities and outside of the MUSA line they must be hooked up to a septic system. The existing holding tank and separate bathroom was allowed only as an alternate system. A condition of the holding tank was for the applicant to get a pumping contract and to submit pumping receipts to the city. The city has received the pumping contract but is no longer receiving pumping receipts. Further accentuating this problem is the applicant has graded and destroyed the approved septic sites. Since a majority of the site has been altered, it may be difficult to locate two new acceptable septic sites. The applicant has a history of making improvements to the site without first receiving the required approval and then after the fact, requesting approval. This puts staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council in a difficult position. If the applicant had first come in for approval for the expansion, there may not have been any objection to what was being proposed and conditions making the expansion acceptable could have been enforced. Instead it is difficult to recommend approval when, once again, the applicant understood the process, ignored it and expects approval after the fact. Putting past history aside, the following is a detailed review of the interim use permit issues. Expansion to the Driving Range and Benning The applicant expanded the driving range with tees and sandtrap at the northeasterly corner of the site, adjacent to Galpin Boulevard and Bluff Creek. The applicant also provided a berm along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to Galpin Boulevard in the northeast corner of the site. The activity was illegal in the terms of expanding beyond what was approved with the original conditional use permit and grading without a grading permit. The applicant did receive a grading permit, after the fact, for the berm along Galpin Boulevard. All of the other grading activity, including the berm and tee areas adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, were not part of the grading permit and have not received city approval. These activities were tied to receiving city approval with application for expansion of the site. The original conditional use permit had 94 parking spaces. Currently, there are approximately 82 parking spaces. The 94 parking spaces were shown on the original plan to accommodate a large batting cage/indoor activity building. This building was not permitted so the reduced number of parking spaces were permitted. The expansion of the driving range will not require additional parking and can be accommodated with the existing parking. The berm areas are serving to enclose the proposed parking expansion, building and batting cages. The berms will not intensify the use of the site and if properly stabilized would be acceptable to staff. A detailed grading and drainage plan is required for these alterations to be approved. Swings NP June 16, 1993 Page 10 Proposed Building The plans submitted by the applicant show a proposed building located in the northeast corner of the site at the corner of the two proposed berm areas. The proposed building is 1092 square feet in size which exceeds the maximum square footage of a building permitted by 292 square feet. The standards for driving ranges and miniature golf limit the size of a building on site to 800 square feet and of earth tone color. Staff therefore cannot permit the proposed building to be installed since the area exceeds what is permitted as part of a driving range and miniature golf course and would serve to intensify use of the site. A new building would have to meet building code and provide bathroom facilities hooked up to a septic system. Further expansion to the site should not be permitted until the existing property is brought up to code and that a proper septic system is installed with the addition of proper bathroom facilities and/or until the property is brought within the MUSA line and can be serviced by city sewer and water. The proposed building exceeds the permitted size of 800 square feet. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed building. Batting Cages On the plans submitted by the applicant, there is an area shown for batting cages. It is unclear whether a building would be provided for the batting cages of if the batting cages would just be located outdoors. Once again, the inclusion of batting cages will increase the use of the site which is not being serviced properly with bathroom facilities. Therefore, staff would have to recommend against the addition of the batting cages. Parking Area The applicant is currently creating an additional parking area. The site has been graded and is being surfaced with a gravel. Staff visited the site on May 8, 1991, and placed a stop work order to prevent the applicant from continuing work on the parking lot area. The existing parking lot area adequately serves the existing use. If the addition of the batting cages, building, additional tee area and sandtrap are not approved, then the need for additional parking area is not required. Should the expansion of the site be approved, staff would recommend that the parking area be paved with bituminous surface and curb and gutter and that detailed grading and drainage plans be provided. Video Games The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the video games located in the existing building on the site. Currently, there are 7 video games located within the building. When the Planning Commission last reviewed this item, it was discussed that up to 10 video games could be permitted within the building. This was not addressed as part of the original conditional use Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 11 permit. Therefore, if the Planning Commission and City Council agree that video games could be permitted on the site, the condition allowing the video games would have to be part of the new interim use permit. Sign The last time that the Planning Commission reviewed this issue, there was discussion on whether or not the applicant should be permitted a sign at the site. It was felt that the applicant should be allowed a sign to advertise his business but that the zoning ordinance should be amended to allow signage in the Agricultural District. Since this area is in such a transitional area with the Comprehensive Plan showing it as the 1995 Study Area, staff would prefer not to amend the zoning ordinance to allow signage in the Agricultural District but instead is recommending that the sign be permitted as an amendment to the original conditional use permit. The existing sign is a 3 sided sign with each sign face 3' x 6' for a sign face total of 18 square feet. During the previous discussion, a sign of 32 square feet was going to be the maximum size of signs permitted. Since the sign would be approved specifically for this site and is accessory to the use, staff is recommending that the existing sign be permitted as part of the original conditional use permit and that the size of each sign face shall not exceed 18 square feet. The applicant will still be able to maintain the 3 sides to the sign. Miscellaneous The applicant is installing a chain link fence throughout the site. The fence requires a building permit. The applicant should be required to receive the permit for the fence. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and City Council have the following options to consider: 1. Recommend denial of the interim use permit and proposed existing expansion of the site and pursue, through legal action, having the site being brought back into compliance with the original conditional use permit.. 2. Recommend denial of any expansion of the site until the site is brought up to code, i.e. hook up to septic system site, meet any existing and new conditions of approval, then expansion of some sort could be considered. 3. Recommend approval of the proposed expansion, all or part, and approve the proposed changes as an interim use permit with a date established for removing the business once the MUSA line is expanded to include the site. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 12 Should the Planning Commission and City Council recommend approval of any expansion of the site, it should be made with the condition that the whole facility must be approved as an interim use permit and that the applicant agree to the City revoking the existing conditional use permit. This combines the facility under one permit and allows the city to set a date when the use must be terminated. This would be advantageous by consolidating a confusing issue. Also, the site is located in the proposed 1995 Study Area. The result of the study area could greatly affect what uses would be compatible at this site. A termination date could be when the property is within the MUSA line and/or when the 1995 Study Area is completed. If expansion is approved, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. The existing conditional use permit shall be revoked by the City Council and the existing and new facility will become an interim use permit. 2. The site will be brought into compliance with City Code and conditions of approval. This includes hooking up to an approved septic site. 3. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by staff prior to any more alterations are made to the site. 4. Any parking areas shall be paved with bituminous surface. Curb and gutter may be required by the City Engineering Department after review of the grading and drainage plans. 5. The building cannot exceed 800 square feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1) "The Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 3 sided, 18 square foot sign to advertise the Swings facility. 2) The Planning Commission recommends denial of the interim use permit request for any other improvements to the site for the following reasons: a. The existing site is serviced by holding tanks and any further expansion of the site should be properly serviced by a septic system site. b. The applicant has expanded the site without prior approval of the city. c. The site is not in compliance with approved city permits." Note: If the application is denied, staff will continue to work with the applicant to bring the site into compliance. Swings IUP June 16, 1993 Page 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated April 8, 1993. 2. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated December 9, 1992. 3. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated May 20, 1991. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1991. 5. City Council minutes dated November 16, 1987. 6. Planning Commission dated April 22, 1987. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated September 21, 1988. 8. Conditional Use Permit dated November 16, 1987. 9. Letter from DNR dated June 7, 1993. 10. Letter from Carver County Engineer dated June 9, 1993. CITY OF • CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 April 8, 1993 Mr. John Przymus 642 Santa Vera Dr. - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Illegal construction @ 7750 Arboretum Blvd. Citation #054487 Dear Mr. Przymus: Enclosed is a citation charging you with building without a permit. An interim use permit and a building permit are required for the addition to your building and the slab at the north end of the property. Contact Jo Ann Olsen from the Planning Department at 937-1900 to apply for the interim use permit. Upon approval of the interim use permit you may apply for a building permit in the Public Safety Department. Work on the addition may not continue, nor may the addition be used for any purpose until proper permits have been issued by the City. The same condition apply to the slab. Periodic inspections will be made to insure compliance. The slab and addition may remain as is until permits have been issued or until May 31, 1993 whichever comes first. Application for the interim use permit must be made immediately to insure its being placed on the agenda in time for you to meet the May 31 deadline for-removal . Continuation of work on the addition and/or slab or use of either will result in further legal action. Sincerely, l ~ Steve A. Kirchman Building Official cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Building file - 750 Arboretum tool PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF 04„ . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 9, 1992 Mr. John Przymus 7476 Saratoga Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear John: In the spring of 1991, the Planning Commission tabled action on your application for an interim use permit for expansion to Swings until you accomplished the following: 1. Receive a certificate of occupancy for the existing building. 2. Provide a pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank. 3. Apply for a fence permit. These three items have been completed. The city is requesting that you continue with the interim use permit process so that a decision can be made on the expansion that occurred with the Swings facility in 1991. As you recall, the expansion was an illegal expansion to a conditional use permit in that you did not receive permission from the city to add to the business. The city will be scheduling the interim use permit to again be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 20, 1993. Please contact me by January 4, 1993, so we can go over the report together. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900. Sincerely, (31 Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Steve Kirchman, Building Official Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney's Office i n tor: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF • . CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ,+ May 20, 1991 Mr. John Pryzmus 642 Santa Vera Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear John: The following is a list of items that need to be accomplished prior to the Planning Commission reviewing your application: 1 . The existing building must receive a certificate of occupancy. 2 . A pumping contract and copies of pumping receipts for the holding tank must be submitted. 3 . Apply for a fence permit. Staff needs detailed plans on the proposed parking lot, batting cages , new building, grading and drainage prior to reviewing and establishing conditions on the property expansion. I have attached a list which shows what is required on a site plan. Please follow this list for a complete application. After speaking with Barb Dacy and Ron Julkowski, we found that the holding tank was permitted after you had raised issues with the cost of the septic site and the fact that the facility is a seasonal use. It is unclear how the condition requiring connections to a septic system of the Uniform Building Code was avoided, but we have been told by Barb and Ron that the holding tank was permitted with the following conditions: 1. It was only for the existing use. 2 . A pumping contract and receipts were required. 3 . The two existing septic sites had to be preserved. Mr. John Pryzmus May 20, 1991 • Page 2 Should you wish to continue with your current application -and have it reviewed by the City Council on June 10, 1991, please let me know. Otherwise, we will bring it back before the Planning Commission once the existing site is brought into compliance and a complete application has been submitted. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v pc: Steve Kirchman, Building Official Elliot Knetsch, City Attorney City Council Planning Commission CITY OF*401rf'. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official A,Clk. DATE: 06/07/93 SUBJ: 91-1 IUP (Swings Golf) The following are Inspections Division staff comments on the above referenced permit application. 1. I could find no record of a building permit for the fence around the property. Permits are for fences are required by City Code.The requirement to secure a fence permit was also a condition of the grading permit (#4232) issued in October, 1990. 2 . The applicant has already begun construction of the addition to the existing office and poured the slab for the new building. A stop work order was issued on 04/07/93 . 3 . The applicant has not continued to provide septic pumping receipts. Required sanitation facilities on the property do not meet current code, nor are the existing sanitation facilities served by an onsite sewage treatment system. Holding tanks were permitted because the originally designated treatment sites were destroyed. Holding tanks are, in staff 's opinion, the least desirable alternate system permitted by code. It is recommended that the site be inspected by the Resource Engineering, The City's onsite sewage treatment consultant, to determine if suitable treatment sites are available. An approved onsite sewage treatment system should be installed, if site (s) exist prior to approval of further expansion. «p PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 9 Batzli : Well I think , not to put words in his mouth that that 's the walk in height and then you have a peak . Is it 7 feet at the highest? At the peak? Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . I can 't imagine , it certainly wouldn 't be more than 7 1/2 or 8 feet . Very close to 7 feet . There 's a requirement on the pitch which it has to . . . I would try pretty hard to keep it within . Conrad: But it 's also dug into the hill . Peter Moscatelli : Yeah . The hill would . . .probably at least that high . Conrad : Visually I think it 's going to be . . .uncertain with some of our standards and I 'm making a point . - Emmings : Okay . And for his benefit this will go to the City Council when? June 10th? - Olsen : June 10th . PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE DRIVING RANGE AT SWINGS GOLF RANGE ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2 AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, JOHN PRYZMUS . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Emmings : John , do you want to address us on this at all? John Pryzmus : Yeah . Emmings : If you could come up here please . - John Pryzmus : Just a couple things . The plan that I used when I did the alterations was a plan that you have had . It was done by a landscape architect in 1986 so that 's with the berming and what was proposed in 1986 is what we had . And I just had never finished anything north of the parking lot so up until this point , I did all the berming from the north of the parking lot to the end and I did an additional berm to screen my equipment because the equipment is then sitting in the parking lot . And so the additional berm to the north . Now as far as the additional tee area , you know it 's not at this point , and never will be , it 's for the golf pro and his student . I just wanted him to be away from the rest of the people - and the club which is coming out so staff is protraying it as a big expansion to my operation . It 's just one person teaching another person how to golf back there . The batting cages would be all outdoors . There would be nets similar to . . . And the building there would be for the golf pro for his office and you have TV 's in there to review your video of your swing and that . Then I would have it for an additional storage for the winter . My equipment is getting pretty beat up . I can 't keep anything Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 10 running when it has to sit out in the snow banks all winter so I would , that 's why I need , I was proposing to have another building like the one up above although the berming that I 've done with the landscaping would pretty __ much screen it . I don 't even know if you 'd be able to see it from the road . It 's set down in back of the berms so what I 've done so far to this point is pretty much landscaping and the dirt I moved was for the landscaping and now the site for the proposed batting cages would be , you wouldn 't have to do any more work to it so in effect while I was doing all my landscaping , I was moving dirt from strategic areas . As far as sewer , I had paid a sewer operation to come out and we had planned on having a bermed septic system and somebody somewhere , it wasn 't me , decided I couldn 't have that and they made me put in the tanks . I didn 't know anything about the tanks . All of a sudden that 's what my option was . I didn 't have any other option . So even though I had already paid for all of the technical work for the sewer , somewhere I suppose being that there will be sewer and water out there , they didn 't want to have another septic system put in there for something . — Erhart : Excuse me . Who 's they? Was it the City? John Pryzmus : The staff . City staff , yeah . It wasn 't me . Erhart : Can you respond to that? Olsen: It 's unclear exactly why the holding tanks were approved and I 'm not sure , was it Machmeier and Anderson that you worked with on the septics? John Pryzmus : I think they came out . They were recommended by the City to come out and do the soil testing . Larry Vandeveire had set out , I hired Larry Vandeveire to set out to do the septic system . But now as far as the tank itself , it gets pumped whenever it gets 3/4 full . Jeff Swedlund stops by . He works closely with the people of Chanhassen so it said in the report that they never get a report . He works with the City . I don 't know— who he reports to but he pumps it . He goes by every day so he checks it and we 've never had . I mean if 3 more people used my tank it would cost me more to pump it but it isn 't going to cause any effect on the environment or anything else . The septic company just comes and pumps it and at this point I don 't know . When it gets 3/4 full and then he checks it and that 's maybe once every 2 weeks , 3 weeks . So I would say with my total expansion proposal , I 'm not going to have but 30-40-50 more people with the batting — cage , maybe more than that in the real peak season right away in the spring but if it fills up every week I 'll just have to pay to have it pumped every week instead of every 3 weeks . So it 's not an environmental problem to have a tank . I thought once the city staff made me do it , I thought it was a great idea . You know as long as they 're going to put in , we 're going to have the MUSA line out there someday anyway , then all we have to do is just hook up to the MUSA line and I don 't have a big septic system to deal with . _ But like I say , I didn 't , that wasn 't something I just dreamt up . Emmings : Just one question John . I 'm sure everybody up here would like to — hear an explanation as to why we see a history like this . Why it appears Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 11 from what we have in front of us and from our prior experience with you and with your facility , why we 've imposed conditions in the past that have not been fulfilled on the one hand . On the other hand , you 've repeatedly improved the site or made alterations to the site without getting prior approval from the City and I 'd like to know why . John Pryzmus : Well first of all , I didn 't write that story . If I 'd have wrote the story it would have read a little different . I just explained to you when I came up here that that plan was submitted in 1986 and it went all through the process . I didn 't get it all done at the time because financially I couldn 't . Once I didn 't get the building , I didn 't get all - the berming done and all the trees planted and I just worked at it when my money became available to do the whole expansion . And all of the trees and all the terming _ I don 't know if you ever go by there but every year I 'm doing more and more and it 's always to enhance the beauty of it . It 's always landscaping . I haven 't built anything . I haven 't built one more building . I haven 't built anything and I still haven 't . Emmings: Are you putting up a fence? John Pryzmus : That was part of the original approval . I was supposed to have o fence rot over 6 feet high in the Minutes of a deal a long time agc and I put the posts in 3 years ago but being that I have to go back and forth with dirt and trees and landscaping , I 've never put the fence up . _ I 've had the wire ever since and I just never put the fencing on but that was a part of the original approval . Emmings : Alright , thanks . Is there anybody else here from the public who wants to be heard on this application? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . _ Ahrens : I think the site is a real good site for all the things that the applicant is trying to do here . I think it looks to me like there wasn 't a lot of capital to begin with to develop all the things he needed to develop it from so he 's tried real hard it looks to me , even though there 's been a - lot of problems with the city and I 'm not sure who 's to blame for those problems . But it seems to me he 's trying real hard to make it into a nice place . Even though he 's got some problems with completing a lot of these things he 's trying to do as far as landscaping goes . I have a problem with the whole holding tank sewer issue and I don 't understand . If the City approved holding tanks , why the City is now forcing him to install a septic system . Olsen: The only reason we could figure out why they would have approved the holding tank is that the two approved septic sites had been altered . - There was a lot of grading taking place out on the site where the two sites were supposed to be preserved and from what I can tell from the correspondence that those sites were lost when the applicant was grading on the site and his only alternative then was to not be permitted what he had Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 12 or to hook up to the holding tank . It 's not clear . It 's just all of a sudden he was allowed to have the holding tanks . Ahrens: But they were approved. And it doesn 't seem to be causing any large problem out there . It has been pumped . Olsen: I don 't know . We don't know how often he 's pumping . We 're not — getting . Ahrens: There 's no impact on the environment or anything like that? — Olsen : If it 's being done properly but we don 't have , one of the conditions of the holding tank was that he do , he does have them pumped and that he does provide us with those records and we haven 't received those . Ahrens: Is there any reason why he couldn 't continue using those besides , I mean . — Olsen: I 'm not sure what kind of capacity . . . Kirchman : The capacity of the tank can be whatever the size of the tank is . So there wouldn 't be a problem with continued use . Ahrens : There would or would not? — Kirchman: It would not be a problem with continued use if there are no other sites available for septic . I guess oyr feeling is , the individual — sewage treatment rules from the State of Minnesota prohibit holding tanks if septic sites are available . There were two sites available at one time and they were apparently destroyed . If the use on the site doesn 't _ intensify , holding tanks were approved and I would suggest we let him continue using those as long as we 're provided with a pumping contract and records of pumping as originally agreed on . However , if the use is intensified , then I would suggest that the applicant search the site to find if there are any acceptable sites for sewage treatment mounds and put in treatment sites . Ahrens: Are there any acceptable sites? Kirchman: We don't know . He 's got a lot of acreage out there . If it 's all been disturbed then there would be no sites . It has to be on undisturbed soil and he would have to get someone out there to investigate as he did before and rope the sites off and protect them from any construction activity until the septic systems are put in. — John Pryzmus : I think at the time the only site that was available was the site to the north of the parking lot . That 's where the two sites were . There was going to be a hill and berm system . And at that time they were both approved and they were roped off . Then once they sit , and I don 't know why the tank became an option but once it was , then that site was not preserved anymore . There weren 't any other sites because it was all — altered . Planning Commission Meeting — May 15 , 1991 - Page 13 Ahrens : There are no other sites is what you 're saying? John Pryzmus : No . Everything had been scraped . . . You have to stay so far from the creek and you have to . . . Olsen: But those were two sites that were protected and that was very clearly understood that they were supposed to be preserved so . Kirchman: We don 't know when the sites were disturbed . If they were disturbed after he put his holding tanks in or before . We 're assuming that they were disturbed before because I can 't imagine why we would have forced — him to have holding tanks when he had two sites that were roped off and protected . That 's the whole idea of it was to have sites available for septi= so our assumption is that they were disturbed before the holding — tanks went in . The reason the holding tanks were allowed was because the sites were disturbed and there were no available sites . But here again we don 't have any records to back that up . - Ahrens : What are the issues involved? I guess I really don 't understand still why the holding tanks aren 't satisfactory even if he expands the site . Kirchman: Well , holding tanks traditionally have problems in that they deteriorate under ground and they get cracks and they leak . Pumping has always been a problem . Getting the pumping contracts . Getting them pumped out properly and then properly disposing of the septage after they 're pumped . So that is why an individual or a septic site is the preferable way tr, treat sewage as opposed to pumping . Ahrens : But if it 's maintained well and . — Kirchman: If it 's maintained well . Ahrens: I mean septic systems can leak too right? Kirchman : Well , if they 're designed correctly they work . Ahrens: Right . But if the holding tanks are designed correctly and - they 're maintained they ' ll work too right? Kirchman: That is correct . However , another point is that State Statute says that if another site 's available , he can 't have holding tanks . So if sites aren 't available and that 's no choice , then that would be his only alternative . — Krauss : If I might add too , there 's a policy question involved here . We 've just gone through a 2 year effort to get the MUSA line moved and I think > ou 're all familiar with that . One of the concepts with the — MUSA line that the Metro Council feels strongly about , I think as a policy question we should feel strongly about . Is that areas outside the MUSA line should not be on the metro service system . That 's the whole point of it . Holding tanks get around that . Basically we 're not having on site Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 14 disposal . All that stuff is trucked to where we do have a site and dumped into our system and it 's the City that 's paying for the treatment of this stuff . I 'm sure there 's some kind of a drop charge . . .but it gets at , you — know there 's a related issue that , remember several years ago Mills Fleet Farm was talking to the Metro Council about some sort of special allowance to allow them to have tankage for on site systems on the presumption that _ they could be developed as a rural use . Well , I mean this is sort of an oddity and we 're willing to live with this oddity as a status quo . But there 's some policy limitations if you 're allowed to expand based on the use of the tank and it goes against the building code , it goes against Metro Council policy and it goes against what I think is good rational policy for us to adopt in the City as well . Ahrens: I don't argue with you on that Paul . It 's just that it was approved by the city at some point and the approval may have been against public policy at that time but there was an approval for him to use that . Olsen: But not necessarily for expansion . AhrEnd.: No , but the expansion here involves some batting cages , a building — that 's going to contain , it 's not really going to increase the use by that much . They 're going to have a storage area for some equipment and what you 'd say , a video? John Pryzmus : A TV screen to show your , the pro uses a video camera when he give= hid golf lesson . . . Right now he 's using his van . He has a generator in his van until we get an acceptance . -' Ahrens : It just doesn 't seem like the use is going to be that intensified . I mean it 's not like the State Fair or something where you 're going to have _ thousands and thousands of people going through every day . Krauss: we don 't have good numbers for this but I think it should be clear too that the applicant is desiring to have substantial increase in on site — parking . Ahrens: well that also may be a very optimistic move . — Krauss: They get pretty busy . Ahrens: Yeah they do but most people go on the site for about an hour and then leave . Anyway , do you plan to have as many , I mean the area . . .is huge for the batting cages . John Pryzmus: No , mine would be about half that . You would never have more than , well the person that comes to hit will spend about a half an hour hitting softballs and so right now I don 't have any parking problems — at all . I 'm assuming that I could but with my berming and with my design and I think Dave , when I was doing the landscaping , I already predesigned to make sure the drainage goes into a holding area with rock and so it _ seeps out into the grass . We won 't make any- additional runoff . . . You can have . . .maybe 10-15 more people there but we don 't get hardly any use of the Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 15 bathrooms . That 's why , and really I will have Jeff drop off the receipts - of his pumping . I thought 'he was doing that . I didn 't know there was even a problem with the septic until a couple days ago. But there is very little use of that facility at this point . People that hit golf balls come there and they 're there for about half an hour . Ahrens: Yeah , I can 't imagine . John Pryzmus: They do use it periodically but it 's not something where you have dinner and you sit there for an hour and a half or two and drink a lot of liquids and then use the bathroom. Ahrens: No , I agree with that . That 's reasonable and I 'm going to recommend approval of this despite the problems . However I would like to condition that on you coming into compliance in at least the landscaping areas and the berming . That was an issue? I don 't have a problem with the building . It 's going to be the same size as the existing building . It 's not a very large building . I don 't see that the use of the bathroom - facilities is going to increase that much to require a septic system , to require that the applicant have to comply with septic system requirements . I think a holding tank , if the City wants to require conditions that he submit the receipts . Are there receipts of the pumping of the holding tanks or something or regulate the upkeep of the holding tanks , I 'd go along with that but. I think it 's sufficient for the use that 's there now and that will be there when the expansion takes place . Emmings: Time out . Your recommendation is that we approve the sign and the 10 video games and otherwise deny any improvements until everything - he 's been required to do in the past has been done , right? Ahrens : Correct . Em::in; And the alternative they 're asking for Joan is , if we 're going to apprcv: expansion , then they want us to table it so they can develop conditions . Are you saying something different than that? • Ahrens: Their recommendation is that we approve the sign and the video games and that we deny the improvements to the site period . Emmings: Okay . Is that what you 're saying? Olsen: Right . On page 13 at the bottom we were saying that should you recommend approval , that we would recommend tabling until we can . Emmings: Wait a minute . We have too many conversations going here . Batzli : Take charge . _ Emmings: I think if we followed your recommendation we 'd be denying the expansion . The other improvements that he wants . And I take it that we 'd consider those again once he 's done , lived up to all the conditions that have been imposed on him in the past that he has not yet? Planning Commission Me��ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 16 Olsen: Right . That 's one of the options . That 's correct . Emmings: Okay . But if there 's going to be approval , you want it tabled so you can develop conditions? Olsen: Correct . Emmings: Alright . And I want to know if when you said you 'd like to see this approved , if you 're saying something different than one of those two — things? Ahrens: I 'm recommending that we approve the sign. The interim use permit — to permit the signage . Emmings: Okay . And? Ahrens: And the expansion of the site . Emmings: With what conditions? That 's the problem I 'm having . We don 't — have conditions . We have a few here from the staff but the staff says they don't feel they 've developed , adequately developed conditions for an approval . Or are you just going to approve it the way he wants to do just — whatever he 's proposing? Ahrens: Well there are existing , I 'm a little confused about this . There are existing conditions of approval as I understand it . Olsen: Correct for what was approved . Ahrens: . . .conditions . Olsen: Well those were just some . Giving you a start on what we would be — requiring . Like grading and drainage plans . Ahrens: Those are just some . That 's not a complete list? Olsen: No , it 's not a complete list because we need more , to really recommend approval we need more complete plans . It 's still not real clear the parking that he 's proposing . — Emmings: Well , we don 't know if he 's proposing batting cages inside or outside . If it 's inside , what the building 's going to look like . If it 's _ outside , is it going to be lighted. Ahrens: I thought it was outside . Olsen: We don't know that . Emmings: Well it may be . Ahrens: He said yes . Emmings: But he hasn 't submitted a plan in enough detail for the staff to — even look at it Joan I think is the problem . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 17 - Ahrens : Maybe we 're looking at this prematurely then , the whole deal? Olsen : For approval , yes . Emmings : Okay . Why don 't you think about it . Ahrens : I will Steve . How much time do I have? Emmings: 4 minutes . I 'll be back . Batzli : By the time it gets back to her , she 'll have a lot more . . . Farmakes: The plan that I 'm looking at right now says '86 . This plan showing vegetation that 's planned or is it also showing existing vegetation? There 's a notation on the north side that says existing vegetation and it 's got a little arrow . Is that the only tree we 're looking at that 's still standing or , I was out at the site today and there - seems that there 's some vegetation that 's not on this plan . Do you intend on altering the vegetation as it stands now or where the batting cage area is or the parking area is by there? John Pryzmus: No I basically , other than we 're doing a massive flower planting . . .geraniums this past weekend and another 600 vinca vines and _ we ' ll be doing a couple thousand petunias but I will be adding shurbs and trees periodically but I 'm about 95% done . I mean the berms with the evergreens and the shurbs and the willows and a lot of the trees have stayed there . I saved them all . They 're expensive so I tried to save as - many trees as I can . This spring now I planted 21 more Black Hills spruce in case someday the willow trees , you know I have to take the willow tree down or something . I 'm trying to replace . . . Farmakes : Do you intend on cutting down many trees that are there now? John Pryzmus: No , not at all . Farmakes : So your intent then is to . . .this plan here eventually when you have the funds to do it? John Pryzmus: Yeah . This is , I 'm done . I mean I don 't have to move any , all the dirt I moved was for the berming purposes and the planting of the trees and the flowers and making the flower beds . In other words we 're just about done with making our planters and what have you . We 've got about a . . .and flower planting is what we 're doing now . - Farmakes : In the plans that you submitted in 1986 , was there a batting cage listed in there? - John Pryzmus : No . On that particular plan , where the batting cage was going to go , there was a proposal for an indoor golf and batting building . Farmakes : What would be the maximum height of that cage? Is that a tent structure with a . . . John Pryzmus: Yeah . From the berm , maybe only 5 feet above the berm . It - would be , I designed it when I was building the berm pretty much contained Planning Commission Me� •_ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 16 within my area . That 's the tree planting , what have you . I would hope that you could . . .as far as seeing additional building going on now . . .what I 'm proposing now . The new building I 'm proposing is set inbetween two berms and you won 't see it from the road . The batting cages will be , you 'll be standing where you won 't be able to be seen from the road . The machine will be pitching up from down . You know the balls will run down . I -- don 't know if you 've ever been to a batting cage . Farmakes : Yes . John Pryzmus : Some of them the ball comes rolling back down this way and then it goes on an elevator . These would go down . You know I think they made a note that there was some washing . Well my berms all the grass has started to come down . I 've sodded around into there . . .but I didn 't do anything with that area that would be . . . I think I 'm going to put blacktop and then carpet instead of like . . . has concrete . Farmakes : Do you have any architectural things that you 've submitted? Does the staff have anything as to the height of this cage or whether or not it _ would be seen or would be screened? Olsen : We haven 't received anything . Farmakes : So it wasn 't submitted in '86 and it 's not submitted now? John Pryzmus : I said what was submitted in '86 was what I 've done so far . _ The berming and planting and that . On the plan in '86 there was an area right where I put one of the teaching holes . Farmakes : So it wasn 't your intent to build these batting cages or whatever until you submitted the proper? John Pryzmus : Right . Until I get the plans . What I 'm saying is , I didn 't — do anything basically that was illegal like it makes it sound like I was doing all kinds of things illegal . I was planning on coming and getting a permit for the batting cages once I can financially do it . I won 't be able _ to financially do it this year but I am getting , I 'm basically getting pressure from the city saying I 'm expanding without permission so now I 'm going to get a permit hopefully and I 'll maybe for next year . . . Farmakes : Well , I have some concerns . One is the maintenance on the holding tank . The other one is I 'm a little , this is sort of the second time around and there seems to be a bit of an attitude problem on some of this stuff for development and it seems naive to me to think that if you 've got approval on plans in 1986 or 1987 that you believe that construction is alright to begin in 1991 . Times change . Ordinances change and I don 't _ think it enhances that attitude or a working relationship with the city to get into this sort of thing . I hope that 's changed or that that attitude will change . I like the facility . I 've used it with my children and I agree . It seems that the landscaping and so on , they 're making an effort to improve it and make the place look nice and I hope that that continues . And I hope that the relationship that you have with the City staff , maybe it will improve . Maybe it 's a matter of circumstances . I hope that 's the case . I guess I would approve this with conditions and I believe also that one of those conditions should be that we should hold that until he Planning Commission MeL _ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 19 - conforms to some of the points that city staff has listed on here . That 's the extent of my comments . Batzli : A year and a half ago I started out by saying I have a real tough time being objective on this application . It seems like he does something and then we find out and he says , oh by the way can I have that . That 's kind of irritating . I 'm starting to sound like a broken record I guess but - I guess I 'd like to see follow through on both sides . If we have conditions and if we have these things , you know both sides I think have to show a little bit more commitment to following through on these things that we agree on and I 'm not convinced yet that if we come up with conditions that we 're going to get anywhere with them . So I don 't know exactly what kind of conditions we 're supposed to put in here . If that means he complies with them 5 years down the road , does that mean he complies with - them right away? I like the facility . I 've used it . I think it 's actually an asset but the cavalier attitude about doing things and then coming in after the fact is irritating . I still try to look at this objectively but that 's tough to get over . That part of it .• I think that given the fact that we imposed the holding tank on him as a condition and he 's made the investment in that , if in fact he can get the contract in here and demonstrate that it 's pumped regularly and what have you , I don 't see why we would make him go to a drainfield kind of thing . I 'd like to see this tabled . I 'd like to see the staff work with him . See if we can work with him and come up with something and a time table for doing these - things . If we 're just going to put conditions on here that says he 's going to do something and not put a time table where if he doesn 't have it done , then what 's the point? That 's all I have . Ellson: I would recommend denial of the expansion until he brings it up . I don 't know that I would be heavy duty on the septic system though if we 've already said it 's okay to have a holding tank . But I think that if some of the other things haven 't already been met like he needs a certificate of occupancy , let 's get it all cleaned up . Since the batting cage is probably a next year apparatus and things later , I 'd rather not see myself approving all that until the rest is cleaned and totally agreed upon between the two and then move forward with the next request . Conrad: When the holding tank was put in , do we inspect that? Steve Kirchman: We inspected the installation . The only inspection is , it 's a manufactured tank . We just take a look at the installation to make sure that it was properly installed . Conrad: So can you have different conditions of holding tanks? Can it be - used or do they have to be new when they go in? What are the standards? I don 't know what we 're talking about . Is this a metal? Is this synthetic? What is the holding tank? Steve Kirchman: It 's a concrete , basically a septic tank is what it is . It 's concrete and it comes in different sizes . It 's got to be water tight . It 's got to have a manhole cover and two clean outs on each end . Conrad : And how do we know that it was when it went in? - Steve Kirchman: It was inspected when it went in . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 20 Conrad: So we know that it was good . When it went in , it was a state of the art holding tank? Steve Kirchman : That 's correct . Conrad: Okay . There are some things that I think just have to be brought up to standards before I even consider anything here . And John , I think we like the facility out there . I think people are using it . I just really want to see the few things . The things that have not been done . I don 't want to consider anything , sign , video , anything until I can see what I perceive to be some simple things just done . Some things that haven 't been approved . The flood light issue is still there and my understanding is they weren 't approved except for security and apparently maybe not on but they 're there and pointed in the wrong direction or something . I 'm not sure about the fence . The fence was not approved in the beginning? Olsen : On the exterior , yes . There 's now fence on the interior and now the ordinance requires you to get a permit for fencing . Conrad : So it was , say it again Jo Ann? Olsen: There was fencing shown on the first approved plan along Galpin and _. TH 5 . That 's where there 's posts and now there 's some internal fencing also . Again , they just need to get the permit . It 's real simple . Make sure the height is the right height . Conrad: You know , that seems like a simple thing to do . The permit for the fence . I think the building has to receive the Certificate of Occupancy . There 's just some simple things but until they 're done , I really don 't want to see anything . I just want to get rid of this and it has to be done right before we take a look at any sort of expansion . And I think these are real simple things . They 're not difficult but I 'm not budging on that until they 're done . Erhart : Let me try to get clear in my mind . What is the problem? What do you think they 've done? What do you think they haven 't done and what do you think they have done? What 's not conforming today in your mind Jo Ann? Okay , I got one . You think there 's flood lights? Olsen: Right . There are flood lights out there for lighting after hours . The hours were set at sunrise to sunset . So that 's one issue that we haven 't . Erhart : How many flood lights are out there? Olsen : How many? Erhart : Yeah . Olsen: There are about , I noticed about 2 or 3 along TH 5 on the telephone poles or whatever and they were on the building . Saw it on at least 2 sides . 3 sides? 2 sides? Erhart : And who are you? Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 21 - Steve Kirchman: Steve Kirchman . I 'm a building inspector . Erhart : Alright . I don 't know , did you introduce yourself or did I miss - that? • Olsen: I kind of introduced him . Ellson: Jo Ann introduced him while you were sleeping . Erhart: While I was sleeping? Okay . John, what are the flood lights - for? Are you using them? What are you using them for? John Pryzmus: Yeah , we use them for up lighting on all the shurbs is what the original approval was on it . Erhart: To do what? Up lighting? John Pryzmus: Yeah . You know they 're only like this high off the ground and to shine on all the paths. - Erhart : For what? People to get around after dark? John Pryzmus: Yeah . Erhart : So you are , you 're using the facility as a business after dark? John Pryzmus : The miniature golf has been open yes , after the sun went - down . Erhart : And that 's not permitted . Olsen: Not permitted . Erhart : Okay , so in fact you are using it after dark and that wasn 't permitted . Okay . What else? You 're saying you have some internal fences? Olsen: He just needs a fence permit for that . Erhart: If Bluff Creek Golf Course came in and wanted to put up a fence between their club house and the first tee, would they just do it or would they come in? Ellson: If you wanted one you 'd have to come in. Olsen: I can 't tell you what they would do . They would be required to get a permit . - Erhart: Is there any limit to how short the fence can be? Let 's say they wanted to put up cedar rails or something . Olsen: It 's still a fence . You know we don't have a limit on how low it can go but how high it can go . The video games is another thing which . Erhart: Hang on . Let me get this clear in my mind. So you think there 's some internal fencing going on not shown . Planning Commission ME„ing May 15 , 1991 - Page 22 Olsen: I know there is . Erhart : On a golf course you can 't move fences without a different site plan? Olsen: Yeah , if it 's different from the site plan . The only fences are agricultural . Steve Kirchman: The only issue here is he has to come in and get the permit . Nobody 's objecting to his fence but he does need a permit for his perimeter fence . He just has to come and get a permit . Erhart : Okay . What else then? You said there 's some grading going on? Emmings : He got a permit for that didn 't he? Olsen: He got a grading permit for some of the grading . Correct Dave? But some of it still was going to be part of this whole permit because it included some of the tees . The parking lot . Grading for where the batting _ cage is and the drainage . We don 't have any plans on that . We don 't have the detailed grading . Erhart : How many cubic feet are being graded? Olsen : We wouldn 't know . We need to know that . Erhart : what does the ordinance read? Olsen : It 's 50 cubic yards . Erhart : Is it more than that or less than that? Hempel : Definitely more than that . Emmings : He needs a certificate of occupancy is another one Tim . Erhart : Yeah , I 'm getting to that . Before we get to that one , any other ones? Conrad: He needs to supply us with a schedule of the pumping of the septic tank . Erhart : I 'm waiting for that one for last . Olsen : The video games . It 's the hours of operation . Erhart : Yeah , I got that one . Olsen: He is currently putting in the parking lot . It looks that way . Erhart : Was that on the '86 plan? There 's so much stuff here . Okay , let 's go back to the septic system . If you look at the conditions on page 3 there . Condition 4 is that two septic sites be protected from grading . In condition 5 it says the applicant shall install a holding tank . Why would we have done that? Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 23 - Olsen : Where are you? Erhart : Your page 3 of the report . On the bottom there . 4 says two - septic system sites shall be protected from grading activities . Then you go on with item 5 , the applicant shall install a holding tank . Olsen: Shall comply with ordinance 10B . That 's where it , I remember that there was conversations between the applicant and I believe Don and Barb . Do you remember? - John Pryzmus : I don 't remember why it was changed from septic . Erhart : This was part of the conditional use . These were the conditions to the conditional use permit right? Olsen: I believe that it was one of the issues was cost of installing . My recollection was that the applicant wanted the holding tank . I remember that there was a meeting in Don Ashworth 's office I believe with Barb . Erhart : Before it went to Council . Alright , so let 's not try to do that . — Let 's go back to Steve . Your letter then . Essentially is it clear to everybody that we gave him , per your letter here , essentially approved a holding tank? Steve Kirchman: A permit was issued for the holding tank and the installation was inspected and approved . - Erhart : Okay . Then you go on to say , I strongly urge that no further development be permitted on the property until existing violations are corrected . This would include installation of an approved septic system . — Does that contradict what? Steve Kirchman: Well , State Code requires that if you 've got sites available , that you have to have a septic system . Erhart : I understand but . - Steve Kirchman : If the possibility exists that there are no available sites . So if there are no available sites , then he has to continue with that holding tank . Erhart : I understand but I guess what I 'm saying is , I think there 's a tremendous insensitivity here . This memo drives a lot of what 's going on here . Steve Kirchman: I realize that . Erhart : Okay . On the one hand it says that we 've told John and gave him a permit to put in this holding tank and then a few inches down the paper here you 're saying don 't do anything here until this comes into conformity essentially . Steve Kirchman: As I said earlier , I 'm assuming the reason that we let him put in a holding tank was that the original septic sites were disturbed . - That 's just an assumption on my part . I don 't know why anyone would let Planning Commission Mewing May 15 , 1991 - Page 24 him put in holding tanks . Erhart : I don't think that 's the point . The point is if you 've given him approval , then you 've given him approval . I don 't think we can go back then and said gee whiz , you can't do anything because . Olsen: But that is , you know the whole driving force behind this report . That 's one of the reasons . It 's also that there 's additional . Erhart : Well that seems to be the only major one of all these . I guess establishing whether they can continue using the , whether he can expand usirtig_ the holding tank or not . I guess my recommendation I think is pretty much along with everybody elses. I guess overall I think the facility is — fine and useful to people here and John has made his way of trying to make things work . On the other hand I think sometimes , I think we have to be a little more sensitive to these styles of businesses . Not everybody is able — to put in a plan , able to work in a normal , timely fashion . And if we preclude that process , I think we preclude a lot of creativity . On the other hand it appears to me like John seems to be alittle more organized today than I think when he started in 1986 and so I think we 're both learning on how to get along a little bit better here . Both John and the city . The issue on the septic system , I realize that the Code says you can 't , we 're not supposed to go in disturbed areas but that 's , practicality — is that you can make systems work in disturbed areas . Steve Kirchmen: I disagree . If the area 's been disturbed, then it just — destroys the properties of the soils of accepting effluent . The effluent may not show but it also won 't get treated . Emmings : Can you do it in a mound? Erhart : Essentially when you go and do a septic system you do disturb the soil . And certainly in a mound . Steve Kirchman: No , you don't . Erhart : You just lay it on top? Steve Kirchman: You lay it on top and you have to use track machinery and you 're not allowed to drive a truck over the surface where the mound is to — go . Erhart: Well anyway , I think obviously the tank is working and I don 't see — that this is , it appears that it can work . Steve , I think you 're saying that it can work properly if properly maintained. On the other hand, I would prefer to see a septic system . On the other hand , when do you expect the sewer line to be put through here? Krauss: Well we 're looking at serving the area behind , across the street from this site hopefully next Friday . Theoretically , but this area is not — included in the MUSA line expansion . This area is the study area so there would be no service to this property in the foreseeable future . Erhart : So that 's what you , the other thing is I think it 'd be to their advantage to get this as an interim use permit so I 'd agree with your Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 25 recommendation to try to , anyway try to get it to that so we can tie some kind of date on this . So I guess I 'd go along with staff 's recommendation in terms of approving with the video games and trying to get interim use permit and try to come back with , table it and come back . I guess I 'd like to see him clear up , maybe Steve or someone to try to clear up a uniform recommendation on whether this holding site or septic system or something so it 's a little clearer at the next meeting . And then have conditions . Olsen : Yeah , we 'll confirm the capacity and things like that . Erhart : That 's finally it . Emmings: Okay . I 'm going to adopt Brian 's comments and Ladd 's comments just to shorten things down . I 'm not going to , I don 't care too much about the sign or video games . Whether we do something with that but he has to do , in my mind , he has to do what he said he would do in the past or fulfill the conditions that were imposed on prior approvals before I 'm willing to look at any expansion . And that 's primarily because although I 'm sure that John has his own version of how things have evolved out there , all I 've seen here over the years is John filling in the wetland . Being told to stop . Coming in and asking for a permit . Being denied . And now he 's doing something else and he 's being told to stop and he 's coming in again for a permit after the fact . I think he 's had enough interaction with the City to know that he should come here first and he hasn 't been willing to do that so I 'm not willing to look at an expansion until he gets everything up to snuff . If it was one time I could understand it but it hasn 't been one time . This is at least the third time that I can recall sitting here and looking at this and maybe it 's the fourth . So that 's where I stand . Is there a motion? Conrad: Yes . I move that we table action until the applicant brings the , satisfies the staff 's concerns about the previous conditional use permit . Batzli : Second . Emmings: Is there any discussion? Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to table the Interim Use Permit for Swings Golf until the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are satisfied . All voted in favor except Ahrens and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Emmings: Do you want to put the reasons on the record? Ahrens: Well I 've been thinking about this and I can go along with the staff recommendation on this for approval of the Interim Use Permit for denial of expansion of the site . Erhart: What was your second one? Ahrens: Basically the staff 's recommendation . Denial of the expansion but that the staff continue to work with them to bring the site into compliance . Planning Commission Meeting May 15 , 1991 - Page 26 Erhart : Okay and I think that was what I was thinking . That 's what I was - voting for denial . So if that 's what it is , that was mine . Conrad: Now with my motion , I just want to make sure that the tank , the holding tank . It is permitted so we 're not asking staff at this time to figure out how to do a drainfield . We 're not asking John to do that . We are bringing it into conformance with the previous conditional use permit and what the city has granted John to do . Emmings : And you 're not in any way discouraging them from continuing to work together to bring it up to snuff and then look at a proposal when they 've got one . Conrad: That 's all I want . I just don 't see there are a' lot of things that you have to do John . I just do want , I want to force you and the staff doing things together the right way . We 're not trying to be the bad guys . I want to do it the right way so we can review this without having some history and some negatives out there . Then we can take a look at the real issues . Emmings : Right . I think we ought to at this point take a quick break for a North Stars update . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION . Emmings: I understand that you 're recommending that we table this matter so that we can notify affected property owners and then hold a public hearing and complete the official map . What should we do on this tonight? I think that 's obviously the thing to do . Olsen: Look at the map . Krauss: We 'd like you to look at the preliminary draft of the official map we had . We 'd also like to discuss some standards with you that are in the ordinance . In fact Jo Ann and I had a long conversation . After coming back from the bluff hike , Bluff Creek hike , my personal opinion is that some of the standards that the DNR recommended aren 't adequate to protect what we want to protect over there . One of the other things we wanted to do , first of all what we 're proposing is an ordinance based on an official map rather than a we know it when we see it approach and so to designate where this thing is . You should know though that when you see this map you ' ll see it . It really does interfere indirect with a lot of properties up there and a lot of property owners may fell disinfranchised by it and I think that the environmental benefits of this have to be so , in addition we have to have some mechansim wherein existing situations are grandfathered . Not made non-conforming but grandfathered so we accept the status quo . Ellson: That couldn 't expand? Would that be grandfathered? Krauss : Well no . I think we 'd like to work out some language where they could if there wasn 't prejudice against them because they happened to build earlier . The other thing that we 'd like to do too for the public is , Dave City Council Meet. - November 16, 1987 be willing to support a situation in which he would grant the city an easement. If the City wants to build a trail on both sides of CR 17, I think we should be willing to pay for it but I'd like to have that option available to us. I think that saves Mr. Patton's feeling that it's costing the development money because you're simply giving us an easement and yet it protects the ability of the City to come back and build a trail later. Councilman Johnson: I thought that was what the Park and Rec was asking for anyway. Councilman Boyt: What we agreed to the other evening was that Mr. Patton would build the trail on both sides of CR 17 and I think Park and Rec said that if he chose not to build it, there would be a reduction in the trails fees. I think since then we have increase the amount of trails we've asked Mr. Patton to build in this development and quite possibly it's reasonable to ask for an easement. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the applicant provide an easement on one side of County Road 17 for the future development of a trail, to be built by the City, if a trail on both sides of County Road 17 is deemed necessary. A11 voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW SWINGS RECREATION PROJECT, JOHN PRYZMUS, APPLICANT: - 4 A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE GOLF DRIVING RANGES AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE AS AN ACCESSORY USE, 2ND AND FINAL READING. B. APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOCUMENT. Barbara Dacy: I do need a clarification on one of the proposed conditions of the conditional use permit but as to the zoning ordinance amendment, the Council needs to act on the 2nd and final reading on the zoning ordinance amendment to allow golf driving ranges as a conditional use with or without miniature golf as an accessory use. The five conditions that the Council put in their motion from May 4, 1987. The Council approved the conditional use permit and also acted to deny the wetland alteration permit so the Council needs to authorize execution of the conditional use permit which staff has prepared in Attachment n2. If I could review briefly one of the conditions. On the graphic here the big blob, if you will, is the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. The orange area is where the miniature golf course is going to be located. The gray area is where the parking area is proposed to be then there was a small clubhouse building located here. This colored square is the proposed batting building at that time. The batting building was not approved as part of the conditional use permit and this area over here represents the septic system sites adjacent to Galpin Blvd.. This site plan shown here was submitted in conjunction with the landscaping plan and that landscaping plan is proposed to be the installation of a number of deciduous trees and also proposed construction of berm areas which are represented in green. The applicant also proposed fencing around the entire perimeter of the site as well as a fence around the maxi-putt and mini-putt 19 k-ACJ-kt115-11 cYa 011("' City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 area. So the conditional use permit has been designed to follow up on the r elements that was represented by the applicant on his site plan and landscaping plan. In number 1 the first permit requires submission of a revised grading plan showing the limits of grading, methods of erosion control and indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse. As you recall, the applicant had originally intended in altering the wetland area and creating a pond back here and to lower the elevation of the hill over in this area for the construction of a batting building. Since the wetland alteration permit was denied and since the batting building was not included in the approval, the applicant has changed his plans so that we would like to reduce the size of the hill in this area and second of all, if you will recall, Carver County had a condition that the setback area for the parking lot and the clubhouse building be measured from 100 feet from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. I apologize to the applicant also and to the Council, but the way that first condition should read is with the 50 foot structure setback in the A-2 district, the first condition should read, indicating the revised location of the parking lot and clubhouse 150 feet from the center line of CR 117. That would take into accomodation the additional right-of-way needed for CR 117 as well as the 50 foot setback. I think that was discussed all along. I made an error in the footage from the center line of Galpin Blvd.. The size of the parking lot was primarily based on the use of the batting building. Provided on the plan here is construction of 92 spaces. The batting building is not being included, there is no reason to have that size of a parking lot so what the first condition is saying is that the plan should show the revised location of the parking lot and I'd like to add the revised size and location of the parking lot and clubhouse so that the applicant is proposing to reduce this in size, that's fine. Finally, the plan indicated that the parking area was to be bituminous and again I apologize, that should have been specified in the first condition there. Also, the ordinance does require that all parking areas should be lined by concrete curb also so the Council may want to discuss that in more detail tonight but in order to match our ordinance, a sentence should be added that the parking shall be paved and lined with concrete curb. The second condition was commented on the previous staff report back in May that in order to be consistent with our landscaping ordinance, 6 foot evergreens and 2 foot evergreens should be placed between the parking areas and Galpin Blvd.. The proposed fencing of the site, the applicant indicated to me that it would be approximately 5 feet and it should not exceed our 6 feet in conformance with our ordinance. Number 4 and 5 really go together. As you recall, the bathrooms were to be located in the batting building area. The applicant has found a better location for mound systems over in this area. If the batting building is no longer there, the bathrooms are to be placed in the clubhouse, the applicant's has a couple of options. He can either pump the effluent to a septic system site to the north, install a holding tank or install temporary Satellites on the property so what staff is recommending that if the septic system sites are not to be used, then we recommend installation of a holding tank rather than installation of Satellites. In any case however, we want to insure that septic system sites are protected out in the field and are not altered in case they are removed or needed by the applicant. If the applicant is to install a holding tank, then the copy of the contract with a licensed pumper should be provided. Six, the applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife and DNR. Because the applicant will be submitting a revised grading [77 20 2477 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 --Ir- plan, the Watershed District approval will be necessary in that case. The applicant will have to receive their authorization. Now, as to the wetland alteration permit, Council action again was to deny that on May 4, 1987. The applicant is proposing to plant grass zccd in this area on a regular basis in order to pick up the balls from the tee area. Because this area has been farmed in the past on a consistent basis, staff did not feel that planting grass seed periodically would be adverse to the wetland areas. We prepared a permit to allow seeding of the site. If that is not consistent with what the Council feels was their action on May 4, 1987, then that needs to be corrected. Number 8, to insure completion of the grading improvements and the parking lot improvements and so on, we ask that the applicant submit a letter of credit in the amount of 110%. The Council discussed at the last meeting and made a condition the zoning ordinance amendment to include the use that the hours of operation would be from sunrise to sunset and therefore there would be no lighting unless that was a specific condition of approval. Finally, there is an outstanding bill incurred by Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson. We're requiring that be paid and if an additional review would be necessary for the mound septic system sites beyond our current staff, that would be necessary that a condition that those fees would be paid by the applicant also and that is consistent with all of our applicants for any of our subdivision or any type of applicant in the rural area. Mayor Hamilton: I can think of one question offhand. You said we wanted to have curb in there. I guess I don't recall that in the rural area for any type of a use like this and I guess the only one I can think of that would be fairly similar would be the mini-storage area. I don't believe that we required curb and gutter in that area. Barbara Dacy: For Mr. Brown's there was I believe the main access drives, ingress and egress points to the development. Mayor Hamilton: Right but not the whole, what you would consider the parking area. Barbara Dacy: Right. Tonight I was indicating that the curbing and the paving and the bituminous issue was not even discussed at the May 4th meeting. I was merely pointing out that our ordinance requires it. That paved be lined with concrete curb so you're consistent with the ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: Okay and I was just questioning that wondering if that's consistent with what we do in the rural area. If that's what our ordinance says, I guess that surprises me. Barbara Dacy: Staff has been consistent in recommending that that be installed. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure you have but my question is still the same. Is it the ordinance that it would be installed in the rural areas? Barbara Dacy: Your question, have you approved it in the past? 21 22.1e 2. City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: No, does it say that in the ordinance? That rural areas put in parking for whatever use you're going to use, you have to have curb and gutter. Barbara Dacy: The ordinance does not specify if it's urban or rural. It says if you have a parking area, it has to be paved and you have to have concrete curb. Mayor Hamilton: Alright, so that's something that the Council could decide whether or not we want to have that right? Staff is recommending that the applicant do put that in. I'm also curious about the wetland now. The drawing that you were showing us there and the portion in green is supposedly the wetland. Who's definition of the wetland is that? Barbara Dacy: We asked the applicant at that time, what we use as the definition of edge of the wetland is where the reed grass vegetation starts and stops. That was one factor because the reed grass was predominant in this area. The other reference that we used was the official Chanhassen wetlands map that was on file. This part of the area does reflect on the contour that's located on the wetlands map. Mayor Hamilton: What class wetland was that? Barbara Dacy: It was a Type II, Class B. fff- Mayor Hamilton: Is that the lowest grade you can get? Barbara Dacy: There's Type I which is the lowest. Mayor Hamilton: So it's next to the lowest and that area had been farmed for years if I remember correctly. I still, in being consistent with what I've said in the past, I don't believe that's a wetland and I would like to see some evidence if it is. I think the applicant ought to be allowed use in that area. It may have been a wetland at one time and John filled it. Right or wrong it's something that's been done. I think that he's said that at that far north end of that there is a pond or he would construct a pond that could be used as a wetland or as a retention area for runoff to go into the creek. I would prefer to see that done since he's filled the area already, allow him to use it. I guess I have stated that previously and I still feel the same way. I think anybody would have a hard time going out there and I don't care if it's Mrs. Rockwell or our staff and proving that that is in fact a wetland. I don't think there's any evidence out there. Do council members have any questions of the staff? Councilman Horn: One of the things that we requested when we reviewed this last time was to get a general policy on allowing this type of use from the Planning Commission. I didn't see any record that they had given us a guideline on this issue. Barbara Dacy: As I interpretted the Minutes after reviewing them, that topic was discussed but then I believe it was Councilman Geving saying you have to decide on a particular issue at hand tonight and that two motions occurred. - 22 2.49 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 So that item has not been brought back to the Planning Commission for review given Council's action. Councilman Horn: If you read further in the Minutes it said that, yes we had to act on this issue this evening but part of our problem with acting that evening was that we didn't have the guideline and what we said is, that we should go back and get a guideline as to what type of uses we should allow and where we should allow them and what kind of criteria we should put on those kinds of uses. Specifically the issue of the batting area had come up and that is not addressed anywhere. We also described the fact that if you read our ordinance it doesn't allow a golf course anyplace in the City without a conditional use permit. That was another one of the issues that we wanted to address and brought back to us for us to act on. Now we came back to this issue again and we don't have any further recommendations or any further guidance on this thing and it seems like we've lost a lot of time where we could have been making a policy on that so once again instead of proactive, we're retroactive. Barbara Dacy: I guess I disagree because the five conditions that the Council eventually approved were the specific recommendations of the Planning Commission and they made a specific statement saying that the batting building of the commercial recreational uses was not appropriate in the rural area. But they did distinguish between driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They declined to act on the golf course issue because that was not brought up to them at that point although I recall that the Planning Commission did say that they would all agree that a golf course should be allowed in the rural area. Basically what the Council has approved was the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilman Horn: That's true but what we also asked for was that the issue of golf courses in general be addressed in terms of our overall ordinance and I don't believe it has. Barbara Dacy: Yes, they have not addressed that but I guess I still don't understand how that issue would relate to Mr. Pryzmus' application because I don't think the driving range and miniature golf course is clearly a distinct use than a golf course. Councilman Horn: What you're telling us is that there is no anomaly to the ordinance to date. That this is a very clear cut issue from our ordinance. Barbara Dacy: The Council acted to approve the Planning Commission recommendation for the golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses. They did not address a golf course issue at all. Councilman Horn: I understand that. Based on the current ordinance? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Johnson: As I said in May, I think we should allow at least the seeding in that area to make the area useful. I do not think we should make major grading changes to that area. It still, with the proper seeding, will 23 250 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 function as a nutrient drain the wetland area. This is another example of how the TH 5 corridor there needs to be looked at. We are in that process, I guess looking at the entire downtown to TH 41 as part of our comprehensive plan. John Pryzmus: As far as if I can have it, whatever you decide as far as the curbing we can go ahead and do that but what I worked with staff is after the 11 inches of rain, I went down there and mowed that area a week and a half later and there wasn't even any water there so I'm not worried about filling in the wet area at all. Cne thing that I would like to propose is the batting cage or our proposal there was a batting building. It was consistent with my financing and that project was...to make it financially feasible. I needed the batting cage or the indoor golf and batting. As far as the density of the area coincides with miniature golf and driving range. Also, when people are using that, they won't really go off the site so if I could reconsider to add that building as a utility building, that would be the only thing. Other than that, I won't be doing anything in the low land at all other than seeding it. As far as the grading permit, that goes along with the miniature golf now and we won't put any fill in the low area, we'll just knock down the one hill and just push it to the back. There will be a very minimum amount of grading on the site. So if you would reconsider allowing having a utility building to make it financially feasible... Mayor Hamilton: That's an entirely separate issue. I guess if you want that to be reconsidered, you'll have to bring it back at another time. Do you have i_ any problems with the conditions 1 through 10 that were outlined by the conditional use permit? Were those conditions acceptable to you? John Pryzmus: The curbing and? Mayor Hamilton: There are 10 conditions. Have you had a chance to review then? John Pryzmus: I didn't. Councilman Boyt: Did you fill in the wetland? John Pryzmus: Yes, I filled in part of it. Councilman Boyt: Did you have a permit to do that? John Pryzmus: There isn't any wetland on the property. I have a letter from the DNR stating that it's not a protected wetland. Councilman Boyt: Well the City considers it a wetlands and you filled it in without a permit, is that correct? I just want to get a clear status on how we lost the wetland. My understanding is we lost the wetland because you filled it in. Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. 24 x'51 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Boyt: What you're basically asking to do with the wetlands and what the City proposes is a wetland, is to seed it, mow it, treat it like any other piece of ground. I would like to ask the staff, is this going to impede it's ability to do what it's doing now? Barbara Dacy: When Dr. Rockwell visited the site last spring, she commented that the area is really not acting as a good place for habitat which is one of the criteria for a wetland. It's main function was serving as an area for recharge and a storm water retention area before it gets to a creek along the north side of the property. Staff felt that because there was going to be no additional fill or alteration of the property, that it would continue to be maintained the way it was in the last several years, that we felt that the seeding would not affect that function at all. Councilman Boyt: Now I heard something about an offer to build a pond on the property as a holding pond. I think that's a reasonable offer and we should take you up on that. Barbara Dacy: That was part of the original wetland alteration permit request that was denied by the Council so if you're proposing to do that, he would have to reapply for that. Councilman Boyt: How are you proposing and how would you like to alter that wetland any differently than what you propose to do now? John Pryzmus: You means as far as building a pond? Councilman Boyt: No, as far as the particular wetland. Is that where you are proposing to build your pond? John Pryzmus: Yes it would be down at the end of the road area. Councilman Boyt: Alright, so what other kinds of changes were you proposing to make in the wetland? John Pryzmus: All I want to do is just like I have there on the sewer. Councilman Boyt: Co we have any difficulty with him improving the wetland? We seem to have set a precedent indicating agreement to do that before. Well Jay, maybe when it gets to be your turn you can comment on that. Then the other situation I have is on the parking lot. As I read the ordinance, it's a little different than staff is interpretting it. It says on page 1247, in multiple family, business, office and industrial districts. We're not in any of those so it does state that a person needs to have some sort of dust free, all weather surface and concrete curbing. It's real specific as to where in the city we can require that. I believe this is an agricultural district? Mayor Hamilton: It's A-2. Councilman Boyt: I think given the surface area, it probaby makes sense to put a concrete curb around this but I don't think the city ordinance requires it. I think it's kind of commen sense if you're going to put a hard surface 25 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 on that much ground to have some means of controlling the runoff from that. [ So to kind of summarize where I'm at right now, on the wetland, if you're going to improve it, I can certainly be convinced that grading and seeding is appropriate since it doesn't seem to interfere with what it's doing now. On the curbing, I'm okay with going on the curbing whichever way you want because our ordinance doesn't require it as I read it. However, I would certainly look favorably upon putting concrete curbing around your parking area. My biggest concern is that we're sitting in an agricultural area and we are producing what I think is going to be a tremendous traffic generator. A collector into this particular spot. Business Week in the last month had an article that indicated that miniature golf courses are doing quite well. I think we -cc an example of that on TH 7 and TH 101 and I think we should view this as a permanent structure and not as a temporary structure until something better comes along. I don't know that we've done a traffic study. Have we done a traffic study? Barbara Dacy: No we have not for this. Councilman Boyt: I gather that we're saying we're preparing to approve something that I think will generate a great deal of traffic. Is a county study done? Barbara Dacy: The County has reviewed the site plan. Their recommendation was that the access be located 300 feet to the north of the intersection. Councilman Boyt: Maybe people who are more familiar with that particular intersection than I am can add to more that. i Barbara Dacy: We do have books upstairs from the Institute of Traffic Engineers that estimate the amount of traffic to be generated from miniature golf courses and retail uses and so on. I think when we went to through the process last spring the major concern was the batting building because that would generate more traffic on a consistent basis. The miniature golf course traffic would be seasonal in nature. Peak periods would be on Saturday and Sunday and evenings. Councilman Boyt: You're saying when the traffic load would tend to be lighter on TH 5, this... Barbara Dacy: It's considerably less than a retail use or commercial recreational use. Councilman Boyt: You don't consider this to be comparable with a retail use? Mayor Hamilton: I guess if we did a traffic study it would probably show us what we already know and that's that TH 5 is overused and if we have another use along the highway it's going to continue to overload it some more. I have no other comments on the two proposed items before us. Councilman Boyt: Then we're saying we make this amendment that anyone in the agricultural area can come in and apply for a miniature golf course and a golf driving range? 26 75.3 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 -ir- Mayor Hamilton: Right, as a conditional use. Councilman Boyt: And basically we can only turn down a conditional use request when there is some overriding concern. We can't do it because the neighbors don't want it there? Mayor Hamilton: Conditional use has always given us a great deal of latitude. Roger Knutson: You have a good discretion on it. You can't turn it down because the neighbors don't like it. They frown on that. You have to exercise your own judgment. Mayor Hamilton: That's true Bill. Unfortunately that's the case. Councilman Horn: I believe that one of the requirements we put on here is that it be located adjacent to a major road with an off street access. Councilman Johnson: From a collector or an arterial. Not just an off-street access. Councilman Horn: Which will limit it to some degree. Councilman Johnson: There aren't that many sites who could develop this. We specified TH 5 and TH 212. We're not opening this up to the entire A-2 district. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #82-4 to amend Article V, Section 3(4) to allow golf driving ranges with or without miniature gold courses as a conditional use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate District and to amend Article V, Section 9(14) to allow standards for golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses: 1. The location of the driving range is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. No site shall be located within 500 feet of a single family residence. 5. - The building to be constructed on any site would be a maximum of 800 square feet and shall be painted in earth tones. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Item b is to approve the Conditional Use Permit document. The applicant has said that he hasn't reviewed the 10 items. Is there a L motion to handle item 6(b)? 27 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Councilman Johnson: Did the applicant get this? Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so. You've been working with him rather closely, it's hard to believe he hasn't. Barbara Dacy: I know the packet was sent out to you on Friday. You have not received it? John Pryzmus: I've been out working at the site so I haven't gotten my mail. Barbara Dacy: It was sent to the Saratoga Drive address. Councilman Johnson: While we have a slight break here, Bill was talking about the wetlands down there. By improving the wetlands, I do have a slight opinion on that. If we're not building the batting cage, which at this time we aren't, our amount of impervious surface being added to the area are minimal. The amount of increase runoff that would require an increased holding pond should be minimal. If we can keep that area as an infiltration area versus a holding pond area, I personally believe it would be best served to keep it in the same use as what nature has it now. Not necessarily making a holding pond in a wetland is an improvement to the wetland in my opinion. Certain wetlands have certain purposes. This wetland and the area adjacent to it appears to be a infiltration area. Unfortunately there's about a foot of dirt in many areas on top of what used to be the wetlands but I think if we dug deep enough we would find the wetland that was there. At this time, if we had approved the other building there, then I would be insisting upon a holding pond to slow down the runoff going into the creek there but at this time I don't think there's a great need to try to improve that wetland. When you try to improve something, you sometimes may screw it up. Councilman Horn: It's already broken. Mayor Hamilton: But it's broken like Clark says. It could be improved I would think dramatically because if you walk back there there's nothing there and it could be improved to be something. Councilman Johnson: Aesthetically yes but hydraulically I'm not sure if the improvement will be any different. I haven't seen any facts or figures to say it. As an area of infiltration and recharge of ground water, it will continue function as such. You put it in as a pond and we have a better mosquito breeding area. Councilman Boyt: The holding pond isn't in the condition in the condition as it stands. I would like to see it put in. I think it could help it improve . Mr. Pryzmus seems be willing to put it in. Is it acceptable to amend the wetland alteration permit? the Councilman Johnson: Tetb denied it. Barbara Dacy: If you wanted to provide for a conditional use permit, you _ could include it in condition number 1 by saying, submission of a revised 28 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 grading plan by December 1st indicating location of a holding pond. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was thinking of the same thing but I would like to see John be encouraged to come back and request a wetland alteration permit again showing what he's going to do with the pond. I guess I'd kind of like to see because you at one time agreed that you would do that. Just improve the pond in the north end. Then we would have some idea of what it's going to look like and what he's going to do because I think you would still like to have a permit. John Pryzmus: I'm working with Bill Engelhardt right now and we're working on the changeover from the filled in areas to put a pond in there and have him and the DNR decide how big and whether they think it should be there. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and then that could be a part of your request for a wetland alteration permit coming back to us at another time. John Pryzmus: It would be nice to have that as a condition if you'd let me have my batting building. Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason, if you want you can ask for both of those again. I can't tell you to or not to but if that's something you want to do, that's something you have to decide if you want to come back and request one or either or both, that's up to you to make that request. Councilman Johnson: John, do you want this pond? = John Pryzmus: I think as far as from the area, the pond isn't going to hurt me. • Councilman Johnson: What about the septic systems? You talked about the conversion there to a holding tank versus a septic system. Barbara Dacy: No, there's no change proposed with that. Conditions 4 and 5 remain the same. Councilman Horn: We could include an asphalt curb. Councilman Johnson: I prefer to get sheet flow off of the parking area. Mayor Hamilton: I would too. I don't know that much about water runoff but it would seem that if you have water running off, don't you decrease the amount of velocity coming off of an area by doing that. That's what we're always. trying to do. Barbara Dacy: That be addressed and reviewed by staff. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we always talk about decreasing the velocity and that would Deem like that might do that. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. Councilman Horn: Let's leave off everything with curbs. 29 1 City Council Meeting - November 16, 1987 Gary Warren: We'll look at that with the plans that cane in. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd be curious to know if it does or doesn't. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit Document as presented with the following amendment to the first condition: 1. Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1, 1987 showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary, indicating the revised size and location of the parking lot and club house and 150 feet from the centerline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking lot shall be paved. City Staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. All voted in favor and motion carried. • CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING HUNTING NORTH OF TH 5, DNR CONTROLLED GOOSE HUNT. Mayor Hamilton: We've had an opportunity to see one of these previously and Jim has made some recommendations to us. Reading through Jim's recommendations saying the ultimate solution though may be the elimination of hunting all together within the city limits of Chanhassen I couldn't agree with less. I don't think that's the ultimate solution at all. There are areas in the city where you can hunt especially around Rice Marsh Lake or swamp or whatever you call it. There are a number of areas south of TH 5 that are certainly acceptable for shotgun hunting of birds and fowl but perhaps not any longer of deer. Although there is enough open space so I think slug hunting is probably pretty safe also but to get to the real problem, these dog gone geese. Personally I guess, unless everybody wants a report from Jim, I would really like to see us just say no hunting north of TH 5 period. Whether it's a special hunt or non-special hunt so you don't run into the same problems we did last time. Tnat was a mess. Councilman Boyt: I think that we have a tremendous problem with the geese in this city. As much as I like to see them fly, I understand that a good many people don't like to see them on their yard and what they leave behind. I would think that it is a difficult issue where we allow people to hunt north of TH 5. I agree with you by the way on hunting south of TH 5. I think that there are still some areas where people should be able to hunt in Chanhassen given the level of development as it is right now. I would like to see us look at some sort of reasonable guideline that Mr. Chaffee could use in doing a preliminary screen on a request. Whether it's north or south. I would think something in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards from any home. Mayor Hamilton: Feet or yards? Councilman Boyt: No, yards. The reason I say yards is because that's r--- basically basically the maximum carrying distance of a shotgun. It's not going to carry there with any ability to do anything. Gentlemen, I can assure that if you 30 Planning Commission Me. ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 27 configuration of the roadways that that come before the Planning Commission for review. All voted in favor and motion carried . Siegel moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions : 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas . All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart: Can you explain what item number 2 in your recomnendation means . Olsen: What they are providing, in what they call a storm water easement, I'm just making sure that they definitely provide easements over that and that those are protected areas so they won ' t be altered . Erhart : Altered? Olsen : Such as mowing the lawn . SWINGS RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CO. RD. 117 , JOHN PRYZMUS , APPLICANT: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO ALLOW GOLF DRIVING RANGES, MINIATURE GOLF COURSES AND INDOOR BATTING BUILDINGS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND AN INDOOR BATTING BUILDING. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST TO FILL IN A CLASS A WETLAND. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment request. Conrad : Where else would a golf driving range be in the city? Dacy: Currently a golf driving range is not listed in any other commercial districts so basically a golf course or golf driving range is not a permitted or conditional use within the City of Chanhassen . Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 28 Conrad : Can you refresh my memory why that is? I'm looking at some notes where we specifically said we did not want that in agricultural area and I have a hard time recalling that . • Dacy: What happened was , during the Zoning Ordinance review process we met several times in 1985 and 1986. The Bluff Creek golf course now is a non- conforming use as a golf course but we do recall discussion that the Commission did have problems with a golf driving range in the rural area. You didn't think it was appropriate. It created some traffic along those roads so it wasn't approved as a part of the new Ordinance thus the application . Conrad : John, you are the applicant. Specifically John we're talking on the zoning and before you tell us what your range and what your configuration would look like. I don't know how I can limit you to just one subject. You are asking for a zoning change or you are asking to amend the Ordinance based on a project that you've got. I don't want to review the project yet. I really do want to review the concept. Of the three things that you've asked for , in general in the City of Chanhassen. Can you keep us away from your project for a while? Do you have anything to tell us about driving ranges in Chanhassen? Persuade us that we should have driving ranges in Chanhassen is what my challenge to you would be. . John Pryzmus : On page 8, basically my feelings in the Chaska Herald is an ad I developed. I spent a lot of time with the people planning the driving range out there now. I've been in front of the City Council about two months ago and at that time we didn't have the total plans and the layout of the new facility. It had been approved originally five years ago for a driving range and I never did open it. I worked on it gradually over the last 5 years and being that the little one I had in town , there was no development on it, I never had a reason to open the new one. I brought in people from Chicago, John Jacobsford Golf and we went and looked at every driving range in the Twin Cities area and there area lot of driving ranges that aren't kept up very well and a lot of them are just an intern use for a piece of property until you put it into an industrial park or whatever. You - aren't going to buy an industrial park for driving ranges but you do buy a driving range for industrial parks. With this project, I'm not proposing it to be used as an industrial park down the road. It's a half a million dollar project that should enhance the recreational facilities for the community. In all the response I've had, they are 100% for the project. I feel by getting community support, I feel that I want to show the Council and the Planning Commission that not only do I want to make a business venture out there, I've already spent a lot of money buying the land. I bought it on a contingency that I could have a driving range then that was approved so I guess what I want to do now. I originally proposed a miniature golf in my original proposal and that was turned down but what I want to do is make it financially feasible for me to do it as an investment and also make it a good thing for the community. With the nature of TH 5 and there is not really a traffic problem. These numbers might not all be right but you have approximately 20,000 cars going by there a day so there won't be a traffic impact. They would be coming off of TH 5 and going down Planning Commission Me ing April 22 , 1987 - Page z9 100 yards on a major collector road which is tar . Conrad: John, I think you are getting into the specifics of the project and I'm really trying to focus on the Ordinance itself right now. We have to look at the Ordinance and say does it make sense to allow driving ranges? Does it make sense to allow some buildings out there and you can come back in a few seconds to talk on the specifics but anything else that you can share with us in terms of, I know they are real closely tied together. John Pryzmus : I guess maybe if I could just answer any questions you have because if I start rambling on and on I might get back into that. If there are some questions as far as if it will be compatible. My neighbors out there , I have a group home to the west of me and contractor yards to the north of me. Dale Green has a farm to the south of me. A guy named Larry Van DeVeire has the land to the east of me and I talked to him and he feels it's commercial. One of the gentlemen here, John Hennessey, he has the land to the northeast corner of me so basically what I 'm trying to do by getting community support is not set a precedence in allowing any kind of commercial project. Like Barb stated, a driving range needs a lot of land. It isn't like putting a gas station out there. The miniature golf and the batting cages, the three of them blend together to make it financially feasible first of all but they also make it a nice project for the people in Chanhassen. Like you just had on your map, each developer gives park space. They put in baseball diamonds. The City is acquiring property to add three more diamonds just a mile to the east of this project. They are putting lights on the park because there is such a demand for a recreational facilities and as a private developer , there won't be any city money or anything like that. This will be a private venture so I think it would just be in asking too with what the City already is doing with their parks and with their recreational facilities . Roger Schmidt: I live out in that area. I guess my thinking is that I haven't seen a driving range yet in the metropolitan area that I think is a definite asset as far as aesthetics go on the community. They are usually located in more of a business area or with a golf course and even a golf course is stuck back in a corner someplace where they aren't that visible. Being a resident of that area, I'm somewhat concerned that we'll probably end up with a very similar situation that you have with 90% of the other driving ranges and I'm very much concerned from the standpoint that I don't see the City doing much policing in the area of taking care of what's out there right now. That's been, for several years, right now it's nothing but a junk pile and we've had comments from people out-of-town and in town asking us what's going on over there and it's kind of embarrassing for us to have to admit that we're living in an area that looks like that. I think that particular spot, as far as driving ranges within the City, I think there probably are spots for them but that particular one , I would think you look at it as your western gateway into town and I think you should look at that as something that you don't want to build up with things that probably aren't going to be complimentary to the City. You have to decide whether that is a complimentary activity or not and obviously the other thing that I'm concerned about is the commercialization of the district. It's not Planning Commission Me ing April 22 , 1987 - Page _d allowed as far as your zoning now and I think people kind of go by the zoning issues when they decide to locate there and you don't arbitrarily change them so I think you should give that serious consideration also . Headla moved, Em mings seconded to close public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment . All voted in favor and motion carried . Headla: I don't understand why having a driving range, and the batting thing and the miniature golf is different but I don't see why a driving range would be of any benefit. I think there are several downside aspects of it but I don't see any upside aspects except the person running the range. I think the people surrounding that might suffer. Conrad: You've got to consider them like a golf course. People use it. Driving ranges are used . Headla : Then if I look at the location, then I wonder about Galpin Blvd.. I 'm on that road quite a bit. I ride a bike on that and right now, I don't like the way the cars are on there. Do you have any idea how much traffic comes and goes from one of those facilities? Pryzmus: I'm sure there will be some major amount of traffic. I don't know what you consider major but most of it will be coming off of TH 5 so they would be coming off TH 5 down 100 yards and turning in there. The traffic study we do have a parking lot scheduled for 16 spaces. We overbuilt the parking lot basically. I would say a full driving range wouldn't have more than 3 or 4 cars at a time. That's comparing apples to oranges because that was a temporary thing and basically the people would want something to do down on West 79th Street where this will be a business that will be maintained . Siegel : I can't recall discussing our reasons for excluding golf courses from the A-2 district. Dacy: I can't pinpoint the date. We did go back and look through the files. It was a fairly short discussion. Siegel : What was the justification or the reasoning behind us or staff recommending the exclusion from the A-2? Dacy: The way it was proposed, it was listed because it was consistent with our prior Ordinance. However, it was the specific recommendation to have golf courses and driving ranges removed . Siegel : In essence what we're doing is removing any possibility of having a golf course or driving range in the City of Chanhassen. Dacy: That ' s correct. The Bluff Creek golf course is now non-conforming . Siegel : Well , that doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't make sense. If somebody came in with a plan for a beautiful golf course in the rolling Planning Commission Meccing April 22, 1987 - Page 31 hills of Chanhassen, I'm sure the City Council and the city Planning Commission would jump at the chance to invite them in with open arms to develop that as such. In lieu of that, I look at that piece of property and I guess I'm new to the history of it and I guess the applicant has been remiss in some respects in his follow through in what he has been planning for that. In all due respects, I think we should approach this as a new application for such use and look at it in that light. I think it will be an improvement on that corner and tome the location is marketable as a driving range and as a miniature golf course. I tend to favor that. Unless there is more stronger objections to granting a conditional use permit in the Zoning Ordinance , I would favor it. Emmings : I agree with Bob 100% that I can't imagine why we wouldn' t have golf courses and driving ranges as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I don't have any problem with that. I agree with the Staff that miniature golf courses and indoor batting buildings such as this don't belong out there and belong in a commercial district. Then having said that, I guess putting a miniature golf course with the rest of the things that are here , the driving range and whatever a maxi-putt and putting green business all seems to be pretty cohesive and make sense in this particular project so I'm having some problems with this. I don't have any problem with the driving range being a conditional use in the A-2. I don't think there ought to be, in condition 1, I don't agree that they ought to be abutting collectors. I think they should only be on arterials. On major streets, I think we want to lean that way towards major roadways. I think the second condition is very important that they only be operated from sunrise to sunset. I think that's adequate in the summer time and I think the lights would be a real problem for anyone who lived around it. I guess that's all I got. Erhart: I disagree regarding the issue of whether we should allow golf courses and these things in the A-2 area. I agree with Bob. I think we really overlooked something in golf courses and I don't know enough that we can lump practice areas in that or not so I don't have a strong feeling about that. I do have a strong feeling about buildings in the A-1 and A-2 areas. These metal buildings and they tend to be the area that acts as a transitional area from agricultural to the residental. In south Chanhassen where people have built these metal buildings out in the country and I don't know for what reason, where they have not been part of a farm homestead , they are really an eyesore. Even though some of them are well kept up, they don't fit so with respect to that, I would real against, that batting practice thing requires metal or any kind of a major industrial type, any kind of a non-farm building or a non-house, I don't think it ought to be part of the A-2 or A-1. I think it should not be part of the A-2 district. I agree with Steve entirely as far as the driving range. I guess as long as it's on TH 5 with the correct word is major arterial , I guess it's okay. Certainly the one the John ran just west of the City here, as long as there wasn't any buildings and the grass was mowed, I didn't think it was an eyesore at all. Regarding the building on the other hand, if we're going to put a driving range in here , you probably Clave to have some small building to keep the tractor and stuff out of the rain so I guess I wouldn't mind a small wooden garage or something just to maintain that kind of thing but Planning Commission ME ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 32 certainly not a permanent industrial type building. I agree the hours ought to be sunrise to sunset. The second concern, I think in the A-2 area is to emphasize that we do not want retail business in the A-2 area. For example , I can't have a retail nursery on my nursery farm. I can have wholesale but you can't have retail. 'Again, reflecting on that , we have to be real careful if we' re going to use it at all , I think it should be on TH 5. That is the only appropriate place to have this in the City. So the rest of the commission can think about that retail issue and we've got to be real careful about that. We consistently said we do not want retail business activities down there. I like 4 that certainly it should not be within 500 feet of a single family residence. Our wholesale nursery and contractor yards basically have to fit with that rule. Conrad: I have nothing more to add. I think golf courses and driving ranges are appropriate in Chanhassen. I don't think that buildings out in that area , specifically indoor batting buildings, is what I want to see but to use the land that way, I think is appropriate. I would vote for that type of a use in a A-2 district. My only comments other than that are we should have, if we make a motion in favor , somebody might want to work the word golf course in. We don't need to and maybe a golf course is a whole different set of circumstances. I don't know. The other part that I would like to see is an intent statement in terms of why we're allowing this and I guess one of the intents that I would see as a conditional use, is to minimize impact on neighbors in terms of noise, traffic and lighting. I think we need some kind of intent statement along with this if we do choose to allow this as a conditional use . Emmings: I wouldn't like to see golf courses included tonight for two reasons. First of all , it's not in front of us and that always makes me uncomfortable but secondly, Staff has obviously thought through the kinds of conditions we should impose on a driving range, if we're going to allow that as a conditional use and I don't see that they have had the opportunity to think through conditions for golf courses as a conditional use and maybe that ought to come back as a separate item. Conrad : That ' s a good point. *At this this point a motion was made and the following discussed occurred . Conrad : Steve, did you leave out miniature golf courses on purpose? Emmings : Yes . Siegel : Does the miniature golf course, in the eyes of us here, reflect as a retail establishment? Would that be the objection to including that miniature golf course as a conditional use? It borders in the area of retail establishment and service recreational type business. Emmings : The way I think about a miniature golf thing fits into a commercial area. It's compact. You can't put a driving range in just a city lot. You need some room. Miniature golf courses don't bother me in Planning Commission ME ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 33 the City, they bother me to think about them being out in the A-2. It just doesn ' t seem to fit at all . Siegel : I guess I tend to think of it as a similar type of use to a golf driving range especially in conjunction with it. If we were to talk about specifics, put a bunch of miniature golf courses 2 miles apart, maybe that would be a little bit different but we're talking about is a proposed complex here. Not one being here and one being 1 mile down the road and another one a mile down the road all in the A-2 district so I think it's a little bit different when you're looking at it as a package as just one thing. Emmings: Let me ask in that regard, let's say that we have passed this Zoning Amendment to allow it as a conditional use, if we were somehow persuaded that a miniature golf place fit in with this particular driving range project, could we allow it? Dacy: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the driving range and the miniature golf course really should act together and not a stand alone miniature golf situation so if you wanted to phrase your approval in the framework that golf driving ranges subject to these conditions. Miniature golf courses as an accessory use to the golf driving range, that would be an option. You couldn't have a miniature golf course without a driving range along with it. If that's what you're saying. Siegel : I guess to me it makes sense. The whole idea of having a miniature golf course, especially when you think about fathers and mothers going out to a golf driving range and they've got a place for their kids to spend some time. It's sort of a natural. I'm surprised there aren't more combinations like that around . Emmings : If we could , I guess what I would like to do since I made the motion, is leave my motion out there the way it is and then maybe you can make a second motion to talk about miniature golf as an accessory use to the driving range. Would that be alright? Dacy: Yes , and then you should look at what a miniature golf course is. It does require more lights. You have the windmills and the people to hit the ball through and so on so you have to consider those visual aspects also. It is different than a driving range. Erhart : I would like to see us go back and spend some more time on this one and define it a little bit better. I'm really against putting anything in the A-2 area that visually is not consistent with either residential or agriculture and I think you can make a driving range consistent with agricultural but I think we ought to define what the landscaping is going to be. Buildings in some kind of terms. What buildings can be put on there? I've seen driving ranges with 16 foot high fences and then in a couple years they're falling down. Emmings: Tim, don't we retain complete control over that when it's under Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 34 our conditional use? That to me is the whole reason that it should be in there as a conditional use rather than a permitted use because we retain a lot of control over the plan and the landscaping and what the buildings are going to be . Headla: I doubt that you have that much control over a conditional use. It has to get pretty bad . Emmings : No. When the plan comes in Dave, we look at it before anything gets built and we say we only allow you to build it if you do the landscaping this way. If you show us the plan for the building you're going to build and we approve it. Headla : I 'm referring to Tim' s comments . Emmings: You're talking about maintaining it after it's built. That's always a problem yes . Headla : I think Tim made the comment very well in that a conditional use permit is very hard to police at times. I think a good example of that is the horse riding farm. Once they were in there and there was a dust problem, and I was involved with that to some extent, it's hard to say you people created 80% of the dust. It's pretty hard to shut them down because there is nothing to enforce that. Once they were in there, they were in there . Dacy: The advantage to the Zoning Ordinance now is that, that original conditional use permit was approved several years ago and we do a lot more restrictions in our current ordinance and that's the purpose of this amendment process is to establish those type of conditions. If you wanted to add no metal buidlings on the golf driving ranges or a suggested condition, just authorize a building to take tickets or whatever, can't exceed 800 square feet. I don't know but you have that ability to establish conditions through this process . Emmings: There are two other things. A conditional use permit can be revoked if they don't live up to the conditions. Mr. Pryzmus has already found that out on one occasion. That's worked here. To say that a golf driving range or golf course doesn't fit in the A-2, means that we're banning all driving ranges and that doesn't make sense to me. They are a conditional use, not as a permitted use just so anybody can put on anywhere they want to , as a conditional use . Conrad : Tim , you would like to see other conditions in that other than what we' ve got. Is that true? Siegel : We're talking about the Zoning Ordinance amendment now, not the conditional use permit right? Dacy : Yes . Planning Commission Meeting April 22, 1987 - Page 35 Erhart : We could put it in the Zoning Ordinance so we have driving ranges are permitted as long as the club house is kept to a 35-40, we can put that in there if we want and one storage shed. You could add those as part of the Zoning Ordinance. On the other hand, I guess if all we're allowing is that the driving range it wouldn't make any economic sense to put much more than that on it. Just a small garage and small clubhouse. Maybe it would police itself. The other thing I would be more inclined to go along with is if we actually restricted it to TH 5 or TH 212 but I will not vote for it if this can be put on TH 101 or Lyman Blvd . . I just think that ' s dead wrong . Headla : What are we really voting on now? Conrad : We're voting on an Ordinance change and as Steve's motion said, he is recommending that golf driving ranges be a conditional use in the A-2 district. We're not talking about John's proposal now. We're talking simply about, is it appropriate to allow driving ranges in Chanhassen because right now you can ' t have them. Headla : So if we were to say no, we don't want any of this. We do what the Ordinance says as is. That does not prohibit anyone from coming in and getting a conditional use? Conrad : They can't get a conditional use because it's prohibited right now. There is no way to apply for a driving range right now. Headla : It is explicitedly prohibited? Dacy: Yes . The use is not allowed in any district . Conrad : But what we're saying in this request is , we will allow it as a conditional use but Dave, nobody can come into town right now and build one. John wants to build one and he's got to have us effect the Zoning Ordinance right now if he ' s to build anything . Dacy: If I can make one more comment before you take action on that motion. On the collector and arterial condition, it concerns me if you do limit it to just two highways or to an arterial because to me that construes that you can only get access from that arterial highway. We wouldn't want to create a driveway situation off of TH 5 so the benefit of having a collector in there, in this particular situation, is that you can have access of the major street. All the streets in the rural area are collectors or arterials anyway but I think we should preserve the arterial to keep that flow through traffic and not allow addition interruption. Erhart: What about stating within 700 feet of TH 5 or TH 212. Have access from. . . • Dacy: You are saying more of a location? Erhart: Yes exactly. What you're talking about is putting a retail - business out in the rural area and I think the only place you want to do Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 36 that is on TH 5 or TH 212 . Dacy: Then in that case I guess-I would recommend that you look at amending number 1 to location near an arterial street with access to a collector or _ arterial . Again , it all depends on it ' s location . Erhart: It could be a collector but as long as it was on TH 5 or TH 212. The access points can be on the collector . Dacy: It is subjective because where do you draw the lines? At 500, 1,000 or 1 , 500? Emmings: What if we said location on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress? Siegel : Wouldn't that be part of the conditional use instead of the Zoning Ordinance? Dacy: Yes , the benefit of the conditional use will allow you to look at the individual case . Emmings : No . My motion is going to leave that in and I ' ll tell you why. Conrad : Leave what in? Emmings : It' s going to leave in a condition that will state that it will be located on an arterial with access to a collector for ingress and egress and the reason is , if someone comes in and our ordinance already says they can - only look at places along arterials, we're going to have a lot less trouble with those people than if they come in and say, okay I want it over here and your Ordinance doesn ' t say I can ' t. Erhart : But you've got Pioneer Trail and TH 101 and Lyman Blvd. are all arterials . Dacy: As the motion is on the floor now, item 1 is location on an arterial street as identified in Article VI , Section 25 . Conrad : Steve , do you want to amend that? Emmings: Yes. Again, I think it should be located on an arterial street with access to a collector for ingress and egress. I guess what we're saying is we don't want them just anywhere in the agricultural district. We want them on major roadways but we don't want their driveway coming onto that major roadway. We want them like here, on a corner where they've got access to a collector so the turn can be made off of TH 5 onto Galpin and then get in and out on Galpin so they aren't actually turning off that arterial. They don't have their driveway on the arterial but we want them located on major roadways rather than just scattered anywhere. Planning Commission Me _ing April 22 , 1987 - Page 37 Siegel : Now where are we Mr. Chairman. We've had a motion and a second and we ' re in discussion stage and he wants to make an amendment to his motion? Conrad : That's correct so I withdraw my original second and second your motion on your change Steve just to get this going. Is there anymore discussion? Erhart moved, Headla seconded to amend the motion to limit the golf driving ranges must be adjacent to either TH 5 or TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212. Erhart, Emmings and Headla voted in favor and Siegel and Conrad opposed the amendment, and motion carried . Emmings moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow driving ranges in the A-2 district as a conditional use with the following conditions : 1. The location is limited to being adjacent to TH 5 and TH 212 and access must be from a collector or an arterial which leads to TH 5 or TH 212 . 2. Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset . 3. Provision of adequate parking areas and submission of a landscaping plan in conformance with Article VIII . 4 . No site shall be located within 500 feet of single family residences . All voted in favor except Headla who opposed . Headla : The reason being that I think there are far too many negatives situations that can happened as compared to the upside advantages. In respect to both the adjacent landowners and the City. Conrad: John we'll bring you back on board. We're going to open up the public hearing for the second stage of this which is where you are asking - for a conditional use permit. You are asking for a golf driving range. Barbara, because we have turned down a miniature golf course and/or batting building , should John continue to pursue and present his proposal in full? Dacy: I think so . Pryzmus : Basically, financially I can't even proceed, by taking out the miniature golf and the indoor activities, financially for me, it makes it impossible. What you basically did was take away the foundation and the walls and you're giving me the roof so I can't enter into a contractual agreement with the City to spend $300,000.00 to basically make a beautiful driving range. I already have the driving'range sprinkler systems already in. The tee area is already built. The greens are already done. The sandtrap is there. The classified parking lot that we originally was agreed Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 38 upon five years ago is in and I need to do some minimal grading to open it up. So when you mentioned that the miniature golf, this is a sports complex. Not just a temporary use driving range. The miniature golf as yoc see on I-494 on the strip where it's all concrete and also in Excelsior where they have all rock, now on my developmental plan we are using approximately, I haven't walked and measured it all off, but for the battinc cages and the miniature golf, we're using with parking somewhere around 6 acres. 5 to 6 acres in a commercially zoned area would make it financially - impossible, especially when you build a building that's going to conform with all the buildings in the industrial park. But getting back to what is going to be nice for the community, as Roger said , it is part of the gateway from the west. With the landscape architecture plans that we have submitted and this will all be done through the City, we will be adding anywhere from 4 to 8 foot berms throughout the miniature golf. They will be maintained by a neighbor out there. I have a full time manager hired to run it. A full time grounds keeper. He will be there 5 days a week , or 3 or whatever it takes . The trees , we will basically have up lighting on all the berms with the shurbs. There are, even though it hasn't been maintained as an arboretum right now, most all the trees are planted. There will be another additional 100 some trees planted. I appreciate your voting to allow driving ranges but I don't know what you want me to sign in a contractual agreement to do what when I can't have basically two-thirds of what I'm proposing. The building itself and where it's situated, this plan was draw up before we decided where the on-site septic system would go and with the additional setbacks , the building can be set back 100 feet. With the bank - being taken down 10 feet and the berm corning up 4 feet so this building would absolutely, that's 14 feet in itself and the building is only 15 feet high. No it goes from 14 feet to 15.8 basically with a flat roof. The building would be all cedar on the outside. The roof is metal but when I insulate it, it would be like a compco roof. There is a neighbor that lives south on TH 101 that is getting a price together for me now so the building would not be a tin shed. In this area there is permitted use. In fact, I - have to get financing on the building so I would have to come to the City tc get a building permit to build a contractor's yard, a nursery, a hog farm of whatever. I'm going to have to do something with the property and the building is already there so I do have to do something with it and I just felt that for the community and the neighbors, with all the landscaping. It used to be a tree farm so there are already 300 some trees, I think the two, the miniature golf and the driving range are just a natural. People are going to come out. If you have any children, how many people say, what can we do mommy or what can we do? There's nothing to do in Chanhassen. That's the biggest thing ever since I've been here for 13 years, there's nothing to do in this town. Here we have no booze. We have basically no noise. Golf balls don't make any noise. We have no dust problem. We really have no problems other than something that should be nice for the community. The cost of the building in the central business district, I just sold a piece of land that this would basically be the only place in Chanhassen that it could go right now and that land with the building that it would take, would cost a couple million dollars. Financially you could never do that project here so the citizens of Chanhassen won't have this project. The location out there, being that it is on a major highway. It is not conducive to Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 39 estate homes. When you have 20,000 cars driving by every day, everyone knows what the land, I paid $4 , 000.00 per acre for 5 years ago when the land was going for a lot more because people aren't buying it for farmland. I did buy it on a contingency that I could have the driving range so by not being able to show you what—.we're using pictures and dimensions from courses in California and Florida and I want this to be the nicest and well thought out miniature golf course. If you've ever played mini-putt over in Minnetonka, we measured that out and wanted to at least have the trees and shurbs and greenery that they have. We aren't proposing any elephants or ducks or geese or anything that's going to look bad. I want it to be fun. We're going to do a lot of underground things with PVC. Little kids like when the ball disappears and then it comes up. The mini-putt, to get back to what mini-putt and maxi-putt is, a mini-putt for kids anywhere from 4 or 5 years old up to 9 or 10. You take them to a real tought miniature golf course and they get very discouraged. Everybody likes to do good so it would be a real interesting little course but their ball always winds up in a good spot so they can score good but it won't be interesting enough for your 11, 12, 13 and your adults so the maxi-putt would be that. I'm trying to get something for the whole family. The batting cages, I don't know if any of you have ever had children in Little League but the worse thing that can happen is when your little guy strikes out twice in a row and he comes back crying. When I was in the Jaycees we bought one batting machine for the CAA but there just isn't enough time for all the little kids to use that one batting machine. The building itself would be basically not seen from the highway. Right now, in a farm zoned area, you can build basically whatever you want for a hog farm , dairy farm , whatever. I want to have a lot nicer building than that. It's going to be totally screened but by taking away, like I say, the foundation. I appreciate your motion to allow the driving range. Dacy: Given their action, the next item on the agenda is literally a conditional use permit for a driving range. You have a couple of options. You can withdraw that application right now so they would not carry out the review of the driving range and the matter would just go on to Council to determine the Ordinance amendment but if they do allow the driving range and everything else, it will have to come back and go through the plan review. So , do you want them to carry out the review just for the driving range or are you withdrawing your application at this point? Pryzmus: I want the driving range but what I'm saying is I can't really enter into any contracts if I only have the driving range. I appreciate your motion for the driving range. Conrad: John, I think there was some sensitivity to the miniature golf here. It wasn't voted that way but there was discussion. City Council may entertain that thought. I don't know just because we voted one way. I think they will be consistent in some of the things that we're saying. I think some philosophical things will carry out based on what we're saying but I'm sure that miniature golf is totally out but I don't know if you want to carry it forth . It ' s really up to you. Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 40 Pryzmus : I want to carry it forward. Dacy: What we could do is , this is going to the Council on May 4th, you .could come back to the Planning Commission on May 13th for permit review if it ' s approved . I know you have some timing restrictions . Pryzmus: That is to enter into another agreement so they have the site plan and other additional uses . Okay. Dacy: I would have to come back and you probably wouldn't get approval before June 1st. It would be more time if they don' t review it. Pryzmus : But they can't review it if you are going to leave the motion standing just for driving range. Let's just take the driving range and I'll have to spend another month. I don't know what else to do because you've made the motion and that ' s your feelings so I don' t have an option . Conrad: Well , you probably do. I guess Barb is just giving you some advice. What did you two decide? Dacy: I think you are asking us to go ahead and review just the golf driving range. • Siegel : You still want it to go before Council in total? Pryzmus: I want it to go before Council in total because if I don ' t . . . Dacy: Okay, then the Conditional Use Permit and the Wetland Alteration Permit, they will make a motion to table that pending Council final action on the Ordinance amendment . Pryzmus : Let's do the wetland. We can do the wetlands now because that's part of the driving range . That has nothing to do with the miniature golf . Dacy: So you are saying to go ahead with the driving range? Pryzmus : Yes . Conrad : Okay, this is a public hearing . Any comments? Siegel moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried . Emmings : One thing that I notice that there is in the landscaping it says existing ash , 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and points to that whole long row of trees . When I drove by there tonight , I didn ' t see any trees at all . Dacy: There are trees out there. There are a number of trees out there as John has mentioned . They are small . Emmings : 2 1/2 inches in diameter? Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 41 Dacy: Some are but not all . Emmings : And does it go across the whole property the way it's portrayed on this? Dacy: It's along TH 5, yes. Some, I think may be dead. A lot of them didn ' t have leaves on them as of yesterday. Emmings : Put in a condition that they have to be living trees? Dacy: They are identifying existing conditions. The specific thing that the Commission should address is the appropriateness of the lighting and the fencing proposals. Those are some of the things that Staff kind of flagged out. With just the driving range, there was a taller lighting standard in the southwest corner. Your previous motion was for the operation of the driving range from sunrise to sunset so in my mind that lighting scheme falls out and you need to address that one way or the other. Headla : What does he need the lighting for? If you don't give him lights, that kind of insures that it doesn ' t go past sunset. Dacy: I realize that. I was just saying that I wanted to make sure that the Commission was comfortable with that . Emmings: Is there any reason they have the lights? That you would want the lights? Pryzmus: As you know, there is a group home west of me. I'm not saying anything bad about group homes but the contractor's yard, the residents over here, everyone in the farm community has security lights and a person could get in and raise all kinds of heck with the putting green or whatever and I feel that I need some security maintenance out there. With the putting green being in the southwest corner, that will give me the security down there. I also had security on the front of the indoor activity building but I wouldn ' t propose any more lighting than the average farm has . Emmings: How tall is that light? How high above the ground is that light itself? Pryzmus : I don ' t know what NSP puts in . Emmings : It ' s just one of those standard lights? Pryzmus: It's a standard light that would be on a farm. The other thing, I guess I cut it short when the public hearing was closed but as far as the fencing , there will be the fencing around the perimeter of it will be the same as Prince's fencing down the street. It will be the black fencing and the fencing on the west and across the north border will be the fencing that's out there. It is a silver fence but it will all be 6 feet high. There won't be any need to protect any roads or anything. The driving will be hitting to the north. Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 42 E:nmings : Barbara , I see one light . Are there more? Dacy: Yes, the light in the southwest corner is the only one that you had shown on the plan outside of the putting area. The miniature golf course lights but if the miniature golf course is not there, then those lights fall out . Other than those , that was the only light , correct? Pryzmus : We have lighting on the path underneath the trees . Dacy: For the tee area . Pryzmus : This is a path in back of the tee area . Dacy: You ' re saying these are 10 feet in height? Pryzmus: Yes, those are 10 feet in height. They would be a down light. It was to light the path but if we ' re not going to be open . . . Dacy: Along the tee area they are proposing a series of 10 foot lights there. Pryzmus: In back of the tee area there is a path. I put trees every 30 feet and then they are diagonally across from one another and the lights would be in the tree area . Dacy: But again, if they condition from sunrise to sunset and they are not there for security reasons . Headla : Where would that 6 foot fence be? Pryzmus : A 6 foot fence would surround the whole property. Headla : Everytime you drive by TH 5 you see a big black fence . Pryzmus : Yes , it would be about the same as the arboretum fence only it would be black. It would be the same as Prince ' s fence down half a mile . Headla: Have you people seen that fence? Go take a look at it. Pryzmus: If you don' t like black fence, I don't have to put it. I thought maybe you would like it because it was the same as Prince' s. Conrad: In trying to understand Staff's analysis of the wetland. In Gary's report, are those conditions bundled in to the Staff recommendations? Dacy: Yes . Conrad: And Gary, basically you have a lot of concerns with the area from a wetlands standpoint and some other things. Were your conditions as stated, were they worded so that if we decided to allow filling in the wetlands, these things have to be done? I didn't see a statement that said that. I Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 43 saw Rockwell's comments saying that the wetlands shouldn't be filled in. That there are some senstive areas and whatever. How do I interpret your comments at the end on the attachment? Warren: I admit it got a little confusing as we got into it. In trying to interpret our Wetlands Ordinance, that was part of the thrust that I was responding to some of the deficiencies that the submittal has in relation to the Wetlands Ordinance. I guess the final bottom line of my comments would be that if you go ahead that the recommendations that I have shown should be enforced as far as sedimentation basin and then some of these things. I guess in general that ' s where I was coming from. Conrad: In brief, I'm not sure that I've seen a hardship or a real reason to allow the filling in of the wetlands. I would have a tough time going along with. I don't think the measures pointed out are necessary. I prefer to keep the wetlands operating. It appears from Rockwell's comments, I wasn't sure about the trade-offs that she was mentioning. I was having a tough time interpretting that . Dacy: When we went out to inspect the site , as you know, the area has been cultivated. What she came back and said was that it's not good for habitat purposes. However , it is performing some type of function for storm water run-off to Bluff Creek. All that's out there now are the regrasses and so on. It is not protected by the DNR because of their particular restrictions on vegetation and so on. What she said was that they have looked at the situation where, as in the Centex case, if you alter one part of the wetland, if you improve another part of it, they will accept that. In this case, the applicant has no access to other property. He doesn't own any other property that contains additional wetlands area. He would have to gain that easement right over to do that. If you deny the wetlands alteration permit , you would in effect deny use of the property as a driving range. Conrad : There are two issues here. As a conditional use permit for the golf driving range. There is also a wetlands alteration permit that we have to respond to also. As I said, based on the Ordinance for the wetlands alteration permit, we haven't solved the problem. There hasn't been a trade. It's almost impossible to solve the problem with the wetland and therefore, I guess I would have a tough time. I don't see how he can maintain the ordinance and the intent of the ordinance with the current proposal . Is there a motion? Siegel: Barbara, don't your recommendations make the wetlands permit applicable to the wetland ordinance? Dacy: Yes. That's true. However , because we are unsure about what would happen to the ordinance amendment in the first case, we really didn't specify a motion as we do in other cases but Gary correct me, your - conditions are directed toward gaining additional information and recommending a permit sedimentation basin there if alteration was allowed . Planning Commission Muting April 22 , 1987 - Page 44 Warren: Right. Siegel : And some of Gary's recommendations were contingent on the total project. Not just the .golf driving range right? Warren : My recommendations are based on the total project . Siegel : You had something about run-off from the building . Warren : That ' s correct . Siegel : In lieu of that, does that make any change in your recommendations set by Staff? Dacy: As far as the drainage issue, it eliminates additional hard roof area, that calculation from the drainage but I think the overall drainage plan and so on still remains intact. All of these conditions could be applied for a recommendation of approval except for number 1. If you have _ some type of preference for the lighting scheme and you should probably identify the hours of operation if you are going to recommend approval . Siegel : I thought we already did that with the previous motion? Dacy: Yes, you did but I guess I would prefer that you clarify it in this application . Emmings: If someone were to vote to deny the wetland alteration permit would it make the conditional use permit moot? Dacy: Yes . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial - of the application for the Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor except Siegel and motion carried . Siegel : I thought I was assured that Staff would ensure with their recommendations to satisfy the alteration permit. Conrad : You can minimize the impact on the wetland but the Ordinance says . Siegel : In essence, we are denying the property owner any use of his land . Conrad: No. For a golf driving range because he apparently needs more property. Siegel : I fail to see the effect of a golf driving range on a piece of bare land to me is less impact on it than any other type of use. Emmings : He has to fill in the wetlands to use it as a golf driving range. Planning Commission Meeting April 22 , 1987 - Page 45 Siegel : I still disagree. I think Staff came up with recommendations that the applicant could adhere to and meet the use of the land for his purpose. Pryzmus : That piece of land has been farmed for 100 years. It was homesteaded and last year with the wettest year we ever had, it was down twice in the spring and in the fall. There has never been any water standing there and so , when you reach your Ordinance about what is a Class A wetland or what is a protected wetland, it's anything that is going to have any water if there is a 100 year rain. Basically, most of your communities are built to Class A wetlands according to that Ordinance so I don't want you to get real carried away with thinking that I'm filling in a lake. It's a piece of farmland. It's low and it's advantageous to me to put in a couple feet of fill so my ballpicker, when it's raining, won't squeeze the balls into the ground. There isn't going to be any change. There isn't going to be any buildings close to the creek. The water will still flow very smoothly. It's going to be nothing but mowed grass and so I think sometimes you're getting a little carried away with what I'm doing in there. The wetlands seems to throw the trigger so address that. It is a farm. It always has been a farm. There are no cattails. There has never been standing water there ever. I drove through there the other day with my pick-up. Now, it's been a dry spring. Last spring it was the wettest spring we've had for years so it's not wetlands so I want people to realize that. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO INSTALL THE LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR AND LAKE VIRGINIA FORCEMAIN IN AND NEAR CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLANDS ALONG THE ALIGNMENT RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM TH 41 TO TH 5, THROUGH CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND INTO EDEN PRAIRIE, METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION, APPLICANT. Public Present : Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd . Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Leander Kerber: I have concern with it because it's going to go right across the south end of my property on TH 5. I have the property between the City park and the nursery. My question is, as long as it's zig-zagging around, why don't they cross the highway down the road 500 feet to 1,000 feet and stay off of my property. Another question is, am I going to be assessed for that now or when am I supposed to pay for it or am I going to have to pay? If so, why? Dacy: The interceptor at this time is not proposed to be assessed during this year and in 1987. The Metropolitan Council will not allow us or allow property owners in that owner to hook up into that interceptor until after the year 2000 so there are no assessments at this time. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 30 Batzli : I know we did . Emmings : The City Council didn ' t but we did . Batzli : I know but there was no residence at all . We never discussed turning it down because the residences wasn' t located there . PUBLIC HEARING: GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE OPERATION, PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HWY. 5, JOHN PRYZMUS. A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 , ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 3, REGARDING STANDARDS FOR GOLF DRIVING RANGES WITH OR WITHOUT MINIATURE GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS - AS TO LIGHT STANDARDS AND TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL LIGHT STANDARDS , EXTEND HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET AND PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF A SIGN . ( Public Present : Name Address _ John Pryzmus Applicant Mike Klingelhutz John Hennessy Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . John Pryzmus : The hours of operation obviously will be determined as the season goes. Right now I close at 8 : 00 at night. The season will be ending here in another month so we' re closed for 6 months approximately. . . The sign that I put up was the same sign that was approved . A 12 x 8 plywood sign . . . The video games , the City Council I guess we were trying to accomodate children so. . . Other than that, I didn' t think originally the Council had . . .on trees and berming . Now, I think we've added 16 more . . .on the site right now. Light standards , basically there isn' t anything that the Council said . . .light standards of a baseball field or something like that . . . It does help. I ' ve kept the lighting at a minimum so I can extend my hours . When it starts getting dark and people can ' t. . . two closest competitors of mine are 7 Hi and Excelsior . Excelsior . . .days and weekends . The guy at 7 Hi . . . John Hennessy : I live across the street from this thing . So far he has run a pretty good operation. . . .the basic guidelines of the basic. . . I Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 1988 - Page 31 was not in favor of this at all at the beginning . . . I was vehemently opposed to it . . . • Mike Klingelhutz : I was planning on . . . it ' s kind of pretty. Batzli moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Emmings : I just want to ask a few clarifying things here. When he got his conditional use permit from the City Council , did it in fact prohibit from having lighting? Olsen : Condition number 9 of the conditional use permit , there shall be no light standards on the light premises. Hours of operation shall be sunrise to sunset . Emmings : It says no light standards. Do we have a problem with the language there? Was the intention that he should not have lighting? Olsen : That hours should be from sunrise to sunset . - i Emmings : And I understand he went ahead and put up lights out there? ' Olsen : Yes . Emmings : As far as the hours of operation are concerned , I understand you ' ve been given sunrise to sunset , is that correct? Olsen : Yes . Emmings : And has he abided by that? Olsen: No . Emmings : He ' s been using his lights to stay open later . He just said something that sounded like, regarding the sign that sounds like it conflicted with what we have here . He said he was allowed a sign. Was he allowed to have a sign? Olsen : No . . . Emmings : I have trouble looking at this , just like concerns of fairness , making me want to help somebody like Stockdale who comes along. I have trouble looking at this objectively because everytime Mr . Pryzmus comes in here, he ' s already done what he' s asking us to do. As I recall , he asked us for a wetland alteration permit after he ' d been told by the City to stop filling in the wetland. We wound up denying that . I 'm not sure I can be real objective about looking at this proposal . Just off the top, trying to be as objective as I can, I don' t see any reason to change it from sunrise to sunset . He ' s talking about his competitors at the 7-di and Excelsior but neither of those places are located in the A-2 district and I don ' t think we can lose sight of the fact that this is going on in Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 32 the A-2 district . 7-Hi is on a commercial corner and Excelsior is next to a McDonalds and next to a car wash . That ' s not really analogous . But again , trying to be a ' little objective about that when we have neighbors _ out here, a couple of them, who said it' s not really offensive. We got a letter from Art Partridge that doesn' t agree with that but that may be a personal point of view. I don ' t see any reason to change the hours . Sunrise to sunset seems to be good enough and that may eliminate his need for lighting. As far as the sign goes , if he' s going to have his business out there , it seems to me and I wish Tim were here to comment on this , but I wouldn' t have any problem with him having a sign except again, we' re in the A-2 and I don ' t know if we want to start putting up signs out there. The sign ordinance again is one of those ordinances that is meant to be restrictive and it ' s not permitted in the A-2. As far as the video games go, that seems to me to be a reasonable accessory use to a minature golf . I don ' t have any real problem with the limitations that they' ve proposed here . Ellson : Already saying that it has been approved , starting from there , I know that there was an awful lot of hub bub in the past about even allowing . . .but I think miniature golf is a good addition from the standpoint , we voted down a community center . There really isn' t a lot of places for younger people to go. They' re not old enough to drink. They can ' t go to certain places . They end up hanging around by the McDonalds or they' re accused of rather , you see these kids hanging around different ( places and I think when I was this age, I played the miniature golf all the time . Until 11 : 00 during high school and what have you. It ' s a nice safe place to be . . .to places they could be. I think once you say you ' re a - miniature golf course , it almost comes to reason that miniature golf course stays open late and has those younger kids at it and you offer them video games and those are your major customers . The fact that we already said you can have miniature golf here I think is an indication to do all of that so I would agree that those hours are good . I would like to see those good outlets for younger people to have an extra night. I can see the video games and the like as well . Batzli : I 'm going to play devil ' s advocate . I think that that would have been swell had we not said that they' ve got to be right next to TH 212 or TH 5 and I don ' t know as though I want my kid hanging out by the highway at 11 : 00 at night. I think the video games do attract them to that. I think that ' s exactly right but I think we created you've got to be in a traffic corridor to have one of these things and now we' re going to try and encourage younger kids to go. I didn't know that that was the initial intent so much as it was going to be something where the little kids go play miniature golf while dad takes his swings . Not to be sexist but I thought that was the original intent rather than we' re going to create a haven for kids late at night so I have a hard time with that . I know what you ' re trying to say and I would agree e)icept for that I don ' t think that ' s what we were initially trying to create with this type of a situation . I think they do need a sign of some kind . I again have a real tough time with this being objective because I kind of echo the sentiments of Steve . It does seem like what happens is that he does it and then he - comes in when we find out that he does it and says , oh , by the way, can I have that? That ' s kind of irritating . I would basically, other than Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 33 1 allowing the small sign, not want to change anything . Wildermuth : Jo Ann , there isn ' t any signing allowed in the A-2 district now? No signage? Olsen : Not for the advertising of a business . Wildermuth : I wonder if the City Council was thinking when they approved this permit and there was no provision for a sign. I do think that the ordinance needs some modification for some kind of a sign. If we ' re going to allow commercial businesses in A-2 districts , there' s got to be some kind of provision for a sign. I don' t think operating late into the night is appropriate . We' ve either got to look at rezoning or restrict the late hours of operation of the business . As far as video games are concerned , I guess if I had an objection there , if the Carver County police blotter shows some sort of problem, I guess I don ' t have a feeling one way or the other . Headla : John , do you have a well out there? John Pryzmus : Yes , I do . Headla : And a septic tank , sewer system? John Pryzmus : Yes . 16, Headla : What do you size that for? 2 people or 20 people? John Pryzmus : What the City Council has done at this point was include a holding tank and we have a contract to have it pumped . So we have a men and women ' s bathroom and then there ' s a gauge on it and they pump it . The well is just like a 4 inch well . Just to comment on the thing about danger , we are putting a fence up so there will be a 6 foot and 4 foot fence. Kids won ' t be able to get onto the highway. They will have to go through the building to get anywhere in this development and back out through this building to get out of there. Headla : We almost religiously watch businesses on TH 5 and no retailing and even though a well and septic system, I think we' re in like a real gray area . I don' t think we should have even allowed that . I don' t think you want , we ought to have lights . I don ' t think it ' s appropriate for that area . I think it should be sunrise to sunset. The video games , you know John , you and I talked about it when you were here before and the intent was to provide, I don ' t want to say minimal but only an adequate number to , if a kid came over with his dad , he 'd play video games while his dad swung but that ' s all . It wasn't to attract anybody in to play video games . I ' d like to see us stay at that . Put on a limit to the number of games . I 'm certainly not the one to determine that limit . Maybe John has got some good input on the variety but I think we ought to stress that there should be a parameter that it' s only for to accomodate the customer ' s children while they' re there at the golf. I do like the pondscaping . It is very good. That' s all I have. ti Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 34 47 John Pryzmus : If you want me to comment on the video games . That building is just a little over 800 square feet so you get a pop machine and the candy machines and change machines , you can ' t get over 8 or 9 machines in the place so it never could become an arcade. A video arcade type of place . . .which means there are some top video games but . . . 40 or 50 kids coming out to hang out, we just couldn' t accomodate them. We wouldn ' t . I have a manager and basically gearing it towards the professional , serious golfer . The miniature golf course were designed and built tough. . . .one small course for little kids . I think we' re trying to accomodate the whole family. It' s not that big a building so an arcade part of it won ' t fit . Conrad : My brief comments are very in sync with what I 've heard . Based on the intent of the agricultural area and what we' re trying to do in the A-2 district , I think some things are not in sync with what is here and I think lighting standards and late night operation are simply not in sync with what we ' re trying to do in the A-2 area . I think sign installation is important but I think what I 'd like to do there is talk about passive signage rather than active signage. Again , if we ' re in daylight hours , if we' re operating in the daytime, I think we can have signage that is not neon signage, that may fit in character with the area . I think if we allow the business to be there, I think it ' s appropriate to let them advertise that they' re there . There' s no reason we should prohibit that but I also think because of the agricultural area , the sign has to be ( consistent with that area itself which means we restrict neon and aggressive flashing , we always restrict flashing but we may want to dictate a few more restrictions in terms of signage. However , I do believe it ' s appropriate for a business that we ' ve allowed to go in . Never been an advocate of video games out there so I have a tough time recommending a number on that. I think the purpose on that and the reason that we felt that it could possibly go out there was simply using the land as it was and keeping some of the character of the land at the same time . I 'm not sure video games is in sync with my understanding of that . I think Jo Ann , what you presented us tonight is a zoning ordinance amendment but basically as I read that , it ' s an updated zoning ordinance for the conditional use. You ' ve basically worked in the current conditions with the recommended conditions , or Barbara has . I 'm not sure adminstratively how to handle this. I think we have to go through one item at a time and decide whether we feel it should be incorporated into the amendment and more than likely I don' t see , if anybody agrees with me , our signage comments , I don ' t see us approving this tonight . I see staff - coming back with a recommendation if we believe signage, or anything . If we want lighting I think there has to be standards for lighting . Wildermuth: There should be a lighting standard and I think we ought to address this issue that . . . it ' s an accessory business function . Batzli : I think in essence it changes depending upon whether you allow lighting . Because if you allow light , let ' s say you allow the driving range can only be operated from sunrise to sunset but you allow the miniature golf to be lit , then I think we do get a kids hang-out more . Although it was an accessory use during the day, perhaps it becomes the dominant use at night . I think that ' s an issue that has to be addressed Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 35 C before we tap all the other ones . Whether we' re trying to promote that . • Conrad: Promote what? Batzli : Nighttime use . Conrad : By agreeing with allowing nighttime lighting , you ' re going to tell us right? Batzli : Well , yes and no . Are we allowing nighttime lighting for the driving range or for the miniature golf course? Conrad : We don ' t know. Emmings : To take what Brian is saying one step further , he split them in half. Are we talking about lighting for a driving range and are we talking about lighting for the miniature golf. The miniature golf , originally we only approved that as an accessory use to the driving range which was supposed to be the primary use . Batzli : There ' s a lot to talk about here. Conrad : Let ' s talk about it . Do we want to be as routine as going through these and give direction to staff on the various issues? Which ones to pursue . I think that ' s what we have to do. Emmings : Are you talking about tabling this? Conrad : I think we have to table it because it ' s certainly not in the form that I feel comfortable with if we were to send anything along unless we reject it all . But I think there ' s some valid things that we should look at. In terms of lighting , we ' ll go through the three items that we ' re talking about , in terms of lighting , what do we want to do in terms of lighting? In the agricultural area for this type of a use, are we comfortable with the daytime hours or do we feel that we should allow, and what ' s permitted based on the conditional use permit is the driving range and the miniature golf . Do we want it to occur at night , and I 'm not against what Annette says , having recreational opportunities here because I think we then to zone those things out of town and I 'm not against that . Yet on the other hand, looking at the ordinance, and looking at the purpose of the A-2 district , what do you think? I ' ll just go around . Emmings : Sunrise to sunset . Ellson : 11 : 00. Batzli : I could a little bit after sunset but not to 11: 00 . You can fish a half hour after sunset. Conrad : But do you want lighting standards so you can operate the operation in the dark for miniature golf and the driving range? Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 36 • Batzli : I 'm torn because I have gone to driving ranges at night and I 've enjoyed it immensely but from a planning perspective in the A-2 district along a highway, I don' t know if I want it at night . _ Emmings : You have to declare yourself. One declarative sentence . Batzli : Sunrise to sunset. Wildermuth : Sunrise to sunset . Headla : Sunrise to sunset . Conrad : I 'm comfortable with that too . So what we' re saying is no nighttime use. Olsen : What we have, we have the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance on page 4 , (b) would remain as it is originally. The hours of - operation shall be from sunrise to sunset . Do you want to just go through these? Would that be easier to go through each one of these? Emmings : (a) already exists right? Olsen: Right . CEmmings : We ' re not talking about changing (a) . Olsen: And (c) is the same . (d) would be the same . (e) , (f) and (g) are - the ones that you would need some discussion on . Conrad : So now we ' re getting to request number 2. Installation of the sign . Steve , do you agree with signage in this area? Emmings : I like very much what you said about not illuminated signs . Some sign that would be visible in the daytime and would be not visible at - night . Conrad : Annette , you can ' t agree with Steve. You can' t because you want _ to operate at night so you would have to lean. . . Ellson : You took away my night so. . . Conrad : You ' ve got to be consistent here. Ellson : Yes , I 'd like to see a sign. . . Conrad : So some kind of sign. Batzli : Small sign . Wildermuth: I 'd like a small sign. Headla : . . .we' ve got to do signage. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 37 Conrad : I guess on that one , Jo Ann I thinkou should bringback Y to us a recommendation on what kind of- signage would be appropriate out there. We ' re not trying to hide , it was approved to go in and it is a big area but we don ' t want it illuminated. We ' re not trying to scare the neighbors but we have to inform people that it ' s there . Video games , installation of video games . Dave, we ' re going to start at your end. Do you think they should be allowed and if so , I think based on City Council ' s directive and Jo Ann , does City Council like the video games? Olsen : I think they liked them. Conrad : So based on what they feel , we ' re being real arbitrary here . I don ' t know if 2 or 5 or 8 , I don ' t have a clue what the right number is and I hate to get into games when you start dictating some of that stuff . Is there a number that you want to hange your hat on and say this definitely is a secondary use to the primary purpose of the site? Is there something that you feel good about? Headla: No, I 'm not that familiar with video games to hang a number on. . . . 100 video games but if you ' ve just got a coin machine , yes that ' s different . I think we should send a signal we ' ve got to limit the number and let that number be negotiated between the staff and John . But with the clear intent , it ' s a passive situation for people to entertain while some of those other things. . . Pretty soon we ' ve got another 1, 100 square foot building with more video games in it . Conrad : Do you think the building , like John said , the building is going to dictate what he can put in it. Is that a better way of doing it? The City Council allowed an 800 foot building . Wildermuth: The City Council could allow a 5 , 000 square foot building . Headla : Yes , I ' d like to see the number of games set because I don ' t know, the next thing may have another building . Wildermuth : I think we ought to have an ordinance requiring licensing of video games and that ordinance should be a parameter or index of the number of video games per square foot . . . Conrad : What do you think Brian? Batzli : I think 10 is a great number . Seriously, I never considered that prior to 10 seconds ago. I think that 's probably a pretty good idea . In the meantime, I think in this instance , I think 10 is a fairly good number . Actually, it might depend more so on the number of spots you have for people using the driving range than square footage of the building . It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to link it to that. 10 might be a good number . Headla : How about linking it to parking spots? Batzli : Perhaps parking spots . I think it should be an accessory use. Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 38 - C Wildermuth : It should definitely be low because you ' re outside the MUSA line. Batzli : I think it should be clear that it ' s installed as an accessory use too . Ellson : What number did they decide on , 10? 10 or under sounds fine to - me. According to this , it says one time the City defined an amusement arcade as having more than 5. It sounds like it ' s an arcade if you have 6. If you don ' t want it be an arcade , than it gets back to 5. I don ' t mind it being there . The number doesn ' t really make a big deal to me. . . Emmings : The number obviously is arbitrary and if 10 makes people happy, it would make me happy too . I think one way to be sure that this stays an accessory use is the hours that the building can be open would be the same as the driving range. You can ' t have that building open and the driving range not open . Headla : That ' s a good point . Conrad : You want to come up with an ordinance to license and what ' s the purpose of doing that? What does that do for us? Wildermuth : It . . .concentration so thereby you control . . . - Conrad: Is that common to do? Are you making this up? Wildermuth : I know of other cities that have licensing requirements for doing that . Conrad : What do we do in Chanhassen? Olsen : I don ' t think we have a license for games . I could check with Public Safety , I know we just passed a solicitor ' s ordinance . Emmings : Did you say what you thought about video games? Conrad : The first time through I sure did . I don ' t like them but specifically in terms of numbers , I don' t care. It' s arbitrary. I don ' t like arbitrary numbers . It ' s almost like the 1 mile radius for a contractor ' s yard . Emmings : We do it all the time. Conrad : I think tying it to hours of operation is real valid but I think we definitely want to make it a secondary use to the site which is real important . I guess Jo Ann what I 'd like ,us to do is have you come back and talk about the benefits of licensing. If we need that and maybe somehow give us a way to say, a way to say 10 is a number or 100 is a number but for us to pick out something. I 'm comfortable with the building size , to tell you truth , limits it but I don' t think everybody else here is so we need some planning input to tell us how to do it . Based on square footage. Based on parking stalls but very definitely . Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 39 based on a secondarysupportive use to the prime use . Okay, we ' ve talked about those three. That means that we should table this item. Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table both the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3 and the Conditional Use Permit Amendment until staff can come back with more information. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Olsen : Did you want to , just for my benefit , the conditional use permit , we do have specific conditions for those light standards that are on there . I was wondering what I do with the conditional use on that part . Wildermuth: Just take the lights right out. Conrad : The lights are gone. Olsen : You don ' t want lights? Then number 3 would be whatever we come up with and 4 would change to sunrise/sunset . Emmings : Wait a minute . Conrad : I think your wait a minute is probably valid . Wildermuth: This ordinance is for this particular driving range and miniature golf course , right? Emmings : No . Anyone that would come up. They' re dependent to TH ' 5 and TH 212 and it would affect anyone that would come in under , so it ' s general too . Conrad : It ' s being done in response to what he ' s already done and we ' re approaching it from a forget about him for the time being. Should we take a look at . . . Wildermuth : There should probably be some room in there somewhere that would allow a nighttime operation so we probably ought to leave the lights in . Batzli : The next issue is , what if we ' re allowing a golf course with a driving range and they want to put up some lights? If it ' s a private course? Emmings : That ' s different use . Batzli : It ' s in A-2. You could put it in the A-2. This would cover it. Emmings : Here you have the driving range as a primary use. There you ' ve got a golf course as an accessory use that ' s a driving range and I think we can probably. . . Here, Jo Ann , in her conditional use permit discussion on number 2, she says he can light for security. It should be allowed for that so we ' re going to have to look at that . Planning Commission Meeting September 21 , 1988 - Page 40 CWildermuth : But in an A-2 area , probably the security lighting allowance would be the same as any farm. Batzli : Why were the tees to the left going to be illuminated? Emmings: So you could use them. Olsen : We ' ll come back with the amendment and at that time you can adjust for the specific conditions of the conditional use. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Jim Filippi : My name is Jim Filippi and I 'm with North Star Engineering Consultants and I prepared the plans here. I represent Amoco Oil Company who is , by the way, the property owner of record on this . The only - property owner of record and I think there' s been some confusion over the years as to where that ownership lies but in fact Amoco Oil Company is the owner of record . What I 'd like to do is just pass around an artist ' s rendering of what it is we ' re proposing to build . Then what I will do , if ( I may, because of the lateness of the hours , is I will address very quickly some of the peripheral site issues because I think what we ' re talking about , as you can boil the entire issues on this site right down - to this one curb cut right here and whether it' s a single driveway .or two driveways with the curb cut and that ' s the only issue that really stands up when everything is said and done . We' ve gone through the staff report . _ The parking is one issue identified as needing 5 spaces instead of 4 which we have proposed . We were reading the ordinance as basing it on 1 per 200 square feet of retail store area which in this case is 724 and that includes the coolers , actually 528 . The entire building is 1, 030 and that includes storerooms and the restrooms and the corridor areas and is not in fact retail space . In addition , the service station characteristic of this , which is what it is , an automobile service station, calls for 4 parking spaces and 2 for service bays which we do not have any service bays so therefore we feel our parking requirements would be 4. Handicap spaces are provided at the rear adjacent to the 2 handicap ramps along the sidewalks adjacent to the building . We have an issue that staff has indicated that , I think that is discussed in vehicular service area or the driveways should be pulled back 25 feet. We feel that applies to the parking and parking areas and in fact Section 20-1191 from the regulations requires only a 10 foot strip of land between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use areas which includes driveways under your definition required and along TH 5 we do meet that 10 foot requirement. So we don' t feel that we do have a variance or any other necessity to move the proposed driveway access areas along TH 5. Conrad : Jo Ann , what ' s your response? CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: A golf driving range with a miniature golf course. 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: See Exhibit A. 3 . Conditions . The permit is issued subject to the following conditions : 1 . Submission of a revised grading plan by December 1 , 1987 , showing the proposed limits of grading, methods of erosion control where necessary indicating the size and revised loca- tion of the parking lot and club house 100 feet from the cen- terline of County Road 117, and proposed berm areas around the putting green and miniature golf course area. The parking area shall be paved. City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 2 . Submission of a revised landscaping plan by December 1 , 1987 , to add a 2 foot evergreen hedge and 6 ' trees in front ofthe proposed parking area . City staff shall review and approve said plan prior to activity occurring on the site. 3 . Fencing on the property shall not exceed 6 feet 6 inches in height unless authorized by conditional use permit. 4 . The two septic system sites along County Road 117 shall be protected from grading activities and shall be staked and protected in the field. 5 . The applicant shall install a holding tank and shall comply with all the requirements of Ordinance No. 10-B. A copy of a contract with a licensed pumper shall be provided prior to issuance of the septic permit. 6 . The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife Service, DNR and any other legal jurisdiction as it relates to utilization of the site. t� klAtP115--iv r"ba(-lt4At-- 7 . There shall be no alteration to the wetland area except for the planting of grass seed and periodic disking of the site. There shall be no filling, grading or other alteration unless approved by the City Council through the wetland alteration permit process . 8 . The applicant shall provide proper financial security in the amount of 110% of the cost of the improvements to the site prior to December 1 , 1987. 9 . There shall be no light standards on the premises . Hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 10 . The applicant shall pay all fees incurred by Resource Engineering by December 1 , 1987 , and shall be responsible for future fees if services by Resource Engineering are deter- mined to be necessary. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use per it is a criminal misdemeanor . Dated: /(G /?$ 7 I CITY OF HANHASSEN . //; / B Y 1 ��.: Its Ma or I i By: : f� Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this . J-day of , 1W7 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. C ) • K n'N J. E'.�EL1p^OT Notary *Lib is x9. - noT.Sr Pu�uC - 1' _"OTA CAFVC9 My r i an ea, es 7-1691 Y'V _ City Council Meeting ist 22, 1988 % r Councilman Johnson: By our next Council meeting? Mayor Hamilton: Sure. September 12th. = Councilman Johnson: Would you like to add that to the motion Bill? To bring us a schedule by September 12th? Councilman Boyt: Sure. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Assumption Seminary timetable for securing the buildings on the property as proposed and to direct staff to bring an updated schedule back by September 12, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW PRYZMUS DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE. Barbara Dacy: The applicant is here tonight also and we've reviewed the Conditional Use Permit and what exists out on the property today. The summary on page 4 identifies 3 items which I believe we resolved and then possibly a fourth one would be also removal of the building parts that are located between • the parking area and the street. Two items were not discussed during the most recent application process in 1987 and 1988. Those two issues were installation of video games and vending machines and the installation of a sign. As to the sign, that is a typical accessory feature to an operation such as this but video games were not discussed at all. Mayor Hamilton: John, do you have anything you want to present? John Pryzmus: I guess I really don't. I opened up on the 5th of July and it's been a long hot summer.. . The progress so far has been a little slow.. . Some of our plants and trees will be later on in the fall. As far as the steel building, I'm working right now on selling it. I don't know, I'd prefer to get it sold rather than try to find someplace to store it. If it's a sight problem and I don't get it sold by next month, what I possibly could do.. .so it wouldn't be visible. Like I say, it's been slow but everything is coming together. Mayor Hamilton: You're willing to put the culvert in and the driveway? That apparently wasn't done. You've got to put a culvert in there. The evergreens you're going to do. Have you gotten permission from MnDot to put them in the right-of-way? John Pryzmus: The culverts are all in. Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the trees. Barbara Dacy: There are no trees in the right-of-way. Mayor Hamilton: The berm was supposed to be located right? Barbara Dacy: If he wanted to install the berms that he had originally indicate.:, they would have to. 60 AI City Council Meetii,y - -august 22, 1988 17- John Pryzmus: The berms are there. As far as the trees, I won't be able to plant, only 2 feet out of the right-of-way so I will be working with the Arboretum. Right now they have some different planting shurbs that I'd like to - plant all along the site. .. I'll put the evergreens inside of the fence. Mayor Hamilton: And you're going to take the lights down that you've got in _ there as recommended by staff? The lights that you had put out there, you're going to remove those? John Pryzmus: At this point, all my competition has lights. I wouldn't - financially be able to compete with them so at this point, I guess I won't. Mayor Hamilton: So you want us to shut you down then? You're not in conformance with your conditional use. It was from sunrise to sundown. John Pryzmus: That was back when we had the sunrise and sunset. In the original, when just the driving range was approved and I guess we didn't go over it all... Mayor Hamilton: Any questions? Jay, anything? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I want to know how the kids are enjoying the cigarette machine. You say your vending machines were for the children. I don't see, I'm an anti-smoking advocate to a point, I don't see encouraging. I believe smokers need their own little room they go off into and fill each other's lungs but I don't see at a family recreational facility that we should be selling cigarettes. I'd like to :cc, if we're going to consider it, I don't have any _ problems with one or two video machines as long as we don't become a video arcade where the primary purpose is to play video games. As a slight accessory to putt-putt, on a hot summer day come in and cool off for a while and play a couple games of Donkey Kong or whatever, no big deal to me but if you start getting 10 or 15 video games in there and the place turns into a teenage video hang-out, that's going to be a problem. Cigarette machine is definitely a problem with me. John Pryzmus: I have no problem. I don't smoke and I don't have any problem with taking that out. They put them in there. I didn't ask for it. It was part of what came with the machines. Councilman Johnson: You can blame us. John Pryzmus: Well, it don't matter... Councilman Johnson: Does that sign need a sign permit or anything Barb? Normally you can get such and such a sign if you have a business right? Barbara Dacy: Right. A permit would be required except we amended the - ordinance to allow a driving range and miniature golf course. Unfortunately we didn't address in detail of how big the sign should be. Councilman Geving: I think John you made a lot of progress out there. I'm pleased to see it's coming along. The few things that we've got remaining here are pretty minor. You apparently are working towards getting those trees in this fall and you indicated there were berms there, I don't remember seeing any 61 - -C1ty Council Meeting - .t 22, 1988 berms but if that's in the conditional use permit, we ought to look at that. There seers to be a difference of opinion between yourself and the staff on where the berms are or where they should be. How many video games are there out there? John Pryzmus: There's foo5ball and hockey. Mayor Hamilton: There must be 4 or 5 I suppose. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess when we discussed this way back when we were talking about the difference between a business having 1 or 2 machines versus an arcade and I think we came up with, is 6 the magic number? Do you recall that 6 is an arcade? Barbara Dacy: There are no definitions. Councilman Geving: Okay, I guess maybe we were thinking of that at one time. I don't see any big problem with the few iters that we've got here. The only one that we did have a lot of discussion over John was the light standards. That there wasn't to be any lighting on the facility. I don't have a real hard feeling about that but I think if we're going to go that route, we're going to have to come back and talk about it again because I can see where that would extend your business day. Does it give you another half hour or something? John Pryzmus: Wnat it does is, in the evening as the sun goes down, before it - gets too dark, I would assume that, I've talked with all the neighbors and it will keep it open on a nice evening for another half hour-45 minutes rather than sunset. Basically I 've kept my standards. Floods up on the out lights and keep than shining down. I'm not putting them in a high place like a ballpark or anything like that. I wasn't. .. Councilman Geving: I think our discussion when we talked about lights were something far different than what you've got out there. I think we were thinking that we wouldn't let John have these big light poles and lots of problems with any neighbors that might object to that but I see no objection to - what's out there now. I don't have any problem with that John except that it's not on your conditional use permit. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't have any problem with the sign. To me it looks like a reasonable sign for that kind of a business but again, I supposed we should discuss that.. . Mayor Hamilton: That can be discussed through the ordinance process. Councilman Horn: I also agree about the lights. I don't see anything. The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area aren't they? The lights are mainly in the mini-putt area? John Pryzmus: Yes, they follow the path. There are two rows of trees that - follow the path and they shine towards the mini-putt area. .. Councilman Horn: I realize we didn't allow those but again, Dale said we had - envisioned something totally different. I also agree that there should be vending machines out there. People should have access to pop. You don't have 62 _ City Council Meetirn igust 22, 1988 any water on the site do you? Like a water fountain so this is really the only thing. . . John Pryzmus: Yes, I haven't had it hooked up yet. I do have a. .. Right now I have the Pepsi-Cola Company with automatic cooler. Like I say, the cigarette machine wasn't one of the machines that I had brought it. The vending' company brought it in. I didn't order it and I can have them take it out of there. .. As you get the grass to start growing out there and eventually.. . As you came in there's one berm that's maybe 7 feet high in front of the building, but same of that might even... but I will be working on it right on _through the fall to hopefully. .. Councilman Horn: I don't have any problem with anything I see out there. My only recommendation would be that I think it would be better, and you may disagree with this, to come to us with what you've done and we would agree with it. Whereas to go ahead and do it before we get a permit to do it can sometimes cause yourself more grief. John Pryzmus: There are sane things that I changed.. . Councilman Boyt: I see where staff recommends 8 foot evergreens instead of 6 foot. Barbara Dacy: Yes but since the berms are 6 feet, there's a disagreement so.. . Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear it as a point of disagreement along the highway. John Pryzmus: I don't think that would be done. .. Not all of them, everyone is put on the road. The shorter ones will be put inside. Councilman Boyt: I hope you're successful with this. I've got to tell you that it bothers me when anyone intentionally violates the standards the City has set for their development. You won't convince me John that when you put those light standards in you thought the City gave you approval to do that. What that means is, you decided that you're going to do that business the way you need to do that business and then you'll cane back to the City and get approval. I don't think that's a smart business approach. I think that we should definitely look at the sign to be sure that it fits within the standard size for signs. I suspect it does. The light standards, we need to have those inspected by staff to be sure that they're directed so they don't shine on the highway at all and good luck. I hope to get out there and use it sometime. Barbara Dacy: Given the Council's discussion, I guess what I would suggest is that the applicant apply to amend his permit regarding the light standards and the sign issue or the Council look at a ordinance amendment. Councilman Boyt: I think we should consider hours of operation too. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think John should come back, hours of operation, light standards and the trees. John Pryzmus: I'll bring that up to staff this week. 63 City Council Meeting - t 22, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: So we need to table this until, oh and the sign also should be a part of that. Bernie: I have not been following this but I am wondering why the restriction is placed on a businessman to have restricted hours when the competition certainly dictates that putt-putt courses, their best hours are frau 8:00 to 10:00 at night. I'm wondering why his position is so unique that we should have to restrict him from sunrise to sunset? Mayor Hamilton: When we first looked at this Bernie, John had a hand drawn plan that he brought in here and the neighbors objected to it. We tried to work with John all the way through this process and it's been kind of one frustration after another and just as it occurs now he's got lights out there that were not approved and he goes ahead and puts them up there without getting permission frau the City. If he wants to have lights out there, he should cane in here with a plan like anybody else that's going to try to do something. To just go ahead and do it, like Bill says, that's not the right way to do it. This was several years ago when the first plan came along and we said we weren't going to allow him to have the high pole standards and at that time was when we said sunrise to sunset would be his operation. So I think since that time John has talked with the neighbors and they have seen that it's not going to be the nuisance that they thought it was going to be but he's got to cane back to us - with an amended plan to try and change it. John Pryzmus: .. .I have worked with the neighbors... Councilman Johnson: When you started talking about your water system, I hope you realize that when you start serving that water to people, either in that machine or in that water fountain, you have created a public water supply by - State Law and you have to do certain water quality tests on that on a routine basis. You'll need to coordinate that with the County Health Department. You'll need to do that and file your reports of this. At one of my rural plants I work with, they have one coffee machine that is hooked up to water, otherwise they have bottled water everyplace. We got stuck because you have more than 25 employees there, as a public water supply system. So you're in the same boat there so watch out for that one. Mayor Hamilton: He hasn't hooked it up yet. Councilman Johnson: It's a fairly simple test and I think they're probably going to be annual tests, I'm not sure. Our test requires to be once a year testing for bacteria and that kind of stuff. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table review of the Pyramus Driving Range and Miniature Golf Course until a plan is brought back with additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. - REQUEST FOR KENNEL PERMIT, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ. Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mathiowetz is here who is the applicant for the kennel permit. [72 He is here because we've had complaints from a neighbor, Mr. Krueger, which I'm sure Council is well aware of since he was sending all the information on the 64 t ....„t . • CITYOF _ • cHANNAssEN 14 .► moi,. ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f ` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 25 , 1990 Mr . John B. Pryzmus J. P. Links , Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Grading Permit Application for Swings Golf Range - Amended Conditions of Approval • Grading Permit File No. 90-72 Dear Mr. Pryzmus : This letter is a followup to our meeting on Tuesday, October 23 , . 1990 with Planning Director, Paul Krauss , regarding the con- ditions of approval for your grading permit. As agreed,. a permit will be issued contingent upon the following conditions: 1 . The earth berm along Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) shall be continuous two-tier, two foot high rock retaining walls , not to exceed an accumulative height of four feet in lieu of the three foot high earth berm previously required. 2 . Provide the City with a financial security in the form of a . letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration. 3 . All disturbed areas shall be seeded and disc mulched or sodded prior to November 15, 1990. 4 . The grading permit fee shall be calculated according to the - 1988 Uniform Building Code Table MO. 70-B for grading 400 cubic yards of material. J 5. Erosion control measures (hay bales) shall be maintained throughout until vegetative cover has been fully re- - - established and removal is authorized by the city engineer. 6 . Any future expansion or grading activities will require another permit application and will also require an approved site and/or grading plan by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to commencement. *:r. John B. Pryzi—s October 25, 1990 Page 2 7 . The grading activity that has occured adjacent to the creek located on the northerly portion of the property shall be removed back to a point to be determined in the field •by City staff. 8 . As agreed, the expansion to the parking lot and driving range is not permitted without receiving an amendment to the Con- ditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the existing faci- lity. This expansion is not included in the administrative grading permit. Therefore, the driving tee and parking lot must be removed or transformed into berming purposes. - 9 . A building permit is required for the installation of the fence proposed around the site. If you are in agreement with the aforementioned conditions of Iapproval , the City is prepared to issue and grant you a grading permit for berming purposes , including site restoration. Upon receipt of a check for $84 and security in the form of a letter r of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,000, I will process I your application and issue you a grading permit. If a grading permit is not obtained and complied with, the site must be restored to original grade and condition as soon as possible and no later than November 15, 1990. Failure to comply with either scenario may result in further action by the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 4.-"d14—"/ • David C. Hempel Sr. Engineering Technician DCH: jms • c: Gary Warren, City Engineer Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer Paul Krauss, Planning Director Steve Kirchman, Building Official Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District . . _ . ..a.- c-- _ ._.., CITY OF 0_',- c - Oilltir . C IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 January 11, 1991 CERTIFIED Mr. John Pryzmus J. P. Links, Inc. 7750 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Pryzmus: - On November 28 , 1990, the City sent you a letter in regards to your grading permit #90-12 . The letter stated that a condition of the grading permit was for you to submit a conditional use permit and_ site plan review application for expansion of the Swings Golf site. The City established a deadline of January 7, 1991, for receipt of the application. As of January 11, 1991, the City has not received the application, nor has any contact been made by you to the City. • The City will grant one last extension until Tuesday, January 22 , 1991, for the application to be submitted. If the complete application is not received by January 22nd, the City will place your conditional use permit on a future City Council agenda for consideration of revocation. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Since�ryely, 39 ()L-ii 4 . __) o Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v CITY OF CHANHASSEN �� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4CtZk")--. DATE : May 8 , 1991 SUBJ : Planning Case IUP 91-1 (Swings Miniature Golf ) It is not clear from the building file why a holding tank was originally permitted on this property. Minnesota Rules chapter 7080 " Individual Sewage Treatment Standards" was in effect at the time of building permit issuance , and septic sites had been designated on the approved site plan. The holding tank is a prohibited installation . A permit , however , was issued requiring a pumping contract with receipts being sent to the City. These conditions have never been met . The approved building plans require sanitation facilities and ventilation conforming to UBC 705 . These requirements were never met . The only inspection requested by the contractor was the final , despite required inspections being noted on the approved plan . The final inspection did not pass , and no Certificate of Occu- pancy has every been issued. I strongly urge that no further development be permitted on the property until existing violations are corrected. This would include : 1 . Installation of an approved septic system with an alternate site protected. 2 . Existing building must be brought up to code and a Cer- tificate of Occupancy issued. 3 . Application for fence permit must be made and approved or fence removed. • I "0 = ^ ti d o- o in c o ^, ° a.�< c 0� C p C 5 b 7.. ro �c n 3' n v, E D 9 S ° c -2 c "0 c. 2 oq 57 < '2 Y g'' n w 5 a 3 �x 3 d E. 7 n a N E � 4 o f m c o c 5 r? 9 't7 o c. ,� G �. E ta. -. 0 8 �. ° `` 9 s � � � c g . E. o 5. ^ ° 8 0_- 5 t £ a P m . E o'Q2_ vd a. m 8 m N " A 5 � 7 et, • m � " E o a5 5-11) a E E m �� n 9 9 ° 5a a 6 g4 ...9 = r E n g m 5 ° - 99- d V ! gC ! ftwt� $ ° S a. _7gn o • a g5 § R. 4Ofl ELm g 5 � m �'' AaE• f a a n 5 a_ 6 v_ � 5 m n g d = 0.Q g a 8 E c t113 0 ; " 0.3 E § =' - pap 7 0. 9 ~ 9‘..< E. 74 < O o •^ w G cr s �, " o io b • 9 7 d ° b m ' g 5 0 $ ° s 9 g ° R 0 c g o A g g o v. y � c fie = 7 y =- u, w o 7 E a .: 5 6 E d Co s - 53 a• r, s<7 = ° Qn m _• 5 §nn 0. E b-F n v 0 6 et, a E'. ,n, " < S�S o nil. ° w�o0Cea NO "p, mO e' n 9 1 7 y n `^ C]. a O n n b `< a:- ° 96ma ° K n = i�v ° !� 5g x lS 7 by o -0 '" • 3 9 a 5. �' m d 7 b ' Sr, 2i oo ft n 7 8 " K 0.d n N " a 7 ca e o cv 5 E r $ .0 . w E A pN °',? -,2_ ^t r� - •� �' a p b . 7 p -• S. p N n C . 7 rD a •-c r o c 7 7 9 0. ft ° n o rwD n F V d v rD o w o n , opo 'R o c 5 n n'a a c - c H 9 „.< • m fir, d B °, r c - '' °-: it coo a w _rt v, m 0. c m ,� < - 3 5 b q g 9 a 3 y cri G T cti 1:1:'R = G°r ^x n a. 9 a • c -v a 0 7 � E o9 n ° of A 00 _ E3 � � a a a = o n0. 0. o t5 `7. 5 .Q m. to g 0. ;; a 5 O 'co, - • A < 'C N 7 C p �••3 N G v S "f} t. n 0. 7 - m ° 7. c c 5 tr a � Z5S s ? rA a H n5' � � R o ar, = 5 s c r5 n Eif a S O rr G. ° Q o� n 7. - C n ;" o ft G r 8 a ro m . o a p = n '7 c a " 9 E o g 3 �.� o p d R ? � � 2 � � � a. a , :n s t' o d'a y T > X 000 _ E R. c � . c V b " 5 < 0.-- n .; n ,m, • O L p ` 8 • O C v ^v. r: r<� `o vt, N <. r, K C 3 `< < y ri r"' uyoo m 9 E < x x 5' 0.° ° ro moo 0.0 U op - • v 0^ rp �< yn C .00 n O mF ' 5SS ... rD O p� " • 7 L'A S .y O b i m O Qo Oo n C "nJ.7 2 ?b a. 0 2 C o to • E. 9 eo y O m m o0 'J gr .= 4 p ,. d ° 5' y m 3 ? a °g N d °+ sg x d $ o 13 n0. E'' - "" �' ' 'O �. A 0 m o a 3 9 ° n A fl oR t 0 -< O tic pn ° ° tic n n - r, s m < a E c E n " b F. ° n. a. ..a 5 ?. a $ 8 n' nd $• o a a45 < d9 ° ° m <VI m oo 0o i� '= 5a m ° ° ° x 9 H 0. us fD 8 5 s A 7 d m to c w °: c ° " c s ;, _ �_ to to �j • d " - m u, Cb 7 O m a g , n 9 0 4 " m y o0 3. b 9 n " 5 cni H e n S n ro �' �= O1 "B a, m Cmoo � � � K mEE m� ° � ox2v A to m c E E c o- - A pap C 7 °y m0. g ° ..-1- in I c or E. rD t� .n y O E " rD 7- r0p.°r-�. m 7 rp 7 5 t - - ^ o 5- s 7 :< P - - oo v7. 9 5 g' x 0.T - a v nel c a n C < o ° •-c. 4. 8 A c m la' A n O " m �' T �< v m v' A m A A m 0. 5 ea t5. n S o n o 5 n b t3�� S p " a° Ll 5 y tic rp 0- o O f. "' 7 ce H Q. to Pi r<, rp •< B 00 H ,Q -n. e. ri� S 2 ° v H 7 ^ Ob r�p rSp n c•�. 9 O n a o n U oa tmr 7 o E. 7 ? g E O^ G a n s g. la s c a 5 c aset Q A = A a - i E rco 5 n p. City Council Meeting - March 25, 1991 Wp / a�^� Councilman Wing: On that subject? I wanted to comment Don that on this approval of agenda, that was a new term to me and I wasn't quick enough. I was waiting for approval of the agenda and then I realized I was supposed to speak. I would just request , if I'm not out of order, a quick comment under item 7. Council Presentations. On the next Council agenda I'd just like to have the issue of the, I'd like to hear the 'report from the University of Minnesota Goose Removal program and how it affects the City and the possibility of continuation for 1991 and subsequent years. I would just like to, for your sake Mr. Mayor, just put on the record these pictures of my dock. July, 1990 after the goose removal last year. Councilwoman Dimler: Ah, that 's phospherous loading for sure. Councilman Wing: My request is that it simply be placed on the agenda next meeting. Mayor Chmiel: In other words, where Bambi goes nothing grows. Okay, we'll move on to our administrative presentation. UPDATE ON SWINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SENIOR PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen: Last fall the owner of Swings started to do some grading on his site without a permit . We went out to put a stop work order on the site and he did pursue with a grading permit but what he was doing actually ended up being an expansion of the conditional use permit above what was approved. So as part of that grading permit he had to make an application to come in for an amended conditional use permit so that he could bring his site into compliance. He has not done this after contacts by staff. So originally we were going to bring it on the agenda for consider of revocation of the CUP or the conditional use permit . Instead what we're going to do is just have the attorney's office pursue John with a letter stating that he is in violation of the conditional use permit and pursue it that way and hopefully get him to make an application. If not, we will go after him against the violation of the conditional use permit . We felt this was a better way. If we revoke the permit , then actually those conditions are no longer there for us to enforce and we might as well get to the legal process now. I know that John was in today and was aware of this and said he was going to be here but I don't see him. Just wanted to make you aware that we're doing this internally and that 's it. We'll let you know what happens. Mayor Chmiel : Is there anyone else that would like to address the issue? Don Ashworth: If I may. I did see John in this afternoon. He did seem happy . . .so I'm assuming that he read the report and he's accepting that. Mayor Chmiel: There's only one thing on item number 3 that I looked at. It says prior to November 15, 1990 or should that be 1991? Jo Ann Olsen: No. That was part of the original grading permit so that was 1990 that he had to do that . Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? John, would you like to come up? Just state your name and address please? 21 City Council Meeting - M7 -h 25, 1991 John Hennessy: John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Blvd. . Mr. Pryzmus is doing I'd say a respectable job out there as far as appearance of the project and everything. The only thing that concerns me is something a little more generic. It 's the precedence that the City is setting. There's no bite to the ordinance. I mean he was out there for a month and a half without a permit . I mean how does this go on that long? I see the City cars•going up and down Galpin Blvd. so I know they're doing inspections out there in Pheasant Hills and other places along our road. So why do things just keep going on and on without any enforcement? And this isn't the first time. John's been battling with the City for as long as we've lived there, 8-9 years. It's well meaning and everything. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe somebody would like to address that specific question. Jo Ann Olsen: As soon as we were alerted to that he was grading illegally out there we did put a stop order immediately. That doesn't necessarily stop him. So what we did try to do is try to work with him to get the site, because when we were made aware that it was already, there were piles of dirt. There were piles of dirt up against the creek also so what we tried to do is to get the site restored as best possible. That's where we went through the grading permit with him to hopefully get him to comply with that and he did pull the dirt back. But I know that it looks like we're not doing anything but actually we are working on it . John Hennessy: Well I know it 's not like you have nothing to do up here. Jo Ann Olsen: But it takes a while you know as far as going through that grading permit and then also to get him to comply. John Hennessy: Has the area to the creek been restored as far as drainage? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. They pulled the dirt back from the creek. From the edge of the creek. He didn't really get into the creek to impact it. Yes, we pulled the dirt back and got that out of there. That was our main concern. John Hennessy: Okay. Thank you. Don Ashworth: If I could partially respond as well. And again, I haven't talked to Joh recently on this item but we had come to agreement with him as to things that he was to do out at that site. Then he ran into some difficult financial times and literally it was not until the City had actually consummated the acquisition of the property downtown that a number of financial conditions that were following John around were actually cleared up. I know during those negotiations he had continued to state to me, Don I'd like to get this thing wrapped up and get some money available because I really want to take and clean up the golf course project but I just haven't been able to do a thing out there because of some of these other problems. He should have gotten a hold of us and verified what he was doing but I guess that's just not John. Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Emmings. Steve Emmings: Mr. Pryzmus has been in front of the Planning Commission several times and I know this is one of those cases where the City keeps bending over backwards and is not met halfway and I know there are some new Council members 22 City Council Meeting - 3rch 25, 1991 who may not be aware of the whole history but I know we've chased him out of the wetland in the past and told him he can't fill in there. He filled in there once before without permission and we chased him out of there and now it sounds like he's working down by the creek. There's no question in my mind he knows full well that he's doing things that the City would not permit and he seems to • just do what he wants to. I think:it 's important to put that into perspective with it . • Mayor Chniel: Good. Thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Hearing none, I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.a. . Subritted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim i 23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:��� 1 ti\ OWNER: ‘SL--'YV e ,rte S ADDRESS: A N. a v ADDRESS: i C)7 VV't ., 5 r 1 l I�A.z. ►i -� S�s ��- TELEPHONE (Day time) 9 ?'/ - S c)6 TELEPHONE: '73 7 -/ CU 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Subdivision 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW/Easements 7 . 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. SYS" X 11' Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME r�I LOCATION S d L c►tit eh) L D LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION • REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy•of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's • ice and he ori.-..l document returned to City Hall Records. * — —/ 1 ' 9 '!nature of Applican ' Date . 100 2111/AIII I' ature of Fee Owne Date A. 'lication Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on RECE F STATE OF .jury :; '�_ IKHazcpvta DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CITY L ETRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 — PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. June 7, 1993 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: MAXI-MINI PUTT, INTERIM USE PERMIT, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: We have reviewed the site plans (received May 20, 1993) for the above-referenced project (Section 10, T. 116N. , R. 23W. ) and have the following comments. 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water is on the proposed site. Any activity, such as placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters its course, current or cross-section, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. 2 . The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having stormwater routed directly to Bluff Creek. Stormwater sedimentation/treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the stormwater management plan. If stormwater is routed directly to Bluff Creek, it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to wildlife values and water quality. 3 . A portion of the property occurs in the 100-year floodplain. All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 4 . Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary. The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, or the width of the floodplain, which ever is greater. The development must be consistent with the city shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen June 7, 1993 Page (2) a. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore impact zone is a 25' strip along both sides of the creek. b. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 5. Bluff Creek should be labelled as a Public Water such in future plans. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. 8 . Construction activities which disturb more than five acres of land are required to apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296- 7203) . Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist cc: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD USCOE Chanhassen Shoreland File Chanhassen Floodplain File `YK ( f)�r� 1r \ItCARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE */N. 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 4�j t (612)448-1213 Ea AINES° REsF?V6.1,1 COUNTY Of CAI:Nf lii' < <, 1993 CITY ur June 9, 1993 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer SUBJ: Interim Use Permit Swings Golf Following are comments regarding the Interim Use Permit request for the Swings Golf proposal transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated May 19, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 33 foot from centerline corridor shown would not provide for a potential minimum 80 foot corridor. This corridor would not meet the needs for an urban roadway. Allowance for future roadway needs should be considered in the expansion plans. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the County Highway department. 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed — to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. Affirmative Actiin/Equal Oppe,mnitl Empliiler Pt»lted on Rerrled Paper 5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection, Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: August 12, 1993 SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area ZOA 92-1 BACKGROUND = This item was discussed before the Planning Commission on August 4, 1993. Staff outlined the concerns with lot sizes in the rural (non-serviced for sewer and water) areas. There are two issues of concern. First, should existing rural/large lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available; and the second issue is the RR District does not require rezoning to subdivide lots down to 15,000 square feet. The Planning Commission directed staff to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The rural lot building eligibility requirements (Section 20-906) has been amended to state: "All Al and A2 residential districts located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area Boundary, shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter". This amendment allows those 10 acre parcels zoned Al and A2, outside of the MUSA, as defined in Section 20-906, to be further subdivided. Existing subdivisions and lots of record could not be further subdivided outside of the MUSA could not be further subdivided. This includes areas such as Hesse Farm, Lake Riley Woods and Riley Lake Meadows. This amendment would prevent existing Rural Lot Subdivisions from further subdividing unless there is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning. The RR district will now require all lots to have the 21/2 acre minimum and 15,000 square foot lots will not be allowed. Any property inside the MUSA zoned RR, that is not part of an existing Rural Lot Subdivision, or a property zoned A2 would have to be rezoned to be further subdivided. Planning Commission August 12, 1993 Page 2 ANALYSIS The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following areas: 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District. Section 20- 575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A-2" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. • b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250). For lots created after September 1, 1993, the following standards shall apply: (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in size to accommodate two potential septic sites. (2) The minimum lot frontage is (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots are conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: Planning Commission August 12, 1993 Page 3 a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. 2. Article XI "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595 Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements set forth in this chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in (2) The minimum lot frontage is (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul de sac (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty five (125) feet. The location of - - .. - _ .. . . , . .. -- - • . - . 2. • front-building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards-, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half acres, subject to Section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on a cul- de-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows : Planning Commission August 12, 1993 Page 4 — a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. — (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty — (1,250). 3. Sec. 20-906 Rural Lot building eligibilities. {a) All lots Al and A2 residential districts located outside of the Metropolitan — Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary, shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (a) (b) A new single family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: The remaining portion of Section 20-906 would remain the same. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning _ Ordinance amendment as proposed in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance 170 — 2. Section 20-906 Zoning Ordinance 3. Letter from Roger Knutson dated August 5, 1993 4. Planning Commission minutes dated August 4, 1993 — CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 170 THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS: Section 1. Article X. "A-2" Agricultural Estate District Section 20-575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an A-2 District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this Chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in size to accommodate two potential septic sites. (2) The minimum lot frontage is'(90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) fee in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet.. The location of these lots are conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Section 2. Article XI "RR" Rural Residential District Sec. 20-595 Lot Requirements and Setbacks The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements set forth in this chapter. (1) The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet or sufficient, whichever is larger, in size to accommodate two potential septic sites. (2) The minimum lot frontage is (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de- sac "bubble' or along the outside curve or curvilinear sections shall be (90) fee in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots are conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drives shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures is twenty (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet c. For side yard, ten (10) feet (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Section 3. Article XXIII General Supplemental Regulations shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-906, Rural Lot Buildings Eligibilities Subsection(b)(8) shall be amended to read: Each site must have an area which can support two (2) septic system site on a slope of less than twenty-five (25) percent. Adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of June, 1992. A 1-1 EST: /(2„ Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. a. . ' , rayor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 3u ly .�3� i4�i Z . § 20-906 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one (1) single-family unit. 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. 30-39.99 acres equals three (3)single-family units, etc. (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph (10). (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections — 20.575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two (2) parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. Supp.No.3 1230.8 ZONING § 20-907 — (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one (1)of the parcels. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in paragraph (9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one (1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre- hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half (21 ) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further, these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application until after July 1, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12.15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one (1) story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: ( (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 t CA\IPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys at Law Th,,m.,.1.ca"trhell (61 2)452-50C10 Rorer N.l:nut",n Fax(6121 452-5550 Th„m.,.'.1.Scott Cian•G.Foch- Jame-R \C".,kr.,n Elliott R.I.net-ch Michael A. Br,,h,,cl, Renae 1D.Steiner August 5, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Rural Lot Building Eligibilities Dear Paul : You asked me to review the zoning code provisions concerning minimum lot sizes in the rural area. The minimum lot sizes in the "rural" area are: A-1 40 acres A-2 15, 000 square feet RR 15, 000 square feet Section 20-906 is labeled "Rural Lot Building Eligibilities" . The term "rural lot" is not defined. Section 20-906, subparagraph (a) refers to land outside the MUSA. Subparagraph (b) , however, has no such limitations, and arguably applies to all "rural lots" both inside and outside the MUSA, sewered and unsewered. Various subparagraphs under subparagraph (b) make it clear that the intent was to apply the regulation in only unsewered areas. At a minimum, these ambiguities should be resolved. Section 20-906 should be rewritten to provide that (1) it only applies in the A-1 and A-2 residential districts, and (2 ) it only applies outside the MUSA. Consideration should be given, however, to applying 20-906 to all property in all zoning districts where sewer is not immediately available. The approach favored by the Metropolitan Council is to require a 10 acre lot unless public sewer is available to the site. I will let you be the judge on the desirability of development patterns and quality of development created by clustering versus large lots. • E.t injaie OtttLe Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, \1 ._ Mr. Paul Krauss August 5, 1993 Page 2 The Lakeville City Code provides: 11 . 12 Minimum Lot Area , Unsewered Lots. Lot sizes where public sewer is not available shall conform to the minimum _ requirements set forth below: 1) The minimum single family lot size is ten (10) acres. This minimum lot size shall not apply to smaller separate parcels of record in separate ownership lawfully existing prior to 7 November 1977 , provided that it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the smaller parcels will not result in groundwater, soil, or other contamination which may endanger the public health. Habitable single family homes constructed prior to 7 November 1977 , may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre or larger if the property divided off will result in a parcel of ten (10) acres or more if it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground-water, soil , or other contamination which may endanger the public health. 2) Apartments and multiple family dwellings are not allowable uses. 3) Subject to the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, other uses may be permitted by conditional use permit. The minimum lot size for each principal use is ten (10) acres. This minimum lot size shall not apply to smaller separate parcels of record in separate ownership lawfully existing prior to 7 November 1977 , provided the conditions of the conditional use permit are met. A conditional use permit shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the use (a) will not result in groundwater, soil , or other contamination which may endanger the public, (b) will not increase future City utility service demands and expense, and (c) will not jeopardize public safety and general welfare. ry tru • ours, CAM•BELL, 4 UTSON, SCOTT & FU , P.A. BY:—Roger N. Knutson RNK: srn cc: Kate Aanenson Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 35 11 . Access to Lot 1 shall be via the private driveway access off of Church Road and not West 62nd Street , only if the fire hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal 's specifications. Lot 4 shall have no access onto State Trunk Highway 7 . 12 . The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City 's private driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7 ton design . 13 . Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Best Management Practice Handbook . 14 . All draintile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage through the site . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Conrad: It goes to City Council August 23rd . Thank you both for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: --1Y ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-575 - 20-595 REGARDING LOT SIZES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . Farmakes : Could you refresh my memory on how we require 2 1/2 acre lots , _ when one subdivides and they figure out where those 15 ,000 square foot lots are going to go if they do subdivide? Aanenson: You have to have at least 10 acres . It 's still the 1 unit per 10 acres requirement 's still in place . So if you have 10 acres , you can take a little corner piece and make it into one lot . You can create one lot . What we 're saying now is it doesn 't have to be 2 1/2 acres . It can be as small as 15 ,000 , or whatever it takes to get 2 septic sites on because you still have to provide that in the rural area . So yeah , it 's in the anticipation that sewer 's going to become available and you don 't want to lob off a big acreage . And we 've had requests for those . You 've seen those . The Tich 's . People that have come in and say I 'm going to hold off the rest of mine until sewer becomes available . But they want to make the most sense of their property now . Farmakes : Yeah . That 's usually where we get these common driveways and small lots . Aanenson: Well that 's why I think we need to go through and rezone those to RSF because we have had requests from some of these RR areas to just do some splits without rezonings and I don 't think we 're going through the process to make . . .done it procedurally . Mancino: They can turn out being really funny looking too . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 36 Aanenson: Right . So again , I don 't think it was our intent when we adopted_ this to allow those existing subdivisions to further subdivide . If someone just because someone 's contiguous to sewer , without going to rezoning , it ' basically a spot zone . If you 've allowed one person in that subdivision to split , what that does to the integrity of the rest of the subdivision . Really they should be forced to go through a zone change and notify everybody in that subdivision . Say do you all want to rezone , to change colors or do you want to remain the same at that point . Farmakes: At some point in time too I think some of our . . .are going to find out , the property that 's purchased next to them is purchased with the intent financially of developing those lots . That 's how they 're purchasir the property . Aanenson: And there is some of that out there but I think we need to let the whole subdivision be aware of that . Scott : There 's really two things that I see as should existing rural larva lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available . I say no . If there is something that falls outside of that , I think we need the control to have them rezone and put them in a plat , etc , etc . Aanenson: Right . I think what we 're concerned too is that you let the whole neighborhood be on notice . You can 't just let the one person in an& what that does to the other people that bought into that rural atmosphere , what it does to their . Scott : Then we have to take a look because that is , we hear a lot of people saying , well the realtor said this or the developer said that . Thi... is a situation where people in good faith can go in and say , oh . This is zoned like this so I won 't have someone doing , you know subdividing next door . Mancino: Well most of those people really fought for that . I remember - when the Comprehensive Plan was going through . Timberwood and . Scott: Well yeah , they didn 't want to , just because they had sewer and _ water available , they wanted to do their own thing . It was , that was one of those inalienable rights . They have a drainfield or something . Farmakes : What happens on the large developments , that 's just fine becaus- they dictate where the road 's going to go , and we did that tonight . But that first one that we looked at , was a small parcel and the first one to develop with all the surrounding properties maybe 5 times as large , it 's - kind of dictating where those connectors . . . Scott : Yeah . Yeah . Farmakes : But that 's sort of the way , I mean that 's the way property developers . Aanenson: Although Lake Susan Hills dictates a little bit of that too . I mean by putting Osprey Lane in , they did a little bit . But you 're right , Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 37 the first one in does dictate a lot what 's going to happen . Conrad: So this is scheduled to be a public hearing and Kate your idea was to present . Aanenson: Our intent was to bring some language to you but it became more complicated and in speaking with the City Attorney , he felt like we should sit down again and try to make sure we 've got all the loopholes and we 've got it worded correctly and I think we just didn 't have enough . Conrad: Could I have a motion to table this public hearing? Ledvina : Are we going to see it next time? Maybe , maybe not? Aanenson: I ' ll try . Scott moved , Harberts seconded to table the public hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 to 20-595 regarding lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE . Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kevin Norby 6801 Redwing Lane Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Mancino: Is sugar maples okay for parking lots? Aanenson : Yes . These are changes that Jeff had looked at , our forester , and made comments to . Farmakes: What was his comments in regard to the property underneath? Aanenson: The property? Farmakes: Yeah . Where you had a discussion here previous . Aanenson: Well we require the 20 x 10 . Farmakes : You control the size of the tree by the amount of property below it . Aanenson: Oh he concurred with that . He felt good about the minimum , the 10 x 20 . He felt that was a good starting point . Again , that 's the minimum , the 10 x 20 planting area and we put 2 trees in those . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4 , 1993 Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Joe Scott , Ladd Conrad , Nancy Mancino , Matt Ledvina and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; and Dave Hempel , Asst . City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSAL TO REZONE 11 .5 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 TO RSF AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 11 .5 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF HERON DRIVE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD , SHENANDOAH RIDGE , SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: - Name Address Craig Mertz 8561 Osprey Lane Bill & Vicky Goers 1601 Lyman Blvd . Lynn Caswell 580 Dodge , Elk River Doug Barinsky 8731 Audubon Road Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . Conrad: Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to make any statements? Are you familiar with the staff report? Agree with their recommendations? Lynn Caswell : Yes . Lynn Caswell with John Alden and Associates . I 've read the staff report . Conrad: Okay , good . It 's a public hearing . We ' ll open it up for public comments . Are there any? Craig Mertz : I 'm Craig Mertz , 8561 Osprey Lane . I live about 300 feet east of the barn on this property . I 've looked at the staff report and the proposed preliminary plat . . . Conrad : Okay , thanks Craig . Any other comments? Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Barinsky . I live at 8731 Audubon . I have the property that lies directly south of this . I just have two questions . Is that street that 's coming to the south end there , is that a cul-de-sac or what 's there? Al-Jaff : To be extended in the future . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 2 Doug Barinsky : What if that isn 't compatible with how I want to develop my property? Because there 's also a street coming out of Bluff Creek right now right here which would come into my property . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , maybe I can address that further . Mr . Barinsky has been in to see the City Engineer a few times with regard to the sewer service to the property and so forth . As a part of platting adjacent properties , we 're somewhat obligated to look for future roadway extensions to tie the parcels together . It 's kind of a puzzle if you will to put the - pieces together . Ultimately we do like to try and eliminate or reduce the amount of access points onto a collector type street . This situation though Mr . Barinsky did bring up a valid point . There is already a new intersection created directly across from his parcel so potentially if Mr . Barinsky doesn 't use that access to his property , I guess it would probabl•. become more of a permanent type solution but I guess we would encourage to see it connect to the south . And maybe eliminate that other access out onto Audubon Road depending how your parcels lays out I guess . We 'd like to keep that option open for you should you require it in the future . Once we give it up , we ' ll never be able to get another access so we 're essentially giving you two options to service your property . Doug Barinsky: Alright . Rather than make a cul-de-sac out of it at this point then , it would just be a deadend street at this point . Hempel : With a temporary cul-de-sac established , yes . Doug Barinsky : Second question I have is , is that property line there has a total line of mature trees and I 'm wondering what this development plan calls for in terms of tree protection and I haven 't had any survey work done so I don 't know who 's side of the property line the trees are on but think they 're probably right on the property line . I guess I 'd like to know what the developer does have planned there at this point . It bothers me a little bit because I came home from work one night last week and on Bluff Creek , right across the road , they had free cleared a huge stand of mature trees to make room for part of their development and I 'd hate to come home from work some night and find out that this developer has free - cleared those trees when they could be quite valuable to the homeowners that are going to have the lots adjacent to it on both sides of that property . So could anyone comment on that? And does a development like - this call for a tree plan in terms of what 's already on that property as far as mature trees . Al-Jaff : The trees that are located to the south . - Doug Barinsky: There 's mature trees entirely along , yeah that property line there . _ Al-Jaff : Correct . They are all on this property . Where the road is . Doug Barinsky: It 's been surveyed and determined they 're all on that - property? Al-Jaff : Correct . - Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 3 Doug Barinsky : Okay . What is the plan for those trees? Al-Jaff : Okay , the area where the road is going to go through , those trees will have . Doug Barinsky : At this point there 's no reason for a road to go through though because that 's not being developed beyond there . Why would one cut down trees when there 's no . Hempel : The trees are being cleared to facilitate a turning radius at the end of that street for fire trucks , garbage trucks and so forth . The home pads , the trees will obviously be removed for those . The road right-of- way . That 's about the extent of it . The lot , or the trees along the side lot lines and rear yards are proposed to be left as they are today . Doug Barinsky : In this process does the developer submit that , that those trees will be left and is that part of the approval process that the city has to approve control of mature trees on a piece of property like that? Hempel : I think Sharmin can address this a little bit more with the conservation easement . Is that what 's proposed? Al-Jaff : We are requiring a conservation easement . We 're also requiring that additional trees be planted on the site . Doug Barinsky : At this point my concern is just the mature trees . Whatever you require for new planting . Al-Jaff : Some of them are going to go with the grading . Doug Barinsky : Well can you tell me what is going? Is the developer going to free clear that because it will be easier for him to go in and move dirt or what 's the plans? Al-Jaff : On the south is going to be mainly preserved with the exception of this area right here . Hempel : The house pads . Al-Jaff : Exactly , the house pads . Are you concerned with the southern portion? Doug Barinsky : I 'm concerned that somebody 's going to come in there when this starts with a bulldozer and just clear those trees out because it 's going to be easier for them to work without those trees . Al-Jaff : They can 't do that . Doug Barinsky : What assurance can I have of that that that 's not going to happen? Al-Jaff : We will have snow fences around it . We will have a conservation easement recorded against it . Before they do any type of grading , the snow fences have to be showing them where they may grade and where they cannot . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 4 - Doug Barinsky: The trees are more valuable there for the benefit of selling lots around there eventually and that 's why I 'm concerned about the- trees . If the developer would like to comment , I 'm glad to hear what they 've got to say about it . Lynn Caswell : The developer in this instance is , as most developers are aware that if you have a tree on the lot , the lot is more valuable . One (DT the situations in here is we certainly , in order to get the utilities extended to the south line as staff has requested , we have to cut trees in here . In order to , we can probably on this side of the lot , we leave all of these trees alone . But when somebody comes in there and builds their home , they 're certainly going to have to clear the pads to build the house Have to clear a certain distance away from the foundations . Doug Barinsky: Those trees are on the property line so it 's not very likely they 'd build a house on the property line . Lynn Caswell : This is a little bit deceiving in that we aren 't showing any trees south of the property line . We 're only locating the significant trees on our site because those are the only ones . . .impact so there may be trees to the south . Doug Barinsky : I think there are , yeah . Lynn Caswell : In this particular lot , because there 's kind of a ravine that goes through here . . .grade a house pad in here . . .trees as we possibly can on the entire site because trees enhances the value of the development . . . Doug Barinsky : Well , as a more specific question . Is there an actual pla. that has identified what will happen to those trees? Has this already been . Conrad: Yeah , there really is . Doug Barinsky : I don 't want to tie up your time tonight . If I could see that . Scott : You can have all of ours . Conrad : Yeah , but it 's a good question . We 're making light of it but it does detail what 's . Farmakes : It is something that we 're increasing reviewing . Doug Barinsky: I assume the city is or you wouldn 't have hired a full timf forester . Farmakes: But the trees on the property line , as you can see here , are shown for the actual property that 's being developed . Not for your property . They 're sited and listed as to the size and nature of the tree . Doug Barinsky: Okay . Alright , that 's all the questions I have really . I� the protection of the adjoining properties . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 5 Conrad: The concern , you know the trees are listed that are going down or that are there . They 're inventoried . I 'm trying to think if there 's a bottom line conclusion after what you 've talked about . You know we 're concerned about the trees . It looks like we 're going to replace those that are taken down . Some big ones are going to go down as they make the cul-de-sac a temporary cul-de-sac . Not a whole lot but they are going to go down . I don 't know if there 's a better way to conclude it . Mancino: Is there custom grading or anything? Farmakes: I think that that particular layout to access that property . . . the way that the tree line parallels the property . At some point to access that property you have to eliminate those trees . Mancino : Those trees . I 'm just thinking about the housepads . If we can do some custome grading on those two lots to further reduce . Aanenson : Yeah , I was just going to say . In that condition number 4 that talks about the , that Sharmin has in here that talks about the tree preservation . You might want to add a home placement plan so we can look at that and site the home such that it minimizes the tree loss . Lynn Caswell : I guess I 'd just like to add that we will work with city staff the preserve the number of trees lost . Doug Barinsky: Well that would be a great improvement over what 's going on at Bluff Creek so . Lynn Caswell : This particular developer does his own grading . . . Doug Barinsky : Alright . I assume I can maybe have you show me sometime on the survey where your property line is there or where you think it is . That might help answer some of my questions . Lynn Caswell : As we continue on in the process , we can stake those out . Doug Barinsky : Thank you . Conrad: Thank you . Other comments . Bill Goers : Hi . My name is Bill Goers and I own the property to the east and to the south of that and I 'm mostly concerned about access to that , also for future development . Have not talked to the developer . We talked to staff very briefly . We 'd just like to get some assurances that whatever final puzzle that we put had together , that we 've got access to some of our property because we would not have access from Lyman Blvd the way the properties are currently situated so we ' ll need to get access from either Arboretum or through the streets that are put in there . So we 'd like to have the possibility to work with staff and the developer before anything is finalized . Just for everyone 's future ease of grief . Conrad: Thanks . Anything else? Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 6 Mancino moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Jeff , comments . Farmakes: I have no additional comments other than what we 've just discussed here . It seems to me to be a logical development the way it 's laid out for this small of property . Mancino : I have a couple of questions . Sharmin , I noticed that you state( in the staff report , on page 2 , that the trees that will be removed will be replaced . As I look at the landscape plan here , I see that there 's going to be tree removal in the street area and obviously for the house pads and for the retention pond that will go in on the east side of Lots 11 , 12 and 13 . Correct? Does the developer , when they remove all these trees , do they get us another plan , will they give you , staff , another plan to show where all those replaced trees will go on the development? Because they 're not taking the place of the one tree per lot . They 're not taking the place of the streetscape , landscaping on Audubon . So these are going to be over - and above that , correct? Al-Jaff : Actually when I calculated the landscaping , I included those - trees that were along Audubon and the one located within the front yard . Mancino: Within the front yards . So if we take the combination of what we see on our landscape that parallels Audubon and the one tree per lot , that total is the total of trees that will be removed? Al-Jaff : Correct . And we 're adding an additional 10 trees along Audubon . - Mancino: Along Audubon . Did we also take into account the trees that will be taken out with the Alisa Court at that south end? Al-Jaff : No . Mancino : Okay . Then what I 'd like to do is just make sure that those that- are removed will be replaced and we have the right count and that we know where they will be going . On a plan so that you do that with a developer . A few other questions that I have . I think Dave , I have a question on the - recommendations . On recommendation number 5 about the existing wells and sewage treatment systems to be abandoned . It seems to be in conflict with 15 as far as timing . Hempel : Yes . That 's correct . We should probably rephrase , I suggest condition number 5 . The two conditions , one was from engineering and one was the building department . Just to cover the bases . The wells we were - talking about is the existing farm well which I assume is next to the existing farm house which is located on Lot 10 , Block 1 . Should that well be outside of the property lines , the new property lines of Lot 10 , then it would have to be abandoned per State Codes . If the well is located within Lot 10 , it meets setbacks and is functioning properly , we will allow them to remain hooked up to that . Until the well fails . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 7 Mancino : And what about the sewage? I mean isn 't it 12 months on one of them you have , let 's see . The sanitary sewer on Lot 10 , Block 1 has to hook up within 12 months . The other existing ones need to be abandoned right away? Hempel : In this situation here , the septic site will probably have to be abandoned right away due to the conflicts with the other adjacent lots that are being created . And I question the integrity of the system right now anyway so it 's most likely , it 'd probably be more appropriate to have the existing house be hooked up to the city sewer within 30 days upon being available . Mancino: So how do we want to combine those two? What would you think would be the best? Hempel : The existing wells outside of Lot 10 . Any existing wells outside of Lot 10 shall be properly abandoned . And sewage treatment . Mancino: Okay . Also under recommendation number 8 , I would like to add the words at the beginning . The south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac because the north end will not be temporary . And then on recommendation number 22 . Where access to the lot shall be from the interior streets , not Audubon Road . The corner lot , which you have in parens , were missing one corner lot and I would like to add that in to say , we have Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1 ; Lot 1 , Block 3 . Also , Lot 2 , Block 2 . And that 's it . Conrad: Good . Thanks Nancy . Good comments . Joe . Scott : Dave , on I think it 's Block 1 , Lots 11 , 12 and 13 . Where the pond is going to be . You ' ll have to help me out with this . It falls away about I think from the middle of the lot it falls away about 30 feet or 20 feet or something . Could you , and maybe Sharmin I 'd like to see how that sits in there because it seems like it 's going to be fairly steep . It has to be kind of kidney shaped , elongated , something that 's running with the north/ south property line . Hempel : Right . It will essentially be benched into the side of the hill because it 's not quite at the toe of the slope so it will be benched or terraced in similar to like a house pad would be . Sharmin , do you have . Scott : That will have the proper slopes? I just for some reason putting it in there struck me as being perhaps the slope would be too steep on the outside . It might be hazardous but if that 's not the case . Hempel : The grades on the backyard are actually a 5: 1 slope which are relatively flat compared to some other subdivisions recently subdivided where we have a 3 : 1 backyard slope which is fairly steep . Scott : Okay . I don 't have any further questions . Conrad: Matt . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 8 Ledvina : Just to take off on that comment . It seems like we 're removing trees to build a pond . We certainly want to provide the surface water ponding and that treatment but I guess I was wondering , this small parcel that would be landlocked by the subdivision and the extension of Osprey Lane from the existing subdivision to the new subdivision . Is that a buildable area? Hempel : Currently it 's not able to be serviced by city sewer . Sewer to this parcel would be extended from Lyman Blvd which is quite a ways to the south . Water would be available . Ledvina : So sewer is not available? So does that mean it 's not a buildable lot in it 's existing conditions? Hempel : That 's correct , yes . Ledvina : Well I guess , you know and I realize that we have to deal within the limits of the property that we 're working with but it would seem to be a reasonable thing to try to save those trees , to locate the pond further - to the east in an unbuildable area . And I mean that seems practical . Do you have any comments on that? Hempel : Yes . Ideally , it would be a much better location and even could be considered interim storm pond until sewer 's brought up to this area and this parcel actually develops where storm sewer 's then could be retrofitted in the street to take the drainage runoff in this area into like a trunk storm sewer system and extended further on to the southeast . Into more of a regional ponding area through surface water management plan . There 's really no indication of a regional pond in this area but given the - characteristics down there , I 'm sure there 's some likelihood that one coulc be . Ledvina : So that area then represents an opportunity for a larger scale pond to be constructed for storm water in this whole area? Hempel : To take care of , yes . A couple of neighborhoods essentially , yes Ledvina : Has that been investigated at all with the different landowners in the vicinity? Hempel : It 's something that I would like to pursue with the landowners anu the developer on , definitely . Ledvina : Okay . Well I don 't know if , I really would like to see that done . I 'm definitely going to add it as a condition or would like to add that as a condition number 23 . That the City staff pursue the relocation - of that storm water pond further to the east on the adjacent parcel . I don 't know if that condition represents a situation where you 'd want to hold up this application but does the neighboring property owner have any __ thoughts on that? Bill Goers : I haven 't given it any thought . . .? Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 9 Ledvina : Okay . What do you think about that small area that would be essentially on the north side of Osprey Lane? Do you feel that would be a buildable area? Vicky Goers: Well , since this week we 've talked with Dave and Sharmin at the office and we were at that time told it was not unbuildable , as I 'm hearing now , so I 'd like to pursue this with the staff . I don 't even know how much land we 're talking about . . . Ledvina : Yeah , I understand and I 'm not trying to resolve anything here but I 'm interested in knowing whether there 's a willingness to try to evaluate this . And if there is . Hempel : Commission member Ledvina . If I could just clarify as far as the buildability of this lot . I did have conversations earlier this week with the Goers on it and in it 's present state right now it is not a buildable lot without city sewer or water there . But eventually when city sewer is available and extended up to this point , yes . This area would be a buildable lot . Ledvina : Okay . . .and bring that housepad up but that adds quite a bit to the expense of that area and it looks like . . .At any rate , I would like to see that investigated further . That 's all I had . Conrad : Thanks Matt . Diane . Harberts: Well I 'm really fuzzy on the access , with traffic . I 'm not very comfortable at all . I think the whole idea in terms of trying to manage growth is being able to plan for it as well . There 's some issues with Osprey Lane . Do we make a requirement that the developer needs to work a deal with the owner in order to get that access . What if they can 't come to terms? Where does this sit? You know we 've got some access questions by the owner to , I think this is south . Yeah , to the south of it . There 's certainly some questions in terms of how much access is onto Audubon Road . And it 's going to happen . I guess I would be inclined to have a better understanding . Maybe take a step back and look at the entire picture here . We always try to deal with the issue of bringing these pices of puzzle in here with regards to the road system and I think we 've got a big puzzle right here . So I would really encourage some kind of resolution of the access points , both with Osprey Lane . The parcel to the south . Because of the issues the owner raised . But then also in terms of , well given the fact that we 've got some future development that 's coming here . I 'm not very comfortable with the access points right now . I think if this is recommended to go forward , we probably want to also . . .that conservation language to easement . One other question I have for Dave . Did I understand on the south end of Alisa Lane , that there 's going to be like a turnaround for the public . . . Shouldn 't that be shown on the map or the site plans here to get an idea? Aren 't they supposed to be put in right now or do they have to wait until after the road gets punched through , if it gets punched through? Hempel : The temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed with the utility and street improvements . The overall , the preliminary plat does not reflect the additional street right-of-way necessary for it because it would be a Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 10 temporary roadway easement over those lots . One of the sheets here , the utility plan does show a temporary turnaround exceeding outside of the right-of-way limits . Harberts: So is that going to impact with , I mean this is in the area of - the trees with the size of the lots or with the housepads , with the gradin that needs to occur . Hempel : Some of the grading for the street will necessitate removal of some of the trees . Also as those Lots 3 , Block 3 and Lot 4 , Block 2 are built on , the driveway and utility extension into the home will also take a couple of additional trees out of it . So the combination of it , with the - turnaround . One way or another the trees would be lost due to . Harberts: I guess my comments really center around the fact that I 'm not _ real clear on the access . . .figured out and maybe we should maybe take a step back and look at this area because we do have other development comin„ in . That 's my comments . Conrad: Thanks Diane . Ledvina : I have a question . For Sharmin . On condition, or recommendatio number 12 . It says the applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary easements for the extension of Osprey Lane between Shenandoah Ridge and Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition . Can we require them to obtain the necessary easements? I mean can we strengthen that language? I mean is that going to put a kink in their plan totally or maybe you or Dave could comment on that . Hempel : To be honest , that was my condition . I 'm not sure whether or not we can require them as part of this platting because they do have access from another improved public street . It comes to the issue , I hate to - bring it up here again but the Nez Perce roadway extension . We 're hoping , in this situation here to work with the property owners . They seem to be in favor of the project . They 're in favor of seeing the roadway go through . I think we can work out and negotiate seeing this road connect u; to two subdivisions at this time . Ledvina : It doesn 't require them to obtain those easements as a part of - this to prevent that situation from potentially occurring? Hempel : That 's true , yes . Ledvina : Okay . I guess I would be in favor of that . If it 's the staff recommendation that that Osprey Lane go through , then I feel that 's the way we should handle it . - Aanenson: Make it a condition? We can 't make it a condition that they buy somebody else 's property to get access . Conrad: We don 't have control of that . Aanenson : We don 't have control over it . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 11 - Ledvina : But if they have these configurations to the streets . Aanenson : What Dave is saying is the fact that we 've laid it out as a staff and we see when that property comes in , we 've already stated how we see it being connected and that 's why we 've been working with them to see how it 's going to be connected . Al-Jaff: It 's our preference that it happens now before those 20 parcels develop . But I don 't think legally we can require them . Scott : Well we 're going to see , if and when the other parcel comes up , we 're going to see that and that would be a condition that we would place on that preliminary plat of the parcel in question . That the street needs to be connected for the development to go forward so I think , that 's probably the best time to address it . Harberts: . . .subdivision and roadway the way you want? Aanenson: No . No , no , no . Scott : In this case though . Harberts : . . .take plans for it . - Aanenson: No , that 's what Dave did . We laid this out . This whole area out when this subdivision came in . I think that 's what Dave eluded to . We 've laid this whole subdivision how we feel it best accesses and that 's - why Dave is saying that road to the south , that the other gentleman was speaking about , that may not need to go through but this whole area has been laid out as we see how it can be accessed . Harberts : It has been laid out? Aanenson : Yes . Hempel : This parcel was , the one before you this evening was laid out with staff and there was some previous concept plans in by other potential developers . And we felt this was the only way it could really develop . This way we 're providing access to adjacent parcels to the south . We 're providing access to the Goers parcel which we hope to connect shortly and I think that can strongly go forward and also I think the developer would be in favor of also negotiating for a ponding easement out there . Even an interim one that would reduce his cost of ponding on site and be more of a permanent situation . Harberts : Mr . Chair , I have a question here . So are you feeling comfortable then that staff , that the access issues raised by one of the property owners , and some of the concerns raised by myself , that they have been addressed? Hempel : Yes , I feel they have been adequately addressed . Bill Goers : I 'd like to make a comment about the existing access that there is on Osprey Lane is a temporary one right now? It is not permanent Planning Commission Meeting I August 4 , 1993 - Page 12 access that this original developer and I had agreed upon and they have not resolved that issue with me regarding that access . That only complicates . . .and I 'm not trying to do that but realistically that is an open issue still . Because that was not final access in an agreement that he and I had agreed upon . The one that he 's using right now that he 's calling a temporary one , calling a permanent one should be a temporary access in lieu of another one being built at a later time further south . And I 've got the docmentation on that . . . Hempel : Are you referring to Joe Miller 's development to the east? Bill Goers : Yes . Hempel : Okay . The existing Osprey Lane that currently dead ends to the east of your property is the one that Mr . Goers ' referring to . I 'm unaware of any type of . - Mancino : It 's paved isn 't it? Hempel : Yes . It is paved . There 's no homes taking access off of that . That was purely for the future extension basically back out to Audubon Road at some point . And also service this parcel with the street access . Bill Goers : He does have permanent deed to that property . He 's just got a temporary deed , and again the original agreement . . . Hempel : The property 's pretty well developed . Aanenson: And there 's no other access points and it didn 't show up on the title when we did development contract . That seems . Conrad: It 'd be real smart for you to be talking to Dave . You 've got to make yourself comfortable . It looks like , in my mind it looks kind of tight . Where the roads are going and I think before this gets to City Council , you 're going to want to express a firm opinion . My only question Dave is on one point and that 's the Alisa Court . By chance , if that — becomes a permanent cul-de-sac , we probably wouldn 't , what easements do we need if that does? You know it changes in character a little bit and have we , you know I don 't know what the odds are . I 'm not sure what the _ developer to the south wants to do and our position to require it . I don 't know what our standards are off of , well I 'm just not sure . Other access points into his property . But I guess my question is , if this turns into permanent , I don 't want it designed as temporary . So do we have the right -- easements to make , or the right leverage to make it permanent and make the developer more accountable to it as a permanent cul-de-sac? And that takes me to , you probably design it . If the developer thought it was going to be_ permanent , he might do a little bit different design . We don 't know . That 's something we can 't control but I do want to know that we can control it in the future if it does become permanent . Hempel : I believe we can . The thing that would be effected would be the setbacks of these lots so if it did become a permanent cul-de-sac , you would probably have a 20 foot front yard versus the 30 foot . _ Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 13 - Conrad: When the property scheme became developed , would we have the right to give it a turning radius down there? Would we be able to give it the right? Hempel : When the parcel to the south? Conrad: Well there 's two properties on the property line to the south . When they came in for , when they were being developed , would we be able to have the right amount of easements for a turnaround? A radius that would , whatever it is . A 60 foot radius or whatever it is . Hempel : We could require that at the time of preliminary plat . If the applicant did not wish to have that road extended through his parcel , yes . We could require that permanent cul-de-sac to be on the parcel to the south . Mr . Barinsky 's parcel . Conrad: What do we do right now? Hempel : Well , right now I guess I would still propose to leave it as shown . Leave the options open . This case the road could proceed . If we - dead end it now and make it a permanent cul-de-sac , there 's no way that road will go through . Conrad: Yeah , I don 't want to do that . Hempel : So in the future we have another option . - Conrad: Okay . That 's my only question . And the only other comment was to make sure Dave that you can work with the applicants to the east . Or not the applicants , but the landowners and I 'm sure you will . But I guess it 's - sort of up to you to be coming in and talking . Anything else? Harberts : Matt just noted that the cul-de-sac is 600 feet . Ledvina : The way I measured it . Conrad: That 's the limit right? Harberts : Does the cul-de-sac . . . Ledvina : Barely . Hempel : Right , it 's approximately 600 feet in length but I think given the existing Chaska brick house that 's situated there , it probably warrants a variance or something to the cul-de-sac length . Conrad : Okay , who wants the power? Who wants the motion? Harberts : I will . Now we 're doing a subdivision and a rezoning? I 'm going to do the rezoning first . I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt , or excuse me . Adopt the staff motion for rezoning according to Case No . 93-4 dated 8/4/93 for the Shenandoah Ridge Addition . And the motion then would be as stated in the report found on page 11 . And I further recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case No . 93- . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 14 Conrad: Why don 't we do it one at a time . Let 's just do one at a time because there may be more debate on the second one . Harberts: Oh , there 's quite a bit . Conrad: Yeah , is there a second to the rezoning motion? Mancino: I second . Conrad : Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #93-4 for property zoned A-2 to RSF for Shenandoah Ridge , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees . The development contract shall be recorded against the property . - 2 . The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #93-14 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad : Is there a motion for the subdivision? Harberts : I did my duty . Well , I wrote everything down so I ' ll do it again . I recommend that the Planning Commission , let 's see here , adopt for Case No . 93-14 , preliminary plat to subdivide 11 .5 acres into 20 single - family lots , Shenandoah Ridge Addition . Approve recommendations as outlined in the staff report with the change to number 8 . Stipulate that the south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac . That the language in number 15 state that any existing house outside of Lot 10 . Is _ there any additional language? Hempel : Maybe if I can run one by here and see how it works . The existinc- house on Lot 10 , Block 1 shall connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water service within 30 days after becoming available to the site . Conrad: Nice wording Diane . Harberts: And that item number 22 . That the correction with regard to what lot shall be included , as Nancy pointed out . Scott : Lot 2 , Block 2? Harberts : Yes . And item number 23 with regard to the regional pond . Number 24 to include a conservation easement be included as a condition . And number 24 , with the discussion that centered around if this shall become a permanent cul-de-sac , to make sure that we have the appropriate easements in place to cover it . And also make sure what the impact is on the lot . That 's it . Ledvina : I 'll second that motion . • Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 15 Conrad: Is there any discussion? Scott : I have just one item , and it probably would be considered a friendly amendment that we want to have the pad locations on the final plat so we can see exactly where the houses are and what sort of impact that 's going to have on the trees as well . I think that was something that we had - discussed . Mancino: Yeah , I kind of wrote it as , if I could add to that . That the applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shows all trees that are being removed are being replaced by new trees . Some sort of a new landscape plan . Conrad: Is that a new condition Nancy? Mancino : Yeah . An amendment . Scott : On that conservation easement , do you want . Conrad : Is that an acceptable amendment? Harberts : Yep . - Scott : Do we want to name the lots that the conservation easement should be on or is that broad language regarding conservation easements enough to get the result that we 're looking for? Aanenson : It 's Block 2 , Lot 3 and 4 isn 't it? Al-Jaff : You could name it . Scott: Well I 'm thinking Block 1 , Lots 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 . Block 2 , Lot 4 . Block 3 , Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . Conrad: Who seconded the motion? Mancino : Matt . Conrad: Was Nancy 's amendment acceptable to you? Ledvina : Yes . I would also add , I don 't mean to complicate this but I would like to clarify condition number 23 . . .regarding the pond . I would like to see the staff evaluate the potential for relocating the storm water - pond as it exists on the plan , to the adjacent parcel to the east . Conrad : Isn 't that what you meant Diane? Harberts: Well yeah . When we talked about , because Dave had made the comment about it becoming a regional pond . - Conrad: But I 'm glad you added that . Ledvina : It 's just to say that they ' ll focus their efforts in that area . - There may be a possibility for a regional pond in other areas but I want Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 16 that specific area to be evaluated for that purpose . Conrad: Anything else? Harberts moved , Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-14 for Shenandoah Ridge Addition as shown on the plans dated July 6 , 1993 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-of-way for_ permanent ownership . 2 . The applicant shall pay full park fees at the time of building permit _ application . The applicant shall construct the portion of the city 's comprehensive trail system previously described in this report . Specifically , from the southern curb to Heron Drive to the southern terminus of Lot 4 , Block 2 . This trail is to be 8 feet in width with - bituminous surfacing per standard city specifications . In consideration for this construction , trail and park fees will be reduced by an amount equal to the cost construction . Said costs to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification . Current park and trail fees are $600 .00 and $200 .00 per single family unit , respectively . 3 . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city 's ( BMPH ) planting dates — dictate otherwise . All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4 ' height shall not be permitted to be removed . The applicant shall provide the legal description for the easement . 4 . The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement . The conservation easement shall permit pruning , removal of dead or diseased vegetation and - underbrush . All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4 ' height shall not be permitted to be removed . The applicant shall provide the legal description for the easement . 5 . The existing wells and sewage treatment systems shall be properly abandoned and furnish proof of abandonment to the Inspections Division . A city permit is required for on site sewage treatment system abandonment . This should be done prior to commencement of site grading . 6 . The applicant must obtain city demolition permits from the Inspections Division for structures that will be removed ( prior to removal ) . 7 . The address for the existing home on Lot 10 shall be changed to Alisa Court . 8 . The south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac . This -- cul-de-sac shall be barricaded with a sign indicating that the road will be extended in the future . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 17 9 . All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City 's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . Street construction plans shall also include a draintile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump discharge . Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final platting . Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval . 10 . The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes . Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event and a retention/detention pond shall be reviewed by the City Storm Water Management engineer and constructed pursuant to the guidelines implemented by the City 's Storm water Management Plan . 11 . The applicant shall include with the street construction plans , auxiliary turn lanes along Audubon Road . The auxiliary turn lanes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with MnDot standards . 12 . Applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary easements for the extensin of Osprey Lane between Shenandoah Ridge and Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition . 13 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City , the necessary temporary roadway easements for portions of the temporary cul-de-sac ( Alisa Court ) lying outside the public right-of-way . The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements : A . 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 5 and 6 , Block 1 . B . 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 8 and 9 , Block 1 . C . Necessary utility and drainage easements for all pond retention/ detention areas . 14 . The final grading plan shall denote the type of house suggested for each lot . 15 . The existing house on Lot 10, Block 1 shall connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water service within 30 days after becoming available to the site . 16 . The existing house on Lot 10 , Block 1 shall relocate its driveway to access the new street within 30 days after the new street is constructed . 17 . The city will access the development for 20 units instead of the 14 units as proposed in the feasibility report for Project No . 91-17 . 18 . The proposed water line in Osprey Lane shall be increased to an 8 inch diameter . In addition , the water and sewer lines shall be extended to the south property line of the plat on Alisa Court ( south ) . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 18 19 . The street name , Alisa Court , should be revised to Alisa Lane to provide continuity . _ 20 . Staff is in support of a 10% street grade and therefore recommends approval of any necessary variances to allow the 10% street grade . 21 . The City will not permit open cutting of Audubon Road for the extension of utilities into the site . 22 . Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets and not Audubon Road . The corner lots ( Lots 1 and 13 , Block 1 ; Lot 1 , Block 3 ; and Lot 2 , Block 2) shall take access from Alisa Court and not Osprey Lane . Driveway access to Lot 1 , Block 22 shall be limited to the easterly half of the lot . 23 . City staff shall evaluate the potential for relocating the storm water pond as it exists on the plan , to the adjacent parcel to the east . 24 . A conservation easement shall be placed on the following lots: Block 1 , Lots 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13; Block 2, Lot 4; and Block 3 , Lots 1 , 2 and 3 . And that the applicant shall submit a new landscape plan that shows all trees being removed are being replaced by new trees . 25 . If this shall become a permanent cul-de-sac , to make sure that we have the appropriate easements in place to cover it . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad : This will go to the City Council August 23rd . Craig . Craig Mertz : If anybody 's going to throw away their packet . . . Conrad: Why don 't you come up and collect them . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL ( 50 ,443 SQ .FT . ) INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILI LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6661 NEZ PERCE , TJO ADDITION , TODD OWENS . Public Present : Name Address Todd Owens 6661 Nez Perce Jim Cosgrove 6679 Hopi Road Craig Gagnon 861 Vineland Court Renelle Ulrich 6581 Nez Perce Drive Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrac- called the public hearing to order . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 19 Conrad: Sharmin , can you go through the staff report then in terms of the motion and tell us which ones are no longer applicable? And which one 's you 'd like to change . You know I don 't know what 's current . This is a recommendation not based on that plan . Yeah , just go through them and tell us if you 're comfortable . Number 1 I assume still is . - Al-Jaff : Remains the same . Conrad: Number 2 is out . Al-Jaff : Number 2 is out . A variance is not required anymore . The tree removal could stay the same . Conrad : Could . Al-Jaff : The grading will remain very similar . What we have done is , the grading will remain the same as it was before . Therefore the same trees could be used as was before . Conrad : Okay . Point number 4 . It seems like it should be the same . Hempel : It may need to be adjusted slightly . Harberts: How do you adjust number 4? Hempel : Individual water services shall be extended to each lot . Period . Conrad : Number 5 . Individual grading plans , okay . 6 . Development contract , same thing . 7 . Hempel : That would be revised depending on who extends the sewer and water to the property lines . If the city does it , then each lot would be assessed the $8 ,544 .91 . Conrad: We 're getting into a couple changes here . If anybody feels uncomfortable , we can always table it and have it come back . I haven 't hit - something that makes me nervous yet but again , if somebody says they . . .the driveway , number 8 . Al-Jaff : This has a possibility of changing . Before we had a common driveway between Lot 3 and 2 . The area that is shared between those two lots is . . .7 ton design , 20 foot wide . If Lot 2 gains access off of Hopi . - Todd Owens : That may be a correction . Hopi is down to the south . . . Al-Jaff : I 'm sorry . That they woudln 't . . .then they wouldn 't need the 20 foot wide easement if they came off of Hopi . If there wasn 't a shared driveway . So that now they have two options . They could come off of Hopi or they could come off of Nez Perce . If they got a cross access easement over Lot 3 . Harberts: Hopi Road is . . .we weren 't very comfortable with having a common driveway . . . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 20 Hempel : Maybe I can translate a little bit better . With this type of scenario here , Hopi is right over here . Vacation is for a strip of land up- to here . We still have street access . The street is built down to this part of the development so the option to be left open for development on this parcel . . .driveway access through here or also if it betters suits the builder or the homeowner , to share a common driveway through an . . . Mancino: Do you have a preference? Does staff have a preference whether it 's one way or the other? - Harberts : I think based on our discussion we had . . .that 's what I recall from that discussion . That 's why we shied away from that common access . - Conrad: Okay . As I look at it , 9 , 10 and 11 should probably be the same . I see no change that the plan would have on any of those . We ' ll open it up_ for public discussions . I wanted to go through these . Somebody 's got to make a motion and I didn 't understand what any of the staff comments were so . They 're simple but I didn 't write them down so if somebody 's going to make a motion , think about it . Public hearing . We 'll open it up to the developer . If he 'd like to make some comments regarding the new plan or the staff report . Todd Owens : I am Todd Owens , the applicant and I 'm not going to become a developer . This is my last time . It was fun when it started but it didn 't progress that way . Anyway , the reason for the big change is I had a lengthy conversation on the property with Nancy and then she had translatec- that conversation onto Sharmin and this is the end result . And I think we 've tried all along to comply and I want to thank Dave and Sharmin publicly for their patience with a rookie here . But we tried all along to - comply with everything we could . We contacted neighbors ahead of time to discuss what we were doing and in the beginning that went well . I had one neighbor who in the end who had changed what we had originally talked about_ and I think he 's here tonight to comment to that . And then I know I have one neighbor here who 'd like to ask something about a stop sign at the corner that is on Nez Perce there . The tree , which it 's a concern to us and I know Nancy had the concern when we were talking . With the new change , the way I 've looked at it and in looking at the tree survey , and actually walking the lot , if the access comes from Hopi versus the cross access , it shifts the tree . In other words , certain trees are saved . It 's- a trade off . The trees just shift places . So I guess on that I 'd be asking that we can work through that with staff . Our objective is to keep it as wooded , and I think anybody buying those lots , that 's going to be their , that 's the beauty of the lots is the trees . So thanks and I 'll comment to any questions you have . Harberts: I have a question . Do you have any comment with regard to the - . . .recommended to leave the common driveway? Todd Owens : I 'm sorry , say that again? Harberts : Do you have any comment if the recommendation is to , it . . . allowing the common driveway? Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 21 Todd Owens: It would be nice if the option was open to discuss with potential buyers . We want it approved and we want to move on . Our objective personally is , I 'm an Owens and you 're all aware of the Owens property situation . You know we 're going to buy my folks house and our objective is to , we 've lived here 14 years . I 've lived in that house all my life previous from the 5 year old age . I grew up there . We cross country skied through Vineland Forest and Lake Lucy development long before they were around so I like the area . We 've been there . We 're going to stay . We 're trying to move on . We 'd like to have the option open but we 're flexible . Conrad: Good , thanks Todd . It 's a public hearing . Other comments please . Jim Cosgrove : Hi . My name is Jim Cosgrove and I live on the other side of Hopi Road . I am very opposed to vacating Hopi Road . I 'm very opposed to access there . Hopi is a dead end right now . That 's why I live at the end of the dead end . That 's why I bought it . I 've been there for 7 years and enjoyed the solitude . The quiet . The safety for children to not have cars coming through there . I feel the time has been very poor on the developer 's part . I 'm very opposed to it . I 'm opposed to the vacation . I have been there , I don 't like the development 's that gone on the last 7 years and I don 't know what to say other than I oppose it and everybody 's gone all around me as far as just incredible development . I understand that . That 's part of the deal but I really want to put my foot down to vacation and try to save something for myself . Small lot which I have wooded and I am really , really will push for this . And I did not receive the agenda so I am somewhat unprepared . I just read it tonight . I don 't know why I did not receive it . Sharmin , I talked to you a couple weeks ago and I was supposed to get it . I don 't know why I didn 't so I 'm sitting here reading all this stuff and I didn 't even realize until tonight that there was a possibility of access to that lot . I don 't know which lot it is but the upper lot off of Hopi . I didn 't even realize that was an option . So I have a lot of concerns . Here I am . Conrad : We do have your name as being . Jim Cosgrove : Yeah , it 's Jim Cosgrove . Conrad : Yeah . I was just going to say Jim , we do have your name as being something being delivered to your house . Aanenson: He got the hearing notice . I think he requested the staff report probably . Jim Cosgrove : So I 'm sitting here reading this going , um and Todd did call me . He asked at one point if I opposed it . I feel like he should have written me a letter and a request . Not a phone call . Some things like that . Yes , I did change my mind on that vacation but I don 't think I was served properly either by a simple phone call . Thank you . Conrad : Okay , thanks . Other comments . Craig Gagnon: Hi . I 'm Craig Gagnon and I 'm at 861 Vineland Court . I have the lot immediately to the north of this . And the Lake Lucy Road vacation Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 22 runs along my property line as does , well I think perhaps the ending part of the Hopi Road . I have not , I 'm kind of a rookie to this as well and I _ have not seen or read the staff report . I have taken a look at some of the plans . I wonder about the Lake Lucy Road vacation and how that works . It would appear that half of that road would go to the new development . I 'm not sure what happens to the other half of that road . - Al-Jaff : The right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road was taken from Vineland only so , we have vacated our rights so if you would like to claim it , if you want to , you could proceed with that and the entire strip would be , the entire 33 feet would go back to you rather than half of it to Todd and the other half to you . Craig Gagnon: I see . How would I go about doing that? Al-Jaff : Contact an attorney . I think it 's a small claim court or I 'm - sorry , I 'm not familiar with the procedure but it should be a very simple procedure . Craig Gagnon: I will do that and I 'm interested in proceeding with that . That was my understanding that that might be an option and I don 't know hot to proceed but I will look into that . I would , in addition to that I would just simply like to express the concerns about the wooded nature of the - land , as has been described . It is a heavily wooded lot now and given the house pad requirements for Lots 2 and 3 , clearly that would impact the nature of that quite a bit . So I will look into the Lake Lucy Road - vacation . Conrad: Other comments . Renelle Ulrich: Hi . My name is Renelle Ulrich and I live at 6581 Nez Perc Drive to the north on Nez Perce . And I just wanted to let you know that Todd Owens has been very professional in dealing with me . I mean he 's bee- very neighborly I guess . He 's always made us very well aware of what he 's been doing and it 's fine with us as far as we 're concerned because I sincerely think that anybody who buys that lot is going to try , is going to buy it to preserve the trees and to have a w000ded lot so that 's not a major concern of mine . Also knowing that I 've got the 33 feet of the vacated property gives me a little buffer to whatever they do . The only concern I have is that the corner where Nez Perce turns into Lake Lucy is dangerous corner and if you 're going to put a driveway there , you 've got t, put a stop sign at the same time . Anybody , you know that 's a bus stop there . There 's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and I came up during the - other Nez Perce extension thing to express concerns about a stop sign . I ' l. sit down when there 's a stop sign there . Until then I ' ll just keep coming back to everything and repeating that request . But otherwise that 's my only concern . Otherwise I think it should go through . Conrad : Thanks . Dave , do you want to respond to a stop sign there? Hempel : Sure . We can certainly perform an engineering study . That 's one of the requirements for placement of a stop sign or any traffic control device in a public right-of-way . I 'd like to get the homeowner 's name and _ telephone number and address and we can start an evaluation of that Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 23 intersection . I 'd also like to bring up one other proposed improvement we have at that intersection . As you will notice the sight lines going around the curve is very difficult and the city was attempting at some point here to contact that property owner to see if we could work on getting a temporary construction easement and cutting back that bank that 's out there . Build a retaining wall so we can open up the sight lines as you go around the corner . Renelle Ulrich: That 's going to create another concern because . . .they ' ll say hey . There 's no cars and they 'll zoom . . .At least today they are forced to slow down a little bit . Hempel : Curvature of the road also has something to do with it . You obviously can 't take it too fast or you 're going to go off the road . Craig Gagnon: I would support Renelle 's . . . Conrad : Okay , good thanks . Thanks Dave . Anything else? Jim Cosgrove : When you guys were talking about the grading , I didn 't understand that but I have some questions about the grading . If you do , if you wanted to have access off of Hopi Road , is that really a reality with the grade that 's there existing? I mean that is a steep , and I didn 't really follow what you guys were talking about . . . Hempel : Mr . Chairman . The grades are fairly steep on the parcel but they are manageable from a driveway construction standpoint . They will be somewhat limited as far as access . It will probably run parllel to the side of the hill . It 's going to be well underneath of 10% grade limitation . Jim Cosgrove : If that is a fact . . .now what would happen to my half of that with the grade if you put a driveway in there? Hempel : We just expand , or the property owner would just expand on whatever pavement section 's out there and extend it to his garage . There 'd be no disruption to your driveway or the existing city street . Jim Cosgrove : Right . So if you guys put a road down there , and if you . . . grade that would be going to the road to my property? Are you considering that? Hempel : We would not be putting a road . Jim Cosgrove : Well access . . .to the property . Hempel : A driveway . 12-15 foot wide driveway from the existing street surface out there back to the new home . Jim Cosgrove: Okay . And are you aware of the grades from the driveway onto my property? What that would be . Hempel : There should not be any , we 're not , the driveway would not affect your driveway . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 24 Jim Cosgrove : I understand that . You 're talking about going from the end of Hopi Road , which is a dead end right now . Okay , right there . Hempel : Here 's Hopi and here is your driveway entrance I 'm assuming . Jim Cosgrove : Yes . Hempel : The driveway would be extended from this portion of the city street that 's out there into the parcel . - Jim Cosgrove : Okay . Hempel : It would not disturb your driveway access . Jim Cosgrove : I understand that but it will take , are you aware of what the grade would be off of , the right side going into the property of the - road . Mancino: Right at that corner . - Jim Cosgrove : . . .am I making myself clear? Yeah , right there . Hempel : Right here . The right side of the property . Anything to there? Jim Cosgrove : Yes . Hempel : It 's well within city guidelines . Under 10% grade . Farmakes : The grade marks are on the plan that we 're looking at here . Hempel : The contour lines of the property . Those little hash marks are 2 foot intervals . Farmakes: Okay , but I 'm not using . Right where the cul-de-sac is there 's a . . .what 's the grade right there? Does it show that? Hempel : That elevation there is approximately . Scott : I think it 's 411 . Farmakes: 410 . It goes from 411 up to 406 . Hempel : 1039 approximately . 1040 is the elevation . The elevation in the - middle of the lot is about 1036-1037 so it 's about a 3 foot drop only . Jim Cosgrove : Are we talking the same thing? _ Hempel : According to the contours on these drawings . Jim Cosgrove : It 's drastically different . . . Conrad: Okay , we ' ll make a note of that . Jim Cosgrove : That is drastically different . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 25 Conrad: Okay , good . Appreciate the comments . We should validate that and make sure that that is a possible access . Anything else? Any other comments? We 're in a public hearing . Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing . Mancino moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Diane . We ' ll start out on your end . Harberts : I don 't really have anything to add than what we 've talked about here . I 'm alright with the staff recommendation I guess along as everyone else is clear of what was changed . Conrad: Oh sure . Passes the buck . I 'm okay if Matt 's okay . There 'd better not be any other contingencies . Matt . Ledvina : I guess I 'm glad to see that the lots have been revised to eliminate variances . I wouldn 't have supported any variances in this instance but as it 's drawn I can see that this is a feasible plan . I think the situation with the access off of Hopi represents an acceptable option . I think maintaining the option for the shared access is a fairly simple thing to do . And I think that can be worked out . As it relates to the vacating the Hopi Drive , the area northeast of what exists now . I think that would be a good thing for the neighboring property owners because that would prevent that road from ever going through so I don 't see why anybody - that 's in that vicinity that 's concerned about the number of cars would oppose that vacation . But whatever . I think that the property should be vacated to the homeowner there . Or the parcel owner . Dave , on condition number 4 . I think can we just eliminate that condition? We said that . . . so eliminate number 4 then , okay . Number 8 then , 20 foot common driveway may be installed . Use the road may to identify that as an option or what would you recommend there Dave? Hempel : Maybe if I could just run through some of these conditions here . I ' ll throw them out to you and see how they sound . Delete condition number 4 . Expand condition number 7 to read , the City shall extend individual sanitary sewer and water service to each lot , ( Lot 2 , Block 3 ) . Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge in the amount of $8 ,544 .91 . Both of these fees shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time . Ledvina : Can you back , I didn 't get all of that . The city shall extend . Hempel : Individual sanitary sewer and water service . Ledvina : Sewer and water to each lot , okay . Hempel : To each lot , ( Lot 2 and 3 ) . Ledvina : To Lots 2 and 3? Hempel : Right . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 26 Ledvina : Okay . And then Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed , okay . Alright . Hempel : Condition number 8 modified to read , driveway access to Lot 2 may be from Hopi or a 20 foot wide common driveway across Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access and maintenance agreements . Cross access easements and maintenance agreements . Ledvina : You 're on a roll Dave . Keep going . Hempel : That would be it . Ledvina : Okay . And then one thing that 's not , or I didn 't find within thf staff report is condition number 11 and I haven 't seen that before . What ': going on there? Hempel : That condition came from our building department due to the slope: on the downside of Lots 2 and 3 . They felt that the soils and the steepness of the slopes may require engineered foundations . Al-Jaff : We have requested it before when we 've had such steep slopes . But we haven 't had such subdivisions lately with steep slopes so . Ledvina : Okay . I would like to . . .statement for that condition to read , a Registered Professional Engineer , or a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design etc . And then Diane . . . _ Oh okay , Diane wanted to see a number 12 condition added that staff evaluate the need for a stop sign along Nez Perce . Or let 's see . I guess at Lake Lucy . At the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce . If that means a traffic study . . . That 's all I have . Conrad: Okay , Joe . Scott : Only one comment . It 's never a treat to get significant new information on a project at the Planning Commission but in this case , it worked out fairly well but I think you know where I 'm coming from . I have no other comments other than that . Conrad: Okay . Nancy . Mancino: My only comment , and thank you for the redrawing of the development so that we don 't have to , as I had told you on Monday night , I would also not have voted for the variance . I do think that on recommendation number 3 , about the trees , there will be different trees depending on what access we use to Lot 2 . For the tree removals . So that I would like it to read the same . That the applicant will be permitted to remove only the following trees and just so that staff and Todd get together after they 've figured out what access that they will be using and keeping about the same percentage as we have here in this original one would be fine with me . So that you . . .the list exactly which trees are to be removed and which trees aren 't . And that 's all I have . Conrad : Okay , thanks Nancy . Jeff . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 27 Farmakes : I don 't like the shared driveway solution . I like the redesign of the property . I would prefer that the access be off of Hopi . It seems _ to be the logical access to the lot . If there is a gap there , depending on the grade , or how you can do it of an area between the trees there with oaks on one side and basswood on the other . The oaks are quite a bit larger than the basswood and if you can slip it in inbetween there , it seems like there 'd be little tree loss there . There are several reasons why I don 't like shared driveway access . It seems to me again the criteria for that would be like a variance . There 's no other way to develop that . On one hand it seems like a logical good use of multi use of property but when you look at single family and how it works out , sharing that much of a piece of property I think in the long run is not necessarily a good idea . This lot and layout is very similar to what 's on CR 17 and Lake Lucy . There 's kind of a goofy shaped lot with a shared driveway going to the back lot and often they have kind of trucks lined up there . That person does some pick-up truck type things , construction work and they 're lined up in there and it seems out of character to me to single family area . It 's more higher density type layout , although these lots are a little larger . As I said , I like the way that you 've redesigned it because I would not have voted for the variance either . That 's the extent . I have no objections to the comments about the recommendation changes . Conrad: I have nothing to add except a comment . When we vacate property , assuming we 're just following standard procedures , right? Nothing exceptional that we 're doing here . Okay . Any other questions? If not , I 'd accept a motion . Ledvina : I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #93-16 for TGO Addition as shown on the plans dated July 6 , 1993 and those dated , or that plan dated August 4 , 1993 . And subject to the following staff conditions with the modifications and additions to follow . Let 's see . Condition 1 shall read as in the staff report . Condition 2 is eliminated . Condition 3 , add the following language . The staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees requiring removal , depending on the chosen access . The percentage of tree loss shall remain approximately the same . Condition number 4 removed . Condition numbers 5 and 6 as in the staff report . Condition number 7 shall be changed to read , the city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3 . Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge in the amount of $8 ,544 .91 . These shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time . Number 8 shall read . Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi _ Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross easements obtained before installation . Number 9 and 10 shall read from the staff report . Number 11 . A Professional Engineer , registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design the foundation of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 . Adding a condition number 12 . That staff evaluate the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce . I think I got them . I don 't know . Conrad: That 's good . Is there a second? Harberts : Second . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 28 Conrad : Discussion . Ledvina moved , Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat #93-16 for TJO Addition as shown on the plans dated July 6 , 1993 and August 4 , 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The plat approval is contingent upon the vacation of Hopi Road being - approved by the City Council and at least 20 ' x 137 .58 ' of the vacate( right-of-way is combined with the subject property . 2 . Deleted . 3 . The applicant shall be permitted to remove only the following trees ( as shown on Sheet 2 ) . All other trees located on the site must be preserved and protected with snow fence located 1 1/2 times the drip line . Lot 2 , Block 1 Tree Number 10-18 , 29 , 37-39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 98 Lot 3 , Block 1 Tree Number 46-68 , 66 , 68-69 , 72 , 73 The staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees requiring removal , depending on the chosen access . The percentage of tree loss shall remain approximately the same . 4 . Deleted . 5 . Final grading and utility plans in accordance with the City 's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City for review and approval . 6 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City — and supply the City with the necessary financial security to guarantef compliance of the conditions of approval . 7 . The city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3 . Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge iu the amount of $8,544 .91 . These shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time . 8 . Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access easements obtained before installation. 9 . The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City 's Storm Water Mangement Fund . The frees shall be calculated by staff in accordance with the City 's Surface Water Management Plan . 10 . Full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting of the TJO Addition . These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application . Current park and trail fees are $600 .00 - and $200 .00 respectively . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 29 11 . A Professional Engineer , registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design the foundation of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 . 12 . Staff shall evaluate the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: This item too will go to City Council on August 23rd . Thank you all for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6301 CHURCH ROAD, CHURCH ROAD ADDITION, GREG REED . Public Present: Name Address Greg Reed 6301 Church Road Jim Way 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . Greg Reed : Yeah I 'm the applicant , Greg Reed . I 've been working with Kate on this and I think we 've kind of settled this out the best way we could . We 've kept the 3 new lots as large as possible . I will put a hydrant closer . I don 't know how far you want closer to there . Because I still would like , I like the area . I want to build a house on Lot , that 'd be Lot 1 I think . Yeah . So I want my access off of West 62nd Street there to eliminate a little bit less traffic on that private easement . That 's all my comments . Thank you . Conrad: Okay , good . Thank you . Other comments . Anybody else? Anybody? Jim Way : I own the lot right . Conrad : Would you give us your name . Jim Way : Okay . I 'm Jim Way and I have that lot to the southwest . I just found out that it 's not , that house there is not 2 feet from the road but I guess 30 . I don 't have any specific objectives or anything to the proposed development . That private road you know does go down the north property line and the only thing I 'd kind of like to see some kind of tree line or some kind of something to separate it . Make it more private I guess from that , my lot there . Is that a possibility? Conrad: How do we do that Kate? Aanenson : Well we do have a , when it 's abutting a street we do have a streetscape requirement . It 's a 30 foot wide easement . 20 feet of that , Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 30 — which we require to be paved as we mentioned in the previous report , to 20 ton design . So if the other 10 foot of easement , if engineering doesn't — have a concern about putting landscaping in there . If you want to make that a condition . You might want to see if he has a concern with that . Conrad: It 's a private drive . It 's all on the applicant's property . Doe! it butt right up to the property line or what? Aanenson: Yes . Scott: The easement does . Aanenson: The easement does . Mancino: Well there are existing trees there just north of your house . _ Will they be saved? Aanenson: Actually , well there is one tree on his lot that will be saved but the rest of the trees are actually further behind his house . Jim Way: Yeah . Most of the trees are to the east . Aanenson: Behind . Correct . They 're to the east of your house . Jim Way: Yeah . There 's not much along the north property line I don 't think , is there? Aanenson: Right , they 're past his home . Greg Reed : There is trees right along here and along here right now . The. will be saved . Aanenson: But he 's concerned about the ones closer to . Jim Way : Just to make it , you know you 've got a driveway . You 've got the Highway 7 . You 've got Church Road and now you 've got another one going in on the north side so . So it 's not too much of a private lot anymore . Conrad: I think , do we have any standards for that? — Aanenson: We don 't on common driveways . You may need something that provides a better cover like lilacs or confiers or something . I 'm not sure an overstory tree is going to give him the screening that he wants . Mancino: But who 's responsibility though is that? Harberts: I think any homeowner has the opportunity of putting in their own landscaping . Conrad: But this is a road abutting , really it 's abutting . It 's a privet( road but it 's . Aanenson: It 's a common driveway , yeah. Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 31 Mancino : And it 's going to have a name and everything . Aanenson: Yeah , for access . For emergency access . Scott : Is that going to be maintained? Aanenson : Between the homeowners . The City won 't maintain it . Farmakes: Does that have a curb? Aanenson: No . Jim Way : Well that 's all I had so . Conrad: Okay , thanks for your comments . Are there other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this application . My comments before about shared driveway I think are nullified . . .And my condolences to the person who 's going to be building on Lot 1 . I don 't look forward to shoveling your driveway . On Mr . Way 's house . I guess I share your concern whether they 're going to be using a common driveway that goes right up to the property line . Obviously it affects the existing structure on Mr . Way 's property . I 'm not sure what , if anything , the city can do about that . But I 'm open for any suggestions . As stated , we don 't get involved in landscaping of a private road , private right-of-way . Aanenson : Normally we don 't . In this circumstances again it 'd be like looking at a regular subdivision that requires the 1 tree per lot and maybe this is a circumstance where we take those , the trees that were required for those lots and put those in an area and a species that would provide a buffer . Mancino: . . .trees left for the lots . Aanenson : Except that there is trees along the easterly side . Farmakes : I have no further comments then . Mancino : Kate do you have any concern about all these driveways on Church , you know when you turn off of Highway 7 and you go north . You know you 've got 1 , 2 , 3 , and now you 're going to have 4 driveways right in a row and is there some sort of safety concern about how close they are? Hempel : In this situation the amount of traffic at this intersection isn 't high enough to warrant I guess the concerns that normally would be associated with the little , if this was Minnewashta Parkway where we have quite a few more vehicles . The horseshoe driveway , maybe at some point that 's , the southerly driveway on that particular parcel may be fairly close to the highway but the location of the proposed common driveway is far enough off where it shouldn 't impact turning movements onto Highway 7 . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 32 _ Mancino: I have no problem with a shared driveway . I live on one . Two houses are on one and they 're big lots . I mean very big lots but it seems to work out fine . We have a legal easement contract that we , both resident! adhere to and it 's kind of nice to split the snowplowing with someone and it just hasn 't been an issue for us . So I see no problem there . That 's all_ the comments I have . Conrad: Okay , thanks Nancy . Joe . _ Scott: To talk about the buffering . Mr . Reed , would you accept a conditiol wherein you would provide some sort of understory buffer for your neighbor 's property? This is purely optional for you . — Greg Reed: You mean a tree line along there? Scott: Lilacs or something . Aanenson: Or conifers or pine trees or something . Scott: I don 't speak that language but . Mancino: Maybe the word is , would you consider it? — Scott : Yeah . It 's not something that we get involved with but I figure this might be , if you would be willing to entertain that , then I would be _ willing to put it in as a condition . If you choose not to do that , that 's your option . Greg Reed: I 'm not sure if I want it in there right now . — Scott: Okay . That 's fine . Greg Reed: I don 't know if I 'm going to go into developing again either . It 's kind of a lot of work and expense . But I have talked to , I 'm going t` live out there . I want to get along with my neighbors so . . .as sellable as I can to somebody that wants to buy in there . Scott: Okay . I have no comment . Conrad: Okay , Matt . Ledvina : No further comment . Conrad: Nothing? Okay . Diane . Harberts: I would just add a number 13 of the condition about locating that fire hydrant closer to the houses as recommended and as accepted by the applicant and that 's all I have to say . Conrad : Good . The only control on the property line for the driveway , th( private driveway . The only thing we can do is Kate what you suggested . Our subdivision is one tree per lot so we literally could move those trees . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 33 Aanenson: And we do have a streetscape requirement . You know when you 're on a collector . Conrad: But that 's not . I 'm trying to apply something that exists and not , so the option is to encourage those 3 trees that would have to be per lot . To put them on that property line . I 'm not sure if I like that or not . It 's probably , I guess it 's up to somebody who makes the motion here . But I think that is something that we could require . But beyond that I have no other comments . Any other discussion? Questions? Greg Reed: . . .where that fire hydrant be? Aanenson : I think at this point we just put a condition that you meet the Fire Marshal 's concerns . Scott : Yeah , it 's 300 feet . Aanenson: Well he wants it so it 's , you can get it from the hard surface on the driveway . So they don 't have to drag the hose from the rear of the home , because that 's where it is now . So if it 's 300 feet , it still may be behind the house and that 's not where he wants it . So if we can leave it to meet the Fire Marshal 's concerns or conditions of approval , I think that 's best . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , if I could clarify one condition here . Condition number 11 . It was actually my condition . As far as limiting access for Lot 1 . That could be deleted . Aanenson : Yeah , or I 'd just put , or modify to say only the hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal 's concerns . Harberts : Which number was that Kate? Aanenson: Number 11 . Conrad: 11 . So you 're deleting the entire? Aanenson: Or modifying it to say , only if the hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal 's concerns . Conrad: Okay . Mancino : So there 's no 15? Conrad: Is there a motion? Harberts : I 'll make it . I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion . Case No . 93-15 , Preliminary Plat to subdivide 3 .3 acres into 4 single family lots at 6301 Church Road north of Highway 7 and adopt the staff recommendation with the modification of number 11 to read as Kate stated . That the hydrant meets the Fire Marshal 's specifications . That 's it . Conrad : Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 34 Mancino : Second . Conrad: Any discussion? Harberts moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat #93-15 for Church Road Addition as shown on the plans dated July 7 , 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Compliance with the flag lot standards in the RSF district . 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to . - guarantee property installatin of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat . 3 . Park and trail fees shall be paid in full at the rate then in force , upon building permit application . A trail easement shall be granted along the frontage of Church Road . 4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies , i .e . MnDot , Watershed District , MPCA , Health Department , MWCC . 5 . The developer shall construct the public utility improvements . Upon completion and acceptance , utility improvements lying within public easements on Lot 3 shall become City property except those utilities ( sewer and water ) lying north of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3 . Those utilities shall be owned and maintained by the property owner of Lot 1 . The individual house services outside of the easement shall br- privately owned and maintained by the property owner . 6 . The construction plans and specifications for the public improvements _ shall be in accordance with the City 's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . Detailed construction drawings and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval . 7 . In lieu of constructing on-site retention ponds , the applicant shall provide the City Storm Water Management Fund with a cash contribution -- in the amount to be determined by staff in accordance with the City Storm Water Management Plan . 8 . The applicant shall name the private driveway and the City shall install the appropriate street signage . The cost of the sign shall be billed back to the developer in accordance with the development contract . 9 . A cross access or driveway easement including a maintenance agreement shall be drafted for Lots 1 , 3 and 4 . 10 . The City will not permit open cutting all the way across Church Road for extension of utilities . The applicant will be required to extend the existing water stub across from Meadow Lane on the east boulevard of Church Road along the private into the development . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 35 11 . Access to Lot 1 shall be via the private driveway access off of Church Road and not West 62nd Street , only if the fire hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal 's specifications . Lot 4 shall have no access onto State Trunk Highway 7 . 12 . The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City 's private driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7 ton design . 13 . Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen 's Best Management Practice Handbook . 14 . All draintile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage through the site . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Conrad: It goes to City Council August 23rd . Thank you both for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-575 - 20-595 REGARDING LOT SIZES . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . Farmakes : Could you refresh my memory on how we require 2 1/2 acre lots , when one subdivides and they figure out where those 15 ,000 square foot lots are going to go if they do subdivide? Aanenson: You have to have at least 10 acres . It 's still the 1 unit per — 10 acres requirement 's still in place . So if you have 10 acres , you can take a little corner piece and make it into one lot . You can create one lot . What we 're saying now is it doesn 't have to be 2 1/2 acres . It can be as small as 15 ,000 , or whatever it takes to get 2 septic sites on because you still have to provide that in the rural area . So yeah , it 's in the anticipation that sewer 's going to become available and you don 't want to lob off a big acreage . And we 've had requests for those . You 've seen those . The Tich 's . People that have come in and say I 'm going to hold off the rest of mine until sewer becomes available . But they want to make the most sense of their property now . Farmakes : Yeah . That 's usually where we get these common driveways and small lots . Aanenson : Well that 's why I think we need to go through and rezone those to RSF because we have had requests from some of these RR areas to just do some splits without rezonings and I don 't think we 're going through the process to make . . .done it procedurally . Mancino: They can turn out being really funny looking too . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 36 Aanenson: Right . So again , I don 't think it was our intent when we adopted -- this to allow those existing subdivisions to further subdivide . If someone just because someone 's contiguous to sewer , without going to rezoning , it 's basically a spot zone . If you 've allowed one person in that subdivision t2 split , what that does to the integrity of the rest of the subdivision . Really they should be forced to go through a zone change and notify everybody in that subdivision . Say do you all want to rezone , to change colors or do you want to remain the same at that point . Farmakes: At some point in time too I think some of our . . .are going to find out , the property that 's purchased next to them is purchased with the - intent financially of developing those lots . That 's how they 're purchasin. the property . Aanenson: And there is some of that out there but I think we need to let the whole subdivision be aware of that . Scott : There 's really two things that I see as should existing rural larg lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available . I say no . If there is something that falls outside of that , I think we need the control to have them rezone and put them in a plat , etc , _ etc . Aanenson: Right . I think what we 're concerned too is that you let the whole neighborhood be on notice . You can 't just let the one person in and what that does to the other people that bought into that rural atmosphere , what it does to their . Scott : Then we have to take a look because that is , we hear a lot of people saying , well the realtor said this or the developer said that . This is a situation where people in good faith can go in and say , oh . This is zoned like this so I won 't have someone doing , you know subdividing next door . Mancino: Well most of those people really fought for that . I remember when the Comprehensive Plan was going through . Timberwood and . Scott : Well yeah , they didn 't want to , just because they had sewer and water available , they wanted to do their own thing . It was , that was one of those inalienable rights . They have a drainfield or something . Farmakes : What happens on the large developments , that 's just fine because they dictate where the road 's going to go , and we did that tonight . But that first one that we looked at , was a small parcel and the first one to develop with all the surrounding properties maybe 5 times as large , it 's - kind of dictating where those connectors . . . Scott : Yeah . Yeah . Farmakes : But that 's sort of the way , I mean that 's the way property developers . - Aanenson: Although Lake Susan Hills dictates a little bit of that too . I mean by putting Osprey Lane in , they did a little bit . But you 're right , Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 37 the first one in does dictate a lot what 's going to happen . Conrad: So this is scheduled to be a public hearing and Kate your idea was to present . Aanenson: Our intent was to bring some language to you but it became more complicated and in speaking with the City Attorney , he felt like we should sit down again and try to make sure we 've got all the loopholes and we 've got it worded correctly and I think we just didn 't have enough . Conrad: Could I have a motion to table this public hearing? Ledvina : Are we going to see it next time? Maybe , maybe not? Aanenson: I ' ll try . Scott moved , Harberts seconded to table the public hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 to 20-595 regarding lot sizes . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE . Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kevin Norby 6801 Redwing Lane Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Mancino : Is sugar maples okay for parking lots? Aanenson : Yes . These are changes that Jeff had looked at , our forester , and made comments to . Farmakes: What was his comments in regard to the property underneath? Aanenson : The property? Farmakes : Yeah . Where you had a discussion here previous . Aanenson: Well we require the 20 x 10 . Farmakes: You control the size of the tree by the amount of property below it . Aanenson: Oh he concurred with that . He felt good about the minimum , the 10 x 20 . He felt that was a good starting point . Again , that 's the minimum , the 10 x 20 planting area and we put 2 trees in those . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 38 Farmakes: I was going through parking lots in town farther . Longer established parking lots in front of shopping center . Those trees , they 're like in a static growth pattern . That 's all the taller they 're going to be . They 're only going to be about . . . Aanenson: That 's one thing that Jeff did add on page 4 where we had the concern that Nancy had about the soil prep . He added something that we should put in fertilization or somehow that there 's nutrients given to mak, sure that there is growth . Mancino: Maintenance . Aanenson: Yeah , we added maintenance but this even goes beyond that . He specifically said fertilization . Regular fertilization . Make sure that they did grow . Farmakes: So with that pad , how much of the trees that we 're selecting here . . .500 of their maximum growth? Aanenson: I don 't know if I can answer that . Farmakes : . . .these species with the different crown expectations are when they 're mature . Aanenson: Well we try to pull out the ones , I mean this is a pretty narro list . That would give the best growth and the best canopy but it 's pretty narrow as far as the range of possibilities . Again , there 's no conifers in here and there 's no flowering . These are strictly overstories but the one- that we did pick overstories are ones that are more salt resistant and hav, better growth . Farmakes : But it 's not expected that the overstory will expand beyond the ground pad below it . So that 's 10 x 20 correct? Aanenson: I don 't think that 's . Mancino: Did Jeff look at that . . .? Aanenson: Yeah . Yeah , right . I don 't think that 's true . Farmakes : That was part of the seminar that we were at . The trees , they _ just don 't grow beyond that pad . Aanenson : I think Jeff felt , if it was the regular fertilization and the property soil prep underneath , that we can overcome some of that . I can - double check on that . Farmakes: My point being is that we 're dictating , if we don 't do like a percentage of that parking lot into that space below the tree , we 're dictating how big those trees are going to be . No matter what we plant there . Aanenson: That 's all the comments I had . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 39 Conrad: Okay . It is a public hearing . We ' ll open it up for public input . Brad? I wasn 't sure which item you were . Scott : I thought you were for the next one . Conrad: Yeah , I 'm really disappointed . Brad Johnson: My name 's Brad Johnson , 7425 Frontier Trail . I have with me Kevin Norby who 's a landscape architect and is a consultant with us now in the downtown area . We normally don 't get active in this type of thing but normally you also have no , what you ' ll call negative input normally when you 're doing these type of things along with sign ordinances . So we 're here as a friend of the city but just trying to give you some other ideas . Relative to your tree ordinance , I suggest you contact legal staff . I think you 're getting into an area that is an area that is not an area that you can totally do what you 're doing , but I 'm not sure . I 've been advised by a couple of staffs that are legal people that really the city has no right to control trees . Conrad : Species? Brad Johnson: No , I 'm talking about cutting them down . You should look into that so you don 't get yourself into a , I don 't , we try to save trees . I 'm just saying , there are situations and I can see some developments coming that they 're going to have to take quite a few trees down to make it work and you 've got to kind of take an example of one . Gorra 's property around Lake Ann is going to devastate . Not devastate , you know you just have to cut down trees . And there are parking lots that you have to cut trees down , and that 's just life . If you , normally in our situation as you know , and this is sometimes you can over regulate but in the real world most of our stuff we 're asking use for something and normally you get back the trees and whatever you feel is important in the design of it and a lot of our stuff is done as PUD 's or whatever , and TIF districts so normally we 're not adversarial because we 're trying to do it . But if somebody did come in with a subdivision that meets all your ordinances and then you held up , had an ordinance that was illegal which could be trees as I understand . We checked and they said there is State regulations to regulate what cities can regulate . Alright . And I think if you read the rules , it does not allow you to regulate trees . So I 'm not sure of that but that 's what my friends at Larkin-Daly say . Harberts: Well I think that 's an interpretation because my understanding of public law is what has been the intent and what has been the procedure so that cities don 't act arbitrarily , so . Brad Johnson : Yeah . Health , safety and welfare . And then there 's some guidelines but I 'm just saying , you guys are getting into an area that , because I tried to save a couple trees and the city cut them down . You know whatever , so it 's a kind of a funny deal . The issue at hand though that we 're kind of concerned about and mainly is because we 're planning Market Square Phase II and also the city , the expansion of the Dinner Theatre . Not the Theatre but the hotel and the restaurant over there is just parking lots . And I think in some areas things that seem logical to the people who look at parking lots are not at all logical to people that Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 40 own the parking lots . And very illogical to people that are the tenants of the buildings that are in the parking lots . Primarily delivered by the consumer and the basic thing is the consumer likes to go in a straight lin to where he wants to go . The consumer , the highest incidence of , not fatalities but lawsuits and damages relate to parking lots in a shopping - center of any kind . Already over at Market Square our biggest problem is the parking lot . People driving into curbs because there are too many curbs . People wondering why the curbs are there . You know all of these kinds of things . We 're having a lot of problems already over there relative to parking lots . The consumer does not like to have trees in front of them when they 're trying to get to their place . Anytime you try to put islands in , the consumer doesn 't like them . And when the consumer - doesn 't like them , they don 't use the space and the merchants don 't make any money . And thus when Target came in here and went through their thing , there 's a certain pattern they like on parking . It 's been proven . They 've_ studied it and if you go out into less sophisticated communities , Chanhassen say to Virginia , Minnesota where they 've just built a Target exactly like our 's , except it doesn 't look as nice . Their parking lot has no islands . That was the best and largest opening they 've ever had of a Target store recently . Better than Chicago . In other words , the business works . People can get to the door quicker . Now if you think about going to , I just got back from talking with one of our local merchants today and— the minute they move into some place , they want to know how fast can the consumer get to their spot . How many spots can they have in front of their store or they feel they 're going to fail , and they do . Okay . So I 'm just__ saying , we then start planning a couple of our projects and we found that we were losing parking if we go along with the current ordinance and that we 're having to move parking away from the doors and we 're having all kinds of problems . 200 square foot , 10 x 20 or whatever you guys were talking - about . 200 square foot island costs a developer $2 ,000 .00 or $3 ,000 .00 or $4 ,000 .00 just in land . We have to pass that onto the tenant . The tenant doesn 't want it . The increase in cost . Now I 'm not saying , there 's got t2 be something in the middle that works but we see some problems coming with the whole idea . Thus we 've hired somebody that we felt was rational that could look at these things from a rational point of view and advise us on this . We are going to go through 2 proposals here in the next 2 months an it would be interesting to try to work both , what is the proposed ordinanc into what we 're trying to do . That 's where we got alerted . We said well wait . We can 't do what we 're trying to do but I do , you have to realize - that the consumer themselves are not interested in what you 're attempting to do . They don 't say it consciously but unconsciously they just don 't use the stores that are hard to get to . And then the next thing is public safety . And then the next thing is liability . All those kinds of things are caused by parking lots that have trees . That have anything in them that interferes with normal passage . Now that 's real life and that 's the other side of the story . We can have the Target folks come in here and al kinds of people . I asked them the other day . I said where 's your major problem? They says , in the parking lot . What 's the problem? Curbs . You know accidents . You go over there , we 've had what , 4 light poles driven - right over so far . You know irrigation systems . Trucks drive through . Over the curb , rip out the irrigation system . You know . And the ideal thing , I 'm not saying it 's the right thing but the ideal thing from the consumer 's point of view , once they 're in a parking lot . Not to look at it , but once they 're in it , is nothing . And we keep expanding and expandin` Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 41 and expanding what we 're doing . I don 't know what the right answer is so that 's why . I just know that that 's a problem . We increase costs . We do everything sort of to drive away the trade so you have to kind of balance it all out . It 's like turning lanes . Kevin , do you want to kind of add to that? Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby . I live at 6801 Redwing Lane . I 'm a resident of Chanhassen . I 'm also a registered landscape architect . I contacted Brad Johnson probably a couple of months ago . We 've lived here about 8 years and I 've sort of watched the development in downtown Chanhassen and as a landscape architect have been a little frustrated with some of the things I 've seen and I saw some of the same problems sort of occurring at Market Square . And I contacted Brad Johnson in an attempt to maybe get involved in some of the projects that I saw he had coming up . I think Oak Hill and that sort of thing , and wrote him a letter . Expressed some of my frustration with plantings and some of the maintenance issues . Being a taxpayer and watching the guys maintaining the downtown and then seeing Market Square go up and the , what I would consider inappropriate use of plant materials . I think what the City has tried to accomplish there with the use of a lot of plant material and screening and shade trees , is a good thing . But I don 't think that it 's come off particularly well . And from a liability standpoint and from a maintenance standpoint , if we 're going to deal with landscaping appropriately , hopefully the ordinances can be tailored to reflect those sort of issues . I think Brad 's concern as a developer is that of having views to the stores and to the signage and frontage of the buildings . Also you know snowplowing which is always a concern . And somewhere inbetween there there 's a good balance of using plant material and providing landscape space . And providing parking and sort of things that developers are more concerned about . I think over at Market Square for instance there was a lot of , I mean a lot of plant material that gets 6 and 8 feet tall in these parking lot islands that really shouldn 't be there . I mean it 's a tremendous amount of , a lot of maintenance . It was interesting on my way over here tonight I stopped and I almost got hit in the parking lot over there . And just another good example of how plant material is obscuring , already obscuring people 's views and I 've seen the amount of dead plant material over there from snowplows and it 's just a very difficult place to maneuver . So hopefully we can , I think just using some other sorts of plant material . I think the use of perennial plants , maybe ornamental grasses , lower vines and ground covers . Some of the low potentellia , junipers in some cases , rather than things like viburinum and dogwood and purple leaf sand cherry which we have a hundred of over at Market Square . Those are not only full of disease and insect problems . Those particular plants but you get too tall , too much maintenance and from a safety standpoint are going to be a problem . Aanenson: If I can just comment on that . We eliminate all of those from the parking lot in this ordinance so . Kevin Norby: Okay . Aanenson : What we 're doing for interior parking , I 'm not sure if you 're aware that what we 're looking at is just overstory trees . Kevin Norby : Primarily trees , right . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 42 Aanenson : Right . Kevin Norby : You know on the same hand , with the trees , I think you need to be careful about use of trees like flowering crabs and maybe you 've eliminated those also . Aanenson: Yep . No decorative trees . _ Kevin Norby: Right . Conrad: Kevin , have you been able , have you looked at the? - Kevin Norby : Yep , I 've got a copy right here . Yeah . ( Brad Johnson was speaking from the audience at this point and all of his comments were not completely picked up on the tape . ) Brad Johnson: Our major concern . . . Ledvina : Have you provided written comment to the staff on specific elements of the ordinance? Brad Johnson : We just learned about it this week . Kevin Norby : I was just contacted by Brad I think on Monday or Tuesday . One of the concerns that I brought up to Brad was , you know the size of thf parking lot islands and requiring a 10 foot minimum distance to the tree from the curbing . Is that right? Aanenson: No . It 's the minimum planting area is 10 x 20 . Kevin Norby : Right . But you also , I think you have a minimum 10 foot froi the curb to the tree . And then there 's another requirement there about a maximum 350 square foot planting space . To some degree those are contrary , and maybe what these ought to be , just to make it easier to work with . I - mean I think it 's good to provide large areas to some degree but it also needs to be a little bit flexible . Maybe they ought to be considered recommendations rather than requirements as a thought . The other thing I -- noticed , you talked about all the other areas needed to be landscaped with shurbs or lawn and not rock . I mean I think there is a place for rock in parking lots and it really depends on the type of plant material . The _ exporsure . The existing trees or the location of large trees . I mean maybe that 's best left up to the discretion of the landscape architect who 's involved in that project to determine whether rock is an appropriate cover material or bark and ground covers or shrubs . And maybe there 's a , maybe <- plant list needs to be developed for recommended parking lot shrubs as wel. as trees . If you 're going to require those in there . Because as I see it , that 's as big or even more of a problem than trees . - Aanenson: We do allow for rocks in certain circumstances . Rocks . . . Kevin Norby : Looking at the bottom of page 3 . Aanenson: Page 5 . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 43 Kevin Norby : Page 3 to 4 . The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover not to include rocks or gravel . Aanenson: Okay , that 's interior parking lot but otherwise outside of it , if you had steep slopes or something like that , there may be other . Kevin Norby: So you 're saying no rock in interior parking areas? Aanenson: Yes . Kevin Norby: I guess that 's what I 'm saying is maybe , I mean I think it does make sense to have rock in some instances and it depends on the situation . The character of the building . Number of trees . All of those things and that will influence irrigation and that sort of thing as well . Those are my comments . Brad Johnson: . . .maintenance , liability , and those kinds of things that we feel . . .Market Square where we can see right away you may want to take . . . What happens then is that 's great but that eats up all the parking . And that 's what we 've . . . 1 ,000 square feet of the building . You lose 5 parking spaces , that we lose in parking lot . . .and that increases the cost . . . Conrad: So do you see that requirement Brad . You know the impervious surface ratio is still the same . Brad Johnson : Yeah , we 've thought of all that . We 've worked with all these things in the past , and I 'm not even sure we can 't work with this one . All I 'm just here because we started working with it and . . . Conrad: I 'd like to , and I 'm not sure how to treat your comments tonight to be honest with you because I want to hear more . Not that we 're going to totally agree but I do want to know , you 're doing the developing . I really want to hear your perspective and we probably are doing some things that are going to cost you money . We are . Brad Johnson : Not the money it costs us . It 's costs , what happens is it costs the merchant business . It costs him in long term operating costs . We pass all these costs onto the merchants . We don 't pay for any of this . Farmakes: Let me argue with that for a minute . I 'm a consumer . I 'm a consumer at Market Place . I don 't have any trouble accessing nor seeing so that 's my opinion as a consumer . Not here as a professional . Brad Johnson : . . .I can show you the traffic accidents on the site . Farmakes: Okay , but my response to that would be , how many traffic accidents are at Eden Prairie parking lot? When you get a concentration of traffic , you 're going to get some car accidents . Kevin Norby said something from the audience . Farmakes : But there 's an inherent difference here I think . There 's a conflict . One is the more parking spaces you can get on a large expanse of bituminous surface , the easier it is to maintain . The cheaper it is . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 44 There 's no question . That 's played off of the effect of ground cover for - the bituminous surface so that all of downtown doesn 't become an exposed blacktop parking lot . There are conflicts , no question . Brad Johnson : Somewhere there 's a balance . We don 't disagree . Farmakes: At the Arboretum when we went to the seminar and we had a room full of landscape architects and they discussed this at great length . - Kevin Norby : Parking lot seminar? Farmakes : Correct . Kevin Norby : Was anybody there . . . Farmakes : Well it varies as you go around the country . Some places in California that they have an incredibly high ground cover requirement for parking lots . We don 't have anything near that . We were discussing , throwing back and forth a percentage , and again Ladd said , it still works out to be about the same but , and part of what you 're talking about is traffic flow and I 'm not sure that the lower lighting signs and Market - Square was before my time here . But some of the visual sight line obstruction that I get there is not necessarily caused by mounds or curbs or landscaping . In some cases it 's cross purpose of traffic coming in . - And in some cases the flags on the poles , which are quite low to the grounc and it 's the flag sometimes obstruct the view although I don 't , I haven 't had any trouble coming around there . The roads that are accessing into the highway , or excuse me the parking lot , are quite narrow . And particularly - when you come around Subway , up on the edge as you turn around going out tc Burdick 's property . You basically can 't see around the corner . And I 'm always very careful when I come around there to go really slow and look around . So some of this problem also is caused by minimizing the roads as I 'm sure to expand the parking spaces . You aren 't losing it . Brad Johnson : . . .that whole traffic system . . . Farmakes : Well I don 't have a problem with it myself . I don 't have a problem although I know that with any commercial development , there is that- inherent hatinherent conflict between maximizing your resource and community requirements to modify how that changes the environment . Brad Johnson: These meetings need to . . .deal with the ongoing maintenance .the people that have to deal with this stuff are . . . I don 't think the city personally can afford to maintain the streets . . .It just gets too expensive . All this landscaping costs money to maintain . . .Now beyond all - that . Kevin Norby: . . .comes back to a good layout of a parking lot . . . Farmakes : So are you suggesting that there be a percentage level or what is it specifically in the ordinance that you 're? Kevin Norby : Maybe a percentage . It may be a recommendation suggesting for instance , recommending a minimum of 10 foot setback from the curb to a Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 45 tree . But not less than 5 feet maybe or something on that order . To give you some flexibility . There may be islands that you can get a 10 x 20 area and the next isle may be 25 feet . That tree will still grow 20 feet x 20 feet . . . Brad Johnson: What happens Jeff is . . .Market Square , for every 5 parking spaces you lose , you lose 1 ,000 square feet of space . And for every 1 ,000 square feet . . .$10 ,000 .00-$15 ,000 .00 . Conrad: Let me take you up on that though . But you still , you still have the same amount of area to work with don 't you? Brad Johnson: You 're putting it in areas where we don 't get the credit for . . . Talk about green space . I 'm not sure what it is . I just know that every time I 've dealt with islands out here with the Target deal and they were paranoid on the same subject . For example over here •in front of the Dinner Theatre . There 's an expanse there and I don 't know why we don 't have an island . . .but there is no island . But all those islands are rock . Okay . Nobody maintains them . And now they 're . . .and I don 't like that . . . The only thing we were concerned with was we 're trying to work with the ordinance and we can see that we 're going to have some problems . . . I also like to be able to lease space . . .which are being repurchased by the city because they didn 't work . . . All these things are very important . . .and we 're just speaking out on a couple of things because I think you 've got to hear our side of the story . . . Mancino: Brad , how are the merchants doing in Market Square? Brad Johnson : How are they doing? Mancino : Yeah , the merchants doing . How 's Festival Foods? How 's . Brad Johnson : Festival meets it 's numbers . A couple of people in there who could probably are new to a business or doing a business . . . The average life of any merchent in a center is about 7 years . 7 years from now we 're going to have a complete turnover in that center . . . Conrad: But they 're doing okay? Mancino: But they 're doing fine now? Brad Johnson: Yeah . They 're complaining about parking . Not enough = parking . They 're complaining about the traffic flow . Mancino : Are they complaining about parking? Brad Johnson: . . .cost of maintenance . Those kinds of things . That 's normal . Farmakes : All of this is passed onto the consumer . Mancino: Is part of the problem with the parking because you 're just getting over crowded? More people than you anticipated coming? Brad Johnson: No . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 46 Mancino : Because I know you 're doing well . Brad Johnson: There 's not enough parking next to the door . Scott: Oh yeah , there never is . Farmakes: It looks like a consumer . . . Brad Johnson : . . .because I 'm having to put 5 minute parking signs in because some guys perceive that the consumer has to get in and out in 5 minutes . . . That 's our normal time . Parking to a retailer is a major thing- and so the minute you put a barrier called a curb or a barrier called an island , the consumer . . .Our maintenance cost is very heavy over there in planters that some people in the sidewalks . . .and I 'm not saying we 're - against this thing but just that all of a sudden we 've got another new ordinance . We 've had no input . I don 't know if it 's been to the Chamber . There 's only one guy in town here that does a lot of development , me . - That 's all . I 'm just here and I 'm not saying . Conrad: Well we 're glad you 're here . Brad Johnson: Yeah . And the only reason we didn 't comment in writing , we never have time and the process is , you guys will have these secret meetings . You have meetings and all of a sudden there 's an ordinance . . . and there 's a couple ordinances we 're concerned about . When it gets to parking . When it gets to signs . We don 't think we 're always right but we should . . .that 's all . . . I look at our center and I say , why don 't we have trees that are . . .Now maybe there 's a place to put it . . .and unless you 're - out a ways from there , it 's not as big a deal . So all we 're trying to do is we 're in the design mode . . .and now we 're maintaining it and we 're seeing some problems . . . -- Conrad: Okay , thanks . Brad Johnson: So we 're here and we sat through 2 hours of . . . Conrad : Well I 'm just real pleased that you 're not here for the sexually oriented stuff Brad . Brad Johnson: . . .we 've got some ideas . Maybe he can communicate to staff our feelings . That 's all . And try to translate it into . . . _ Harberts : Stop lights are going in in a couple of months . Brad Johnson : No , I 'm just saying . . . Farmakes: Well yeah . The landscaping comes too close to the end of the corner . - Brad Johnson: But I 'm just saying , the same thing can happen interior . . . That 's all . . . - Kevin Norby: Who in the city of Chanhassen , who reviews the plan for the landscape plans? Is it done by the City Planner or have you 've got a Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 47 landscape . . . Farmakes : The planting on the corner that he 's talking about took place many years ago . You 're seeing a progression . Those rules and regulations change according to . Kevin Norby : Most recent would be Market Square . Farmakes: Well even that 's what , 4 years? Things have changed a lot . Brad Johnson : Oh no . And what you 're saying is changes is change but change with flexibility . Kevin Norby : . . . I 'm just asking . Farmakes: Target will be what , a year old? Aanenson : Keep what current? I 'm sorry . Farmakes : Are you talking about ordinances? Aanenson : We have a city ordinance that we 've had qualified people look at . Then our job is to review the plan to make sure it 's consistent with that . Farmakes : Target would be a current development . Aanenson : Well I think we all recognized there was problems with Market Square in the species and we changed that when we did Market Square . There 's no flowering shrubs in the middle of the parking lot . It 's all overstory trees . And the direction from the Council was , is that 's where we want to be . We want to have overstory trees , trying to create a different microenvironments in parking lots . Kevin Norby : What will happen under those trees? I mean according to what I 'm reading here , not rock but shrubs and bark I 'm assuming . Aanenson : To be sprinkled , yes . Kevin Norby : I guess my concern as a resident of Chanhassen , and landscape architect , how do we keep Market Street and Market Place from happening again at a Target or another location? Aanenson : That 's why we 're redoing this ordinance . Kevin Norby: But what I 'm seeing here doesn 't restrict the use of purple leaf sand cherry or . Aanenson: In the middle of a parking lot? Sure it does . You must not _ have read it correctly then . Maybe we need to sit down but that 's not what it says . It 's limited to those trees that say parking only and that 's only overstory trees . Kevin Norby : I 'm talking about shrubs . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 48 — Aanenson: No shrubs . — Kevin Norby: Page 4 says shrubs can be used in a parking lot . . . Aanenson: I need to take that out . Kevin Norby : . . .recommended list of shrubs . Aanenson: No . If you look at it , it says the recommended overstory trees provided on the tree species list so that 's limited to those trees and if it says shrubs somewhere , we ' ll take that out . _ Kevin Norby: Item 5 , top of the page 4 . Continued from the bottom of pag 3 . . .the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover not to include rock . Aanenson: But not to exceed 2 feet in height . That 's qualified , excuse me . Mancino: But you 're saying take that further and write down . Kevin Norby : Maybe a recommended . . .because I could pick up a number of books that show potentellias . . .5 feet tall . It depends on the variety so it might be a list . It might just be somebody who looks at it say , that 's not appropriate . Brad Johnson: You 've probably got to realize , until you develop one of these and . . .two major shopping centers built in the downtown area . . . Kevin Norby: I think a real appropriate . . .for parking lots would be the overstory trees and perennial plants such as daylillies or ornamental grasses or ground cover . . . Aanenson : That 's ground cover . Sure , that 's ground cover . Ledvina : Mr . Chairman , I have a question or a comment . Would you have a suggested action for tonight? What would you like to see happen tonight? Brad Johnson: I think the only issues that we , I think you 're on the righ track in protecting us , the developer . . .ordinance is good for everybody . . . I think we 'd like to have a chance to lay one of these out . I think we 've got to lay a couple parking lots out . . .try to lay out Market Square II . . . — Aanenson : This is based on what everybody felt was acceptable in the Target site plan . These standards come from that . It 's based on the Target site plan . Interior parking lot of that . Brad Johnson . . . Aanenson: Correct . Conrad: Okay , let 's move on . We 'll be back or talking to you in a second— Is there any , if there 's no other public comments , is there a motion to close the public hearing . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 49 Scott moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: I think , I 'm still a little bit , I 'm not sure what we 're doing tonight Kate . This has been in here before and we 've made some comments . I liked how you outlined and let us know what was deleted . I think that 's really helpful . That makes things understandable to me . But this all , this is an amendment tonight . Aanenson : Correct . Conrad: So if we were to go ahead tonight with this , what would happen? Aanenson : It would go up to the City Council with these proposed changes . Conrad: And it would be amended and it would go in and be , it would be part of the ordinance . Aanenson: Right . We do have these requirements for landscaping right now . What we 've done is we 've just tweaked these standards to meet the parking lot standards of the Target . Okay . We already have a requirement that ground cover . A lot of that stuff 's in there already . What we 've really , the major significant changes are , we want to give credit for saving trees that are in a parking lot . . .substantial area we want to save that and how we come up with a value . So we put a formula in and said , if there 's significant stand and we can put that somewhere . Maybe it 's on the end of the parking lot . Maybe it ends up being the middle , whatever . But we want to save those and we want to give them credit as part of the overall landscaping value that they have to do so there 's a mechanism for that . The other thing is , we 've tried to define overstory trees in the parking lot so we 've tried to generate a list , what we feel . Now again , we don 't want the tall dogwoods . What we have on Market Square . Agree that those aren 't acceptable . We do want some low ground cover , not to exceed 2 feet in height . There 's always going to be a possibility something 's going to grow taller . Just like trees are going to have shoots that are going to come off that need to be trimmed . It 's a maintenance thing . That 's also a — requirement . It has to be maintained . To say something can't be maintained , that 's just , they have to be . There 's going to be storm damage , whatever . That 's a reality that they 're going to have to be maintained . To say something 's not going to grow over 2 feet , I think that 's , that may happen but our goal is to try to have it maintained to that level . So really those are the changes . We already these in here . We already have a landscaping value that they have to meet . They already have a parking lot requirement they have to meet . What we 've done is we changed what we want in the parking lot and give credits for trees that maybe have value . Conrad: Okay . Before we go around , and I guess I 'm just going to ask the Commission . If you want to entertain Brad and Kevin to come back with written comments or with a plan as they see it , to see how this works . Or if we 're comfortable to react to it right now . If they came back , you know I guess I 'm not sure I 'd want to extend our , you know we 've spent an hour on it or something like that right now . What 's the feeling? Do you want Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 50 to react? Do you want to get more input? I think , I 'm sure we could get - more input from Kevin and Brad . Mancino: Well they certainly have the possibility to bring that back to _ the City Council . Conrad: They could do it at the City Council level or we can have them come back here . It 's whether we want to see it . - Kevin Norby : How urgent is this? Aanenson : Pardon me? Kevin Norby: How urgent is this? Aanenson: The direction from the Council is they , it came from them . The. want to have it done so I would say it 's urgent . They wanted it done 6 months ago so . Brad Johnson: We are . . .an ordinance is an ordinance . . .Like he said , give us a little bit of . . . - Conrad : Okay , what 's the Commission 's pleasure? Do you want to react to it tonight and move it on and Brad and Kevin will have a chance . Brad Johnson: . . .because by the time it gets to Council we 're going to have input . . . Conrad: Right . We know that you ' ll follow it and I 'm glad you are . I guess I 'm just trying to figure out if we want to see it back here or if we 'd rather just sort of let you talk to the Council and that 's what I 'm _ posing right now . Ledvina : Well Ladd , I think it 's always good when you have a new model that you test the model to see if you get some decent results and it 's -- excellent if you have a real world situation . And if they 're willing to work through it and talk to the staff about how things fit . Aanenson: It is and it isn 't because the expansion of Country Suites with the restaurant , I mean the parking lot 's already been , it 's not like takin , a Target site plan and . _ Ledvina : I understand that . It might not be the perfect situation for testing it but still . Aanenson: It 's going to be tough , yeah . Ledvina : There 's concerns that may come up that will come up in the future_ and if you can make the changes now , it 's certainly much easier . I think if they can do that inbetween the time of now and the Council . I 'm always sensitive to sending stuff up to the Council that 's somewhat unfinished but if it 's the Council 's desire that this stuff be worked through on a short - timeframe , then I would support moving it tonight . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 51 Conrad: Well if we get it right and work with them , it typically goes through Council much better . Right now there 's a good chance , if they poke some holes in it , it will stop . Mancino: It 's going to come back anyway . Conrad: Well it takes time . But you know , Kate you 're telling me they want to see it fast . Aanenson: Well you know , this came from Councilman Wing and again , it was based on a model . It 's based on the Target model . Yeah , there 's going to be problems retrofitting onto an existing center with a large parking lot . Where the hotel is . Country Suites and that expansion is a large parking lot that the city has behind there too . I mean this is going to be a unique situation to try to implement that but . Kevin Norby : The other one is . . . Aanenson : Yeah , I 've seen that and there 's a lot of impervious surface on that one too . Brad Johnson : Yeah , that 's in a PUD . . . Aanenson: It goes way beyond the impervious surface and we 've seen the expansion and there 's very limited landscaping . Mancino: So we already have a model . We have Target as the model here . Aanenson : Right , that 's what I 'm saying . It wasn 't pulled out of the sky . It was pulled out of , and we went through that last time we looked at it . What exactly the Target site plan had and . Ledvina : But this is a new ordinance and it 's , there 's new elements here . Aanenson : Well , no . Farmakes : It 's kind of an argument , grab bag argument though . It 's an argument of many different things . One is the cost of simply putting in an island and maintaining landscaping . The other is the design itself . Is it too rigid of what we 're doing , which has nothing to do with what I just mentioned previously . The type of trees that we 're using . If we 're going to cite examples that are circa 5 years ago , 10 years ago of development here , that 's why this ordinance is being revised . Aanenson : Again , I think you have to go back and look at this . This was tweaked . I mean originally it used to say the minimum area of a planter strip was 64 square feet . So we 've increased that size saying , you know nothing 's going to live in that . A lot of the stuff that 's in here we 've just changed . Modified . Farmakes: In talking to City Council members , it seems to me pretty clear what the intent . Kate , do you feel that . . . I mean it seems the intent of what they wanted to do with this was fairly clear . And the question is , how do you go about always achieving it in an ordinance . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 52 Conrad: Well what do you want to do right now? Do you want to react to it tonight and send it on or do you want to bring it back? Farmakes : I 'd be comfortable with doing that . Your comment that you made , they prefer that we work this out first . So I 'm kind of split on that . Harberts : I 'm a little confused in terms of what can we work out right now . I mean we 're trying to guess what the Council . Farmakes: Well to give a reaction to whatever their solution . I 'm comfortable with passing it up I guess . There are conflicts , no question . _ Conrad: I guess my only comment would be , with Kevin here , I 'd literally go down line by line and have him organize his thoughts so I could see what he 's saying versus what we 've got . That 's what we haven 't done tonight . - He 's sort of given us some thoughts but I don 't know , I can 't react to them . Whether I buy them yet . They 're not , there just isn 't anything to react to yet . Farmakes: . . .comment in some cases and on others , as far as the rigidity goes , that would be a concern . It is a problem that occurs on occasion here with the rigidity of what we 're requiring . On occasion what our intent is isn 't always what winds up happening . Mancino: Is it a rigidity or is it a baseline? Farmakes: I 'm comfortable with the way it was but I 'm not out there designing road traffic into our islands . I 'm comfortable with Market _ Square . I think the problem with Market Square personally has more to do with how the traffic is confined rather than parking lot . Whether the traffic is confined into close proximity to the stores so people all will want to park right there and then the traffic is running up and down in those areas . So they 're backing out onto the oncoming traffic lanes . So there 's some inherent problems there that have nothing to do with tree islands . Conrad: Nancy , what do you want to do tonight? Mancino: I could go ahead and pass it on . But I also would like to hear or read Kevin 's suggestions . So I 'm split too . Conrad : Anybody? Joe? Scott : I 'd like to see it again . I think this is a good sanity test . You know the difference between having a Target where it 's pretty much the sky 's the limit . Here 's the property and having plenty of opportunity to tweak versus a retrofit . We 've got two retrofits , major retrofits . I 'd kind of like to , well I would definitely like to see it again . Conrad : Kate , for some reason I just have a feeling that our upcoming agendas are full . At least the next one . Aanenson : Well you 're going to look at the revised landscaping ordinance in general at the next one too so . My only concern is , you know you want Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 53 to go back and look at the whole landscaping because we just made modifications to reflect specific concerns that Target raised . So if they 're going to look at it , basically it sounds like they 're going to look at the whole . Scott : Well no . I would just , Kevin I 'd rather see , I didn 't sense that you had a problem with the ordinance the way it existed but mostly with the changes . So if you could just specifically address the changes , because I think that 's the thing that I was reacting to . I took it as a given . It was working fine . Now we 're a little bit smarter about what we 're doing so here are these tweaks , as you like to call them . Kevin , if you just go after those and you know , I 'm simple minded so keep it to a page . And then we can just go . This is great . This is silly . You know . You know bring the issues forward so we can react to them . Or I can react to them . Conrad : Yeah , but literally based on our report we 'd like you to go down and say this doesn 't make sense . This does make sense . Scott : Yeah , and why . Conrad: And Brad , I still don 't understand the cost in terms of taking away your parking spaces . That 's an issue to me but I don 't understand it because there 's still enough area there . We 've taken 200 feet to put a tree but there 's still 200 feet . Brad Johnson: Sometimes , the parking all has to be out in front of the store . Conrad: I understand that . Brad Johnson: Personally we just , I 've just gone through this . . .and it always comes down to we need 4 more parking spots . I don 't know why . . . Therefore we lose $100 ,000 .00 in . . . Conrad : But I don 't think . My assumption was , this is not taking away those 4 parking spots . That you 've still got them there . Brad Johnson . . . Conrad: Now that I buy but . Well , no . I don 't buy exactly the way you term that . It 's not maybe where you would want to have put them but . Farmakes: But in the end , the consumer always bears the cost for any of this . Brad Johnson: Here 's what I 'd like to do . We can go , I can have Kevin . . . make the plan . . .and see what problems we have . . . Conrad: Well yeah . That 's what we 'd like you to do . Brad Johnson: . . .a concept and I told you , I wish I could move . . . Conrad: Well anyway . If you could be back in 2 weeks or whenever this gets back there , and we ' ll walk through it with the 2 of you . We 'd like to Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 54 understand a little bit more any concerns and then hopefully we can move it out of here . Is that agreeable to everybody here? To bring it back? Okay Aanenson: He 'd have to have something to me by the 11th to get it in the packet . The packet goes out . Mancino: Did you hear that? Aanenson: To be on the 18th , you 'd have to have something to me by the 11th . Harberts: That 's next Wednesday . Aanenson: Or if you just want to put something in the packet without any staff input , that would then at least a day to look at it so that would give me Thursday to look at it . The packet goes out Friday . Harberts : I don 't think it 's smart to rush it through . If we 're taking time , let 's take a look at it appropriately here . Scott : Because it is forever . Aanenson : Well , if you wait until September 2nd , we 're looking at that site plan on your agenda anyway so . Conrad: What? Aanenson: The hotel expansion and the restaurant is on for September 2nd . _ Mancino : And we want to have this in place to look at . Brad Johnson: Well we assume we 're . . .the new ordinance to be quite honest with you . Harberts : Then that site plan is going to be subject to delay , I think in - all fairness here . Aanenson: Unless you can work it out the same meeting . _ Conrad : Well , I 'd like to see them back here in 2 weeks . Brad Johnson: From a practical point of view . . . Harberts : I think the attempt will try to be made in 2 weeks . Conrad: Okay , let 's try to do that . Any other general comments about wha was in front of us tonight? Mancino: I have one comment about the calculations . And that is that the be done by a specialist . An arborist . Professional . Harberts: Horticulturist? Aanenson : Qualified . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 55 Mancino: Qualified forester , etc . And that also they , not only would they do the formula . That person do the formula but decide if the significant trees are worthy of preservation . Conrad: My only question Kate is , where did this formula come from? Aanenson: I attached it on the back . Conrad : It was in the attached? And that 's , somebody 's logically gone through that . Aanenson: Minnesota Extension Service . Conrad: Makes sense to you? You like it? Aanenson : Yeah . That 's what you ' ll be seeing with the new landscape ordinance , the tree preservation aspect . That same formula . That 's what our forester is using . Conrad: See I 've really not thought about how this all works . Aanenson: It 's how do you give value if there 's something out there and you think it 's worthy of saving but how do you know . You have someone inspect it to make sure it is worthy of saving and then how do you give it a value , so that 's what that formula represents . . . Conrad: Is there a motion to table this? Scott moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to clarify the landscaping ordinance for 2 weeks . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10 , REGARDING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order . For the record , it was noted there was no one in attendance in the audience for this item . Harberts moved , Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Harberts: I have no other comments . Ledvina : No . Scott : I wanted to ask something . On Section 10-162 for location . I 'd like to add number 5 where it says . Ledvina : What page are you on? Scott : Page 12 . Where it says within 500 feet of . I 'd like to add as number 5 , a city owned or operated facility . And also , city owned or Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 56 — operated facility or property . Maybe that 's too , city owned or operated — facility . Number 6 . City owned property . Harberts: Rather than city owned , how about publically owned because I 'm thinking transit facilities. It 's not city owned but it 's publically owned. Scott: My intent is to have so many of these 500 foot radii things around — the city that it 's okay , you can be in the middle of Market Boulevard . Okay , this is where you can do this . I 'm sorry, it 's a right use so that 's my intent . — Aanenson: So city owned is like the bus shelters? Scott: Yeah , or public facility . Roger can do . Harberts: Public facility . So that would also have to include like a school district building and things like that . — Scott: Well yeah . So you know what I 'm getting to . Public . Yeah , public owned facilities . Or property . So if we own a lot . — Harberts: Or a tree . Ledvina : But we talked about this a year and a half ago Ladd . If we do — that , we have to make sure that that doesn 't totally eliminate . Conrad: It has to be possible someplace . — Ledvina : 500 feet from a road? I mean you 're going to have a long driveway . Conrad: It would not be legal is that was . Scott: Well that 's what I mean , Roger can . — Aanenson: The facility thing may work . Scott: Yeah facility . That makes sense . The facility or building . Ledvina: Public building or something . I don 't know. Scott: Public parks adjacent to it . I 'd just like to see something , because City Hall . Public . . . Just have him take a look at that . If he can do something that 's enforceable . — Ledvina: City Hall or whatever . Or library or . Scott: Yeah , facility . Aanenson: We 'll get a definition of facility . Scott: Facility I think would work but . Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 57 Ledvina: Just so we don 't effectively kill the ordinance . Conrad: See the trouble is , they could take you to court and you could declare the whole ordinance invalid if you can 't find a spot . If somebody came in and because of that they couldn 't fine one location that was possible . Scott: Well that 's why , I mean . Conrad: But if they can 't find a location that 's possible , then we 're discrim . Scott : Well Roger won 't do it . Roger won 't put that in then but I think we have a legitimate reason to use a city owned facility as another one of these . Ledvina : I agree with that . Aanenson: The public works building , that 's separate . Scott : Yeah , it 's a publically owned facility . Except I 'd like to see it expanded just a little . Aanenson: That 's a good comment . Conrad : Nancy anything? Mancino: My only other one , that was church . Why he didn 't pull out church or religious organizations . I think we have a lot of public sentiment about that . Scott : And also too , there are churches who rent space . So it 's not just a church but a . Aanenson : Well that 's the same with a daycare . Sometimes a daycare is in the middle of a shopping center , which may have an arcade or something next to it so . Scott : That 's a good point but then not only just limit it to a church , physical building , but . Aanenson: It doesn 't have to be in a residential zone , right . Conrad: Okay , anything else Nancy? Mancino: No . Conrad: Jeff . Farmakes : No comment . Conrad : I have nothing . Is there a motion? Who wants to take credit for this? Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 58 Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance as amended to include in Section 10-162 , to include as item 5 . City owned or operated . Or excuse me . Publically owned or operated facilities and/or property . Number 6 . Church property , - whether physical . Mancino: A meeting place of a religious organization . Scott : There you go . A regular meeting place of a religious organization subject to city attorney 's input . Conrad : Is there a second? Ledvina : Second . Conrad: Discussion . Scott moved , Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the proposed City Code amendment to Chapter 10 regarding sexually oriented businesses , amended as follows to include in Section 10-162: 5 . Publically owned or operated facilities and/or property . 6 . A regular meeting place of a religious organization subject to City Attorney 's input . All voted in favor and the motion carried . NEW BUSINESS: Farmakes : I have some new business . I 'd like , Kate if you would review the meeting Minutes in regards to Target , when the architect was in here . I forget what her name was but . Aanenson : The architect? Yeah . Farmakes : They had the architect making presentation to us with the charts and so on . We discussed lighting and as I recall , we discussed colors of lighting fixtures . As I recall . I don 't know if we did that before the - meeting or if records were taken or not . As I recall it was a natural colored lighting and she was referring to the rust color that we have on some of our lighting out here . They 're fire engine red . They 're even a _ brighter red than what they 've got on their building . I don't know if that 's a primer but I would suspect it 's an attempt to create an attractivE parking lot . Scott : That 's the finished color . I was out there two days ago on site and that 's . Farmakes : It 's a brighter red than what they 've got on the building and that falls in line to what we 're talking about on Highway 5 . Creating , Planning Commission Meeting August 4 , 1993 - Page 59 using architectural features and we 're accessories and creating a color to attract a situation . This bright . Conrad: Okay . So what is Kate going to do , look at the Minutes? Farmakes : Well I would like to see what the commitment is or what our expectations were on that . I don 't know whether the City Council changed or . . .to that request or what . Looks wise I think it 's a real departure from what we have going down in street lighting to that area . Mancino : And I would like to . Farmakes: I think it 's contradictory to the Highway 5 intent . . .of the architectural requirements . Mancino : And I 'd also like to add the height . It just seems unbelieveably , when you 're on Highway 5 now you 're going to be blinded by the light . Farmakes: We also had a discussion on the height . Harberts : Don 't they have the down turned ones like we were required to have? Mancino : Yeah they are . Aanenson: Yeah , and they have to be off by 10: 00 . Harberts : They have to be off at 10 :00? Farmakes : I know it 's been a long time and . . . Aanenson : You know I don 't recall the discussion on color unfortunately . Farmakes: We had a discussion on the street lights . I remember we had a rather long discussion about that . About the light leaking out and so on . Aanenson: We did talk a lot about the candle foot level at the property line . Scott : And the lighting element does protrude below the bell of the reflector . Farmakes: Well at the time she was here they were still working out some of the specifics . Materials and so on . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 21 , 1993 as presented . Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim ) I CITY OF 0:11114.: CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss AICP, Director of Planning ek- DATE: August 11, 1993 SUBJ: Proposed New Chanhassen Elementary School, Site Development Program Work is proceeding on the development of plans and programs for the new Chanhassen Elementary School. The process is on a very tight time frame since the facility must be open for the Fall of 1995. At this point in the process, the Planning Commission is being asked to review the development program. The program covers the range of facilities that are to be built with the school including those directly developed by the School District and those developed by the City in conjunction with the District. A conceptual site plan has been developed to put the program into perspective. The plan is just that, a preliminary concept for discussion purposes only. The site plan is in the process of being refined and will be presented to the Planning Commission at a formal site plan review hearing most likely in October. City involvement in the project goes back about four years to preliminary discussions with the District over future growth needs. These talks culminated in the designation of the school site on the Comprehensive Plan. From the earliest discussions with the District, staff and the City Council discussed ways in which the facilities could be jointly developed to benefit both students and City residents. The joint development and maintenance of facilities offers considerable savings in construction and operating costs and is a very efficient use of scarce public resources. When the discussions on the school site moved forward over the past year, joint facilities continued to be on the agenda. Recently, discussions of facilities at the school site have been aired in conjunction with the downtown community center that has been getting considerable attention. For example, there was a desire to insure that the facilities were complementary and not redundant. On July 19, some of you attended a joint meeting at City Hall where the financial outlook for the City's largest Tax Increment District was discussed. In light of the significant decrease in projected revenues, the City's "wish list" of projects was re-examined. At this juncture, it seems unlikely Planning Commission August 11, 1993 Page 2 that the community center will be built in the near future. It was decided that design work on the community center would be put on hold and HGA, the school's architect, was asked to develop a school site project plan/schedule for the City to react to. This program was to meet the City's recreational goals and financial limitations. The City Council asked that the alternatives be submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission for comment before they act on it. Two alternatives were developed and reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission at their last meeting. From a financial standpoint, it was felt that there was only one viable option. Option two was selected by the Park and Recreation Commission since it was less expensive but appeared to offer a good compromise on facilities. It calls for a 21,170 square foot building addition as outlined in the attached materials. It also offers an increased number of ball fields, soccer fields, parking lots, hockey rinks and tennis courts. Ted Rozeboom and Bob Rothman of HGA, Todd Hoffman and Todd Gerhardt will be at the Commission meeting to discuss the proposal and answer your questions. Staff is seeking your comments on the proposal so that these can be forwarded to the City Council for final action. We realize that the time line is a short one but this is necessary due to the School District's needs. It is also a little unusual since the Council is essentially being asked to commit to the project in advance of having a well developed site plan to review. This again is made necessary by the process. There simply is insufficient time for the architect to go into detail design on the joint use facility only to find that the City will not support it resulting in a substantial redesign and considerable delay. Conceptual Site Plan I have discussed the matter with the project architect and they understand that a formal site plan submittal, platting and rezoning action is required before construction can begin. They have submitted the accompanying concept solely to frame the discussion. It was also necessary to evaluate how and where site elements could be accommodated. The architect has been given the Highway 5 Task Force's work on the site and this is in the process of being incorporated. I have given him a series of comments including: 1. Extensive landscaping along Hwy. 5 is needed 2. Site should respect rolling terrain that currently exists 3. South access boulevard should be aligned to adopted configuration The architect is bringing a revised concept to your meeting. Your comments for additional changes will be valuable in preparing the final site plan submittal. MARCUS CORP TEL : 1-612-544-0999 Aug 10 '93 13 :03 No .006 P .02 MEMORANDUM • TO: Don Ashworth FROM: Mark Senn DATE: August 10, 1993 RE : Hoffman Memo dated 8/2/93 Re: Project Schedule, Chanhassen Elementary School, City Program Contrary to the above referenced memorandum, which has received wide dissemination, I don 't believe that a consensus was ever reached at the joint study session. Myself and a number of the commissioners present, felt that the community center concept for the central core should not be paused, slowed down, or abandoned automatically in favor of the elementary school recreational complex proposal . I believe it would be more accurate to say that no consensus was reached other than there was a consensus that the City should not rush to make such a decision in a month ' s time without full study, consideration of alternatives, and relooking at priorities, given what we know now. I personally continue to believe that the City should not be funding school facilities nor should community based facilities be located at or in the schools. Right now in the metro area and elsewhere there are numerous school districts displacing community rec programs from their facilities due to their own requirements , demands, and needs for the same facilities . HGA' s memo of July 20 , 1992 is probably a far more accurate representation of the meeting. The implication in the Hoffman memo of "One conclusion of the meeting was to separate the downtown issues from school site issues; placing the downtown schedule on momentary pause in order to concentrate immediate efforts in the new Chanhassen Elementary School" is misleading. We need to go forward with a comprehensive study and determination on the entire issue. • 7 a., CITY OF -- cHANBAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator MEMORANDUM �eorse IAodit ie e 3 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Detk ' —� Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager pate Submitted to Commission Paul Krauss, Planning Director «P� to Council Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner pate s: - ed FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director —,;17 DATE: August 2, 1993 SUBJ: Project Schedule, Chanhassen Elementary School, City Program On Monday, July 19, 1993, the Independent School District 112 new Chanhassen Elementary School Program and Preliminary Concept was introduced to members of the City Council, the HRA, the Park and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission. This presentation, given by Dave Leschak of Hammel, Green and Abrahmson (HGA) followed the discussion regarding the forecasted reduction in tax increment revenues in the downtown TID. Those present on the 19th included: Mayor Don Chmiel; Councilmembers Richard Wing, Colleen Dockendorf, and Mark Senn; HRA Chairman Jim Bohn; HRA member Gary Boyle; Park and Recreation Commissioner Fred Berg; Planning Commissioners Matt Ledvina, Nancy Mancino, Joe Scott, Diane Harberts; Representatives of HGA Curt Green, Dave Leschak; and City staff members Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman. One conclusion of the meeting was to separate the "downtown" issues from "school site" issues; placing the downtown schedule on momentary pause in order to concentrate immediate efforts on the new Chanhassen Elementary School. Direction was given by the Mayor and members of the City Council to present the elementary school program and preliminary concept to the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission for review and formulation of recommendations. It was concluded that HGA, the consultant for both the district and the city on the elementary school, would submit a project schedule for the city to react to. City meeting dates were relayed to Ted Rozeboom, resulting in the attached project schedule being drafted. It is imperative that this schedule be met. Key meetings are the August 10 Park and Recreation Commission, August 18 Planning Commission, and August 23 City Council. A city staff team comprised of Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman with support from Don Ashworth and Paul Krauss, will fulfill staff responsibilities associated with this review schedule. t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER August 2, 1993 Page 2 Attachments 1. Faxed transmittal from Ted Rozeboom,HGA dated July 28, 1992, Draft Project Schedule. 2. Memorandum from Curt Green dated July 20, 1993. pc: Mayor and City Council Park and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Dave Clough, Superintendent, District 112 Jeff Preiss, School District 112 Greg Shank, School District 112 John Gockel, Gockel and Associates Ted Rozeboom, HGA Curt Green, HGA Dave Leschak, HGA Director's Update - 8/6/93 Dave Leschak and possibly Ted Rozeboom will be in attendance at the commission's meeting next Tuesday. Mr. Leschak will be presenting HGA's findings in regard to the work they have completed for the city on the "Chanhassen Program" for the new school. A graphic depicting how the new school and park interrelate with this newly developing area of the city is attached. I will be requesting the presence of both Todd Gerhardt and Kate Aanenson at next Tuesday's meeting to ensure continuity is retained throughout our short but very important time line. Tax increment revenue forecasts indicate that option two is within reach. Therefore, the commission's charge is to make a recommendation as to whether or not the city should pursue this route. Additional attachments 1. Memo from Dave Leschak, HGA, dated June 28, 1993. 2. Memo from Dave Leschak and Ted Rozeboom, HGA, dated June 14, 1993. 17*157-3-1------j'j( %:=.,- iL,- A OUL E VA s `" • PA DEVEL . ':'::5 ._,�:, , - - .. ,: . qi.yr44 . ii• - VfliPP.0. A iy, . -1.:----it:t.:-.-.-, - . ,., , ,-„,- ... ,_:,..„ ... ,.. 10, 101t.410_1.14:4;p, Illin -. .-4- - - .:i, V D %TirAIMPilli rig . - .*' --z.-.4 1 I ::'- -.....• i 1 .1air •- ,i ,a. 1 4 0�:�. '' 1 -: 91, f :jai . ,• „, „., , •,... . -. 0a,,,,,,4 7.- . 1 IIIIIII Ma LW.= lir - ••••-•, . ..F.;:ff.*::::V• !-;‘.. -- -- ,41,/, .... .- 11aii-4g 1 ti:S. 7 '- WO Sisi JCR 18 r��I� . -\:. .,..•': _ •-. Ana' of it_ �' - .. /�! !fit . .:...ippp.1111117P Npnu-nryaii. _ % f ,4 ffli - IIK-11 -. F.'ar )0_ \--7.7"---...N___Ii*r".-- LIN F ..1 _ , --� FUTIM iv e���: C . - EK i• :: TSS ATE i0- e A �. • _m ,,,,4411 so 1,,,,, _- iv 1 \ OEVELOPMEM VPIIrTd , - Pao 1 0 _a Ar N 9000INIEr Y tie thou 5TR9 L . OFFICE IlltA IL r 91 - ARK - - s PARK _ E A S E ME =3 °PEN SPACE �' •E3 SCKoo� `' 9200 RES,,„.T1�� - fir • s 9300 -'� F:, j mitt. cameo% / c. J U L - 2 6 - 9 3 WED 1 6 0 1 H G A P . 01 101 VPJ "q"Jp 010111 "11U11 IC N v : i 1 / Jr. 0 # .------ _11 •e _ • II II 1171 I IIIl _.tet _ �._ 16. • _ . .-9__ _...4.A.., • • • i1 • • b, ! • fr. , r` • . • • • Ii • . . • „I__ • i • • J I.:. i •• - •- _..,.._ . •III , k ` i f A_ '7 - • Ir • JUL - 2B - 93 W EL 1 b : la ..e Fyl. F1 - " � 1 I I-IGA . Hammel Green i& Abrahamson, Inc. t tage•Endow-64 •Intoior Design_ 1201 Nampo Place)'Ihrinneapotis.Minnesota 55403-198 •(612j 32-3944•(f,,x)332.9013 A� T R N S M I - � - ., Vkn - Date: 613 To: � � �, � 8 pro' t: �!i i f.. ' _-_ t Commission _ umber. 1400. O S, • We forward the followi lVia' 41: � •i. 41: M i:: • First Class Mai] ". f Lir a!. .0 _ ••� e . .� . Overnight E ss ': _ 3-Hour Courier 44� 1—Hour Colmer; _. ; I °-. Direct Couna .!•••1::•L f - • ' United Postal UMi ce ..,�'� S a'i1'• _— Fax: ((0 ) �- i — pages to folio �. ".` 4.. % �� _ form toy Remarks: Cone nden File `w — y Convact File ! Shop Drawing tile _ . ' r Copy enclosure to: ____ Correspondent File1 — Contract File j _ __ `' =* i Oat Sho• Drawin: de From: •moi ""'___--- Hammel Green an0 Abrahamson Inc. Architecture•Engineering• Interior Design . 1201 Harmon Place Minneapolis,Minnesota 55403-1985 Telephone 612.332.3944 Fax 612.332.9013 HGA Ed®UnoraKeaDED TO: Chanhassen .. t Complex Study HGA Co •op ' umber 1139.004.01 FROM: Curt G DATE: July 20, • SUBJECT: Meeting Held July 19, 1993 PRESENT: Representatives of the City Council and Mayor, Planning Commission, HRA and Parks and Recreation Following explanations and clarifications of Don Ashworth's memorandum regarding the tax increment funding reduction from $11.5 million to S4.5 million, members of the task force sought clarifications of their options. Their setting priorities as a group was suggested as inappropriate, since they represented segments of the city government The HRA and then the council should receive recommendations and data from each commission unit. These recommendations would then be presented to the council for action. Dave Leschak presented the city program for city-sponsored construction at the school. Two alternatives were submitted, based on the size of the gyms. His memo will cover these alternatives. There seemed to be continuing concern for improvement to the downtown area and the potential of some improvement within the redevelopment program. Ted Rozeboom is to submit a schedule of our work for the school district setting certain times when city decisions and evaluations are desirable. The work schedule for the school was explained by Dave, but was not sufficiently specific for their purposes. There were expressions that the city could not adhere to the school schedule and the work may need to be a subsequent addition and site development. Soccer fields in common with baseball diamonds, per our program diagram, needed clarification. No schedules of subsequent actions were determined, other than the upcoming, regularly- scheduled commission meeting nights. chg 18.gw cc: Don Ashworth, Chanhassen Todd Gearhart, Chanhassen Todd Hoffman, Chanhassen RECEI P ZO Kevin Strong, M.A. Mortenson JUL 3 0 1993 Gary Reetz, HGA CITY OF chhoartASSEN Hammel Green and Abrahamson. Inc. i Architecture• Engineering• Interior Design a ,c_��t"' — '�� /, 1201 Harmon Place Minneapolis Minnesota 55403-1985 Telephone 612.332.3944 Fax 612.332.9013 S SP% „ Metora[D({au TO: New Cnha-ssen Elementary HGA Commission Number 1400.003.00 FROM: Dave Leschak j • DATE: 28 June 1993 SUBJECT: Presentation of predesign document for the new elementary school program with expanded Chanhassen community program. PRESENT: Donald Ashworth, City of Chanhassen Todd Hoffman, City of Chanhassen Todd Gerhardt, City of Chanhassen • Paul Krauss, City of Chanhassen John Gockel, IRG Dave Leschak, HGA Ted Rozeboom, HGA 1. Community to use one-half of the gym (field house) during the day, while the school used the other half; not only public off-hours use. 2. The community leagues would desire the 3/4 court, rather than the full court. 3. If Option 2 is the desired, Option A (running track mezzanine) is not feasible. 4. Location of the community program is desirable with its location near the kitchen and cafeteria area for both public and private activities. This allows for greater flexibility in program delivery. 5. Consider adding a running track to the ISD 112 building program with a Agra- surface materiaL 6. Athletic fields for the community program should be capable of being located on school property. 7. Plant annual grasses at hockey rinks/soccer field. 8. Warming facility concessions, interior/exterior storage, toilets (1450 SF) located near the athletic fields. 9. Develop add alternates for lighting fields, warming house, etc. This can be developed after Schematic Design phase. RECEIVED - 10. Add warming house and additional SF to Options 1 and 2 with revised cost numbers for program changes. JUN 3 0 1993 W 1 Y OF CNAINI-0 SE Page 2 11. This item will go on the July 12, 1993 City Council meeting. 12. Send copy of elemeritAry school survey REP to Paul Krauss for his review. 13. The city feels quite comfortable with the information proposed. Direction to architects to proceed with Option 2. dml4.mm cc: Those Present Jeff Priess, ISD 112 Greg Shank, ISD 112 Greg McGree, ISD 112 * Mammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. • Architecture•Engineering•Interior Design 1201 Harmon Place • Minneapolis.Minnesota 55403-1965 Telephone 612.332.3944 Fax 612.332.9013 •l_" rE-dgm©Tsnccfclum TO: City of Chanhassen HGA Commission Number FROM: David Leschak/Ted Rozeboom 17MA.,4 • DATE: 14 June 1993 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Elementary School/Community Program PRESENT: Susan Hagstrum, ISD 112 Greg Shank, ISD 112 Don Ashworth, City Administrator Todd Hoffman, Parks & Recreation Director Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Administrator John Gockel, JRG Associates Curt Green, HGA Ted Rozeboom, HGA David Leschak, HGA Points Discussed: 1. The letter form agreement (Exhibit C) of the HGA letter to Don Ashworth dated May 24, 1993, is acceptable in principal to all parties. 2. HGA is to proceed with the required programming for the new Chanhassen Elementary School to include the following community spaces/functions: _1 Building Program Option One •Two full court basketball courts-100' z 70' each e22' minimum clear height •Seating for 200 •Wood athletic floor or sport floor •Two scoreboards - .Rnnning track-mezzanine Option Two •One full court basketball court-100' z 70' •22' minimum clear height •Seating for 200 •Wood athletic floor •One scoreboard Page 2 Community Athletic Storage Room . Aerobics Room 'Sport floor 'Mirrored walls sit Fitness Room s, Dressing Rooms - 'Lockers • 'Toilets 'Showers 'Janitor's room j Multi-purpose/Meeting Rooms "Approximately 4000 SF room which can be divided into four smaller rooms 'Tiled floor area with sinks 'Storage rooms •Toilet rooms g. Separate Entry 'Provide public access for, during and after hours use. 'Students would have limited access to community facility during school day Site Master Plan 'Maximize the entire elementary school site approximately 40 acres, to include as many 180' youth softball/baseball fields with soccer fields •Provide (4) tennis courts with lights as well as indicate future construction of (4) additional courts with lights •Provide one soccer field with lights; this field will also be used for (2) ice rinks during the winter 'Warming house for the ice rinks is to be included in the elementary school building program 'Extend city trail link system to include passive park/wetlands • development; picnic shelters must also be considered, but are not included at this time Additional site parking is to be considered at 15 cars per athletic field. 3. The City of C hanhassen's contact person for this project shall be Todd Hoffman, Director of the Parks and Recreational Department. 4. HGA shall identify for the city the additional grading costs associated with the master planning of the entire site. These cost figures shall be identified when the additional building costs are reviewed. Page 3 S. The above constitutes HGA's understanding of the items discussed at this meeting. Please contact HGA within five days if there are any corrections or modifications. If no comments are made, HGA will assume these meeting minutes are correct. dml20m.mm cc: Those Present David Cough, ISD 112 Jeff Priess, ISD 112 Greg McGree, ISD 112 Bob Rothman, HGA - Independent - School District # 112 - New Chanhassen - Elementary School Chanhassen • Minnesota - Program and Preliminary Concepts — 22 June 1993 Draft Hammel Green and Abrahamson,Inc. Contents Educational Vision 1 Project Goals 3 Area Summary 5 Program Spacial Diagrams Family Clusters 6 Music and Art 8 Physical Education - ISD 112 Program 10 Physical Education - Chanhassen Program Option One 12 Physical Education - Chanhassen Program Option Two 14 IMC 16 Centralized Unique Learners Services 18 Administration 20 ISD 112 Community Program 22 Chanhassen Community Program 24 Food Service 26 Building Services 28 ISD 112 Program Exterior Activities 30 Chanhassen Program Exterior Activities 32 Site Concept 35 Environmental and Technical Requirements Civil Engineering 37 Mechanical Systems 39 Electrical and Communications Systems 41 Building Materials Interior Materials 45 Exterior Finishes 46 Project Budget ...... 47 Project Schedule 47 New Chanhassen Elementary School Educational Vision At this site learners progress at a pace set by actual individual learning. They are self-directed,teach others,and are engaged in community service. Children work in flexibly organized learning groups. They live in multi-age families. Learners are actively involved in the larger school and community neighborhoods. Learning opportunities are developmental,experiential and appli- cation oriented. They are offered in a variety of learning styles. Interdisciplinary themes provide the organizer. Outcomes are measured by multi-dimensional assessments. Staff share a common vision. They are organized in flexible teams. They facilitate learning. Technology is employed rou- tinely and facilitates their work. "What's happening for the learner is happening for the staff." Life long learning is the norm here. The building is accessible to the community and parents. They are welcome as partners in the learning process. They have access to learning opportunities and technology as a tool. "What's happening for learners is available to the community." Nev.•Chanhassen Elementary School Project Goals The proposed new Chanhassen Elementary School is in response Introduction to a growing student population in Independent School District #112. The new school is to be located on a site consisting of approximately 20 acres of land in the southwestern corner of the City of Chanhassen. Adjoining the 20 acres of land which the new school is to be constructed on, is an additional 20 acres of Chanhassen city park land. ISD#112 and the City of Chanhassen are committed to a common goal to develop a community school within a city park. This protoype PK-5 school will serve the communities of Chanhassen, Chaska and Victoria. The new school will have a design capacity and core facilities for 625 students and the potential to serve kindergarten through grade five,each with five sections. Individual classrooms are to be grouped into "family clusters"to promote the educational concept of multi-aged learn- ing groups and the "school within a school."Family clusters will contain spaces to accommodate both large and small group instruction, in addition to the traditional classroom. Each will have their own separate entry from the exterior. The following are Education Concepts for the new elementary school identified during discussions with the Elementary School Design Committee and HGA. • Progress at a pace set by actual individual learning Learners • Are self-directed, able to work independently • Teach others • Are workers in flexibly-sized learning groups • Are routinely engaged in community service • Are members of a multi-age family and larger school neighborhood • Developmental, active, experiential, and application-oriented Learning Experiences • Offered in a variety of learning styles • Are organized in interdisciplinary themes • Are demonstrated and measured by multidimensional assessments • Use real community situations to solve problems and address needs New Chanhassen Elementary School 3 Project Goals Staff Members • Facilitate learning • Are organized in flexible teams • Share a common vision • Are engaged in continuous planning and development • Continuously and authentically assess their practice using action research • Plan program delivery involving the larger community • Routinely employ technology as a tool to facilitate their work • Model that "What's happening for the learner is happening for the staff' Parents and Community • Are members of the broader school and learning community • Are lifetime learners • Provide expertise and experience to enrich the learning program • Are welcome as partners in the learning process • Support, develop, and enhance the learning environment and student success through a variety of partnerships with businesses and agencies • Have access to learning opportunities and technology as a tool; "What's happening for learners is available to the community." 4 Prograrn and Prelin unary Concepts ISD112 Area Summary Space Description Total Area Family Clusters 33,875 Music/Art 2,850 Physical Education 5,750 IMC 6,280 Centralized Unique Learner Services 630 Administration 2,750 Community Program 2,800 Food Service 3,150 Building Services 3,650 Total Net Area 61,735 Total Gross Area 90,000 Chanhassen Program Area Summary Space Description Total Area Option One Chanhassen Phy. Ed Option One(Additional) 18,850 Chanhassen Community Program(Additional) 5,000 Total Net Area 23,850 Total Gross Area 34,583 Chanhassen Program Area Summary DescriptionSpace Total Arca Option Two Chanhassen Phy Ed.Option One(Additional) 7,200 Chanhassen Community Program(Additional) 5,000 Total Net Area 12,200 Total Gross Area 17,690 New Chanhassen Elementary School 5 Family Clusters (5) Space Description TS Qty Area SF Total Arca The Family Cluster consists of five Classrooms(Grades 1-5) 20 20 900 18,000 classrooms,one of which is sized to Classrooms(Grades 1-5 Future K) 5 5 1,200 6,000 accommodate a future kindergarten Team Centers 5 900 4,500 program, a resource or team center Planning Rooms(9 stations) 5 350 1,750 with storage,a teacher planning area Small Group Instruction for 5 assigned staff plus 4"floating" (including unique learners and gifted) 5 300 1,500 staff members,a small group instruc- Team Center Storage 5 50 250 tional area, a special education of- Lockers 5 250 1.250 fico,locker bay or bays and a separate Toilet Room 5 125 625 entry to the exterior of the facility. Total 33,875 1200 300 300 1 250 900 C3u roper. Thacker Sm. Inas Tom Cocas (&ndaianm) Piaaning Group Ler.. 900 900 900 900 Clascoans Clusroans Gismo= C]araomu III Toilets 6 Program and Preliminary Concepts Family Cluster Diagram In the Family Cluster, a group of classrooms are organized around a 8 4 9 shared resource or team center area. Classroom entrances focus together rather than onto a traditional locker- - lined corridor. This concept encour- 3 ages an identity beyond the single -—- 6 classroom and expands the students' focus and gradual independence to the team centers and the library. • Group size flexibility is facilitated by allowing various group sizes within a 1 single classroom,small group instruc- tion room,supervised individual and 2 2 small group study in the team center, and large groups within multiple as- semblies of individual classrooms. 2 2 5 7 5 1. Team Center • 2. Classroom 3. Classroom (Kindergarten) 4. Teacher Planning 5. Locker Bay 6. Small Group Instruction 7. Cluster Entry 8. Team Center Storage 9. Toilets New Chanhassen Elementary School 7 Music and Art 8 Prograr,and Preliminary Concepts Music and Art Instrumental 1 300 300 Music Storage 1 150 150 Art and Storage 1 1,200 1,200 Total 2,850 1200 300 150 1200 Gal Music Instrumental Music Stg. Art/Storage New Chanhassen Elementary School 9 Physical Education 10 Program and Preliminary Concepts Physical Education Space Description TS (PI Area SF Total Area Gymnasium 2 2,400 4,800 ISD 112 Program Gymnasium Storage 1 350 350 Gymnasium Office 1 100 100 Stage(Portable) 1 500 500 Total 5,750 2400 1 1 2400 L JAL J Gymnasium 350 100 500 Gymnasium Gym Stage(Ponable) Storage Office New Chanhassen Elementary'School 11 Physical Education Chanhassen Program (Option One) 12 Program and Preliminary Concepts Physical Education Space Description TS Qty Arca SF Total Arca Expanded Gymnasiums (incl.seating) 1 10,400 10,400 Chanhassen Program Running Track 1 4500 4,500 Community Storage 1 500 500 (Option One) Aerobics Room 1 1,600 1,600 Locker Rooms 1 1,000 1,000 Entry(Community) 1 150 150 Fitness Room 1 1,200 1,200 Total 1S4850 SoueCcard •L o Macrame Rcansnt Track o Secebow • CS2M Sestint(2 I 500 1600 Comm Aaobtcs Stor. Roan 1000 150 1200 Locker Roans Entry Fitness Ronin New Chanhassen Elementary School 13 Physical Education Chanhassen Program (Option Two) 14 Program and Preliminary Concepts Physical Education Space Lkscription Ts Qt% Arca SF Total Area Expanded Gymnasiums(incl.seating) 1 3,000 3,000 Chanhassen Program Community Storage 1 250 250 (Option Two) Aerobics Room 1 1,600 1,600 Locker Rooms 1 1,000 1,000 Entry(Community) 1 150 150 Fitness Room 1 1,200 1,200 Total 7,200 E 7E ISI 1:1 Sarobare ISI Iii L 1 L J 7ttoo 1 Sating(200) I 2 550 1600 Comm. Aerobia Sta. Roar, 1000 150 1200 Loa=Roans Entry /Furless Room New Chanhassen Elementary School 15 IMC 16 Program and Preliminary Concepts IMC Space Description TS Qy Area SF Total Area Library 1 4,000 4,000 Circulation/Office Stacks Seating Working Area/Storage 1 350 350 Computer Lab 1 1,200 1,200 Quest Office 1 180 180 AN Equipment Storage 1 200 200 TV Studio 1 250 250 TV/Computer Equipment Room 1 100 100 Tota I 6,280 4000 350 1200 Library Wad Arca/ Compuicr Lab Stange 180 200 250 100 Quest Office AV Equip. TV Studio 7V/Computer Storage Equip Rm. New Chanhassen Elementary School 17 Centralized Unique Learners Senrices IS Program and Prdirmnar) Concepts Centralized Unique Learners Services Space Description TS Qty. Arca Si Total Area Psychologist 1 100 100 ESL 1 100 100 Speech 1 100 100 Centralized Clerical/Resource Center 1 150 150 Conference 1 180 180 Total 630 100 100 100 150 ISO Psychologist ESL Sperch Central Conference Clerical/ Resource Center New Chanhassen Elementary School 19 Administration The Administrative suite of the new Elementary School should be located adjacent to the main (public) entry of the facility. The initial impressions of academic professionalism should be implic- itly stated,however,not overwhelming but yet welcoming to new students and parents alike. The administrative area must support as well as promote overall communication for the entire facility staff and students. This area must be accessible to everyone within the facility as well as from anywhere within the facility. 20 Program and Preliminary Concepts Administration Space Description TS Qt) Arca SI: 'luta! Area Principal's Office 1 250 250 Attendance/Reception 1 400 400 Conference 1 300 300 Workroom 1 400 400 Health 1 300 300 Social Worker 1 100 100 Staff Resource/Lounge 1 1000 1000 Total 2,750 250 400 300 400 Pnnapal's Anen den W Cenfamce Workroom.. Office Receptor 300 1000 100 Health Staff Resource/Lounge Soca] Worker New Chanhassen Elementary School 21 ISD 11.2 Community Program 22 Program and Prtlinnnary Concepts ISD 112 E.C.F.EJ Community Program Space Description TS Qty Area SF Total Area Sibling Care Room 1 800 800 School Age Child Care 1 1000 1000 Office/Waiting 1 300 300 Storage 1 100 100 Parenting Room 1 600 600 Tota 1 2,800 1000 800 300 100 600 School Age sibling Office/ Storage Patenting Child Care Care Room Waiting New Chanhassen Elementary School 23 Chanhassen Community Program 24 Program and Prelirranary Concepts Chanhassen Community Program Space Description TS Qty Arca SF Total Arca Toilets 1 500 500 Multi-Purpose/Meeting Rooms 4 1.000 4.000 Janitor 1 50 50 Storage 1 300 300 Entry(community) 1 150 150 Total 5,000 50 Junco 300 - Storage 500 4000 150 Toiieu Mulu-purpose 1ocung Rooms Entry New Chanhassen Elementary School 25 Food Service The Food Service area for the new Chanhassen Elementary School will be a full service facility. Located adjacent to the food service facility should be a service entrance for the delivery of food supplies as well as access for food service and facility maintenance staff. The food prep area should be contiguous and adjacent to the cafeteria as well as the service/receiving area. The service area should be remotely located and invisible from the main facility and family cluster entries. The most desirable traffic flow through the cafeteria should be: entrance, food pick-up seating,tray return and then out to the exterior playground area. The traffic flow between these points should be accomplished in the sequence listed above and should not criss-cross. 1 There should be separate entrance and exit doors to the cafeteria. The cafeteria space should be configured and equipped with the appropriate supporting utilities to facilitate instrument and vocal ' ., performances. Such a space must be able to accommodate a portable stage. The cafeteria space should be a well lighted, easily cleanable facility as required by the State Health Department Standards. 26 Program and Prelirninary Concepts Food Service S ace Descri lion TS h Arca SI' ToIal Arca Cafeteria 1 2,000 2,000 • Kitchen 1 500 500 Freezer/Cooler 1 100 100 Dishwashing 1 100 100 Storage 1 200 200 Toilet 1 50 50 Office/Locker Room 1 150 150 Garbage 1 50 50 Total 3,150 2000 500 100 100 Cafeteria Kitchen Feeeza/ Dub washing Cod 200 ❑ 150 ❑ Stange 50 Office/ 50 Takla Locher Rm. Garbage New Chanhassen Elementary School 27 Building Services 28 Program and Preliminary'Concepts Building Services Receiving 1 650 650 Yard Storage 1 150 150 Workshop 1 150 150 Boiler Room 1 1,200 1,200 Gas 1 50 50 Electrical 1 50 50 Student Toilets 1,100 1,100 Public Toilets 1 300 300 Total 3,650 100 650 150 150 1200 Office Recdving Yard Wodtshcr Boiler -- Storage Roan ❑ ❑ , 1100 300 50 50 Stetdrnt Toilets Public Gas Electrical Toilets New Chanhassen Elementary School 29 LSD 11.2 Program Exterior Activities 30 Program and Preliminary Concepts ISD 112 Program Exterior Activities Space Description TS Qty Arca SF Total Arca Parking 150 52500 1.2 ac Bus Drop-Off 20 650 .31 ac Site Roadways Site Walkways Service Access 1 2000 .05 ac Soccer 1 71750 1.64 ac Softball 1 58188 1.33 ac Playground 1 10,000 .22 ac Hard Surface/Multi-Purpose 1 2,400 .05 ac Total 13000 52500 Bus mug Drop Off 2000 10000 2400 Service Playground Hard Surface! Multi-Purpose U 0 • I—td Soccc Softball 270 fee: New Chanhassen Elementary School 31 Chanhassen Program Exterior Activities 32 Program and Preliminary Concepts Chanhassen Program Exterior Activities Space Description TS Qty Area SF Total Arca Soccer/Softball 6 9.84 ac Tennis 4 .66 ac Soccer/Ice Rink 1 1.64 ac Parking 120 .96 ac Site walkways(1) Site Roadways Total 13.1 ac (1) The site will have a trailway connecting to the City trail system which will include passive park/wetlands development with future provisions for picnic shelters. til 1 ail j it 1 .il 21 Mil 111 1 'el Taauc TaTnu Tauris Tau 42000 Pastang .... LJ LJ LJ .1,—.‘ 0 is . 1--, Ls t--1L� O ° O SoftlallIScoca SoftbSoftball/SaxerSSo.'tba:.5occc 0 0 [ l l LJ Li 0O r [ s Le ` , 4 3 , O , r---, — ` ` r--1 �- � f--1 Softball/Soccer Softball/Soccer Sonia'I/Soccer New Chanhassen Elemcntary School 33 Site Concept The proposed site for the new elementary school in Chanhassen is a parcel of approximately 20 acres, located immediately south of Highway 5 and east of Galpin Road. A corporate center development is proposed for the tract of land immediately east,separated from the school site by a ravine and a proposed hiking trail. A residential neighborhood exists to the south,Highway 5 to the north, and a 20 acre parcel owned by the City of Chanhassen immediately west. Joint usage of City and School District property(total of 40 acres)will be explored during Schematic Design. The site is currently agricultural in use with no significant natural Topography vegetation on site. The site is rolling with two primary high points and two areas of wetland. The most likely location for the elementary school is on the eastern high point of the site adjacent to the creek/trail area. This would allow the playing fields to be located immediately west of the gymnasium, in the center of the site. Highway 5 and Galpin Road are both high volume roadways Vehicular Access which would not be ideal for school access. A lower volume road is proposed at the south edge of the site, extending from Galpin Road east through the corporate center. Access from this road would allow both automobile and bus drop-offs to occur at the south side of the school, which is the ideal orientation. Parking can also be located south of the school, with separate southern entrances for both the main building and the gymnasium wing. Nein Chanhassen Elementary School 35 36 Program and Prelirrunary Concepts Civil Engineering Based on information from a pedological survey, the elementary Soils school site has soil characteristics similar to the high school site. No site utilities exist on the site at present. Sanitary sewer and Site Utilities water exist east of the site and will need to be extended to the site. The storm water management masterplan for the area indicates the swale and wetlands at the east end of the site to be part of an overall storm water management system for the area. The school district may need to petition the City of Chanhassen for site utilities extensions, depending on the status of the proposed commercial/ industrial development on the site directly east. New Chanhassen Elementary School 37 Mechanical Systems A school is a structure that is intended to serve the community for General a minimum of fifty or sixty years. This applies to all components of the building including the mechanical systems. The systems described herein have been selected to satisfy the following considerations. • Quality components: The boilers, fans, pumps, unit heaters, radiation and temperature controls recommended are of a quality that will allow them to last for as long as the building. There will be no need to replace major components of the mechanical system after 15 or 20 years as is the case with low first cost equipment such as rooftop units. • Energy efficient: Systems selected will burn fuel with the lowest cost per BTU, namely, interruptible gas. Heating will be done primarily by perimeter hot water systems that will only require a circulating pump to operate. Fan systems,with large motors, will only need to operate during occupied periods, not during nights or weekends. • Maintenance conscious: Mechanical systems located in heated interior spaces are more accessible and will encourage good maintenance. This will extend the life of these components. Two hot water boilers, with either water tube or fire tube,will be Heating Systems provided.Base mounted pumps will be used to circulate hot water around the building to serve air handler coils,cabinet unit heaters, convectors and the facility perimeter heating system. Boiler water temperature will be reset from outdoor air temperature A source of heat will be provided along the perimeter of all the classrooms and administration rooms to offset cold drafts from exterior windows and walls. This perimeter heat source will be either finned tube radiation or radiant ceiling panels. This heat source will allow fan systems, using large motors, to remain off during unoccupied periods. It will also provide the most comfort- able environment available for learning. The option of an all air system will be considered depending upon the amount of glazing and its location. New Chanhassen Elementary School 39 Mechanical Systems Ventilation and Air Air handling units, with hot water heating coils and Direct Conditioning Expansion (DX) cooling coils, will be located in enclosed and heated mechanical equipment rooms. This will allow for better maintenance and servicing of equipment. It will also result in more energy efficient systems. Variable air volume (VAV) systems will be provided in class- rooms and administration areas for individual room control in most rooms. The gym will be served by a constant volume fan system to obtain the air change rate required by the code. All areas of the building will be air conditioned except the gymnasium, which will be air conditioned only if desired by the school district. Separate fan systems will be provided for the classrooms wing, gymnasium, cafeteria, and administration area. This allows the fan system serving the administration area only to operate inde- pendently of any of the other building fan systems. This is advantageous for summer operation which requires cooling. The classroom wing and administration area fan system will contain a DX cooling oil. A roof-mounted,air cooled condensing unit will be associated with these fan systems so each may operate independently of the other. Fire Protection The building will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Sewer and Water Systems A water main with a water pressure of 80 to 90 psi shall connect the new facility to the existing city water service in the area. This main will serve the domestic and fire needs of the building. Sanitary and storm sewers will also be extended to existing city services in the area and will serve the needs of the building. Roof drainage and run-off from paved and regarded field areas may be diverted to a retention area in the southeast corner of the site. 40 Program and Preliminary Concepts Electrical Systems The electrical systems for a school building are divided into four General basic categories: • Lighting • Life Safety • Power • Communications These systems are intended to support and compliment the educa- tional process. This goal is achieved only when the lighting promotes a comfortable visual environment; power utilization is efficient and available;responsive life safety systems are provided and effective communications systems are available. Design of these electrical systems will be tested to budget con- straints but to be fully cost effective,they must also meet standards of performance related to the following criteria: • Quality: Products recommended will be selected to give long term service and performance. • Energy Efficient: Equipment will be selected to provide effective return on first cost to save long term cost and energy. • Technology: Outdated technology and equipment with uncer- tain future availability will be avoided. Current technology with long term availability will be recommended. • Maintenance: Equipment which can be readily maintained and has a good maintenance record will be selected. Lighting performance standards established by the Illuminating Lighting Systems Engineering Society (IES) are the recommended standards for Standards lighting design.Light levels and performance criteria are defined in this standard. Lighting equipment will be selected to achieve these defined levels of quality and quantity light. There are many equipment options available for the design of Lighting Systems lighting. These include options for lamps, ballasts and lighting Lighting Design fixtures. The lighting design solutions for this project will be guided by the following factors: • Performance of equipment • Energy efficiency/maintenance • Color rendering properties • Current technology • Provide a warm visually comfortable educational environ- ment Nev. Chanhassen Elementary School 41 Electrical Systems Lighting Systems In general, lighting for interior spaces such as classrooms and Lighting Equipment offices will utilize recessed parabolic louvered fluorescent fix- tures with T-8 tri-phosphor lamps with high color rendering properties.Other interior spaces such as food service,corridor and toilets, will utilize fluorescent lamps and fixtures selected for space needs. Lamps will be a combination of T-8 and compact fluorescent installed in recessed downlights,cove lights and other selected fixtures. Gymnasium lighting will utilize metal halide lamps to provide good color and long life. Exterior lighting for security and safety will utilize high intensity discharge lamps such as metal halide or high pressure sodium selected for long life and energy efficiency.During the design phase of the project,lighting design options and technology will be reviewed with the architect and school district for preferences. Life Safety Systems Life safety requirements for egress lighting can satisfy code Egress Lighting requirements by employing one of two methods for emergency power. Either a central standby generator or battery backup to lighting is required for 1 1/2 hours. Where it is desirable to maintain heating systems in operation during a normal utility outage,a generator is recommended for the standby power source. Without this requirement, battery units contained within the lighting equipment can be a cost effective and lower first cost alternative to a standby generator. Battery units will require minimum maintenance and testing and can have a life expectancy of up to 10 years covered by a pro-rated warranty after a specified • period. A generator also requires maintenance testing but will provide 30 years of expected life under normal standby service and routine maintenance. Life Safety Systems Reliable long life exit lighting is achieved by the use of electrolu- Exit Lighting minescent lamps which is a new technology currently being used for exit lighting. These units operate at one watt which is a reduction of energy use from the previous two 20 watt lamps generally used.Long life of 70,000 hours,in addition to improved visibility, is provided by the exit lights proposed for this project. 42 Program and Preliminary Concepts Electrical Systems A fire alarm system should provide reliable detection and alarm Life Safety Systems for quick response to any detected smoke, combustion or fire. Fire Alarm There are many options available to satisfy the minimum code requirements for fire alarm. Current technology can provide reliable detection and specific identification of the device in the alarm for quick response.An addressable device fire alarm system with multiplex intelligent central fire alarm panel can provide this type of performance on a single twisted pair of wires. Installation of conduit and wire is reduced thus providing a low first cost installation with long term benefits for life safety. There are several options within this concept for fire alarm which will be explored more fully during the design period. The main electric service will be obtained as a secondary electric Power Systems service from the utility company via a pad mounted service Distribution transformer. Service will be at 277/480 volt 3-phase,4-wire with a secondary subsystem at 120/208 volt 3-phase, 4-wire. These service voltages will be used to power utilization equipment as follows: • 480 volt: large mechanical equipment such as HVAC fan motors, pumps, etc., and larger electric kitchen loads. • 277 volt: fluorescent and HID lighting. • 120-208 volt: panelboards for incandescent lighting, duplex receptacle outlets, portable and plug-in kitchen equipment. • 120 volt: duplex receptacles, computer outlets, etc. Dry type transformers and circuit breaker panelboards will be Transformers,Panelboards used to distribute power at the utilization voltage throughout the and Circuits building to electrical closets. Spare capacity,as required by code, will be available as a minimum for future growth. Transformers and branch circuits for computers will be designed for the non- linear harmonics generated by the computers. Transient surge protection for these circuits will also be considered with the owner. Power outlets and duplex receptacles will be located in the Flexibility building for general and specific use. Where open floor space is anticipated to require flexible layouts of desks, tables and equip- ment, a flexible in-floor distribution system will be provided. Floor raceways will be located at modules to facilitate services for power and communications. New Chanhassen F.lementary School 43 Electrical Systems Communication Systems A central wired clock and program system with central control of Master Clock and Program clock time provides the basis of audible signaling for the daily educational program.This time program will interface to provide the audible tone via the paging system Intercom and Paging System An automatic intercom telephone system which provides point- to-point private communications without operator intervention will facilitate building communications. All classrooms, office and occupied spaces are provided with an intercom telephone which can dial any other location. A paging system speaker at each location allows the intercommunication to be hands free via the speaker as determined by the caller code input. This speaker also is utilized as a selective or all call paging speaker as well as providing audible tone initiated by the clock and program system. Telephone System Basic telephone service is accommodated by the installation of empty raceways and outlets for an owner furnished PBX tele- phone system which is connected to the telephone utility service. As an option which increases the building construction cost,this PBX telephone system can be incorporated into the Intercom/ Paging system which will result in a single communication system which can be utilized internally and externally. Selective control of the external communication feature can be programmed to meet the requirements of the school. This option can be accomplished at about the same cost as a separate system with a highly improved and flexible communications system. Television Distribution A wired television distribution system connected to an antenna system or cable utility will be provided.TV outlets will be located in each educational space for connection of portable or permanent TV monitors to the available TV signals. Audio outlets will be provided to patch TV sound into the overhead speaker system in open or large educational spaces. Sound Systems A gymnasium, cafeteria and pool sound system will be provided for public address and other audio programs. Microphone and auxiliary outlets will be provided throughout the space connected to an in-wall mounted amplifier. Speaker zones will be arranged to selectively connect speakers to correspond with the room arrangement where needed. 44 Program and Prelhrr nary Concepts Interior Materials The interior materials used in the school should be durable and easily maintain- able,while contributing acoustic absorption,light reflectance and color neces- sary to create a warm and comfortable environment for education. The following are conceptual assumptions selected to balance the design goals with the project budget. Space Floor Ceiling Walls Classrooms Carpet Acoustic Tile Painted veneer plaster Special Education Carpet Acoustic Tile Painted veneer plaster IMC Carpet Acoustic Tile Painted veneer plaster Art Classroom Vinyl Acoustic Tile Epoxy painted veneer plaster or painted masonry Home Economics Vinyl Acoustic Tile Epoxy painted veneer plaster or painted masonry Technology Education Vinyl Acoustic Tile Epoxy painted veneer plaster or painted masonry Competitive Gymnasium Cushioned Absorptive Glazed or painted masonry Wood Decking with acoustic panels Instructional Gym Burnished and Acoustic Tile Glazed or painted masonry Sealed Concrete with acoustic panels Pool Quarry Tile Exposed Structure Painted strucuae/painted masonry Ceramic Tile Acoustic Panels acoustic panels Locker Rooms Quarry Tile Painted Veneer Glazed or painted masonry Plaster with acoustic panels Weight Room Carpet Acoustic Tile Glazed or painted masonry with acoustic panels Music Classroom Carpet Acoustic Tile Painted veneer plaster with acoustic panels Offices Carpet Acoustic Tile Painted veneer plaster Cafeteria Vinyl Acoustic Tile Glazed or painted masonry with acoustic panels Food Service Quarry Tile Washable Epoxy painted veneer Acoustic Tile plaster or masonry Primary Corridors/Locker Bays Carpet Acoustic Tile Glazed or burnished masonry or epoxy painted veneer plaster Toilet Rooms Ceramic Tile Painted Veneer Ceramic tile or epoxy Plaster painted veneer plaster Custodial Sealed Concrete Exposed Painted veneer plaster Structure New Chanhassen Elementary School 45 Exterior Materials Like the building interior,the exterior materials should be durable and low maintenance while projecting the welcoming, spirited image of a community school. Masonry cavity wall construction will likely be used for all or part of the buildings.This would include an exposed masonry veneer of brick or concrete with a cavity, insulation and a back-up structure of concrete block or structural steel studs. Other wall materials may be used as accents to the masonry,such asprefinished metal panels, or precast concrete. Flat roofs will use a ballasted, single-ply, Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer Membrane (EPDM)roofing system. Sloping roofs may incorporate prefinished metal standing seam roofs. Exterior doors and windows will be fixed thermally-broken aluminum frames with high efficiency insulating glass.Operating windows are generally not recommended due to the difficulties and energy inefficiencies associated with balancing the ventilat- ing and air conditioning systems if some windows are opened in an unpredictable or uncontrolled manner.If operable windows are needed in some locations for window washing access,they can be locked and opened only by the maintenance staff. The entire building envelope, including walls and roof, will be designed to meet or exceed the insulation requirements of the Minnesota Energy Code. The main entrances will be protected from winds where possible and will have vestibules to reduce heat loss. 46 Program and Preliminary Concepts ISD 112 Project Budget Construction(incl.4%contingency) S 6.926,400 Professional Fees 466.200 Furnishings and Equipment 799,200 ISD X1112 Costs 400,000 Site Acquisition/Off-Site Development 340,000 Total S 8,931,800 Chanhassen Project Budget Construction(incl.4%contingency&site development)) S 3,112,000 Option One Professional Fees 211,616 Furnishings and Equipment City of Chanhassen Costs Site Acquisition/Off-Site Development Total Chanhassen Project Budget Construction(incl.4%contingency&site development)) S 1,811,000 Option o Professional Fees 123,148 P Furnishings and Equipment City of Chanhassen Costs Site Acquisition/Off-Site Development Total '93 '94 '95 Project Schedule AMJJAISONDJF ?IAMJ J Schematic Design(2 Mos.) Design Development(3 Mos.) 1 ' Construction Documents (4 Mos.) Bid and Award(1 Mo.) ' Construction (14 Mos.) Occupancy (2 Mos. New Chanhassen Elementary School 47 CITY 4F 0‘911' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: August 11, 1993 SUBJ: New Chanhassen Elementary School - City Program Options As you are aware, the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned issue at a special commission meeting held on Tuesday, August 10, 1993. All Park and Recreation Commission members were in attendance. Also present were Ted Rozeboom and Bob Rothman of HGA, John Gockel, the district's construction manager, Councilperson Colleen Dockendorf and Assistant City Manager Todd Gerhardt. Chairperson Schroers asked that staff initiate the discussion by providing introductory comments. Following introductory statements which included a brief overview of"how we got here", Todd Gerhardt was called upon to discuss the funding mechanism (McGlynn Tax Increment District) which allows the city the opportunity to consider participating in this project. Mr. Gerhardt answered many questions of the commission. Vice-Chairperson Andrews inquired about the potential use of tax increment funds for the installation of the Bluff Creek/Hwy. 5 underpass and/or the south access boulevard. Commissioner Anders pointed out that both of these projects are also important to the city. Staff informed the commission that an ISTEA grant application for assistance with the Hwy. 5 corridor underpasses had been applied for. However, there certainly are no guarantees in this regard. Additionally, the fact that development taking place in this region of the city would pay for their portions of the access boulevard was also discussed. Upon the completion of this question/answer period, the microphone was turned over to Ted Rozeboom of HGA for a presentation and explanation of the two city program options (concepts) as developed in consultation with staff. Mr. Rozeboom presented option 1 which includes a field house with an elevated track as a point of reference for further discussion. The commission was aware that this option is not attainable. Discussion by the commission explored both the positive and negative impacts which could result if the city elected to move forward with this concept. Some detail design issues were discussed, however, the commission focused their discussion on the program in general. Mr. Gockel spoke on behalf of the district, expressing the district's willingness to Don Ashworth August 12, 1993 Page 2 participate in a combined school/city facility, a partnership which would be mutually beneficial, contingent upon a joint powers agreement being drafted. History has documented that a similar arrangement at Chanhassen Elementary School/City Center Park that has been very successful with the beneficiaries being the residents of the city, including members of both School Districts #112 and #276. The city has also maintained a very good relationship with School District #276 and their community education and services department form more than 20 years. As Mr. Rozeboom expressed, this type of combined use facility is no longer the exception, but more the rule nationwide. Upon completion of their discussion, the following motion was made: Vice-Chairperson Andrews moved, Chairperson Schroers seconded, to recommend the City Council proceed with the development of Option 2 as the preferred program for the school property. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION CITYOF i .1t4 C IIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 August 11, 1993 Mr. Bill McHale Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota 700 International Centre — 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. McHale: This letter is to inform you that the Target parking lot lights have not been located according to the approved landscaping/lighting plan. I have spoken with John Dietrich at RLK and Troy Corrigan at Ryan Construction and told them the lights have to be relocated to meet the plan approved by the city. One of the issues raised by Target during review by the city was the planting islands and the problem with snow removal. The parking lot lights (as approved with the site plan) were to be located in the landscaping planters. The location of the lights appears to cause even more impediment to snow removal and is inconsistent with the character and quality of the site plan that was approved. Target had requested that they be given a variance to allow parking lot lighting to be 1 foot candle at the property line. The City Council denied this request and stated that the lights must meet city ordinance and be 1/2 candle foot at the property line. I will check to ensure compliance with this requirement. Troy Corrigan informed me during our phone conversation that the lights were placed in order to get maximized light coverage with minimal poles. I informed him that the lights did not meet with the city approved plan and must be corrected. Failure to comply with the approved city plans may result in a delay of your certificate of occupancy. Your immediate attention is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 3 Kathryn R. Aanenson Senior Planner pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director John Dietrich, RLK Troy Corrigan, Ryan Construction Planning Commission City Council CITY OF 0‘1CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 August 2, 1993 James and Frances Borchart 7331 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Borchart: Thank you for your letter of July 26, 1993, in regard to the possibility of the city acquiring and developing a neighborhood park at the intersection of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. Your letter is being forwarded to the City Council. Additionally, however, it is my desire to clarify the Park and Recreation Commission's intentions for pursuing the acquisition of a park west of Lake Minnewashta. The city has identified the west Minnewashta neighborhood as park deficient since the inception of the City's Comprehensive Plan (please see attachments). This deficiency has received a great deal of attention over the years from city administrators as property has become increasingly scarce in this area of the city. The City Council also recognized this and approved a budget reserve to assist in the future acquisition of a park through a combined purchase/land dedication process (the dedication of parkland as a part of the platting process is routinely required). The desires of the Park and Recreation Commission in this pursuit are to create a neighborhood park/playground, to preserve open space, and to serve the recreational needs of those residents typically residing within one-half mile of the park. Neighborhood park amenities include: open space, neighborhood ballfields (the Park and Recreation Commission maintains a policy of not scheduling league activities in neighborhood parks), a soccer field, sand volleyball courts, play equipment, half-court basketball areas, and accommodations for vehicle parking. As depicted in the attached conceptual park plan, this site would also allow for swimming in Lake Minnewashta at a small beach separated from the main body of the park by Minnewashta Parkway. The City Council is deeply concerned about the safety of the city's residents. The installation of a trail along Minnewashta Parkway will provide for safer non-vehicular uses of the parkway corridor. The park location was selected in part because of its relationship to this new trail. The trail will cross from the east side of the parkway (coming from the south) to the west side of the parkway at Kings Road. This allows for two conditions to occur: 1) a crosswalk between the main body of the park and the beach can be constructed, 2) the park and trail will combine at this location allowing for convenient access to the park's amenities and the creation of an open- air atmosphere which will complement the parkway's current appeal. Furthermore, the park will Ars �01/ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. & Mrs. Borchart August 2, 1993 Page 2 provide a safe play environment for residents of the area and will satisfy three primary functions. First, parks meet positive human needs, both physically and psychologically; secondly, parks and open space areas enhance and protect physical resources such as the air, water, and soils; and lastly, parks and open space have a positive impact on economic development and real estate values. The alternative if this 10+ acre park is not acquired would be the eventual construction of 18+ single family homes. Averaging 8-10 vehicle trips per day, this would result in 144 to 180 additional vehicle trips per day on the parkway. The park would also generate vehicle trips; however, at lower rates throughout all seasons with a significant reduction in fall through spring. Again, thank you for your correspondence. If you have additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:k pc: City Council Park and Recreation Commission Planning Commission Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krauss, Planning Director t _1_ _ ,_ ,.. 1111 . , . .._ _ ,,1 .,`-`- Fr = r 3 _ . y/ i Imo' . :..5r0-7-_-. _ ,piiirL,..,1 4 irs iff,rip � � arses: _ . " ` isvAmi -6 A- _ 2.-.iir-, sk, 1 •_0 5 __, • . , .••., , , i .....r.4-1, ar. ..__Isc ,....; • C f. • / tom - ` �- ......-_`tee -�! 111 — _ �=- = art - 4,,---ki ellY--a. va A 4 -fix, ' r r i se, 1 ... --- I 4', et-- _ ,, - g, i jilr . – 17 OM _ igfriokri . .,,,,_ . -,E14 - 4.,4 I 4), _ _ _ ____ 7 .41,,:ii-„ ... .= _ i 114 Irjr,ip,r, .411111491:11 .,oar% 3- r, , I ___ ,,,,i,p).„0,.. ........,,,,,,_, I _____ _ . .. .'i i 11° illt ."4't f 411411t Nile I ,.,..1 _4, , .4, _i___,, . I t - iA '_� Arwf * 1 "Er roll City O . -,-)kir Chanhassen - — " Minnesota - I , , Park Deficiency Areas - - IP - 8 _ 11 Existing Parks and Service Areas ?'44\ - - - I: 2000 MUSA Line :Air _ 1 ~ I I ` 71 1 _ 1 (2/91) '°l adequately meet the recreation demand of residences in this area . Developments on the western end of Zone 4 are currently not served t1 by a neighborhood park and acquisition of such is recommended . J ZONE 5 1 The vast majority of land within Zone 5 is held in public or semi -public ownership such as the holdings of Camp Tanadoona, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Additionally, the area is not likely to receive sanitary sewer service until after 2000. Because of these factors , no additional 1 major municipal recreational development is recommended within the next ten years . Prior to that time, however, Zone 5 may contain trails as a part of the City' s overall trail network. ZONE 6 Residential areas within Zone 6 are effectively cut off from existing parks by major roadways on the north and south , Lake Minnewashta on the east and by the Chanhassen city limits to the west . At the present time, there are no existing public park facilities of any type within the southern portion of this area . 11 In reviewing the needs of Zone 6, the most significant deficiency is the lack of neighborhood park facilities . Tennis courts , ball diamonds , open areas and picnic grounds are non-existent . Therefore, future acquisitions should accommodate such activities . A potential future park site is the area around Lake St. Joe. As future residential infill occurs , the City should be prepared through dedication and/or purchase, to acquire an appropriate parcel of land . Prior to that time, efforts should be focused on implementing the Chanhassen Trail plan in order to provide Zone 6 residents with safe, convenient access to existing park facilities . -1 ZONE 7. Chanhassen ' s 2000 Land Use Plan calls for Zone 7 to be developed in a mix of residential and office/industrial uses . As future development occurs in this area, neighborhood park property will need to be acquired. Development proposals in this area should accommodate the trail corridors identified in the Trail Plan . 73 i � , / I _ I . , 1 1 b _ \ .. 0 - \ \?i, 1 \ , / � 3 \ l� / 1 / 7 z ) fir.Jo • J \ L III bo _3 i lir ) 1 •;/-ji ._:- "IIIIMIMMEME006.11.17 \ 1 , (vcoosOk _il t - r , ' ) '.-. ./. e ...4 4 i f4 ( 'r • — I ,. .. ) o if A 3 ' „ / C ,*' \ '''1 / • _ 1i C .-7:1-=, , ; i0 p 3 ,:� I 1 4 ig --= t { 1 _. i f r --,r.- : kifil 1 \ . 1!f . - .,i, • r .-;... f!. • ' 'nnewa . __I , s A h rK CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 22, 1993 Ms. Cindy Evert 96 Shasta Circle East Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Evert: This letter is to confirm that Market Square will be permitted to have a sidewalk sale on Saturday. August 14, 1993, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This sidewalk sale is approved on the condition that no outdoor sales will be permitted beyond the above mentioned date and time. The city is permitting the sidewalk sale since it is coinciding with the Chanhassen Art Fair and will be part of the special event. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager City Council Planning Commission to' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER