Loading...
06-1-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE WEDNESDAY,JUNE 1, 1994, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DI 5:30-6:30 p.m. Vision 2002 Update, Fred Hoisington 6:30-7:30 p.m. Work session - sign ordinance CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Review for a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, Marcus Corporation. 2. Arnold and Ann Weimerskirch for a Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF; Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot; Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of a wetland; and vacation of right-of-way located on Minnewashta Avenue. The property is located south of Sandpiper Lane and West of Piper Ridge Lane,Neumann Subdivision. 3. Patrick Minger for the rezoning of 8.46 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF,Residential Single Family and preliminary plat into 17 single family lots and one outlot located at 8221 Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood Estates. 4. *Item Deleted. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Request for a Planned Unit Development for property zoned RSF to PUD (46.56 acres),preliminary plat for 74 lots of mixed high density (186 dwelling units), 15 single family lots and an outlot which will contain future neighborhood commercial use(s), site plan review for mixed high density dwelling units and vacation of a portion of 86th Street. The property is located east of Hwy. 101 at 86th Street, Mission Hills,Tandem Properties. 6. City Code Section 18-57, Streets, by amending sections (n) and (o), to include standards for private streets serving R4, R8, R12, R16 and non-residential uses. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Item Deleted 4. Harstad Companies to subdivide 35.83 acres of property into 38 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway, The Oaks at Minnewashta. opt‘ CITY OF It4 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, Planning Director DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Attached please find the revised sign ordinance draft. Staff has made changes as requested by the commission. This is not on your agenda tonight but staff wanted to give you extra time to review the document before our work session on June 1. At this June 1 meeting, staff has prepared a slide presentation of window signs as well as slides representing each of the different types of signs in the ordinance. Please review and keep this document for our June 1 meeting. Y i'i J k•; 40 J /0/LI SIGNS ARTICLE XXVI. DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS. A. Purpose The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: (1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise; (2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; (3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. (4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; (5) preserve and protect property values; (6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with the principal structures; (7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. B. Findings The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction, location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds: 1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the image of t .e community; 2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community; 3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions must be established; 4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property Is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention of drivers; 5. installation rf signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service; 6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and growth; 7. uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information. Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees. Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and variance requests shall be imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution. 2 inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be approved by the City Council. c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the site from public right-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council. (3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, national, state or local holiday or event and no other matter, and which are displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year. (4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign display area of the sign. (5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and does not include multi-tenant names. (6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in sign area. (7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational signs erected by a governmental entity or agency,including safety signs(O.S.H.A.),directional signs to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. . (8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two (2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet. Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city 5 shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph. The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign removed by the city. (9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling - or promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted subiec' to the following regulations: a. Not more than two (2) such signs shall be allowed per project. b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access to the project site. c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any property line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. d. No such sign shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from an existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a part of the project being so advertised. e. Such signs shall not be located closer than 4e one hundred (2 100) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is one hundred (100) percent completed. In no case shall such signs be permitted to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the percentage of project completion shall be determined by dividing the number of dwelling units sold in the residential project by the total number of units allowed in the approved development plan; and by dividing the number of buildings constructed in non-residential projects by the total number of building sites in the approved development plan. (10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate subject to the following conditions: _ a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which the sign is located. 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage. 6 2. Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet per sign on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty- two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten (10) or more acres. 3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be located less than ten (10) feet from any property line. 4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following sale, lease, or rental of the property. b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of business and industrial buildings: 1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building. 2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or development as the building being advertised. 3. Such signs shall not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from any other such sign located on the same side of the street. 4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. 5. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising, or within twelve (12) months from the date a permit is issued, whichever comes first. 6. Provide written permission of property owner. c. Off-premises directional signs which show direction to new residential developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development, to familiarize the public with the new development. 1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1) sign per development shall be permitted. Signs shall not be located in any 7 site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. 3. Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet and the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet. 4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground. 5. Provide written permission of property owner to locate directional sign on their property. 6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free materials and be non-illuminated. 7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) months after the sign has been erected and developer may not apply for a second off-premises directional sign permit 8. Sign copy shall include the name of the subdivision and a direction arrow only. Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc. Temporary signs are permitted as follows: 1. Banners shall not exceed 100 square feet and portable signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and shall meet the following standards: a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a business may display a banner on three occasions per calendar year with a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. Businesses within a shopping center shall be limited one display per center and not one display per business. b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non- commercial message; and 8 c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased by the business which the sign is advertising. Non-profit and governmental event banners are excluded from this provision. d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of- way. e. sign permit issued by city. 2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following: a. for each site or center, two occasions per calendar year,with each occasion not to exceed seven (7) days; b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be submitted with the sign permit application. c. sign permit issued by city. d. maximum height of the inflatable shall be 25 feet. e. if located on the roof of a structure, the height of the inflatable and the building shall not exceed the building height permitted in the zoning district. 3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted. 4. The use of searchlights shall be limited to two days per permit period. The use of searchlichts shall be controlled in such a way so as not to become a nuisance. Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action. If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of construction; or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following receipt of said notice: (1) Such signs shall be deemed to be nuisance and may be abated by the city in proceeding taken under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, and the cost of 9 abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;or (2) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited: (1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or permanent basis. (2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231 through 20-237). (3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance. (4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimneys, and provided: a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the building over which they are constructed and erected. b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof. (5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company symbols. (6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256. (7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public right-of-way. • 10 Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs. When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. Excluding normal maintenance and repair, a non-conforming sign shall not be moved, altered (including face changes) or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign regulations. Within 45 calendar days after vacation of an existing business, any on-site nonconforming signs must be removed or brought into compliance by the property owner. An abandoned sign may not regain any legal nonconforming status later, even if the original business reoccupies the property. Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions. (a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half(1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line. (b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard property lines. (c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public street, right-of-way or public easement, or project over public property. (d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. (e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. 11 (g) Window signs ere-pam shall not cover more than 33 percent of the total window area in which they are located. Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair. Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands immediately upon notification by the city. Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc. All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and, to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Signage shall use individual, channelized letters, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building. Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech. Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that business signs are permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards. (a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that if the faces are not back to back,then they shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. .pri„ (b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed, and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet. The exposed uprights, 12 superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color such as light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design of the sign. liRcr172I CC" f r,r 5.1 KA CZ; 't►i '� (c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be underground. (d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official. Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance. (e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a sign or groups of signs shall not exceed 1 foot candle in brightness as measured at the property line. Sec. 20.1277. Cemetery signage. Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use permit in all districts. DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts. The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and residential PUD districts: (1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 13 (2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet nor be more than five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification\entrance sign. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business and Office & Institutional Districts. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI or BN Districts: 1. Multi Tenant Building 1. (a) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 2. (b) Wall business signs. One-(1) Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. Wall business signs shall not be mounted upon the wall of any building which faces any adjoining residential district without an intervening public street. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 14 3. (c) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include tenant identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or any combination of the three. 2. Freestanding Tenant or instituenal sign not egg qty four (24) square feet of sign (b) Wall business sem. One{-4) wall business sign shall be -permitted -per intervening public street. Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, CBD or BF District: The following table lists the standards for freestanding and monument signs in the BH, BG, CBD, or BF zone. PYLON MONUMENT Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.) 50,000 sq. ft. 20 80 10 80 or Greater then-1-0(400 Less than 4.8-15 64 44 8 64 50,000 sq. ft. 4.00,000 10,000 — --8 50,000 15 --�-5 36 8 —24 10,000 1. Pylon business sign. Pylon Signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted.itted. This sign may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal structure as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. One (1}Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: 4. Menu Board. One menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive- through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than 8 feet in height. Such sign is permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in the Zoning District. Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square �I of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 16 Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District: 1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line. 3. Wall business signs. One (1)Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table: Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square of Wall Footage of Sign 15% 0-600 90 13% 601-1,200 156 11% 1,201-1,800 198 9% 1,801-2,400 216 7% 2,401-3,200 224 5% 3,201-4,500 230 3% 4,500 + 240 17 • Secs. 20-1306.20-1350. Reserved. Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product, service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, pictures, illumination or projected images. Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover that projects from the wall of a building, and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed against the face of the supporting building. Awning may extend in any required yard setback a maximum of five (5) feet. (2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations) Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency, affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners. Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises where the sign is located. Sign, Business Directory means a sign which ( 1= — identifies the names of specific businesses L 11= located r— located in a shopping center, medical center ► 11 • I and professional office and which is located on ( t MM— the premises of the shopping center so identified. uQall�j�,1UL11�f11�''t 18 Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election. Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a projection or extension of a building or structure of a building, erected in such as manner as to provide a shelter or cover over the approach to I any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. plastic, or structural protective cover over a door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area. Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign. Sign, Construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or project. Sign, Development Identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identifies a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the premises of the development which it identifies. ' T EAST IDE ance_- Sign, Directional means a sign erected on - 4Ma"E"° • private property for the purpose of directing edestrian or vehicular traffic onto or about the property upon which such _= Pa,k;,q sign is located, including signs marking entrances and exits, circulation direction, —M parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas. Sign, Display Area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits 5HGgW_E� or the actual sign message surface, including any structural elements outside the limits of each sign - forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a ,;,..y; single facing. Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or k -- r '. . : banner constructed of cloth, canvas or light fabric, that is hung from a light pole. The flag/banner shall contain no 19 advertising except for cultural events, special holidays/seasons, etc. Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the state or national flag. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are subject to removal upon complaint. Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever. Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon,means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight (8) feet or more above the ground elevation. Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation. Sign, Ground low profile business means a 1 Thf Mkt business sign affixed directly to the ground, with the sign display area standing not greater than two (2) feet above the ground. Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday. Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign. Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or in the sign or directed towards the sign. Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc. Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution of the site where the sign is located. Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as to be an integral portion of the building of which it forms a part. Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign 20 erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a normal roof • • structure of any design, such that no part --- — ,� of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and such that Li i - no part of the sign is separated from the I I rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building. Sign, Menu Board means a sign that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food restaurant. Sign, Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation. Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of the occupant of the building or premises. Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance. Sign, Off-Premise, an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or services not related to the premises on which it is located. Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located. Sign, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations. Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival, bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show. Sign, Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building. 21 Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the premises, on which the sign is located. Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or which is wholly ,;1111 dependent upon a building for support and t !' which projects above the roof line of a � ; building with a flat roof, the eave line ; ; ':!? of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip i ' roof or the deck line of a building with a • 11, mansard roof. Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or intended to be displayed for a short period of time. This includes items such as banners, pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or balloons or other air or gas filled figures. Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel t e re aeogv bana .73 to the face of the wall, and which r ' I does not project more than twelve (12) inches from such building or structure. Wall signs shall not include product io advertising. Wall signs shall include - SIGN �-- L"." - tenant identification, tenant logo, center t= j - (� � , m m name, or any combination of the three. Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or service, , that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from l� the exterior of the window. t.n'/tssg ore X112494 • 5/10/94 22 CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 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 II DATE: May 26, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition; a Site Plan for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kinder Care facility; and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park; located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, Marcus Corporation The Planning Commission reviewed this application for the third time on May 4, 1994. Due to changes made at the last minute on the Kinder Care site, they recommended tabling the Kinder Care application and approving the Press request. The Planning Commission also requested written comments from staff on the Kinder Care access changes. An independent professional study has been conducted by Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch, Inc., the City's traffic engineer consultants, to evaluate the ingress and egress to the Kinder Care site off of Dell Road. circulation. The results of the study is enclosed as attachment#1. As has been done in the past with other applications that have required the City to seek outside consultants, the applicants are responsible for charges associated with these studies. Consequently, the applicant shall be responsible for all traffic consultant fees associated with this application. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION = Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions: The Press/Kinder Care May 26, 1994 Page 2 _ 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on The Press site. Plans must be _ submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The _ monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate — of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing to break the long wall — masses. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall _ be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. _ 9. The applicant shall apply for and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). _ 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. — 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kinder Care site off of Dell Road. — 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. — The Press/Kinder Care May 26, 1994 Page 3 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall rie responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The traffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the revised plan prepared by Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF." II. PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on the plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1. The Press/Kinder Care May 26, 1994 Page 4 _ b. Dedication of public right-of-way. c. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement _ acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed — district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt — fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the — following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. — 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." Attachments 1. Traffic study prepared by SRF, dated May 24, 1994. 2. Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated April 13, 1994. 3. Photocopies of photographs showing an existing Kinder Care facility. _ 4. Site Plan. - .: - - - is-. ri ..:. r. C:_ -: _-_= r .. K.;./;,<_,—;..........„.,.,,E f STRGAR-ROSCOE -FAUSCH, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS—1i PLANNERS TRANSPORTATION ■ QVIL ■ STRUCTURAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL • PARTYING SRF No. 0942058 MEMORANDUM TO: David C_ Hemple Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen FROM. Dennis R. Eyler, P.E. Principal Jeffrey R. Bednar Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist DATE: May 24, 1994 = SUBJECT: KINDERCARE SITE ACCESS REVIEW T.H. 5 & DELL ROAD L.U.R. FILE NO. 94-7 As you requested, we have completed a cursory review of the subject site – access and circulation issues. Based on this review, we offer the following comments and recommendations for your consideration: 1. The tight turning radiuses and turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire/rescue vehicles. 2. Any type of access shared with the adjacent "Press" property will result in a potential for short-cut use of the Kindercare parking facility. Attached is a conceptual sketch of an alternative site parking layout which may discourage this short-cut traffic. 3. Due to the median restricted Dell Road access it can be expected that many site generated trips will include a U-turn either at 77th Street or – Highway 5. This could represent a potential traffic accident occurrence factor. Most drivers will at least initially attempt these U-turns instead of using the alternative "Press" private property access option. Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 : .:.t: I4 U. C+iL z C� :• -- i _ David C. Hemple -2 - May 24, 1994 4. A right-turn exit only from the site to southbound Dell Road would resolve this U-turn issue at 77th Street. But there may continue to be a significant U-turn volume at the Highway 5 intersection which would also involve a short weaving maneuver. 5. Based on the 1991 I.T.E. "Trip Generation" report this daycare center site could generate an average of 84 inbound and 72 outbound during the a.m. peak hour period and 74 inbound and 86 outbound trips during the afternoon peak hour period. The average daily trips generated are estimated at close to 80O trip ends. 6. Many to most of these site generated trips are not new trips on the adjacent roadways. Rather they can be characterized as pass-by trips which would already be using these roadways 7. On-site pedestrian safety has also been addressed by the attached alternative site parking layout. The one-way operation reduces the pedestrian crossing conflicts and the narrower aisles reduce the distance required to cross. Should you have any questions or comments concerning this review please contact us. JRB:bba Attachment 1.•-.- — •_— _ _ '- .'�.. FA:`: It F.. 4__ :_ F. __ 1 • t1:1Y- ,-;.STA 14;M; FROM t:.V L::Ic:rc:S. .;.T c. .. . TO : ..5-7r q F.Ei2 1 f-,.ix . �,....., �........,.. ,.y ...;,.,.,.....,....,...... J y y ..........t • i - PROPOSED a. t KINDER CARE .. ..�.....:>...-.----. , 10,31 5 S F lir t5!IS '''""*."-i)il ...aufliv‘rii.........fr-46".'"21.....a _r••w.rJ.� ` Y •-)v`M MNµ �TMMM .....w. µ T i . • • C 4 . I 7 g •MOM I 17 ! [. ; ' < . in . .4 r 4,:ii, , : .: : - i , , , 0 1 . 0.,...„., : iyi . ; i›.4i a: P ........M.i.W.•.,.. .w int` I . 0 .......3 B � I . ' i , •.. • i 0 tik4; ,s • ... ...o 'SER , • e: 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: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: April 13, 1994 SUBJ: Site Plan Review and Subdivision application for the purpose of constructing a Warehouse addition to The Press Building and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Day Care Center (Kindercare), Located North of Hwy. 5, West of Dell Road, East of 187th Avenue West, and South of 77th Street West. Marcus Corporation On April 6, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the following application: 1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press Building, and construction of a Kinder Care Day Care Center, 10,315 Square Feet 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an IOP District The Planning Commission had some concerns regarding the application and voted to table action until these concerns have been addressed by the applicant. The applicant has submitted revised plans reflecting changes requested by the Planning Commission. The following section will address all the issues that were raised at the April 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting: ISSUE: The Press plans reflected 314 parking spaces. Under the Zoning Ordinance requirements, only 245 spaces are needed. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce the number of parking stalls. FINDING: The applicant wanted to provide the additional parking to accommodate the new employees that will be employed in the new addition. There will be a total of 327 employees, working in three shifts. The first shift will have 200 employees, the second will have 98 employees, and the third shift 30 employees. Between the first and second shift, there is an overlap of 298 employees present at the building, while the change of shift is taking place. This could potentially require Planning Commission April 13, 1994 Page 2 298 parking spaces. The original plans reflected 314 parking spaces. The applicant eliminated 16 parking spaces to achieve the 298 spaces. ISSUE: The Zoning Ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage. The applicant stated at the April 6, 1994, Planning Commission meeting that the hard surface coverage for the Press will be 77%. This number includes the proposed addition and new parking. The Planning Commission wanted to see this number reduced to meet ordinance requirements. FINDING: The existing hard surface coverage for the Press property is 79%. The applicant is improving the situation by reducing the coverage to 76.8%. The zoning ordinance states that a nonconforming use or structure may be expanded provided that the nonconformity may not be increased. The applicant is not increasing the nonconformity and is in compliance with the ordinance. ISSUE: The Press addition elevations lacked in architectural detailing. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to incorporate some elements from the existing Press building, such as windows and landscaping. FINDING: The applicant has revised the landscaping plan to show a variety of trees and a 4 foot high berm to break the massing of the wall. Staff is recommending some architectural detailing be added to break the long spans of the walls. ISSUE: The link between The Press and Kindercare will encourage The Press employees to use the Kindercare parking lot as a short cut to get to Dell Road. FINDING: The applicant suggested that this issue can be addressed by The Press management by asking all employees not to use the Kindercare parking lot as a short cut. Staff is recommending the applicant use speed bumps or landscaping islands that would require cars to slow down and maneuver around those islands prior to entering the Kindercare parking area. The applicant has stated that if the short cut through the Kindercare becomes a problem, they would be willing to provide speed bumps or a landscaped island. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested the definition of EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finished System) or stucco over insulation. Also requested was samples of the materials proposed to be used on the buildings. FINDING: The applicant has supplied staff with photographs showing some existing Kindercare buildings. These photos reflect two types of brick on the facade of the building. It also reflect a high quality material. The applicant stated that the proposed Kindercare building will be similar to that shown in the photograph. Planning Commission April 13, 1994 Page 3 — The photographs also show a black chain link fence. Staff is recommending a similar material be used on this site. — ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested sign plans be submitted for review. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a sign plan. One free standing sign is proposed on the southeast corner of the site. This sign is proposed to be 5 feet in height, and have an area of 27 square feet. The sign is elevated on two poles. Staff is — recommending the two metal poles be replaced with brick to match the proposed building. The applicant is also showing one wall mounted sign. The area of the sign is 12 square feet which is below the maximum requirements of the sign — ordinance. ISSUE: Setback issues were raised by staff and compliance with the requirements of the — highway 5 corridor study. FINDING: At the time of writing the staff report dated April 6, 1994, staff assumed that the — entire Highway 5 corridor would have to meet the new setbacks required by the study. This setback is 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum for any structure to be located adjacent to highway 5. Staff later discovered that only the — underlying district standards apply to this site. Therefore, the Kindercare building does not have to be moved any closer to the south. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested pedestrian access between The Press and Kindercare. FINDING: The applicant has provided a sidewalk to link the two sites. ISSUE: The plans showed wood being used as the material to screen the trash enclosure for the Kindercare building. FINDING: The applicant has revised the plan and changed trash enclosure from wood to brick to match materials on the proposed building. Staff is still recommending approval of the site plan, subdivision, and conditional use permit with appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission April 13, 1994 Page 4 I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on The Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing to break the long wall masses. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. Planning Commission April 13, 1994 Page 5 _ 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West — of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All — boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. — 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. — 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. — II. PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: _ 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the _ common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1. b. Dedication of public right-of-way. — Planning Commission April 13, 1994 Page 6 c. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." Attachments 1. Staff report dated April 6, 1994. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1994. 3. Photocopies of photographs showing an existing Kinder Care facility. 4. Revised plans received April 13, 1994. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharrnin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: April 26, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition, a Site Plan for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kinder Care facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, Marcus Corporation On April 20, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the following application for the second time: 1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press Building, and construction of a Kinder Care Day Care Center, 10,315 Square Feet 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an IOP District The first time this application appeared before the Planning Commission was on April 6, 1994. The Planning Commission had some concerns regarding the application and voted to table action until these concerns have been addressed by the applicant. The applicant submitted revised plans reflecting changes requested by the Planning Commission. The following section addresses all the issues that were raised at the April 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting: ISSUE: The Press plans reflected 314 parking spaces. Under the Zoning Ordinance requirements, only 245 spaces are needed. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce the number of parking stalls. FINDING: The applicant wanted to provide the additional parking to accommodate the new employees that will be employed in the new addition. There will be a total of 327 employees working in three shifts. The first shift will have 200 employees, the second will have 98 employees, and the third shift 30 employees. Between Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 2 the first and second shift, there is an overlap of 298 employees present at the building while the change of shift is taking place. This could potentially require 298 parking spaces. The original plans reflected 314 parking spaces. The applicant eliminated 16 parking spaces to achieve the 298 spaces. ISSUE: The Zoning Ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage. The applicant stated at the April 6, 1994, Planning Commission meeting that the hard surface coverage for the Press will be 77%. This number includes the proposed addition and new parking. The Planning Commission wanted to see this number reduced to meet ordinance requirements. FINDING: The existing hard surface coverage for the Press property is 79%. The applicant is improving the situation by reducing the coverage to 76.8%. The zoning ordinance states that a nonconforming use or structure may be expanded provided that the nonconformity may not be increased. The applicant is not increasing the nonconformity and is in compliance with the ordinance. _ ISSUE: The Press addition elevations lacked in architectural detailing. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to incorporate some elements from the existing Press building, such as windows and landscaping. FINDING: The applicant has revised the landscaping plan to show a variety of trees and a 4 foot high berm to break the massing of the wall. Staff is recommending some architectural detailing be added to break the long spans of the walls. ISSUE: The link between The Press and Kinder Care will encourage The Press employees to use the Kinder Care parking lot as a short cut to get to Dell Road. FINDING: The applicant suggested that this issue can be addressed by The Press management by asking all employees not to use the Kinder Care parking lot as a short cut. Staff is recommending the applicant use speed bumps or landscaping islands that would require cars to slow down and maneuver around those islands prior to entering the Kinder Care parking area. The applicant has stated that if the short cut through the Kinder Care becomes a problem, they would be willing to provide speed bumps or a landscaped island. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested the definition of EFS (Exterior Insulation Finished System) or stucco over insulation. Also requested was samples of the materials proposed to be used on the buildings. FINDING: The applicant has supplied staff with photographs showing some existing Kinder Care buildings. These photos reflect two types of brick on the facade of the Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 3 building. It also reflects a high quality material. The applicant stated that the proposed Kinder Care building will be similar to that shown in the photograph. The photographs also show a black chain link fence. Staff is recommending a similar material be used on this site. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested sign plans be submitted for review. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a sign plan. One free standing sign is proposed on the southeast corner of the site. This sign is proposed to be 5 feet in height, and have an area of 27 square feet. The sign is elevated on two poles. Staff is recommending the two metal poles be replaced with brick to match the proposed building. The applicant is also showing one wall mounted sign. The area of the sign is 12 square feet which is below the maximum requirements of the sign ordinance. ISSUE: Setback issues were raised by staff and compliance with the requirements of the Highway 5 corridor study. FINDING: At the time of writing the staff report dated April 6, 1994, staff assumed that the entire Highway 5 corridor would have to meet the new setbacks required by the study. This setback is 70 feet minimum and 150 feet maximum for any structure to be located adjacent to Highway 5. Staff later discovered that only the underlying district standards apply to this site. Therefore, the Kinder Care - building does not have to be moved any closer to the south. ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested pedestrian access between The Press and Kinder Care . FINDING: The applicant has provided a sidewalk to link the two sites. ISSUE: The plans showed wood being used as the material to screen the trash enclosure for the Kinder Care building. FINDING: The applicant has revised the plan and changed the trash enclosure from wood to brick to match materials on the proposed building. At the April 20, 1994 meeting, additional issues were raised which included the following: • Landscaping along the southeast corner of the Kinder Care site: This corner is an entry way into Chanhassen. The Highway 5 Corridor study recommended the city consider some type of gateway treatment at Dell Road and Highway 5. A formal gateway Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 4 treatment has not been developed for this area. The preliminary thought is for the possibility of clustering trees. • The side walk that links the Press with the Kinder Care site is not wheelchair accessible. The Planning Commission recommended that this sidewalk be adjusted to provide this accessibility. • Architectural detailing has not been shown on the Press addition. Such should be shown on the plans. The detailing should complement the existing Press architecture. • The Planning Commission questioned the number of parking spaces at the Kinder Care site. The building can accommodate 200 children. The ordinance requires 1 space per — 6 children, which will result in 33 spaces required. The applicant is providing 45 spaces, which exceeds the ordinance requirements by 12 spaces. The Planning Commission wanted the number of spaces reduced to increase the green space area on the Kinder Care — site, specifically along Highway 5. The site has 59% hard surface coverage which is below the 70% required by ordinance. — • The Planning Commission wanted to see the parking lot for the Kinder Care site shifted to the north to move it further from Hwy 5. There are high voltage electric lines along the south edge of the site. The applicant stated that there are federal regulations prohibiting day care buildings and playground areas from being located close to power lines. • The Planning Commission recommended the hard surface coverage of the Press site be adjusted to meet the required 70% by adding proposed Lot 3 to the area of the Press site. Based on the forgoing, the Planning Commission recommended tabling the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approval for the Kinder Care facility and recommended approval of the Press expansion with the following conditions: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on The Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 5 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's — drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 6 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kinder Care taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kinder Care . 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the subdivision request with the condition that the applicant replats the parcels shown as proposed Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A in addition to staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission acted as follow: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 7 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. The applicant requested that the City Council consider the Kinder Care application even though it was tabled by the Planning Commission. On April 25, 1994, the City Council had a discussion on this item. They agreed unanimously that this application should go back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. They also requested the Press and Kinder Care applications be treated as one. The Planning Commission has 60 days to render a recommendation to the City Council by June 1, 1994. Planning Commissioner Mancino requested a copy of the federal regulations prohibiting day care facilities to be located within a specific distance of high power electric lines. Staff contacted loan officers as well as the City Attorney in search of the regulations, however, we have been unsuccessful in locating these regulations. The plans have not changed since they last appeared before the Planning Commission. The applicant is still requesting approval of the Kinder Care site plan, conditional use permit and subdivision request as submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on The Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kinder Care site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 8 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing with relief to break the long wall masses. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kinder Care site off of Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 9 15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kinder Care site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kinder Care site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kinder Care facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kinder Care taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kinder Care . 21. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 22. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. II. PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on the plat received April 13, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1. b. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. Planning Commission April 26, 1994 Page 10 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access off of 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the — following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." Attachments 1. Letter from the applicant dated April 21, 1994. 2. Letter from City Attorney dated April 21, 1994. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated April 20, 1994. 4. Staff report dated April 6, 1994. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1994. 6. Photocopies of photographs showing an existing Kinder Care facility. 7. Revised plans received April 13, 1994. Rut 922 Mainstreet1 Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612) 933-0972 _ ASSOCIATES LTD. fax:(612) 933-1153 ( 7 . - April 21, 1994 Manager's Comments: As can be seen below, the applicant is requesting City Council review even though the Planning Commission tabled the Kindercare part of the project. Given Kathryn R. Aanenson this unusual procedural request, I have Director of Planning asked the City Attorney for an opinion (see City of Chanhassen attached) . 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 DWA (4-21-94) Chanhassen. MN 55317 RE: The Press/Kindercare Project Dear Ms. Aanenson, The applicant is hereby requesting that the Cit Council consider in conjunction with the Press expansion (passed onto it with a positive recommendation from the planning commission)an appeal of the kindercare clement of the project (which has been tabled twice by the planning commission). The projects are inseparable through their interrelationships both physically and economically. Additionally, if the kindercare cannot proceed at this time, it delays the kindercare project over a year which could also jeopardize the Press expansion. The applicant and the planning commission have reached an impasse in that the remaining issues of the planning commission, relating to kindercare, are not solvable. Given the dramatic need for additional daycare at this time in Chanhassen, we implore the Council to consider our appeal so as to fulfill part of that need this year. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. • Yours truly. RLK Associates, Ltd. (pvi. Ait,t4iA John Dietrich cc: John Pinmorc, Kinder-care .Civil Engineering .Transportation .Infrastructure Redevelopment .Landscape Architecture •Construction Management CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .R Apr 21 ,94 16 : 10 No . 012 P . 01 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT- & FLIC;HS, P.A. �tntrttrys ill law (1,.'6,.,,1 C;111,1,1),11 (6 12)4i2-5(`L1; R,;!rt N. F.n,u ,n Fax (c 12)45' 555, 1 h„11,.1,.1. ti.,,tI ( ;:try(;. Fu.1,• lanir.R.W''.,lu,,n AmIr.•.t M,1)m\L11 I't><'hI,'t April 21, 1994 BY FAX TRANSMISSION Mr. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: The gess/Kindercare Project Dear Don: You asked me if the City Council could take action on conditional use permits for The Press/Kindercare Project. The Planning Commission tabled action on the Kindercare part of the project and recommended approval of The Press part of the project. Section 20-231 of the City Code provides that the procedure for adopting amendments to the zoning ordinance apply to the issuance of conditional use permits. Section 20-44 of the City Code provides: Following conclusion of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, the Commission shall report its findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment to this chapter, including the zoning map to the Council. lino report of recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commission within sixty (60)days following referral of the amendment to the Commission, the Council may take action on the amendment without awaiting such recommendation. The City Council therefore cannot take a conditional use permit application away from the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission acts on it, unless the Planning Commission has held the application for at least sixty (60) days. At first blush therefore the City Council would be ignoring the City Code provision if it acts on Kindercare. The troubling aspect is that the Planning Commission divided a project in two. No such piecemeal approach is authorized by the City Code. An argument could be made that since there is no authority to piecemeal a project since part of it has been sent on to the City Council the Council can act on all of it. My conclusion, however, is that the Planning S(010 317 • FitgAntiAlc Clificc Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 V..Hill 1-,LLL / I\IYV IJUIY / JLLII I P rvLnQ , r .f'l f•lrl .J. J4 1V . 11 IIV .V14. I .VG r Mr. Don Ashworth April 21, 1994 — Page 2 Commission has rightly or wrongly not taken action on Kindercare and the Council would violate City Code Section 20-44 if it acts at this time. ( _ Vcr 1 yours, AMPS KNUTSON, SCOTT - S, P.A. ii •ger N. Knutson _ RNK:srn CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMIINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54,720 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Public Present: Name Address Douglas A. Chestnut 1 Gardner Lane, Dellwood, MN 55110 John Finnemore 800 Roosevelt Rd #13410, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Curve John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet Sharmin Al-Jaff presented part of the staff report on this item. Mancino: Is that true with, as I remember. Well first of all, I'd love to get a copy of it because I don't have it. And I obviously went back and referred to the draft that I have. Aanenson: Right. We have the codified one that you recommended up to the City Council... Mancino: But it is also the major gateway on the east side into our city and it is also an area where thc- University said there should be plantings. Gateway plantings in this area on Dell Road and this was also in the draft on Figure 6-1. They have encircled that corner and said, create significant landscape element to obtain eastern gateway district. So have we done that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Is that part of this development and has there been some thinking and some creativity on how that will become part of a gateway? That corner? Al-Jaff: They have provided a berm. They have provided a mixture of plantings along the corner so it would be all of this area. There is quite a bit that you can't do with that corner, mainly because there are utility boxes all along that corner. Mancino: And you have to be able to access utility boxes but it also says to me, even more importantly, that it needs to be designed well and it also needs to be designed with the opposite corner because here again you have your gateway entrance. So I would like to see an overall plan on those two corners on how the gateway entrance to our city is going to be. I mean look what we're doing for Opus II. We've asked them to wait until we've got the Highway 5, the western gateway figured out and we want to see a charette on what will happen there. And I'd like to see one on the eastern side too before we go ahead and approve developments. I mean again this is the whole gateway to our city. Scott: I was thinking about the great work that has been done with the city of Eden Prairie. Because I know the little wooded corner that we have which is kitty corner from the one that you're talking about. They initially were planning a strip mall in there and by working and making them perhaps more sensitive to what our plans are, for that being a gateway to our city, I don't know whether, I'm sure there was some negotiating that was involved that I'm not privy to but they found it acceptable to leave as is. To do something else. Aanenson: Actually the fact of the matter is, Rottlund was in the market area. They had demand and they bought the property out. I mean I don't think there was something that they felt geez...I think they always intended to save those trees and we looked at that too. Is the value. On the south side certainly we looked at, there's a wetland that we recommended enhancing...on the south side. On the north side, yes. I think we talked about the landscaping berms...as far as the gateway treatment. We specifically talked about the Bill Morrish one that's proposed near the bridge where the Apple Red-E-Mix is. It's a larger statement...more natural and native landscaping there. Mancino: But I would also like to see what Morrish says about this eastern one too and see it as a whole as we enter, and I don't think we've done that and I'd like to take the time and do it and decide what should go there. So anyway. Sharmin Al-,Taff continued her staff report at this point. Scott: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions or comments for staff? Dave, do you have any comments? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: I guess engineering's concern, I guess is still with that access circulation through the daycare, or it appears that the applicants are willing to try a measure here to try and manage it from a management position through the Press and I guess while something can be done in the future, if needed be, that there's that understanding out there that's...parking lot circulation. Mancino: Have we done that before? Hempel: We did with the Bank Americana down here on Market Boulevard. They requested a full access to Market Boulevard to the northerly, just south of the railroad tracks there and that seems to be working very well. Harberts: Would you consider that the same scope and size though Dave? Hempel: It's not the same to that degree, no. But it did have the potential with the drive thru bank and so forth... Harberts: Well with regards to your comment though, from what I read in the report though, is that shift change. When they have that 298 people all at once or something showing up. You know some are going, some are coming. Perhaps in the morning again. Are you comfortable from that angle that the access issues that you have can be resolved like that given this configuration? I guess my second question is. I read in here that they said that if it doesn't work, we'll come back. What doesn't work? What's that point? And what happens then? I mean the cement is laid. The asphalt is laid. And I don't know what the answer is. Hempel: That's a very valid point. It's tough to go back and change something that's already in concrete out there. Harberts: Would they be willing to redesign it to tear up the asphalt and lay it down if that's what's determined to make it work? I don't know. I'm not familiar with this type of. Mancino: But that's a measurement. You need, what is it that doesn't work and how do we determine that and actually have a measurement to measure against. Harberts: And does the city, well yeah. With the access point the city would care but internally, would the city have any jurisdiction or really care if someone got hit. Hopefully that won't happen but it certainly is a liability for the company, not for the city. But, and these are just questions. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. Those right-of-way, yield to the right I guess is the common rules of the road type of deal. It's similar to the Market Square across the street. It's a private parking lot. It's not public right-of-way so it's really not our jurisdiction. We try and provide recommendations to promote safe orderly traffic flow through these sites. I think the interest would be on the applicant to change it if they do have a problem as well. Harberts: With the sidewalk, I like the sidewalk there. Is the sidewalk, will that be a different material throughout the whole thing? You know I see this shaded thing. Or are they just, or are we just doing it to show us? Is there going to be like a difference in the materials used so it defines what that sidewalk is? Are we just going to paint lines down or. Hempel: I believe it's just going to be a painted crosswalk type of scenario across the parking lot. Harberts: Where the sidewalk crosses those, oh I don't know what those islands are. Are there trees in there? So are these people expected to walk through the trees? Walk around the trees? Or have to walk off of the cemented thing to get around there? Hempel: Maybe the applicant could address these questions a little more thoroughly. Scott: Sure. Why don't we, we'll...discussion and leave some for the applicant to come up and give your name and your address please. John Dietrich: John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Thanks for the opportunity to address the commission. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us to...brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting. Also with me tonight is John Finnemore of Kindercare. He has samples of the Kindercare building that he would like to also present and talk in more detail of the Kindercare program. I'd like to just go over some changes that were made to the site plan and submittal that Shamiin had brought up. First off I'd like to address the issue of the site plan and the changes that were made specifically were to remove parking along the north side of the parking lot. We removed 11 stalls so that we would have a landscaped area of approximately 27 feet from the curb up to the proposed addition. And also within this area we're proposing a 4 foot berm to help take the scale of the building height down. Secondly we have added the sidewalk between the Kindercare and the Press Incorporated. The sidewalk islands specifically are 17 feet in width. There's a 5 foot sidewalk through the center of the island with dropped pedestrian curbs at both ends. And on one side is a 6 foot planting area that would have trees and on the other side of the sidewalk is a 6 foot planting area that would have just shrubs in it. So we've balanced trees along on the south side. Shrubs on the north side. And then we would anticipate striping of the crosswalk to make sure to run between the drive aisles. In terms of the landscaping, we have added additional 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 landscape and plant materials to the corner. Conifer trees in front of the warehouse expansion and the trees and ornamental shrubs, deciduous and conifer along the east edge of, excuse me. The west edge of the new parking lot area. We did take the comments, they identified last time to try and match the existing plant materials that is existing at the Press and try to incorporate that in and throughout the entire parking lot. In addition we've taken the existing ash trees that are currently out in the site and we're proposing that they be transplanted up into this area anywhere from about 3 to 4 inch caliper ash trees. So we're looking to reuse those same plant materials that are out there along the east side of the parking lot and transplant into the rear of the site. So in all toll we are transplanting about 11 trees. 3 to 4 inch caliper and then about another 2 dozen trees, about half deciduous and half conifer. Scott: John? What would be the age? I see you have, there's a certain canopy indicated by each of those trees. Just pick, let's say we'll pick the ones that are on the. John Dietrich: We'll pick one here. Scott: Yeah, what's the age of that tree? John Dietrich: I would say the age of that tree is about a 10 year tree. So that we try to show our plans not at maturity but not right when they go in. Depending on...The other issue is the architecture and the building mass of the Press that is proposed, with the warehouse and the storage facility. We are proposing to utilize vertically scored concrete panels that would match the vertically scored concrete panels above the east side of the facade of the Press and also build into that facade some type of detailing. Perhaps it's horizontally scored concrete that would match the front of the Press building so that we would have a change of detail within that facade. That it's proposed that it would all be of the same material but we could utilize detailing to help break up the scale and tie it into the existing building. It's proposed that we would utilize the same lights that are on the facade. The same downspouts and the same metal cap as currently is running along the edge of that Press building. We are looking to, we do not have an architect on board yet but we would anticipate they will be able to show in detail. We would like to put that to our staff so that they would have the approvals to get that detailing. One sample of how that detailing could be broken up. The McGlynn building on Audubon Road. If you look at their screened walls. They have horizontal bands and then vertical bands on that concrete. It's a matter of building a form so that the material that the score patterns are detailed in that...panel. Mancino: And John, that's on the same plane? So you would have your vertical and your horizontal on the same plane? There would be no relief coming out where the horizontal? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: I would say there will be the opportunity for relief of a couple inches. Mancino: Okay. Okay. Right now where you have it on the front of the building. You have the vertical and then you have the horizontal that comes out about 4 feet. John Dietrich: Yes, that is a canopy. Mancino: Okay. So you're not suggesting a full canopy? John Dietrich: No. We are not suggesting. The canopy is there to provide shade for the windows and also as a cover for the walkway coming into the... Mancino: Okay. John Dietrich: We did provide one elevation. If you were out on Highway 5 looking north from the westbound land. We anticipate this is what you would see. The existing, the conifer trees here are existing. This is an existing ash tree and with the bituminous trail. The existing berm that is out there, that we would then continue to the east and...around the Kindercare facility. The existing building is here and then this is the proposed addition with the deciduous trees and running back. The proposed addition of the warehouse is back in along here and actually begins to die into the berm that is out there along Highway 5. This was taken at approximately a 2.5 height if you were sitting in a car, this is the elevation that you would see looking north into that parking lot. Scott: That's your 10 year? John Dietrich: Those are approximately 10 year tree heads on the proposed tree stand. Harberts: I have a question with regard to the site plan. I don't know if you're the individual. I'm looking at this one. I don't know if you've got a thing there. I just need some. John Dietrich: I have two copies. I have a landscape plan and then I have the full scale. Al-Jaff: I can use the overhead. Harberts: This location right here. You've got 1, 2. Mancino: Visitor parking. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Where would...someone that perhaps is on crutches or in a wheelchair, how would they access the sidewalk? Are you expecting them to...traffic or is there a sidewalk there? Where's the access? John Dietrich: At this point the...would be stepping into the line of traffic. I imagine we will put in a sidewalk when necessary... Harberts: Does that meet the ADA requirements the way it's shown...? I just, it's just a little difficult. I recently had the experience where I was in a wheelchair for 7 days and with crutches and it really is an eye opener and I would, my further comments later on would probably indicate some interest in blocking the access there. John Dietrich: I'm sure the applicant would be willing to put in a sidewalk from this corner up to here to facilitate the handicapped accessibility...into the site instead of going into the right-of-way. = Harberts: So that would probably involve curb cuts on the bottom end as well. John Dietrich: Yes. We anticipate this would be one long curb cut. Probably bollarded with posts with a sign so that you can move right through that drop person scenario. It's fairly flat there so the grade's not any problem. Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: Probably will later. Farmakes: I had one question. The amount of parking spots there, adjacent to the Kindercare. Is that based on the square footage of the building? Al-Jaff: No, it's actually based on, our ordinance states for every 6 kids you have to 1 space and that's what was provided. The Fire Marshal will go into the building and put a limit on number of individuals that could occupy the building. And I must say that it will be way, it would be a number that is below what the ordinance would allow them based upon the parking stalls that they are providing. Farmakes: So if we look at those and we multiply those times 6, that's the amount of, actually kids inside. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: How many kids? Farmakes: ...my question is, is the rationale for 6, is that a recommendation that is. Al-Jaff: That's a city ordinance. Farmakes: I understand that. Do you recall when we got 6, as to the rationale that they used for that? Is that a professional recommendation or is that? Aanenson: Yeah, that's a pretty standard parking ratio. But they exceed that. Farmakes: For a daycare? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: I have another parking question. With the addition of the warehouse and the press room, are you adding more employees or staying about the same as you are now? John Dietrich: My understanding is it's more of a warehouse and storage facility. Limited expansion in production. Limited in terms of employees that will be employed there. Mancino: So when I went to the parking lot today at 2:00 and there were 78 empty parking spaces, and it didn't include visitor parking and it didn't include handicapped parking. I look at that and I say, you've got a lot of extra parking. Because there were 78 empty ones there at 2:00 this afternoon. Now is that during the, I would assume that's during your big shift where you have 200 employees there. The day shift, which would be approximately 7:00 to 3:00, correct? John Dietrich: Correct but then, the reason for having the overflow is so when the 3:00 shift comes in and the 2:00, or the evening shift comes in and the day shift is there, that there is enough parking for those two to overlap. Mancino: Sure. But how much overlap parking will you have? I mean how did you determine how much overlap parking to have? John Dietrich: It was based on basically the total number of employees and trying to anticipate allowing all. Mancino: So you're allowing 100% overlap? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 John Dietrich: At this point, yes. And I would like to maybe ask Mr. Senn if employee projection is scheduled to stay the same or expand with the... Mark Senn: The easiest way to answer that question is that all of the employees anticipated in the expansion have already been hired and are there. Okay. If you look at actual employee counts, right now there's basically 252, let's call them warehouse manufacturing employees and there are 75 office employees. Okay. Of the 252 warehouse manufacturing employees, 124 are first shift, 98 are second shift and 30 are third shift. Okay. The office employees are all first shift. So basically the parking is not on a 100% fill basis but I mean it does provide quite a bit of overlap because it basically is necessary because those shifts probably actually are going to overlap by as much to an hour because it's not just a, you know everything doesn't just shut down and a whole new group come in type of thing. There's a phase period over an hour that phases in and phases out because with the complications of the press and the press operations, it's not that they just kind of shut the press down, leave and you know if there's not another person. Mancino: I've had that happen on a job. They just stop. Okay. So that's why you're saying 100%. That's why you want the 100%. Mark Senn: Nancy, one of the reasons you know, like you see all the trucks out in the parking lot now. Mancino: Yeah, yeah. Mark Senn: Those trucks out in the parking lot right now are basically mostly what's going to be going inside the new expansion. They've been basically forced to utilize those trucks to basically accommodate the necessary. Mancino: Storage of paper, etc. Mark Senn: Storage of paper and stuff. Some of it is light sensitive and a whole bunch of other things but you know essentially the press is going, I think this is essentially public information. I mean they're a public company. I mean in the last several years the Press has gone from like a $25 million company to a $75 million company and with this expansion, they do anticipate going to about $100 million. But I mean again, it's not a labor intensive expansion. It's an efficiency expansion. Mancino: Okay. Well I was just concerned when I saw so many empty stalls at 2:00 in the afternoon and then I looked across the street at Versatil or Versatil and there must have been 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 50 or more than that. There must have been 100 empty parking spaces there too at 2:00 in the afternoon and I was thinking, why isn't there some cross use of all this parking that's available in that area. Mark Senn: I don't know what Versatil's situation is but with our's right now, you probably came an hour too early. If you would have come an hour later, you would have started to catch the phases. Basically because the phase starts at about 3:00 and runs until 4:00. Scott: Any other comments or do you have any other comments you'd like to make? John Dietrich: No. I believe that's... Scott: Okay, great. Since we were talking specifically about the Press, are there any, would the applicant with the Kindercare portion. John Finnemore: I've got an exterior color...I'd like to show you. Scott: Okay, good. John Finnemore: My name is John Finnemore. I'm the Division Construction Manager for Kindercare. What this color board shows is two different brick samples. The upper half would be the lighter brick and the lower half, the lower row of block, would be the darker brick. We will, we'll also use those same two colors in the trash enclosure and on the monument sign base. Our standard sign base typically is a brick base. The picture just really is, by the sign how many they're showing off the sign itself and not the base. The shingles, it's called the weather wood look. This is the wood facia and soffit color. It's called Cape Cod gray. The windows are a bronze and it's a smoked glass. Or the window frames are bronze and the windows themselves are smoked glass. And that's basically the exterior colors. There is these columns are also, that is made of a stucco material and that's an off white. That I didn't have a sample of. As far as your question about the parking. The 6 spots per child, that's a pretty common planning requirement. There's a lot of variations but 1 stall per 6 children is a pretty standard number throughout many parts of the country. In our experience we find that's even a bit shy of what we would like so we exceed that by like I think 12 spots on that particular site. Scott: Questions or comments? Harberts: The buildings look nice. Great pictures, thank you. Scott: Good. Thank you very much. There is a public hearing on the schedule for this 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 _ particular item and just a show of hands. Are there any people here who would like to speak about this particular, actually we have 3 items but in summary. The Press addition and the building of the Kindercare facility. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about that? We need to open the public hearing anyway so I may have a motion please. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak about this particular issue? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak. Oh, yes sir. Richard Wing: I'd just like Nancy and the commission, and particularly staff, to follow up on your question as to the stand-by status of Opus out on the west entry versus this east entry. The Council has discussed a moratorium and we're frustrated that we weren't able to get the moratorium on for Abra and Goodyear because they were already proposed but I think there was an understanding. Staff was clearly directed that there shouldn't be any more proposals or directions until we had this corridor study and to go further on this. I would like to know if this meets the architectural standards as proposed by the committee and Bill Morrish. If it's land uses are met. Setbacks are met. Landscaping. I think there's a lot of questions and I don't want to get into the same problem we had last time saying we can't do anything about it because it's been proposed and it's too late for the moratorium. I think Council's made it clear that before is done on Highway 5 we get some standards in place in this PUD overlay and it confuses me that staff has time to develop this proposal and bring it forward but yet we're not completed on the Highway 5 corridor study. So it seems like once again the cart's ahead of the horse. I'm a little frustrated here. It's been real hard to sit back and listen. I guess Nancy's questions specifically on those issues, ought to be addressed here. I'd like to know where we're going with this first before we look at this proposal. Scott: Okay. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Seeing no more interest, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners. Matt. Ledvina: Well, I guess the standards for Highway 5, as I understand, that the staff has indicated that overall the applicant has met the requirements of the Highway 5 zoning overlays. Isn't that correct? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Al-Jaff: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. The issue as it relates to the gateway, the monument, whatever. The landscaping or whatever that treatment we want to have on that corner, I think that's a significant issue.I don't know exactly what would be done there or what the specific plans are. Aanenson: Can I just bring you up to date on that? Ledvina: Sure, if you would. Aanenson: We certainly realize that's a significant issue. Let me just comment on Councilman Wing's concerns. The staff has responded to the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commission's reviewed it. It's in the Council's arena. There's not much more we can do at this point. We require, everybody that comes in is given a copy of the overlay zoning. Even though it's not an ordinance. So legally we can't bind them but we certainly encourage everyone to follow it. So far we've had good cooperation. As far as the gateway treatments. We did have HGA looking at that. We spent 3 to 4 months with them trying to visualize, trying to get them to capture a vision for us that we could do. We identified the monuments or the gateway that we wanted. One of their proposals came back saving the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix as an icon so we obviously were having some problems getting some visualization. Just in the last month we turned it back over to Hoisington to give us some visualization. We are working on this issue. Specifically on this site, what we looked at, that was talked about yes, as a gateway treatment on this site and how it relates to the trees. Maybe the trees should be our gateway. Maybe it's not an architectural feature. We've gone all over the map on this. We still haven't come up with a definitive what should that gateway treatment be. That's a whole other issue that, certainly that's maybe something that we can incorporate into this. At best on this site, as Sharmin has indicated, there is a substantial deterrent to this gateway treatment and the fact that you've got utilities and utility boxes there. I think at best what we could do at this point is, we are still, as I said, working on the gateway treatment itself. To date. That is something that we are ongoing with. At best what we could do at this point is to ask the applicant to take escrow for this plan and... ask them to leave an easement so if we get something in place, that we can go back in. We don't know what that's going to be. Mancino: But I think it's only fair to the applicant that we have some sort of a time line to know when that's going to be. Whether it's 3 or 4 months. Aanenson: ...that we know that the outlots next to Target are coming forward and we've got the same issue there. We've always indicated that that's another on Powers Boulevard. If you look in the document, there are specific ones identified as far as gateway treatments. And the access off of Powers, or off of Highway 5 and other gateways. We know that 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 they're corning in and again, we want to have a gateway treatment in place so when that particular project comes in we will have something in place. Unfortunately we're having a hard time getting a handle on what should that be. But I think at this site we were trying to tie into the trees at Eden Prairie site so I think at best we can ask them to hold off an easement area but still take escrow so we have something in place if we can't finalize them. If we get landscaping to make sure we have something in there to screen the parking. Ledvina: Well my question is then, given the layout that we're talking about. Obviously something, even north of the parking lot there, is there enough room to do something substantial? I see, well let's see. What's the scale? About 100 feet or so. Aanenson: When we looked in the Highway 5 document, really what we talked about is the cluster it kind of representative of this plan with the clustering of trees. This kind of has that affect. It has a berm with trees. Maybe it needs, they make a statement with sugar maples. Maybe it's something, I don't know. Mancino: But it should be dealt with on a professional level. I don't think here is the time to figure that out. We should have a landscape architect do that. Aanenson: ...right. Ledvina: So in order to keep that door open, what would you recommend? Aanenson: That we take some sort of an easement but we still can take this plan. In fact maybe put a date on there that says we try to get something resolved and then we take in escrow for landscaping what we normally do for the site plans. So we still have a back-up plans. You get this landscaping plan where you want it if you can't come up with a gateway treatment. If we find out the gateway treatment doesn't work on there. We haven't done a design on this specific site. That's a fall back position. We've got an approved landscape plan that you're comfortable with with this site. This was just a concept that we said a gateway treatment should be considered here. Maybe when we do the design because of the power lines, we find out. Mancino: Well no, I think we'll have one. Al-Jaff: I would point out though that a traffic signal transformer, and those are difficult to move. Am I correct Dave? Hempel: That's correct. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: We'd have to go behind that. Mancino: But also a landscape architect can take some time and design around that perimeter. I mean that, you know those boxes instead of just putting trees there. They may come up with a whole other design that uses the boxes in the design and that's what I'd like, you know to wait and see. Ledvina: Sure. Mancino: And make sure that the applicant has to follow that design. That landscape design, whatever it is, and how much of an area it is on that corner. I mean I don't know how big it will be. I can't say it's going to be 100 feet by 100. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I certainly would want to keep the door open as it relates to some special work that the city might want done at that location. As it relates to the circulation, I also have a hard time with an undefined criteria for intervention as it relates to the potential traffic, pedestrian problems there. So I don't know how we can fix that. If you could suggest some language there. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: I don't understand how you figure impervious surface over the playgrounds. Can you explain that to me? In the photographs I see cement, poured cement in the playground areas. How's that figured in? Al-Jaff: We took the calculations that the applicant has provided. John, did you include the playground in the impervious surface coverage or not? John Dietrich: In the hard surface coverage on the playground, we included 2 to 3 as soft upon that hard surface. Farmakes: So the photograph that you provided us up here is, the reading area off the photograph is green space or is? John Dietrich: Not completely, no. John Finnemore: Impervious is sand. Sand and gravel. Farmakes: I'm trying to come up with how that factors in, I mean from a square footage. Did a layout for you. I don't see one here but all I see is squares saying totlot, playground, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 playground. And I'm assuming that the ones that are named playground and playground, those are green surfaces? John Finnemore: The playground areas are, there's roughly, including the building sidewalks, probably somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet of concrete and then the remainder of it would be grass areas. Farmakes: So is that square footage factored in when we're looking at impervious surface? Do we consider that impervious surface? John Dietrich: To be perfectly honest we considered impervious surface would be 4% of that building. Only about 6,000 square feet. John's indicating it's 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. We have about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet more of impervious surface on that site. So that would probably push that site up from the 54% to probably around 62%... Al-Jaff: They can go up to 70% so they are below what ordinance requires. Farmakes: That was my question. I don't understand in relationship to what we're doing on Highway 5, why we go from and center to place a parking lot always towards the highway. Even in this factor where the access to these parking areas are down a service road. Or Dell Road. It seems like we're putting our best foot forward or what we're capable of doing and stick forward a parking lot next to the highway. It's just the whole direction of these proposals, at least for the free standing building. It seems to me almost it should be the other way around. And again, allows the building to shield the parking area and I know that there's a train of thought that says gee, they've got to see the parking from the road. I don't know if I follow that. I don't think that you can see the parking lot also from TH 5 behind the building. I just think it'd be more pleasant, offer more opportunity to see landscaping. I'm sure that the applicant can come up with some good reasons why that shouldn't be. From an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice to see that. I can understand the proposed expansion of the existing building being figured as to how it fits in in the existing building. So that's a different problem to deal with. I'm a bit hesitant to say that that expansion shouldn't match what the existing building is on the exterior. That they should be held to some other type of building where you get a wing that looks nothing at all like the existing structure. I don't think that's the purpose of what we were trying to do with the Highway 5 improvements. It seemed to me that what we were trying to do or what we were trying to hold Opus to is that there would be some visual relief on the entry area off the highway. And again, I just count up all these parking spots. Even though they're bermed, again it's not bermed all the way around the road. To the north and south, east and west. Going to the signage that the applicant was talking about. On the photograph there it is a pylon sign there. On the sample. I would like to specify that it be a matching architectural structure to the base 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 of that sign. Currently it's up on poles. The applicant mentioned that that's what was their to do that. That the sign company went ahead and did it as this. I'd like to make sure that we specify that. Aanenson: It's in one of the conditions. Farmakes: Okay. I would. Mancino: Which number is it? Al-Jaff: 2, Site Plan Review. Farmakes: I would also like to see some landscaping around that sign. It seems to be, there seems to be a row of trees or a row of bushes showing and then the sign seems to jut out from it on the end. Trying to create some relief with that. As to Councilman Wing's comments on the building. To a certain extent this does incorporate some of the issues as to the roof line relief. Probably not. Mancino: What do you mean by that? Farmakes: Well, I'm talking about the free standing building. Mancino: The Kindercare? Farmakes: The Kindercare. It does have some relief going on and this building is very similar to the office building proposed up here by Market Square. And it's an attempt I think to do some of the things that we talked about with the rooflines and so on. They're quite linear and they're quite long. There is some relief on the side with how the buildings are configured to the two wings going out. Mancino: Do you think that's a good gateway though? Farmakes: No I don't. Do I think it's a good use next to a printing company like that? Probably. The issue of gateway I think again is two approaches. Either the city buys up all the property and builds what it wants, or that it tries to incorporate use within, working with the applicants who are going to be building these buildings, to work in what is reasonable to be required that we get an end result of what we're looking for. And I think a lot of that would be, not necessarily sticking the parking lots all up and down TH 5. Again, the applicant probably has some reasons that they would elect to put the road up there. It probably makes sense with the existing parking lot as it stands. With the adjacent building. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 So there are rationales for that. Whether or not they outweigh the interest of the city, I think that that's an important...I would prefer I guess to see sort of the situation turned around but. Sort of twisted around in the opposite direction but.. Mancino: Yeah, I understand that. = Farmakes: The feasibility of that in relationship to the traffic patterns and so on, I'm not going to make that judgment call on the basis of my vote. I would also like to see more trees shielding that building. The Kindercare building from the south. If they go with the existing parking lot, you sort of have that one little island out there. We have an additional 12 spaces that they said than what was necessary? I'm still a little confused on the issue of the 6 per child. Al-Jaff: It still depends on the number of kids that they will be allowed to have in the building. For instance, if they have. Farmakes: And you base that on square footage? Al-Jaff: Exactly. If they have 60 children, not based on square footage. It's based on the number of children. If they have 60 children attending this daycare, they have to have 10 spaces. Mancino: But the number of children is based on the square footage. Farmakes: Don't we have a fire code or something that says this much square footage, this many children? Al-Jaff: Yes. Do you know the maximum number? John Finnemore: 35 square feet per child. Of totally usable space for children, exclusive of bathrooms and kitchens and... Al-Jaff: So what's the number of children you know. John Finnemore: 200 maximum. Al-Jaff: 200 so. John Finnemore: It's 33. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Why do we have 45? Al-Jaff: So they can have a maximum of 200 children. 33 parking spaces and they have 45 provided. So they have 12 more than what is permitted by State licensing requirements. Mancino: So does that mean they have to delete 12 spaces? Al-Jaff: No, they don't have to. Our ordinance basically says, you have to have a minimum of but it doesn't give you a maximum as long as. Farmakes: So there's 12 additional spaces. Al-Jaff: Correct. And they don't exceed the hard surface coverage so. Mancino: Yeah but we could still get more open space, green space if you don't have the 12 spaces. Farmakes: I think the issue that the parking lot does run to the south and we should look at eliminating some of those parking spots and replacing them with some, an additional tree. Aanenson: The gateway? Farmakes: Well there's very little maneuverable room here. There just isn't a lot as to what to do. I think it's maybe debatable that there isn't additional parking available across the street. Not that we would place that on another business but these parking spaces in terms of Kindercare. They are temporary? Temporary parking? What's the average duration of the parking. John Finnemore: There's going to be staff parking and temporary parking. Farmakes: So if somebody comes to pick up their child, what's the normal turn around of that sequence? John Finnemore: Transportation texts use about 6 minutes. That's probably a little light. I'd say it's more like 10 to 15. It's typically closer to 6 in the morning and closer to 10 to 15 at night. You know parents have to find out what their kid did during the day and have a little, the ability to spend some more time there. But in the morning of course everybody's in a hurry to get to work so that's a quicker turn around time there. And with 200 children we would have approximately 27 or 28 employees. That is at maximum time frame. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So 33 would be, yeah. Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I'm going to start with the staff report and start with issue number 2 on page 2 which is the zoning ordinance permits up to 70% hard surface coverage and I would like staff, from a legal point of view, to tell me why the present Press is non-conforming structure. Correct? Aanenson: No. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: It's the impervious surface amount. Aanenson: That is non-conforming. It's not anything to do with the structure or anything. It's the impervious surface. Mancino: Okay, the impervious surface is non-conforming right now. It is 79% and it should only be 70%. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So now they're going to take that parcel and they want to expand it and add a, add what we see. And they're going to do down in impervious surface to 76.8% but it still doesn't meet the 70%. Yet they have more land there. They have Lot 3. So why can't we make the impervious surface area conforming at this point? Because if they're going in and changing and modifying their entire building, their entire structure and isn't this the opportune time to say, now let's have the impervious surface be conforming? And actually when I read in the code book, the city code book. Division for non-conforming uses, it says purpose. The purpose of this division is to number 3, to encourage the elimination of non- conforming uses, lots and structures. So why aren't we doing that here? Aanenson: Again, the opinion from the City Attorney on that specific issue and the fact of the matter is, if the expansion meets all the setback requirements...so what you're looking at is just the impervious surface. Okay? So they are lessening that. And what the ordinance section 20-72 says, you can't expand unless you're going to lessen or eliminate the non- conforming. So the City Attorney's opinion, because they are lessening the non-conformity, that's okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: So you can never change a non-conformity to a conformity as long as they're lessening? What a, I mean when you have land here that would be available to make it conforming. Isn't it a higher priority to make things conforming? I mean is it really a higher priority for our city to make it less conforming? Aanenson: If you...impervious surface issue. I understand what, normally when you have a building setback or something like that, because it's the impervious surface. Mancino: But that's, the green space is important to us. You know it's a value. Aanenson: I'm not arguing with you philosophically but I'm just saying legally. I understand what you're saying. Mancino: Is that something we need to change that's in our ordinance? I mean again, there's land right here. We could do it and it just seems, why wouldn't we? So whether we can legally or not, I would go on public record saying, I would like this to conform to the 709k impervious surface because we have the land to do it. To take it from a non-conforming impervious surface to a conforming. Can we make that as a recommendation? Aanenson: You can always recommend it...take it up to the City Council and give Roger a second hit at it. Mancino: Okay. Next, the issue. The next one on page 2 about the revised landscaping plan. This is on sheet 4, out of 8. Was this done by a landscape architect? John Dietrich: Yes it was. Mancino: It was? Okay. I would like to see some added landscaping on the east side of that 180 foot span that you saw as a press room expansion. In the first 50 feet on this landscape plan you have 3, let's see. You have 3 Colorado Green Spruces at 8 feet, which will be about a 5 foot span. So you're covering up to begin with in that 50 foot span, you've got 3 trees. It will be 15 feet so there's going to be 35 feet of open wall there and one of the things that we're trying to do is to get some nice plant massings against that entire wall. So I would like to see many more trees put on that eastern side. And I would like them to be primarily coniferous with varying heights. Maybe 8. Some 8's and 7's and some 6's. I would also like to see some added landscaping in the square area. Let's see, how do I do it. In front of on the south side of the press room expansion and on the east side. This area in here. I would also like to see 3 more coniferous trees added. Then I would also like to see some more internal landscaping in the Kindercare parking lot. And if we do eliminate 12 of the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spaces, I think that that will help. Other thinking. I kind of agree with Jeff about turning the parking lot for the Kindercare on the southern side of the building and pulling the playground. I know that Early Beginnings has that on Highway 5. They have the playground in the front and the parking towards the rear. I think that that would add greatly to the gateway affect of that corner. So I would like to see the parking lot flip flop on the Kindercare. And I would also like to see islands between Kindercare parking and the Press parking so that you cannot go through one. You cannot use them interchangeably. One's a parking lot for Kindercare and one's a parking lot for the Press. At some point in the future I mean the Kindercare may not be there. It may be something else, 10 or 20 years down the road so I would like to see the differentiated parking lots. I would also think, and I think Diane brought this up before, that the people from the Press who take their children to daycare at Kindercare, have some sort of designated or reserve parking lots next to Kindercare on their side of the parking lot. Those are my comments. Scott: Okay, thank you. Ron. Nutting: I think we've got a much improved structure just with the landscaping additions to the south and east facing walls. I don't have a problem with Nancy's comments in terms of adding some additional to the east wall there but I like the looks of the project and I think it's going to break things up nicely... I would like to see either we tighten up the recommendation on the difference between parking lots in terms of the speed bumps. Whether it be islands or we just put in the islands or the speed bump just to make sure that that isn't left open to interpretation or definition of what the problem is down the road. As far as the gateway. I guess if there's some reasonable way via easement to leave open the possibility. Whether it's in the form of landscaping with trees or signage. I'm not sure we're at a point right here in terms of holding up the project for the ultimate definition. What that should be but leaving some window. I mean the decision may be that that's not, you know other than some trees, there is no other gateway there. I don't know. I guess I don't have the background through the study and...I think those are my basic comments. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would certainly recommend that that sidewalk be added in the handicap accessible designated spaces to include this suggestion by John about that one long curb cut. I would certainly support flip flopping the parking. Reducing the parking by 12 spaces and flip flopping it around the other way. I'm not real, I guess I like the designated pedestrian walkway. I'm not real thrilled and I'm somewhat ignorant with regard to, when you have these islands to receive topsoil, sod and irrigation. And I would just come in and stripe the asphalt to indicate a pathway. I don't know how that really constitutes a sidewalk versus just a pathway. I'm certainly not versed into understanding that but I think the comments that I 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 was trying to project at the last commission meeting was to have an identified pathway or sidewalk that would make it easy. That would certainly be free of obstructions, including snow, sod, irrigation, things like that. I would certainly support the designated parking with regard to people that use Kindercare and parking in that parking lot, I think that would help just with the overall circulation. I think that's about it. Scott: Okay, thank you. Just from keeping a tally here. It appears that the Press expansion probably has, I mean would I be correct in saying that we wouldn't have any cause not to move the Press expansion on? Well, from what I understand we can send one on and table the other. Or I'm not saying that that's what we would do. Farmakes: There are connection points between the two. The parking lots go, they're traveled through. Scott: Well it sounds like we've got, I believe that there should be no direct connection. I think it's, what we're seeing here is that the majority of the commission would prefer not to have any ingress or egress inbetween the two lots. Mancino: So therefore you can separate them. Scott: Just from looking at where the issues lie, it appears as if the Press expansion has been pretty well taken care of relative to the suggestions on landscaping and so forth. It looks as if there's some major. We talk about flip flopping parking lots. I mean I take the Highway 5 task force recommendations very seriously and I think that that's something that should be strongly considered. It seems like there's some major...with the Kindercare facility and my thought perhaps is that we want to entertain moving the Press expansion ahead and tabling the Kindercare. Mancino: And seeing the flip flop, etc? Scott: Yeah. But I wanted to throw that out and kind of get your thoughts. Because we need to do this as a consensus so. First of all, how many of us want to disconnect those parking lots? Mancino: I can do that, yeah. Farmakes: I'm open to that. Scott: That's my concern too. When I see, if in the future. If this. If that. And then since our vision, we have to be looking at this 10-20-30 years down the road. I think we'll end up 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 = saving ourselves a lot of grief by not having these two connected. Nutting: Joe, do we have the ability to hear any thoughts from the developer as to, just some of what we're talking about? I know the public hearing is closed. Scott: We've closed the public hearing. Nutting: We're suddenly going, this is the second meeting and suddenly we say, now let's put the parking lot on the other side. As opposed to having addressed that the first time. I guess I just, before I make any decisions I'd like to at least hear some feedback to what they're hearing. Scott: Sure. Harberts: Is there anything that's prohibiting us at this point, outside of the developer's concern though, with regard to how these projects line up and whatever? Aanenson: I just had one question for Dave. What we're doing now is saying that's a right turn in and right turn out so when you come out you have to go. How long is that island on Dell Road so if you want to come back out and get on Highway 5, before you came out through the Press parking lot and come around...do you have any concern with that Dave? Hempel: It's probably going to function very similar, with or without the curb cut from getting access to Kindercare. I could see a lot U turns being done... Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. It's the egress I'm worried about. Hempel: Right. The egress and you're restricted to a right out only anyway so that isn't going to change. Mancino: So it won't make any difference if it's on the south or north side? Okay. Hempel: No, it's just going to keep the short cut more on the Press site. Harberts: It would what the short cut? Hempel: It would delete that or eliminate that through the Press. Aanenson: But the people coming out of Kindercare though, have to go all the way back up and do a U turn. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Hempel: That's correct. All the way up to, what is it, Dakota and take the frontage road back, West 78th Street east and back to the Press. Harberts: And that would be the p.m. or is that a.m. too? I suppose whatever you travel. Hempel: If you're going to the Press, you would either do a U turn on Highway 5 to go back north to Dell Road... Mancino: Did I miss something? I think I did. Scott: What you're saying here is that if somebody is, if someone is coming in. They're going west on Highway 5 and make a right turn at Dell Road, can they make a left from Dell Road into Kindercare? Yes? Mancino: Sure. John Dietrich: No. Scott: No. So they have to go down, why's that? Hempel: There's parking median islands... Mancino: Oh, it goes to the whole street. The entire. So that's regardless of wherever it is. Wherever the parking lot is. Scott: Is this something that, is there enough stacking to avoid. I mean is this something that a cut could be made in that median? I'm not doing a traffic study here. I'm just thinking, if we're talking about making that change so that's the only way you can get in. If it's right-in and right-out. Ledvina: ...or I mean no left turn. Hempel: I'm not sure...there's enough room to provide two lanes which you need for a left turn lane. Scott: Okay. I got you. So it's the right turn on Dell Road. A U turn down by West 77th. Farmakes: You're going to have that. 24 Planning Commission Meeti_,g - April 20, 1994 Harberts: Regardless. Farmakes: Regardless. The primary access has to be off TH 5 anyway so if you turn left...Eden Prairie. Hempel: If you're a Press employee and you drop your child off at Kindercare and leaving Kindercare, you even have to go back out onto Highway 5. Scott: But if we have reserve parking for Kindercare, for Press employees at Kindercare, they'll be coming in the back way. Walking and doing that too so. Nutting: Will an employee want to park closer to Kindercare or will they want to park closer to the door? Harberts: Kindercare. You're going to pick your kid up. You're going to get off work. Walk to Kindercare. Pick it up and then get in the car. That's what you're trying to do. Nutting: Will they park closer to the door in the winter time and then drive around? Harberts: Well what you're trying to do is to eliminate that type of scenario because then _ that cuts down circulation within the parking lot which then cuts down the possibility of any safety issues. So you know, that's what you're trying to achieve here. Is to have them pull in once, park and away they go. Farmakes: Irregardless, they're going to have to take a right to come out... Scott: And this could end up being an office building down the road and there'd be no reason to have these lots connected anyway so. Okay. Anyway. My comments are, I mean it seems like the Press expansion is satisfactory in it's existing form to be moved along. I think there's still some major concerns with the, major questions with the Kindercare. So those are the extent of my comments. I'll be asking the difficult question for a motion. Nutting: Do we have the ability to? Scott: You can, yeah. Sure, go ahead. John Finnemore: Yeah, I'd like to address 3 of those comments. Number one on the parking stall requirements. As a company we have a standard ourself that we use roughly 1 stall for 4 children so 200 divided by 4 is 50. So we're slightly below that. Keep in mind, with 45 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 parking spots out there, in the p.m. when we're at capacity we'll have roughly 28 to 30 employees in those parking spots. So say there's 30 employees. That only leaves 15 then for the parents to come into which is, I mean it would work but we decrease that to 33 and all of a sudden you've got 2 or 3 parking spots open not used by employees. So there's not a surplus of parking out there. In fact we would typically be looking for 50-55 parking spots on a normal layout. We're building the same facility in Woodbury and we have what, 55 there. 55 spots there. As far as flipping the, putting the parking lot in back and the playground in front. Two things that would prohibit us from doing that. One is the speed of the traffic out on Route 5 and that's what, 55 mph there. I mean that's what the sign says. There's no police so I was doing 65 on my way here because I was a little late. A runaway car in a situation like that could right into a playground. If the playground was in the front of the building. We've got, we do have set-ups where the only place left to put the playground was along a busy road and we put up guardrails and so forth but at 65 mph you really can't put an adequate barricade that's even remotely attractive to keep a car out. That's one issue. A second issue are those overhead power lines there. Those are transmission lines. They've got, somewhere probably 345 kilobolts going through those. There's a big concern these days, mostly with children but just with people in general with what they call electromagnetic fields, EMF. And there's federal standards on what they measure the EMF and what's called, the unit is called a milogaust and you, I have a gaust meter and what we found is we need to be set back roughly 100 and some feet. Wherever we're set back from the front of our building is where we're down to a point where that reading is 2.0 lower so we can have a parking lot out there but we can't have a playground or building in an area that has readings that high. There's studies either way. I mean if you go to a power company they'll tell you that EMF is not a problem. But yet there are studies on the other end that say that it can promote cancer and other things. Mancino: Is this a state regulation? John Finnemore: No. It's a federal guideline. It's nothing in the books yet but it's something that will be someday. Other countries have. Sweden has laws on that. France has laws and they're all being analyzed. There's major research in this right now. Numerous power companies. Everybody's doing research on this issue and the rule of thumb has been this 2.0 milogaust. That's what we've been going by. We've been using 2.0 and we're setting back everything we can from a reading at that point or lower. And we do get that reading when we go to the front of the building so if we were to put the playground in the front of the building, we would then exceed that reading. And we can't take that risk and if actual laws aren't passed that say you can't be in an area that's 2.0 or greater, we can't take the risk and the liability of having to close the center. The third issue is the cross over traffic between the Press and our facility. We would put it in our agreement with the Press that, we don't want the cut through traffic anymore than the commission does or staff does so if it 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 becomes a problem from our point of view, we're going to address that with the Press and something will have to be done. Then additionally, in the development agreement between Kindercare and the Press and then the City of Chanhassen, we can put something in there that says, if staff or the commission or whoever determines that it becomes a problem, we can change the configuration then. Mancino: What's your reason for not eliminating it right now so it doesn't become a problem? John Finnemore: Well the access to our facility. We've got a right-in, right-out on Dell Road. In order to get in, you have to come in and do that U turn which I can't imagine that U turn's legal to get into. I mean the majority of the traffic in and out of our center is going to be from Highway 5. And whether you're going east or west bound, you'd have to do a U turn around that insurmountable median out there. Mancino: But what does that have to do with having an ingress into the Press' parking lot? John Finnemore: Well because it...internal drive. If you're coming in this way, you can come around here and get in where your only other choice would be to do an illegal U turn to get in here. That allows... Mancino: But that's exactly what we don't want. Okay, never mind. John Finnemore: But then how do we get into our facility, basically. We've got an insurmountable median from this point to this point. Mancino: So you actually want to use the Press' parking lot as an entry into Kindercare's parking lot? I mean that is your intent? John Finnemore: Correct. There's no other way to...because the people aren't going to be coming from back here. They're going to be coming from Highway 5. Nutting: Do you have any problem putting a speed bump there? John Finnemore: No. We don't have a problem with that. Farmakes: This currently where that intersection is, would that be considered an illegal U turn? Scott: I don't think so because I remember when they were ripping up TH 101, I had to go 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 back there every day to get to where my office building was and I usually. Farmakes: U turns are permitted unless otherwise posted. Scott: Yeah, I don't think it's illegal. John Finnemore: It's not posted. Scott: So it's not illegal. Hempel: It's certainly not a desired..., especially at the level or during peak hours...see if there was maybe some alternative to placing a median cut in for a left turn lane into the site only but not out of it. That may be a possibility. Farmakes: If there was a cut in, would it be preferable on either end of the building? North or south? Hempel: Further away from the intersection would be preferred. Scott: For stacking. Harberts: Dave, with regard to one of the points brought up was regarding the speed of traffic. As I recall, we've got a lighted intersection there and we've got a lighted intersection down towards Chanhassen. Wouldn't that greatly reduce the speeds and I'm also looking at that time of morning. I know when my buses run on the road, to achieve 55 mph with those amount of stop lights even coming east or going west, I don't know how often and I don't know if you can answer that. How often that you would be at a speed of 55 mph at that particular point on Highway 5 given the amount of traffic and the number of traffic lights. Hempel: Those kind of conditions vary daily. Whether drivers habits and so forth. I guess that's a pretty tough question. Harberts: It's almost a traffic...question. Mancino: But Diane we've got the same thing at our new elementary school. I mean the new elementary school's on Highway 5. 55 and they have the playgrounds towards the front. Towards Highway 5. I mean obviously they're set back and there's going to be a chainlink fence around it but the same kind of conditions happen there. I mean they're. Harberts: I think to a greater extent there's an opportunity for those, for that speed to be 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 attained at that point rather than at this point. Mancino: Well there will be a light there though. I mean eventually when the school opens, there will be a light. So it's kind of the same. It's the same sort of situation. _ John Finnemore: But that's really the secondary concern compared to the EMF issue. We can't jeopardize our liability of having a playground with readings over 2.0. We couldn't as a company put a playground out in front of that building. Harberts: Push the building back. — Farmakes: On the lot lines, just one quick question. The lot line that we're dealing with there. The property owners for those two lots. The lot to the north. I didn't ask this question. How is the property being plotted? Is that one piece of land or two? Al-Jaff: Currently it is one lot and one outlot. They are dividing it into three. Aanenson: No. They're reconfiguring. They planning to well. Mancino: Total of three. Aanenson: One outlot so they're replatting them so you'll have one for the Kindercare and one still an outlot. Farmakes: If the city looks at the potential issues for north or south parking lot, would the city look at an issue when they're looking at gateway or the issue of gateway comes up, is there the possibility of moving that back and the city acquiring the buffer. Mancino: For that front lot. Farmakes: That front lot or part of that front lot currently where the city has the most substantial area for landscaping. Some of the environmental issues that were brought up. The distance from the power lines and so on to the front of the building. Are we talking 50 feet? Are we talking, you know the issues of, I'd like to see a serious response to the issue that if we did flip it around. We haven't voted yet but I'd like to see a serious response to how that could be done and address those issues. Aanenson: All I can say about the power line issue is the next project's got the same issue. Why they want to move the power lines because they have a problem getting FHA financing 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 so there is a legitimate issue with the power lines. As far as flipping it...requiring that. Again, we're falling into an area and I know the Council is a little upset about the fact that we haven't adopted it but it's not in place right now. As far as how much acreage we want for the Highway 5. The gateway requirements. As far as does the city have the ability to purchase that? Farmakes: I don't know but certainly the city is, Highway 5 is going to be developed by the time we get this thing approved. If we don't start, as you said in the beginning here, if we don't start applying these issues rather than just nodding our shoulders and saying, well I guess there's nothing we can do about it. Aanenson: All I can tell you is I think that's something that if you're interested in, that you make that proposal to the City Council. Farmakes: Well the issues that we've heard here so far and the issue of whether or not it's north or south. We've heard 26 employees. 28 employees. In fact there's up to 30 employees now. I've heard ratios of 4 children per parking lot. I've heard 6 children per parking lot. Aanenson: City ordinance is 1 per 6. Farmakes: Okay, so but I understand that but the applicant came up and when we're talking about the issues of the parking lot or issues of a buffer, we're looking for some room to maneuver there and there seems to be very little. So it's sort of either fish or cut bait on this thing. Either we're going to line up parking lots all along the highway or we're not. And if we're not, what are we going to do about it? There has to be some room to maneuver. If we're talking one parking spot, I don't think that's going to make the grade so. Al-Jaff: There's also a 30 foot buffer that could be used for green space between the property line abutting Highway 5 and the parking for the Kindercare. That could be used for landscaping and buffering. John Finnemore: We would like to make...This is a plant full area. There has to be certain species underneath the power lines that NSP, if that's the power company, would agree to in terms of height. Once you're outside of that corridor underneath the power poles, we do have a 30 foot area and we also have additional green space in our front yard. We would be more than willing to work with the commission and staff as to finding what that entry element would be, if in fact this is a selected intersection. But in terms of green space, we have this 30 foot easement. Building setback area that is clearly defined and we would be more than happy to hold off the landscape plans in that area. Landscaping is, in terms of construction, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 the last element to go in. So I would say there would be an opportunity to work with how this area really would be defined in terms of visual, in terms of the elements that this landscaping, the structural berming, so that we could work with the entry elements and incorporate them so that there would be that grand entry... Mancino: Sharmin is there any, I don't know how anybody's going to answer this. But will the power lines ever go under ground? No? Why? John Finnemore: That doesn't change the EMF either. Aanenson: They're too high voltage. The cost is. Mancino: So they burn the soil? I mean I don't know. John Finnemore: That doesn't effect the EMF. You have to encase them in about 6 foot leaded walls in order to. Mancino: No problem. John Finnemore: And you think your power bills are high now. Mancino: Just wondering. Just wondering. You know you've got to just dig a ditch so I just thought I'd ask. Scott: Is anyone prepared to make a motion? Farmakes: I'd like just one quick comment. Staff, I'd like to get a response. I think that the issue the applicant made in regards to health issues and the city doesn't have anything on ordinance on that. I would think that you would review the quality of their information. I would think that that would be pertinent. Aanenson: Right. Well that's what I was saying. You've got the same issue on the next application. The reason why they wanted the power line moved because they cannot secure FHA financing because of the location over the houses. So there are some federal regulations out there related to... Nutting: There may be lots of regulations that people just don't know. There's studies on both sides of the issue and I think until there's something definitive, especially when a lender...approve things like that. That doesn't give you the answer as to. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Farmakes: No, but it may tell us that maybe that building should go to the north lot. Maybe it shouldn't be there. Mancino: And just move back. Farmakes: There's a blank lot up above. Maybe that's the place for that particular. Scott: And the access would be much less complicated too. Farmakes: One owners owns the entire space. That's the only area to maneuver anyway in this thing apparently. Is that north lot. And it looks to be somewhat bigger. Scott: I'll call for a motion again and whenever you're ready. Mancino: I'll move, with a lot of help. I'll move that we approve, let's see. What am I going to approve? Scott: We have three things here. Mancino: Well I'll do one of them. I'll move that we approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building. With, as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994 subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. Number 3. I should ask Sharmin. Does number 3 refer to the Press also? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. And I'm assuming number 2 is just Kindercare right? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Mancino: Okay. So number 3, the applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. I would like to add to that. That added landscaping, that there be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion per my request in coniferous trees. Number 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 = securities as required for landscaping. Number 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. Number 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing to break the long wall masses, and I would say architectural detailing with relief. Does staff understand what I mean there? The horizontal with some relief there. Number 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Number 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Number 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies. Number 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. Number 12. Does that pertain to the Press? Al-Jaff: No. It would be for Kindercare only. Mancino: Okay. So omit that. Number 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive = aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. And I also want to make sure that it's a two way traffic street. Number 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. Number 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. Number 17. Harberts: Nancy, could I offer a suggestion on 17? Mancino: You bet. Harberts: That the parking configuration for the Press will somehow be in concert with what the approval is given for Kindercare so that they correlate or coordinate or whatever they need to do. Mancino: That it be self contained? Harberts: Well, at this point I just wanted to leave it open in terms of the parking. I don't have any problem in saying that it's being self contained but I'm looking more at that sidewalk and if we need that designated parking. If that's something we find is important. That's why I'm saying that the parking configuration for the Press will be, I don't know. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Relate to. Harberts: Or somehow coordinate with. With whatever's approved then for the Kindercare so we have that flexibility to influence the Press given what is finally approved then for the Kindercare. That's what I would suggest. Mancino: Okay. That's it. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road, or 77th Street West. Oh I wanted to put a recommendation in about, that I would like to see the impervious surface of the Press be a conforming permit and be at 70%. And Diane, do you want to add anything about the sidewalk being there? I mean does that need to be in the recommendation? Harberts: Well that's what I want 17 to reflect. Is that we do have that flexibility to go back and influence things that may need to be included in the Press parking lot because of what comes out of the Kindercare. So that's what the intent there is to let us have that flexibility to go back and have influence over that. And I'll second that motion. And I just want to clarify. Then does that mean Nancy that we're tabling the second part of that regarding construction of the Kindercare Daycare Center? Mancino: Yeah, that's going to be my second. The next motion. I think that's how you do it. Harberts: Yeah, okay. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Site Plan Review for the Press warehouse expansion. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. Deleted. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed 34 Planning Cc.,unission Meeting - April 20, 1994 cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. 17. The parking configuration of the Press shall be incorporated into the final design approval given to Kindercare taking into account such things as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulation between the Press and Kindercare. 18. No rooftop equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street. 19. The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Harberts: I move to table Kindercare Daycare Center. Construction of. Scott: And is there some direction to the developer? Harberts: I think based on the discussions, from what my notes are and if anyone's able to assist here. I think one of the primary areas was regards to flip flopping the parking and the playground. I think Jeff brought up a good point though about, if there's a concern with the electromagnetic fields or whatever, do we push it down? Is that a better place for it? I think there's some access questions. Traffic questions that relate to that. Signage. I think with regards to number 2. And I think there was comments with regards to putting around some additional landscaping there. I think there was also some discussion about cutting the parking down 12 spaces. Again, it might be an influencing factor then about flip flopping it as to the number of parking stalls. Mancino: Gateway. Harberts: The gateway certainly is a big factor in that. And I think that's really what prompted the flip flopping is I think Jeff commented well is that, do we shrug our shoulders or do we in a sense start putting some pen to the paper here in terms of what we feel is important. And I would certainly be interested to see, to start holding. Going forward with these values I think that have been communicated and addressed very thoroughly by the Highway 5 corridor group. And here's an opportunity to either leave it go or start walking the talk. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded in summary to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Is there any discussion? Harberts: Who seconded that one? Scott: Ah, she made the motion, you seconded it. Mancino: No. She made the motion. Second. Scott: Excuse me. Now it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan Review for Kindercare Daycare Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I assume that eliminates 2 and 3. Scott: Yeah, I'd say by virtue of. Question. Do we have to approve the replat? Al-Jaff: Yes you do. Scott: So that the Press can. Al-Jaff: Can go forward. Scott: Okay. May I have a motion please? Mancino: I'll move that we replat. I move that we approve the preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1. Do I have to do, do I do the whole thing? I want to approve the Press. Al-Jaff: Lot 1 expansion but you don't want 2 and 3. Mancino: Not yet because I mean, you know. That may change. Scott: Okay. So basically what we need to do is replat Lot 1, Block 1. Al-Jaff: Well we can process that administratively. Mancino: Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Aanenson: This is...to the outlot. Scott: Okay, so basically we are going to end up with a preliminary plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and Outlot A and B? Is that? Al-Jaff: That would require a plat. Aanenson: Just one outlot. Mancino: Just to one outlot, yeah. Scott: Okay, Outlot A. Okay. Mancino: That's what I said. Scott: Was it? Okay, is there a second please? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the plat as stated. Is there any discussion? Harberts: What are we approving? Mancino: Yeah, there's some discussion here. Jeff, why don't you. Jeff has some discussion. Farmakes: If we look at that, both outlots there. Mancino: They're really 3. What they want. This is really. Farmakes: So if you're looking at considering the northeast corner of that Lot 3, 2 and 1 for the Press. If by approving that are we defining the lines where the borders are? Between 2 and 3. Scott: Or should we just have Lot 1 and Outlot A and Outlot A comprises the, this is very surveyor's talk here. Farmakes: 2 and 3. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Everything to the east of the eastern... Mancino: Well wait. And if we approve it, can we still have 70% impervious surface because don't they have to add more onto that? Farmakes: But how are we tying ourselves into the development of the existing lot to the north with the current Kindercare? Mancino: But we're leaving those open. Farmakes: Those are left open? Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: So we're not tying ourselves into access to those lots? Ledvina: No. Mancino: Access to them? Farmakes: Well for instance, this goes here and then you've got it going there. Aanenson: The existing lot line is, you're moving it to the east is all you're doing. For the Press. The rest of it you're still leaving outlot. That's how it is right now. Scott: So it's Lot 1, as specified with Outlot A. Is that what we want to say? What's the right way to say it? Al-Jaff: Another way of saying it is, Lot 1 and combine Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. That's another. Mancino: Thank you. And Jeff's question. Al-Jaff: Or proposed lots. Mancino: But Jeff's question is, is that there won't be any problem having done this if we go back and let's say Kindercare goes to the northern side, can we still use the access from the Press' driveway into Kindercare? Aanenson: Sure. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Does that answer it for you? Aanenson: You've got to remember again, all you're doing is moving a property line for the Press further to the east. And leaving the rest as an outlot... Hempel: You're approving the common drive is going to serve eventually whatever's over there. Scott: And we also need a motion to table the conditional use permit for a licensed daycare. Ledvina: Did we agree to vote on... Scott: Yes. Harberts: I just have a clarification. Kate, Sharmin. On our previous motion did you get included the sidewalk? Aanenson: On 17? Scott: Well we can't really, that's a yes or no. If it's one way or the other, it doesn't matter. Harberts: Yes we can. We can do anything we want. Mancino: But yeah, I asked you that. It's in 17. Harberts: No I'm asking the sidewalk, handicapped accessible. If that was included in those comments? That was the intent. With the parking configuration then. Al-Jaff: I was going to include parking for the Press be in concert with Kindercare and then to meet all conditions of ADA requirements? Harberts: No. No, I don't want it to meet ADA because those are more. That the parking configuration though included the fact about that sidewalk being added rather than having wheelchairs and people having to go out into the line of traffic. And I didn't know if we needed to amend this one because we're still on this one. Scott: Well we're discussing, I think we understand. Harberts: But we got the intent. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: We understand what our motion is. Basically that we're going to end up going from Lot 1, Block 1 into Lot 1 and combining Lots 2 and 3 into Outlot A. Mancino: Second. Scott: That was discussion. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lot 1 and Outlot A, Block 1. b. Delete. c. A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Outlot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed District, Health Department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 1994 Scott: Okay, can I have a new motion with regard to the Kindercare Site Plan for the Kindercare facility? Mancino: I move that we table conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Scott: Just a question for Kate. Do we have to make a motion to table the site plan for the Kindercare facility? Follow up with another motion to table the conditional use permit? Because we have, these are all specific items within the public hearing and I think we have to... Aanenson: You can't do one without the other. Scott: Then we need to address the site plan, specifically for the Kindercare facility. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'll move it to table. Mancino: Second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to table the site plan review for the Kindercare facility. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to table the Site Plan Review for a Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: May I have another motion with regard to the conditional use permit? Mancino: I move that we table the conditional use permit to allow a daycare center in an IOP district. Harberts: Second. Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Conditional Use Permit #94-1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: We'll take the Kindercare facility and the conditional use permit, well as soon as they can bring it back to us. We want to move it on if we can. We'll take a 5 minute break and then the next public hearing is regarding the Ryan/HeritageBoisclair development. 42 • i 4 E F . V s • s s 117. va.pl .. • lM ---- .1 . .r • r_ I • y ;.i . s r • yiw ry •y :.-14 i -i�s �., .J V� •p�� 1: .•"--..1142„..., • s... r , ''�..r-� -41 illi , L'•k4r _ % •-- 'a1- ,... r• 2 V•4 .'',,'s ri Ii1 �g 1 RSF . j" E ,..= • • -1 . /SARK 'L i-r' ,r 'kJ • •, �a�s. is: . i ( '#'• __ � - ."L:A_a`iili ,\ -1-r.-.-71T _K s" s1-1:;21 ,.L:s;.W--it-t7 .s...7-. ted I - - - - ', .. vim_ .L, : :- 1 Rs ---Ii--'—i•-.-- .-.-'_,-7..-:C'6_-I•."- LAKL .i./Cr ' ate' '• •'. "At. " -1 / , -- •-. "i -Q. r--t. � . . j 5.,!ORES ! a^r .• — .. J•5.-_--4 Yy y1Q TwNyAPLE..LANE‘' '� LAKE AAA' GR£C.8.,,,4 " %.. .` x R?r y � � __ _ E" BASSWOOD ��_ ' 3 1 � ' ;, PUD R- .; r j _ ,.AKE R4 - - -, '- i"i� R 2 ro•• ANN • -,I! V1111d _ s / PART rN L -- 1 L C -a/I' • I - -Wt}_ _ a •_� _.U ; ag • v' :7.. � :, ,.rJ 4r• _ T--b / z4 ,_______„- _ z i .„,•• I l 1 :,-i-,...,- - � R - ._i --=—off►: .. . %' ;' • -. . '. .III6:la -1 j . Ag 4 ti-. ,...-!).- -- --g. ,....• .-. t.:;----t 110 ''s i ri LAKE . t , ..-- ....". ,10•••• 00.r • -el-. : ea_ 1100. 1 -t1,- _ -� LAKE SUSAN J J _ t +• _ L , C� i `j`c11 SW LAKE !1 :.: —A- '.• ..7.,. .,... rryid.-.1.1 ..,;.:.-:-. i :...__ J LI T ". DATE: 4-6-94 _ ..; 1 T Y 0 F CA:. DATE: 4-25-94 CASE: 94-1 Site Plan •'‘ cllANHAssEN 94-2 SUB \\� t94-1 _ BY: Al-Jaff • STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL:1) Site Plan Review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of The Press Building, and construction of a Kindercare Day Care Center, 10,315 Square Feet 2) Preliminary Plat to Replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd ZAddition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. Q 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Day Care Center in an LOP District (� LOCATION: North of Hwy. 5, West of Dell Road, East of 187th Avenue West, and South of 77th Street West. a.a. APPLICANT : Marcus Corporation The Press, Inc. • 10001 Wayzata Blvd., Ste. 100 18780 West 78th Street Minnetonka, MN 55305 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • • • PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park L J�CtIAtf W It Administrator ACREAGE: 13.64 acres I/ D6014- L Endorsed ADJACENT ZONING 1Aaaclt AND LAND USE: N - 77th Street West/IOP Retx,d s3 C:*P 3-30- 9 S - Highway 5/IOP Date 5:.i::mitted to Commission E - Dell Road/Eden Prairie 4- 6- y y W - 187th Avenue West/IOP Date Submitted to Council L Q SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. Q SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains the Press Building along the westerly W portion. The easterly half is undeveloped and vegetated primarily with brush. The property is bordered by Hwy. 5 �_ on the south and Dell Road on the east. 2000 LAND USE: Office/Industrial The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a day care facility and expand the warehouse and press room of the Press building. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. The lot area of the Press site is 518,000 square feet and the Kindercare Day Care Facility site is 76,372 square feet. Both sites are located in an Industrial Office Park District. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to right-in/right-out only. In an accompanying subdivision request, the site is being replatted into three lots, one of which will expand the existing Press site to accommodate the proposed expansion, the second lot will contain the Kindercare building, and the third lot will be reserved for future development. Staff is not aware of any pending developments for the third lot. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The site plan is reasonably well developed. The Press expansion will utilize scored concrete panels, an identical material to that used on the existing building. Staff has requested that the applicant provide elevations showing the facade after incorporating the proposed expansion. The Kindercare building is proposed to utilize face brick wainscoting on all four sides accented by columns, ceramic tile, a canopy, and has a pitched roof. One of the advantages resulting from the expansion of the Press building will be the relocation of the loading dock area. Currently, the loading docks are visible from Highway 5. The expansion will relocate the docks to the rear of the building, and will face 77th Street West. Parking for vehicles is located on the east and west side of the Press building, and south of the Kindercare building. Vehicles will be screened by berms and landscaping materials from Highway 5. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue by the applicant. A variety of trees and bushes will be used. We are recommending that a meandering berm of 3 to 4 feet in height be located along the southerly edge of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan, without variances, conditional use permit and subdivision requests for this proposal. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 3 B ACKGROUND On June 19, 1978, the City Council approved a Planned Industrial Development Plan#78-5 PUD, which included a subdivision that resulted in dividing 701,656 square feet into Lot 1, Block 1, Park One (444,734 square feet), and Outlot B (256,922 square feet). Lot 1 became the site for the Press Building which was approved as a permitted use in the Planned Industrial Development Plan concurrently with the subdivision. Outlot B was reserved for future development and is being proposed for subdivision into two lots with this application. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The existing Press building is situated parallel to and north of Hwy. 5. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. Access to the Press building is gained off of 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. The proposed expansion of 54,760 square feet will be located to the east of the existing building. Kindercare is proposed to be located to the east of the Press building and will have an area of 10,315 square feet. Parking will be located to the south and between the two buildings. Direct views of the existing loading docks and parking area are currently visible from Hwy. 5. The proposed addition will relocate the loading docks to the north of the building and provide complete screening from Hwy. 5. Staff is recommending that a meandering berm with landscaping, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lot and Hwy. 5 to provide additional screening. The Press building, including the proposed addition, is located 30 feet from the north, 100 feet from the east, 120 from the south, and 65 feet from the west property line. The Kindercare building is located 70 feet from the north, 40 feet from the east, 190 feet from the south, and 50 feet from the west property line. Materials used on the Press addition will be identical to the existing building's scored concrete panels. The applicant has been informed that elevations of the building, with the addition incorporated into them, must be submitted for review and evaluation. The Kindercare building will consist of face brick wainscoting on all four sides. The entry will have a canopy with columns and ceramic tile detailing. The building's architecture is tastefully designed and meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The site plan for the Kindercare site shows the trash enclosure located southwest of the day care building. The location of the trash enclosure for the Press site has not been shown. Plans must be revised to show the location and submitted for review and approval. The trash enclosure shall utilize materials similar to materials used on the main building. Any roof top equipment should be screened from Highway 5. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 4 The Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway Corridor Overlay design standards. Although they have not officially been adopted, staff has reviewed these standards to see how this project meets the intent of the proposed ordinance. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improvement development standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent of the = overlay district with the following features: • The Press addition will utilize material identical to those used on the existing building. The same is true for the color and height of the addition. The Kindercare building will also be one story and the architectural style is unique to the industrial park but will fit in. The addition to the Press will be compatible with the existing building. The Kindercare building will provide a variation in style through the use of columns and the pitched roof element. Because the request is only for an addition to The Press, there is no room to provide a pitched element. Also, a pitched roof would be out of character for the existing style of the building. The Kindercare building is providing a pitched roof as well as a pitched canopy. The Kindercare building must be moved 40 feet to the south to meet the maximum setback of 150 feet. Both buildings are utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. The colors of the Press building addition will be identical to the existing building. The applicant must show the colors proposed to be used on the Kindercare building. • The new Press addition will move loading docks to the rear of the building, screening it _ from views from Hwy. 5. The trash enclosure has not been shown on the Press site and such shall be shown on the final plans. _ • The site is level and minimum grading will take place with the exception of areas along Hwy. 5 where staff is requiring a berm. The site is devoid of vegetation with the exception of underbrush. The landscaping plan provides a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible particularly along Hwy. 5. The berm and landscaping materials will be a continuation of the existing berm on the Press site. The plant materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others. Proposed plant materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the parameters of the green space area. The applicant is providing a wide green space area between Hwy. 5 right-of-way and the Kindercare site. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to grow. • The light poles are incorporated within the planters/islands. Staff is requiring a sign plan which should include lighting method. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 5 PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall for each six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number of children enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270. The parking ordinance for warehouses requires one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet and 1 additional space for each additional 2,000 square feet. The total spaces required for the addition is 32 spaces. The ordinance also requires processing facilities to provide 1 parking space for each employee on the major shift. The Press employs a total of 245 employees. These employees work in 3 shifts. Assuming all employees were present at the same time, a total of 245 spaces would be required. The total spaces required including the addition is 277 spaces. The applicant is providing 314 spaces which far exceed the ordinance requirements. The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parking spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at the rate of one handicapped space per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 spaces for the Press and 1 space for the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which currently are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included on the site plans. Landscaping is proposed along the south side, adjacent to Highway 5 as well as throughout the parking area. This will provide screening of cars parked in the lot. Staff is recommending a meandering landscaped berm, 3 to 4 feet in height, be installed between the parking lots and Hwy. 5 to provide additional screening. ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to a right-in/right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the disadvantage is the new parking lot and access on to Dell Road will make it very convenient for traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and on to Trunk Highway 5. The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site currently has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated truck traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 6 of 26-feet wide with turning radiuses on to 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive aisles lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both driveway access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1). The 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damage during construction of the site improvements. The applicant should post security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is very well conceived. The applicant is providing a variety of plantings throughout the parking lot and especially along the perimeters of the sites. The plant materials include ornamental conifer, deciduous trees, and shrubs. The Kindercare site will be the first site an individual will encounter as they enter Chanhassen. Plantings, as well as the design and material used on the Kindercare building, have been done tastefully. Staff is recommending one _ modification to the landscaping plan. The incorporation of a meandering berm with landscaping between Hwy. 5 and the parking lot area for both sites. The parking area for the Kindercare site . is setback 75 feet from the property line, which is in compliance with the Hwy. 5 corridor study requirements. LIGHTING Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than '/ foot candles of light at the property line as required by ordinance. Detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits are requested. SIGNAGE The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per street frontage with a maximum of 2 such signs per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 80 square feet. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A sign plan acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 7 GRADING AND DRAINAGE In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The overall grading plan appears acceptable, however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to convey stormwater runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be a 10-year storm event. Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served with storm sewers that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems convey storm runoff to a regional stormwater pond located north of the site. Therefore, no additional on-site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city ordinance. PUBLIC UTILITIES The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an 8- inch waterline has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff recommends that the existing water service be utilized and the open cutting of Dell Road prohibited. Sanitary sewer service is extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans propose to extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final plat along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the applicant through the City Building Department. MISCELLANEOUS The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system through the City's Building Department. All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 8 EROSION CONTROL The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road. Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of The Press to protect 77th Street West. A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance The Press Kindercare Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 story Building Setback N-30' E-30' N-30' E-NA N-NA E--50' S-30' W-30' S-120' W-75' S-190' W-NA' Parking stalls 245/ 45 stalls 314 stalls 45 stalls* Parking Setback N-25' E-25' N-25' E-NA' N-NA' E-30' S-25' W-25' S-35' W-30' S-75' W-NA' _ Hard surface 709 Not Provided Not Provided Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 11.89 acres 1.75 acres * The City's parking ordinance for day care centers requires a design capacity of one stall = for each six children. The applicant is providing 45 parking spaces. The total number of children enrolled at the day care may not exceed 270. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are to be paid in accordance to city ordinance. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 9 SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to enlarge The Press site to accommodate the addition and divide an outlot into 2 lots. The total site area is approximately 15 acres. The existing easterly line of Lot 1 (The Press site) is being shifted 115 feet to the east to accommodate the proposed expansion and maintain the required setback. Lot 1 will have an area of 518,000 square feet. Lot 2 is not being developed at the present time. It is proposed to have an area of 62,000 square feet. Lot 3 is proposed to contain the Kindercare building and will have an area of 76,372 square feet. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required easements. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be acquired: — 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeters of all lots. 2. Dedication of public right-of-way. 3. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Day care centers are permitted in the IOP District as a conditional use. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned IOP. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts from this use. It will provide a convenient location for employees of the office industrial park to drop off their children. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The use is also in compliance with the Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan although it has not yet been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Both sites meet the requirements of the design standards as discussed in the site plan/architecture section. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 10 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is in the industrial district and as such, a day care center is fully consistent with this site. Architectural standards required by the Highway 5 corridor study and are being adhered to. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. This use will have traffic patterns that should combine trips with existing businesses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. Roads serving the site are fully capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff is aware of. However, we do believe that there is always a need for a day care center within any Office Industrial Park. The day care use is a good auxiliary use for the industrial park. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the building, and lighting standards will comply with city ordinances. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 11 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that highway by a signalized intersection and a collector street designed to commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area residential neighborhood. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties. The building is to be built of brick accented by columns, ceramic tile, and a canopy. Consistent with Highway 5 overlay district. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING - The site is being used for a day care type of operation which is consistent with its designation. It will not depreciate surrounding property values. On the contrary, it will add a convenient location for employees working in the surrounding area to drop off their children. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate findings: a. The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements FINDING - The building is surrounded by a sidewalk to allow pedestrian movement. b. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. FINDING - There are no adjoining residential areas. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 12 c. Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. FINDING - Staff will insure compliance with this condition prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW _ "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #94-1 as shown on the site plan received March 8, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for The Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosure on both the Press and Kindercare sites. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking area and Hwy. 5. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The applicant shall provide elevations of The Press building for review and approval. 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 13 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 10. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated. 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994." II. SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition as shown on plat received March 8, 1994, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: The Press/Kinder Care April 6, 1994 Page 14 a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1, and 2 and 3, Block 1. = b. Dedication of public right-of-way. c. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sewer service. 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement acceptable to the city. 4. A driveway or cross-access easement for use of the access of off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the watershed district, health department, etc. 6. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north property line where the parking lot for The Press is being relocated." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#94-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses." ATTACHMENTS - 1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated March 25, 1994. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated March 10, 1994. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 25, 1994. 4. Project Narrative Document dated March 7, 1994. 5. Plans received March 8, 1994. CITYOF CIIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City EngineerM<Z____ DATE: March 25, 1994 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary and Final Plat - Park One 3rd Addition and Site Plan _ Review for Kindercare Land Use Review File No. 94-7 Upon review of the site plans dated March 7, 1994, prepared by RLK Associates, Ltd. and the preliminary plat prepared by Eagan, Field and Nowak, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE In addition to the site drainage for the Kindercare site, it appears a large portion of the east parking lot for The Press is also proposed to be redone to accommodate future expansions. The overall grading plan appears acceptable; however, additional storm sewers will be necessary to convey storm water runoff from the parking lot relocation on The Press site. The grading/utility plan should be revised incorporating the existing or proposed storm sewer system. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (Kindercare/Press) should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The drainage calculations shall be for a 10-year storm event. Based on the grading plan, it appears site grading will exceed five acres in size thus requiring permits from the MPCA (NPDES) and watershed district. The site will be served from storm sewers that were installed in 77th Street West and Dell Road. These storm drainage systems convey storm runoff to a regional storm water pond located north of the site. Therefore, no on- site ponding will be required as a result of this development. The development will be _ responsible for the applicable Surface Water Management Utility fee in accordance with city ordinance. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 2 — EROSION CONTROL The plans are proposing silt fence along the east side of the Kindercare lot to protect Dell Road. Staff also believes it would be appropriate to install silt fence along the north property line of The Press adjacent the grading work to protect 77th Street West. A rock construction entrance is proposed at the north driveway access to The Press. Staff — believes the construction activity on the Kindercare site will also necessitate a rock construction entrance at the proposed entrance off of Dell Road. Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be provided at the Dell Road driveway access as well. UTILITIES The Kindercare site is proposed to be served from a watermain located in Dell Road. The plans propose open cutting in Dell Road to tap the watermain. According to the City's records, an 8- inch water line has been stubbed into the site just north of the proposed connection. Staff recommends that the existing water service be utilized and open cutting of Dell Road prohibited. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended to the site from 77th Street West. The plans propose to extend a 6-inch service to the Kindercare site along the west property lines of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. The appropriate drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on the final _ plat along the service line. Since both the sanitary and water services lines will be private (not maintained by the City), the applicable permits and inspections should be coordinated by the applicant through the City Building Department. ACCESS/PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Dell Road is a four-lane divided collector street. Access to and from the Kindercare site via Dell Road is restricted to a right-in right-out only due to the existing center median. The parking lot configuration appears to circulate well with the secondary access from The Press. However, the — disadvantage is the new parking lot and access onto Dell Road will make it very convenient for traffic from The Press to short circuit through the Kindercare site to get to Dell Road and onto Trunk Highway 5. The proposed warehouse expansion at The Press will involve relocating the existing drive aisles and parking lots. The proposed drive aisle will be constructed to 24-feet wide. The site currently has a number of semi-trailers parked adjacent to the drive aisles. With the anticipated truck traffic movement, staff believes the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) should be a minimum of 26- feet wide with turning radiuses onto 77th Street West of 30 feet. In addition, the drive aisles lying north of the main parking lot should be posted for no parking on both sides. Both driveway Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 3 access points (77th Street West and Dell Road) should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (see Attachment No. 1). A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the west side of Dell Road adjacent the site. The applicant shall be responsible for replacing any sidewalk damaged during construction of the site improvements. The applicant should post a security escrow (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. MISCELLANEOUS The plans propose installation of irrigation systems. The applicant should be aware the appropriate permits and inspections will be necessary for the installation of the irrigation system through the City's Building Department. All boulevard areas disturbed as a result of site improvements should be restored with sod. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lots and drive aisles for The Press. Detailed drainage calculations for both sites (The Press and Kindercare) for a 10-year storm event should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, watershed district, and City Building Department). 3. Silt fence shall also be placed along the north property line of The Press adjacent the grading activities to protect 77th Street West. 4. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. 5. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 6. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to facilitate the extension of the sanitary sewer service to the Kindercare site. 7. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on The Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 4 of 30 feet. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 8. Both driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical — industrial driveway apron detail. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for all boulevard restoration including the sidewalk along Dell Road. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. — jms Attachments: 1. Driveway apron detail. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — g:kngldave1pc\parkone3.fpr W Z i- 0 E- Z � z �r : Wo ir J J4 ti 1 i a ."Q I . 4 a OIII u p Ii aaW CD ►- w 9 00 XQ r I- 4 �� } I Z a w W P S W Z .• J .O I W 3 J � , > I y ~ V< ( 0 1-- < . ' U m I I >-1) SD W: m I J cp ;N • c0 -�-i S Ili g! 1-1- — N U 0 U / 14? 11:444 1111 . I - w g6 P acs LIJ it-). il- - I/5 4, < ��w fr� jW O WO -1, m % . „v . Boa 1 z— •`� o;-= Z _ N rel LO-I -D40 All I- Z�} 1Da I . '. O mw 0 ~ J S U J le -7. '4-, Q [ ; F- �m O� e U , I CITY OF INDUSTRIAL CHANnASOU DRIVEWAY DATE 2_91 PLATE NO. 5207 y t‘r CITY OF ii _ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 — 'w MEMORANDUM _ TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 10, 1994 — SUBJ: The Press Expansion and New Kindercare Facility Planning Case 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP, 94-1 SPR — I have reviewed the plans and have the following requirements: — 1. Submit utility plans showing existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. A determination will then be made if additional hydrants will be needed. — 2. In the new north parking lot, labeled "One Way", maintain a 20 foot wide _ driving lane between parking stalls. This will satisfy the 20 foot wide fire apparatus access road width. 3. Provide turning radius of fire apparatus access roads to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen City Engineer for approval. 4. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. CITY OF czANIAssEN 11. 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: Steve A. Kirchman. Building Official DATE: March 25, 1994 SUBJ: 94-2 SUB, 94-1 CUP & 94-1 SPR (Press expansion & Kindercare) I have been asked for comments on the above referenced Planning Department application. Background: The existing facility was built in phases beginning in 1978 and continui: ; until 1992. Analysis: Because the buildi. 2 was built over a period of time and many portions were constructed before the Inspections Division performed p1. reviews, the City does not have accurate records of the existing structure. In order to perform an accurate plan review of the proposed addition the occupancy classification(s), occupant load and construction type of both the existing building and the proposed addition must be determined. These .leterminations will allow occupant loads to be assigned , exiting requirements to be evaluated and construction requirements determined. Accurately dimensioned plans indicating the use of all spaces are needed to insure accuracy. The submitted site plans does not indicate any handicapped parki-,F, spaces. The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that such spaces be provide at t:: -.te of one handicapped space per every 50 spaces in the lot(s). This calculated out to 7 space Dr the Press and 1 space for the Kindercare. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ha.. .:ecific requirements for van spaces which are not now part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included on the site plans. Sharmin Al-Jaff March 25, 1994 Page 2 UBC Appendix Chapter 38 as amended by the MSBC was adopted by the City in 1987. Consequently, the proposed addition to The Press as well as the Kindercare will be required to be fire sprinklered. Recommendations: 1. Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors. 2. Revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\press.sj 1 NARRATIVE DOCUMENT Kindercare The Press SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBNIISSION -- March 7, 1994 Prepared For: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Developer: MARCUS CORPORATION Prepared By: RLK Associates, Ltd. 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0972 March 7, 1994 — Site Plan Approval Submission The Press - Warehouse Expansion — Kindercare Inc. - Daycare Facility Dell Road and State Highway 5 Chanhassen, Minnesota By: Marcus Corporation 10001 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 REQUESTS City review for site plan approval and replatting of a 15± acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which will provide the following: • Warehouse expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. for the Press. - Rearrangement of East parking lot and entrance out of W. 77th Street. - - The addition of 16 parking stalls. • Kindercare day care facility on a 1.75± acre parcel. • 1.5 acre outlot for future development. • Site plan, preliminary and final plat approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Press Inc., an office/warehouse facility has occupied the existing 15 acre parcel for the last 13 years. In order to accommodate an expansion of 54,720 sq. ft. the existing parking lot and plat have to be amended. A replatting of the property into three developable parcels will occur with this application. A coauthorized site plan has been developed by the Press and Kindercare, a nationally known company providing quality day care and children support services. The proposed development will provide a new access from West 77th Street to be utilized by the Press, Kindercare and a future outlot north of Kindercare. The rearranged — parking for the Press will enable landscape islands and a landscaped entry boulevard to be installed. The proposed expansion of the Press will enclose the loading dock area, and will architecturally match the existing exterior of scored concrete parcels. Kindercare proposes to develop the corner lot at Dell Road and State Highway 5 according to the attached site plan which identifies a 10,315 sq. ft. building, a 45 stall parking lot, children's play area and impressive landscaping. In addition a right in/right out access is proposed on — Dell Road. This access will allow vehicles to access State Highway 5 at an improved signalized intersection. March 7, 1994 Page 2 THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION — Descriptive Narrative Attached with this narrative are six plan sheets which identify the project location, proposed site plan, grading/utility systems, platting, landscape plan and building elevation. The attached plan sheets are: Sheet 1 Title Sheet/Site Plan Sheet 2 Existing Conditions Sheet 3 Grading/Utility Plan Sheet 4 Landscape Plan Sheet 5 Preliminary/Final Plat Sheet 6 Kindercare Building Elevations EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is currently occupied by the Press, a 186,000 sq. ft. office, warehouse, manufacturing facility, and a series of parking lots which provide space for 298 vehicles. The intersection of Dell Road and State Highway 5 has recently been improved to provide a signalized intersection complete with turn lanes and a center median on Dell Road. An 8' wide bituminous bicycle/pedestrian trail running parallel within the north right-of-way of State Highway 5 will he maintained in its current alignment. The existing landscaping on the south side of this parcel will be preserved and added to in order to be consistent with the City landscape code and Highway 5 Corridor Study Objectives. The sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road will also be maintained and repaired if any utility construction disrupts it. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Second Addition lying west of Dell Road and North of State Highway 5. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan which calls for quality office/industrial development within this area of Chanhassen. Expansion of existing facilities is to he encouraged wherever possible and a pooling of resources is being utilized in order to coordinate the access, utility/drainage facilities and landscaping for the warehouse expansion and Kindercare development. A day care facility centrally located among the existing office/warehouse buildings will he a welcome land use for the number of employees currently employed within a 1/2 mile radius of this site which is in the eastern portion of Chanhassen. The proposed site plan will greatly enhance the northwest corner of Dell Road and State Highway 5, acting as an eastern entry to the City of Chanhassen. March 7, 1994 Page 3 THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION Descriptive Narrative DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN SHEETS Site Plan As illustrated, the Press property will be rearranged to allow for the Kindercare parcel and one additional parcel to be developed at a future date. The joint entry from West 77th Street will provide a separation for passenger cars and truck traffic. The landscape entry islands will direct traffic in a logical and aesthetic manner while increasing the number of parking stalls to be consistent with the Zoning Code for the proposed 54,720 sq. ft. warehouse addition. Based on the current division between office and warehouse functions, it is estimated the current parking lot exceeds City parking code requirements by approximately 40 stalls. The proposed landscape parking islands will enhance the image of the existing parking lot and provide locations for overstory trees and light fixtures which will he relocated from the current parking lot. Drainage and Utility Plan The parking lot for the Press will be expanded and surface drained from the south to West 77th. The proposed drainage pattern is consistent with how the site drains today. Once the surface water is collected in the West 77th storm sewer system, it is directed to the existing stormwater pond one block away on the north side of the Ver-Sa-Til building. The proposed drainage system is consistent with the City's stormwater management plan. The Kindercare parking lot will he surface drained to a storm sewer at the northeast corner of the lot and directed to the storm sewer system within Dell Road. The Dell Road storm sewer system also drains directly to the stormwater pond north of Ver-Sa-Til. Water service for Kindercare will be taken from an existing watermain located within Dell Road. At this time it is proposed that a new service be added which will necessitate an open cut with Dell Road. If an available water service is known, the plan will be changed to utilize the existing stop box. Sanitary sewer service will be directed to the North and tie into an existing 6" wye within W. 77th Street. It is anticipated the future development of the lot north of Kindercare will also utilize this sanitary sewer line. Landscape Plan The landscape plan provides for a very generous planting plan on the perimeter of the site adjacent to State Highway 5 and Dell Road. The parking island landscape plan was developed to coordinate the site lighting and overstory trees within the parking islands. The plant material selected provides for a variety of ornamental conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs to create colorful and enhanced landscape plan on a year round basis. The planting adjacent to Highway 5 has received special treatment in order to he compatible with the Highway 5 Corridor plan and function as a entry statement to the City of Chanhassen. March 7, 1994 Page 4 THE PRESS - WAREHOUSE EXPANSION Descriptive Narrative Lighting Plan All proposed site lighting will either be relocated existing fixtures from the Press parking lot or similar poles and fixtures with a downcast shoe box fixture to conceal all visible light sources. The maximum height of all poles will be 25 feet. BUILDING ELEVATION Kindercare corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia provided the architectural drawing elevations to be submitted in this package. The facade will consist of face brick wainscoting on all four sides and EIFS panel systems above the wainscoting. The entry will have a canopy with columns and ceramic tile detailing. The proposed Press expansion will match the existing architectural style of scored concrete panels. The expansion will be warehouse space only and will not require windows or office treatments. _. A' 0 ' - - -• \ A \ A M. m tl p D y -K A y .. - :r. 470 � 00x � 7o q� div m 7,� A x 4, - :q. . 7J R7 f11 A 0 • • •_ -. rnrn¢n1.4 ?,77 0 CM. . (TS WYE =r a C F. F z y4 .4 .1,.y,F rpa • fflhhhKrrr111l11 2 li trt r+ ~ M V j X y A FF�iQl 000 r+ 88 ~ AA rn m m N 3 E i74` m A V T m V y H IA `ZN -'•ii Z Z;N Zi N 11Ag N 1.1 4 N • :' ;if , H „ x L j 0te 0 _ X C) +,rrtew,, N• YCQsQ] .w O awn' o ffi • OOA►+ xIH - -40c Ith m V����l!11 T10P `*-r: 1�ION C1f-' -i-lOr la �_rnbC1 c $~ eOrtFP+Fn� Tr � p V O sCa Nmtt rrTIoF TJ 58 Az tnQR7Mme z DXVI40 mQ• Xoo O1.v!ie m•--c - mG1 •-I -1033 W: 1 l7r- j4 Viyy N ZA N .�P i _ (.4H t�pptt A 1 Xpe tm� tm�i r a. o� go AHP r < .2 CI, ZIIn8AN o !•I. C r ►4AlMfN3 1 mc' a° ), 0 Pe X 77 3= zwazr0 v$ -f 0Am ea g f4 rn <ramCa N WNg ni 2-�1 �i �lmni m - Zoe t88i ' (r�ng N 3S2rAw '0 rr-'-0' z 8w 6ii� a0 mp ~ � VrN fav t(nn bD 0 O Z2bo trot O H d m H U+ yi V a A A N ^i Cu0 m4 p f O. H�...' men F-1 i4m m N a z rn 03 W 1 i O - 13 t A `k $mm q p Ss $ N z ZFPY+mNa� DDZ6 A -4 -116r X V A •A�fi p 0. r y �ta...0.a /S� r TUi - i-.CQ Qo O V Ili .� M2 7t� HIloQ H N PJC < H qHN ►.r NC� Drt1 S mryt�O1 N)44 en • z OfSPS a 1azACAQN+ • �('+'�7J 77frt m N i O ,11 N \• *.25 D K W �p X N A O 1.0 O 77 Ax w v v -1 Cl 1-4 13 VX N m .1 4d7 : :. 8 x - • H • r F O O H - 7400 ir • _ �1 O L R1Zm NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ` o _� CC 0 i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • �_ �• Wednesday, April 6, 1994 4P >, . 7:30 P.M. �' pill mei City Hall Council Chambers 0. ; - W 690 Coulter Drive . i 1 ! 2 IlirI_ Project: The Press Expansion and =TF1 sT ; I Kindercare Facility A `' r _Z Developer: Marcus Corporation syr 5- - Location: Northwest quadrant of Dell HANHASS N Road and State Highway 5. NI , ,NE ESTATES �OP Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Marcus Corporation is proposing preliminary and fmal plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition, a Site Plan Review for a 54,720 square foot warehouse expansion for the Press and a 10,315 square foot Kindercare facility and a Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Day Care Center in an IOP, Industrial Office Park, located at the northwest quadrant of Dell Road — and State Highway 5. _ 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, ext. 120. 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. of thispublic hearinghas beenpublished in the Chanhassen Villager on March 24, 94 _ Notice g 1994. 3;, 1iF ' . t i The Press, Inc. D. J. Bogema Frank Beddor, '.-. 18780 West 78th Street 18400 77th Street West 649 5th Ave. S. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Naples, FL 33940 Rottlund Company Randall & Julia Foote Fredric & Lori Silvers 5201 River Road East 7603 Kimberly Lane 7619 Kimberly Lane Fridley, MN 55421 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Tandem Properties Waytek, Inc. DataServ, Inc. 2765 Casco Point Road 7660 Quattro Drive Atm: Legal Department Wayzata, MN 55391 Box 690 19011 Lake Drive East Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lee & Deborah Belka 7611 Kimberly Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 NOTICE OF PUBLIC EARING PROPOSED CONCEPT PUD CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 20, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coult, Drive. The purpose of this hear is to review a Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 82.6 acres of property zoned A: :.gricultural Estate to PUD including 19.3 acres for office/warehouse, 52.9 acre, for multi-family, 3.4 acres for ponding area, and 7 acres for :oad right-of-way located south e. Highway 5, west of Audubon and east of Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen Corporate Centre, Highway 5 Partnership, Ryan Companies, Heritage Development, Boiselair Corporation and RLK Associates. A plan showing the location of the pror:sal is av,.ilable for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Planner II Phone: 937-1900, ext. 141 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 1994) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6, 1994 — Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B, PARK ONE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, A SITE — PLAN REVIEW FOR 54,720 SQUARE FEET WAREHOUSE EXPANSION FOR THE PRESS AND A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACILITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, — INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I just have one more. I didn't see any in the packet of elevations for the — proposed warehouse addition and the proposed Press proofing room. Press room addition. I haven't seen what it's going to look like. How it matches up to the existing building or anything. Oh, did I miss them? — Al-Jaff: I apologize. I thought I gave them to everyone. Mancino: Okay, thank you. That was quick. Scott: Are there any questions on the new elevations? Take a few minutes and go through — them. Mancino: Excuse me. Is this correct from what you drew Sharmin? This east elevation. This is going to be on the outside of that wall, not on the inside? Al-Jaff: These are the existing elevations. It's the second page that shows that. — 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Thank you. So that will be covered up and then the north. Okay, thanks. Scott: Any other questions for staff? Harberts: What are they doing with the open space? Al-Jaff: We don't know at this point. Harberts: Any indications at all? What can they do with it? Is it big enough to build on? Al-Jaff: Yes. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please step to the microphone and identify yourselves... We can take a few moments to set up the tripod so we can get it on the camera. John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the real estate _ architect and civil engineers working with the Marcus Corporation and the Press...to develop this site for the application that is in front of you. The application that is there, we are excited about and we are willing to work with commission members and staff and City Council in orler to see this Kindercare and Press development proceed. With me tonight, representing Kindercare is John Pinmore so if there are specific questions in regard to Kindercare, Mr. Pinmore will be able to address those. And I will be able to address the questions in regards to the site plan and engineering plans. A couple of the comments that were raised I would like to respond to. In terms of the issue of the Press expansion. The intent of the expansion is primarily for warehouse purposes and storage and secondly to organize and consolidate some of the loading facilities that are out there today. Currently from Highway 5, as Sharmin indicated, are able to see the loading docks. It is proposed, with the facility that would r;,ave forward, that they would be fully enclosed. That the loading docks would be fully enclosed and face each other so that the vie'. from Highway 5 and from Dell Road, you would not be able to see the loading dock facility. Currently there are semi's that sit out here. That is how some of the facility and storage capacity is taken up to date. With this new expansion it will all be fully enclosed as well as the service of the docks both on the east and west wings of that addition. The facade of the Press will be comparable to what is out there today in terms of this square concrete panels so that it will match the existing facade that is along that eastern side today. The proposal is to have a joint access drive from West 77th Street. That would be built into the developer's agreement so that it would be a joint driveway would be, the proposal is 24 feet. We will expand that to 26 feet to meet city code and that would service with the Kindercare, the Press and the outlot that is remaining to date. This 1.5 acre outlot is proposed to remain under the ownership of 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 the Press at this time. There are no proposals pending or thought of for this site. It is the Press Incorporated's intention to hold onto that site for future considerations. You know if they continue to expand or need more parking. They are in the process of holding it. For the time being it is totally proposed to stay in basically a natural state of grass condition as it is today. With the Kindercare facility, we would have a right-in/right-out off of Dell Road and circulation that would allow the parents to park and drop off. Drop and take their children into the facility. Typically we would anticipate the drop off period would be over a 2 hour time frame and there would be approximately 100 children during that time frame. We would anticipate the Press being the major client of this Kindercare facility and there would be opportunities for some of the parking that is on the Kindercare lot to be contracted to the Press employees. Because if they run multiple shifts, we would anticipate a fair amount of usage from the Press for the Kindercare. We would, the parking stalls that are out there would accommodate up to approximately 245 children. We anticipate a maximum amount of children in the Kindercare facility would be approximately 200 so there are multiple parking spaces that are available for contract use or for developing into drop off areas or sidewalk. The licensing of the daycare facility is done by a State review process and that would be a process that all daycare facilities need to go through. The signage plan has not been submitted. We would be fully intended to comply with the ordinance of the square footage of the maximum of 80 square feet and also of the height of an 8 foot high sign...that's within the ordinance requirements. Kindercare is a national chain so they have a logo and basically the total sign plan that they would put. We fully intend to work with the landscaping and berming so that the berm that is currently out there along Highway 5 would be extended and pulled into this area so that the entire parking area should be screened from view while you were getting into your car at an elevation on Highway 5. So that we would continue that and then also by adding parking lot islands and irrigation, anticipate that this area will have quite a bit more green than is currently out there in a much more maintainable condition. I believe those are the issues that I heard. We'd be happy to respond to any additional questions with regard to the site plan. Harberts: I have a question. You chatted about the parking with regard to contract. Contracting. I don't understand that. Could you just kind of elaborate what you meant by contracting out parking? John Dietrich: With the Press next to this facility they are going to be completely independent in terms of ownership. We would anticipate that there would be an opportunity for an employee to park and drop off their children and then walk over to the Press facility so there's going to have to be a...agreement between the two landowners. We would also anticipate that the Press would be able to control the employee usage for potential cut through of that lot through to Dell Road being that management would have the say over how the employees would exit the site and it would be stipulated that...would have to be either to the 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 west or to the north to West 77th Street. Harberts: Is there a fence that will go around the playground area? Around the daycare area. John Dietrich: Yes, I believe there is. Ledvina: I had a question regarding the parking. Staff has indicated that your proposal identifies 314 stalls and the requirement based on the staff's calculations as far as the needs are concerned indicates 245 parking slots. Why the extra stalls? John Dietrich: We took the amount of stalls that are out there today and looked at the warehouse expansion and calculated that in terms of the new square footage and we added that square footage to the existing number of stalls that are out there today. So in terms of parking requirements, it may be over built today if we wanted to be consistent with the ordinance for the expansion of the 55,000 square feet for the Press. So we added that expansion to the existing parking total. Ledvina: The expansion that's being proposed? John Dietrich: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: But didn't staff take that into account? So that's already taken into account for what's required, which is the 277. John Dietrich: Yes. Yes. Mancino: So you went over and beyond what was required even for the expansion? John Dietrich: Yes. Harberts: So are you asking, is the ordinance minimum or maximum? Mancino: It still doesn't make sense, yeah. Harberts: Is the ordinance minimum or maximum? Al-Jaff: Minimum. They want to exceed that number if they can. If they meet hard surface coverage, which has not been provided. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: That was my next question. What is the hard surface coverage for, now for that, for the Press and for Kindercare? John Dietrich: For the Press and Kindercare. The hard surface coverage for the Kindercare is approximate 57%. And the hard surface coverage for the Press at this time is _ approximately 77%. Mancino: So it's over what they can do? _ Al-Jaff: 70% is the maximum hard surface coverage. Mancino: And they're at 77? Al-Jaff: So they need to reduce it. — Mancino: And they could reduce it by 7% by eliminating some extra parking spaces? I mean that's one way. That's one option. — John Dietrich: Yes, if we are over the code, we could do that, yes. Al-Jaff: Another option is by enlarging the site. Moving the property line and currently Lot 3 is open so if they want to take a few square feet and just move the line, they would make up that 7%. Mancino: Okay. I have a couple questions for the elevations. On the south elevation that I'm looking at here, where does it show me what the new additions look like? This one — doesn't have a south? John Dietrich: We did not show the south or the west elevation on the proposed because the additions are going on the west. Excuse me. Are going on the east and on the north. If I was to draw in where it would be on the existing, it would be approximately in this range. _ But it would be set. Mancino: Is it going to have the same sort of detailing that this front has or is it just going _ to be the vertical? John Dietrich: It's going to be the vertical square concrete, similar to the existing east elevation. Mancino: Will there be any windows or any sort of anything facing south? — 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 — John Dietrich: There is warehouse, storage... Mancino: What's the wall, what's the length of the wall of the Press room addition facing — south? Is that a 20 foot length of wall or is that? John Dietrich: The length of wall. Mancino: No, east of it for the addition. Yeah. — John Dietrich: This piece here? Mancino: How big is that? John Dietrich: I would say approximately 60 feet. — Mancino: 60 feet? John Dietrich: In length. In terms of height, it would match the existing. Mancino: And there is no windows? There's no nothing? There's no landscaping for that 60 feet? John Dietrich: ...for the landscaping. Mancino: Okay. And if that's 60 feet, then how big is the warehouse that faces south? — John Dietrich: Let me grab...It's approximately 65 feet, not 60. It's approximately 130 feet. — Mancino: We have in our Highway 5 guidelines something about you know big expanses of flat wall. Or I shouldn't say flat wall but a wall and doing something with those expanses. Making them... John Dietrich: ...landscaping to those facades. They are to help break up those individual... — Mancino: Okay. So you would come back to us with a new landscaping plan that would show what you would do? — John Dietrich: Yes. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Mancino: Okay. John Dietrich: Or if you would wish, we could put in a condition that they would have to have staff approval or staff to concur with the landscape plans prior to... Mancino: Are there other requirements on the, in the Highway 5 about,just not landscaping but doing something architecturally to those big expanses? Do you know? Al-Jaff: ...architecturally elements or landscaping is what it will be. Mancino: It's or? It's not and/or? We'll have to, we'll look that up? Okay. _ Scott: Any other questions for the applicant? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman. On my proposed conditions, on the north elevation there's a, I think I see a loading dock area and I don't know, is this correct or how is this, why is this set up this way? — John Dietrich: Okay. North elevation on the right hand side. Ledvina: Right. What am I looking at there? John Dietrich: This one over on this side of the building. — Ledvina: Alright. Harberts: Mr. Chairman. On that same side, according to the site plan that I see here, we have parking, 24, 11 and 8. Are those anticipated for employees or who's anticipated to be parking on that side? — John Dietrich: Parking over on the west side of the building? Harberts: Yeah, right. John Dietrich: Typically it's all employee. Harberts: And their access is from what point? Is it off of 77th? _ John Dietrich: It will probably where it comes in on the southwest corner. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Harberts: I'd like to chat with the gentleman from Kindercare. John Pinmore: I'd like to expand a bit on the drop off and pick up. My name is John Pinmore with Kindercare as a Division Construction Manager and...I wanted to expand. You've got to keep in mind with a child care center, we're taking children from 6 weeks in age to 12 years and in this particular center a majority, the greater majority of those children will be between 6 weeks and probably 3 or 4 years. Because of the age of the children, we can't allow parents to drive up and drop off their child. They have to park. Bring the kid into the center. Sign him in. There has to be an exchange of being in charge of that child for the day. It's not like a grade school where the parents drive up and you know wave good-bye to their son or daughter and they go into the school. So the kid is not allowed to just go into a drop off lane type of function. Really it doesn't work in a child care center = because the parent has to go in. You can't just drive it you know. Leave them off. You know the first person in the front, if they stand in longer than the person behind, then you've got a traffic jam in the drop off lane so we find that just a regular parking lot works best for the way we handle our drop off's and pretty much that's how all child cares have to handle their drop offs because of the age of the children. And the fact that the Kindercare has to take charge of those children at some point in the signing in and signing out... Harberts: What about with regard to the access? In terms of if the majority, if the major clients or client that you are anticipating is from the Press, the printing or whatever. John Pinmore: I don't think it will be the major. I mean we are anticipating...but I do not believe that will be the greater part of the center. We have a division in Kindercare called Kindercare Work and we actually build centers for a particular client and they guarantee spaces or do something and we didn't have any type of relationship here with the Press. Of course we would take their children, but we'd take them like anybody else's child. Harberts: Do you own or operate any Kindercare's within Eden Prairie, Chaska or Chanhassen currently? John Pinmore: We have two in Eden Prairie. One is on TH 5 right now. There will be...few years and then it will be going away. Audience: What is that Valley View? Harberts: Valley View and Prairie Center Drive?... 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 John Pinmore: We have one in Minnetonka on TH 101 and Excelsior. Harberts: When you have field trips, when you have field trips outside your location, do you provide your own form of transportation? John Pinmore: Yes, we have vans, correct. We also use those vans to pick up the after school children from their schools and then we have designated parking spots in the front row of the building that will be striped van. They're the front spot... _ Harberts: I'm done. Scott: Any other questions or comments of the applicant? Thank you sir. Harberts: Is there anyone from the operations? John Pinmore: No, not here tonight but I can answer numerous of your questions but not all of them. Did you have a specific one? — Harberts: Well I'm just wondering, with regards to the employees. Are there residents within like a 5 mile radius of the employment side? Is it more of a metro draw in terms of — residents? John Pinmore: It is but they are more localized. Our employees. My office is in the — Chicago area where we have about 75 centers and you'll find the employees typically live around their center. They don't come from too far of distances. They typically work in the area. Harberts: Okay, thanks. John Pinmore: But I mean we haven't really patrolled that other than the fact that they need to be there at a certain time and so if they live an hour away, that may become difficult for them. Harberts: Thank you. Scott: Anything else? This is a public hearing and can I have a motion. Pardon me? Find out if anybody else from the applicants or their representatives would like to speak? John Dietrich: In terms of the facade of the building facing south, with the 65 foot step and also approximately 100 foot step. The building was designed so that that step would be in _ 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 there so we do not have one massive block. We wanted to step that a little bit and tuck the parking in. There will also be a berm coming up from the parking lot approximately 4 foot up against the facade in this area so that we have an opportunity to have some green going up from the parking lot itself up to the building. So the building will be o -: t. e main, similar to a retaining wall to help bring the scale of that building height down. And finally in terms of visual, we will have the berm along Highway 5 screening the parking lot with the overstory trees to help b- .k up the facade along the proposed expansion. Mancino: Th• rm being, is a 3 or 4 foot berm and it is also what's on the berg ? I mean you won't get r:such opacity really because it's going to be overstory trees that are deciduous trees so during the winter you're still going to have that direct line sight view into that corner of the building and you're going to see 120 feet of you know just a wall and that's my concern. And it has been addressed in the Highway 5 study on page, I think it's page 58 where we're asking for those buildings on Highway 5 not to an: actually there's rine _ drawing of it not to be this plain and straight wall. That we have some variation We don't get into monotony along Highway ` because it's a very important area for us. John Dietrich: Absolutely... Mancino: And the Press is a wonderful, as far as I'm concerned, v.onderfally landscape_ n the front. Wonderful architectural in the front. I enjoy it very much going by it. It's very pleasing aesthetically. I don't even, I never realized that there were docks on the east side because I'm drawn to the focal point which is the front of that building be_ause it's so well done. So I want it to stay that way and not to have just this addition which is a block wall to warehousing on Highway 5 because I think what it has right now is great. And I would not like to see the addition didn't live up to what the original building is. John Dietrich: The building itself is complimentary to the existing building in terms of the score of the concrete panels and stepping with it. It does -, t have the office space with the windows that are currently there from the south side. Mancino: Which I think some architectural addition does need to be put on those bigger spaces to keep them in the same quality as it's being the original building. John Dietrich: In terms of the distance, the 65 feet. and 130 feet and the scale of the building is compatible with, you know in terms of the steppic: of that side. Not one long facade of 200 feet. Scott: Would anybody else from the applicant like to speak? Okay. Can we have a motion to open the public hearing please. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was opened. Scott: First of all, is there anyone here from the general public who would like to speak about this issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about relates to the number of parking spaces and the hard surface coverage. Many times we'll have applicants that will come in without parking and this is kind of a flip of that but I think in this instance we want to try to avoid the look of large parking areas. I think that if there were going to be, if the applicant chooses to eliminate some of the parking, which I feel that that should be done, I think it should be done along the south part of the site. And I don't know exactly what the existing conditions there are now. Do they plan on expanding the parking in that direction, or no? Al-Jaff: They're expanding it to the east only. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that we need to be aware of oversized parking lots and certainly the hard surface issue needs to be addressed. And I would be strongly in favor of reducing that to the 245 stalls that were identified in the staff report. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: 70% impervious surface is absolute. What they do with it doesn't matter to me. I think there should be some concern aesthetically for the addition but I'm comfortable that it can be done with plantings, landscaping. I would like to see that condition up to the City Council. That's all. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I came in late so I didn't hear all the, I knew you were going to talk about the traffic here. I also, the 70% issue I agree with. I guess I don't fully understand the expansion of the lot. I understand the expanded, they can leave the parking as is by reducing the ratio that way. But that would still leave the look of the wide open parking space out front so maybe if there's a way to cut it back without expanding that, that's an option. And I guess I would agree with Ladd's comments or Nancy's comment in terms of looking at the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 south facing wall to make sure that we do get something that enhances the appearance. I'm not, I don't believe in putting windows on warehouse space and we don't need windows or anything to break it up but if there is a way we can landscape, that makes sense. So that's all I have. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I have three comments and that is impervious surface. I also agree with everyone about 70%. I would like to see it back because I'd like to see some enhancement of the proposed classroom expansion and proposed warehouse expansion. Whether that be architecturally or whether that be landscaping, I've got to see it. You know there was no elevations or very detailed to show us what it's really going to look like and I'd like to see what it will really look like. It does, it is on Highway 5 and it is important to us. We've done a whole corridor study for Highway 5 ' a year and a half. We care about whether _ those will look like. The original and their u :led on space so I would like to see it in detail. What it will look like. Certain 'm concerned about parking. I'm concerned about the cut through for the people from the tress who park in that back parking lot being able to cut through the Kindercare lots. I just think of small kids when they get out of their car when they're 4 or 5. I mean they - to the front door before their parents can even stop them. And so I see it as a big put afety issue. That there can be cars coming through that parking lot when they're beim dropped off or picked up and that's a concern for me. So I do not, I would not like to see the parking lots bein :ised together. I think that there should be a fence or whatever. Plantings between the two parking lots. And I also think that part of _ the recommendation should include no rooftop equipment. That it cannot be viewed from 77th Street, Dell Road or Highway 5. And lastly, getting to the Kindercare building, ...constructed of face brick on the bottom part of the building and then it has EIFS. What is? John Dietrich: It's stucco. It's insulated stucco. EIFS stands for Exterior Insulation Finished System. Basically it's stucco on top of insulation. Where stucco, just straight stucco there's no R value to it. So it's like an, our color will be off white stucco. Mancino: Well we have requested I think on any new building that's coming in, samples so I would like to see samples and colors. You know colors and samples of the facing brick and the stucco and the shingles, etc because we have been asking for that on all of our site plans. Not only samples but what also helps us, if you have another building in Minnetonka or in another suburb that is existing, for us to see a picture. An 8 x 10 glossy, whatever. That's very helpful and we can, you know visuals work a thousand words. So I would like to see samples and also a photograph of it. Those are my comments. Scott: Just a question of the Goodyear/Abra building that's being built across the street. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 That's almost completely brick isn't it? Al-Jaff: Correct. There is some concrete block. Scott: Okay. And this particular structure is roughly 25% or. Was something other than brick originally proposed for those buildings across the street? I didn't follow that particular. Al-Jaff: You mean for the Abra? Scott: Yeah. Al-Jaff: To begin with they were in brick but one of the conditions of approval was that brick be used on them... Scott: And the conditions were placed because, is that IOP across the street or were those? Al-Jaff: No, it was Highway Business and under the conditional use permit... Scott: Okay. Because I'm thinking we're kind of inconsistent where we've got an auto related use across the street that's completely brick and we have, whatever you call this and it's not. So I'm thinking from a standard standpoint, I guess my condition would be that we would have the exterior of this structure be consistent with the Abra across the street and I can't site you chapter and verse in what they have but I've been watching it being built for the last couple of weeks and so forth. Can I have a motion please? Harberts: I'd like to make a comment Joe. I wanted to just re-emphasize my comments with regard to public safety. From my perspective, from my professional experience I think this is wonderful in terms of having a Kindercare. In relationship to this type of industry, I think it's excellent. My only concern is that we're missing a small element and that's to make this element really work. And what I mean from that is from my earlier comments with regard to public safety. With regard to pedestrian access. Why treat an element in which you pull in, drop your kid off, go around and pull into another parking lot. Why not create that type of element, since we have that opportunity where maybe it enhances or makes it an advantage. You know perhaps what I would suggest is that lane of parking that's adjacent to the Kindercare, perhaps that could be designated in terms of a perk for people that do work here and do use daycare, that only daycare users, employees get to park there. It's kind of a perk. And why not put in then like a more pedestrian element such as a sidewalk or something to keep that public safety issue down. I'll just make a comment with regard to public transit in the area. With reverse commute, I've been working with Sharmin and Chanhassen does pull in employees on a metro wide area. Reverse commute we started a year ago with a 25 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 passenger bus. We're up to an articulated bus at 65 passengers in terms of reverse commute. It's only going to get larger. I guess I'm looking for that type of opportunity where we can help the employers have that type of advantage because it does help them with regard to employees. I would just go on record with my comments to the City Council and to the applicant that perhaps, and I will extend the services of Southwest Metro Transit, to sit down and perhaps help you identify where those type of advantages may be able to come into this site element. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope we see more of this but I just think we're missing some of the fine tuning in terms of the elements and I would certainly encourage that perhaps staff, from the city, staff from Southwest Metro Transit, can sit down. If it requires a little bit of redesigning, why not take that opportunity now because based on my experience, based on where the public policy is going on a regional level from the metro area, it's only going to pay off as a positive investment now later on in the future. Scott: Do you want to see this reworked? Mancino: That's what I was going to ask. Wouldn't you want to see it reworked and see it again? Harberts: Well from my professional experience I would say yes. But I would want the, I would really encourage that the applicant want to take that initiative to do it. I don't want government, public policy to be a hinderance but I want it to be viewed as a very positive and like I said, from what my experience is, as well as with where the region is going in terms of public policy and transit, I think if you take that little extra time to maybe take another look at how transit and how this type of pedestrian element can be blended to make it more advantageous, it's going to pay off long term for the business. Mancino: So we have some issues that we want to see. Scott: Yeah, reading from my notes here we see traffic circulation. We see impervious surface. We see two major things relating to the Highway 5 and related ordinances which appearance of the warehouse addition. We have setback concerns on the Kindercare facility. Are those major to the point where we want to see it reworked again? Yes? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: Okay. I will move that the Planning Commission not approve the site plan review -' #94-1 as shown on site plan received. Conrad: Do you want to table it? Mancino: Oh, okay. I move that we table it and see it again. With all the recommendations 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 that we made. And does staff have all those recommendations? Thank you. Scott: Is there a second to the motion? Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to table the Site Plan Review #94-1 for expansion to the Press and a Kindercare facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: When do you think we'll be able to get this back on our schedule so we can see it? I don't know how we're looking for the next meeting but. Al-Jaff: If they submit everything by Friday. Scott: I just want to make sure that when we table something, that we at least give them the opportunity to come back as quickly as they're able to. But if it looks like we can, well I guess it's up to them. We'll make a spot on our meeting in 2 weeks if they have the pieces in place. Okay. 15 -•• •••'Jr" /.....,•••1 , -11" el•••' - ..7-.• „,_,...- - --.•z 1 ,i i• • •' .. IU Trill ,,' -• t.W - - --- c Q..'- • . 1 k, , 1•••''';t ' • : ''A.....t": =1‘.- • - .: ; ,-,• zif.; ' 41.._ .- '-'4: t! ..4.:04- . ,-,-' '7. ..r/I•,., ,"4.1'." -. . - .• . .., -.. „,t, I , •-•'fF7 ,, •4,,••••• --t A . E... ,_., • ,., a*-.., - '.6-' 1 f ,.i', i; ,,,,,-..: "-X i• -,:r-,.. jrc.r1 k -.- --4" ...-- . . • _ , . ,.... ,.. . • ,-.. i -1. p- r -- :'.....v '- • -,' 4,-- " ;- ."-•'''''- i i' -••••••,-;. 1 1:.'''-tat-it' 4.4„,.,-.-.: .,..••=7 . - r,- . --,,g,-, ,-.,. E',. 4., ;,,...,.-.A._, --.-.... -:-- . . . . ,- 1 ic. I. : . . „ i. ..- _ ,.:;. ..-.. • _----- . -: „. ...-:_x -, - - - - .._ .1.. .." •••.: .t• '.. • if rz-x- 5 4,---,*- 4., . --.A.,• '''..ft n:""4.41-*-14r- .40,, '"_ -4-r--' '.- . I ,;,..iril. * 1 --,..'","4, '4' .4,/,..,.0-. • •I • _. i. -4' I ="- • .'•ir. .,:sc- '... -4-•• r'.; ".'1.. - • i 1 .-f,d'1 •..•• .4:' . ''-' I, .. ....-.4 ' .. `...!:- .......:4 1-••.,,, .:' -'.4r•s' -`' "•;e4tNte4c.sair.i..f- -''''''A'" k -- - . -,• - ---.E ---....- ---vt-E.00"--PN..%-o-:- •- .-.- - . It. me• 1.. ,Osess •mime k i it k 1„,.tt 1. • , . V... t . s -4, ›.• A"-,"; - * • I, - I r ,./., , :•.,, ,....0 .„, illiii“ 1 r-i• v•,- *" ' ''''F'..:• -'-'2` `tt--- . 'i • ' •.......',.;-.74. `,.."---`•• ',. - -.-..'-: -E-0,-,--7,-- -.7.-E.,/ - • • -,,...t • .:;•._. , ,_,V 7 -...Z. :.-k ..; ,.....s,„..- NI, limes Maas t asses ' "---.•.. -"'• -....., ,--.4 . " -- ,z .,,,..- , ..-,... ... .--).----• - .-__-,-,- ..----,,--TA ----- --, . -- df --f':'- f long A _ .., ., .... . .„ i„,,,,. _ , , ..... ,.... . . ... • ....,..,,,......., ,, ....., .... _.,',e,iitr'' ' itg" "if 7:4 ' .1- - :::-•••••V‘•. .....‘71,..." ,-,z., ,'•• -0*--.N. • - V - ----,--,/0-.,•,;: .. • ., ej 5.."' ",,,C..,,,, .•'' A -;.4,X` -, • 4-- ''',4,"., '-'•, -''.4 a".` 1 ''.1-11f.-it!' I 4 j.r•-• '. e'' -. ... . --.N.• - -- - _ . t -.1': 6i4• _ ''-- ' ' 1 •.• ".* 141 ; - . -At-*;..i.-• • 0', . 1 , ..,1,1,1 _ . _ .E. . . 74fr. A ••'--7 IF -------• - -4,- .--:. 4., : - E , _ -,,, , - .-t- -; •••41.-•<,-,.-•-.z- ,-,Nar....--, •.:4-.- ',:-';-:.;-`,1;"" ' ••••1.,..-4•4'.:4' i;el -A' ,41V '...'''... ..,/141...- . 11' -ii:•-".4°5-14•-• .4'':- -S4---1411it•-••-•i,.e.. , _.7; ,..,,./.li:.,, '4- '1'- 4•‘-'-- 111. .‘2'-'?-4S" 4.' -,14*' -• - Air- i IP. ;0•. - -• ' ,„.... ."`"•,1../'- -,.,. ••,--".../...4: ..,„-- • ./. -i•-/4, - ".3iA;z:z,41".....---;: ".•4' . ..".7...,..':',1' :::..‘ti•- It s...,,,..„., t......4•,wit ,, ,,,t, - # •'-...1"-'„":".. -3:-".s. -+" . . 0 A ..); . if •-r _ .. „...,- l • y V. .. JP .1.i i i•._ ' 1 . y li, .•i CI 1,7• ,..- --V," 4.;.;....• .- .; i ''';'-•4 -. .•14:. ''''' • .." .-' 7' -4 '.- _,.: -...., -_ itc•P'.. 2 ;Iff.•-t• , _, i ' : -'- ..,'•'52.....:•i:,--IL -a-fi'_?•:!--.17;•••. ---_,.t :.- ' Nt- . II all': :_ ;I:. t..-17 ; E,----... 7- i -4.44`. _ ,,r, f_,• ,_____. f-x, .: .i. •,tir..):"..... , _..11; :::::•il. .4..4 -:::::--..17.5.7.--_,....1..,..t......;:::..1.--;... 7:1:'•-:1--...I-L_....1.0.-:.i- ..::,_ -.........:1.- _-, , \ .,,,,.. .:_.#_::,...);_l• .If ...l..„ -,---ni,-1.....',.,- --.-. ....N.E. - - - • -- t :E.--.., .. . , . .. - :.,-...-. •-.. :... IT , --4.f.E... ,,,.. .,,,, ...... . , . .+17.4.--.7-.0 t' - `$- 1 •f.....Ar- ..: ,-. „ ..-, '.:..*•.5"-... .•',-_-_-._..e.•:1•• 44". -t -.'-...„.... . - -, • 11.15. -- _'..t:-•••'''..1.*VA;',.-'-,,--._- ' ...t. ','11.,.-,.,--•' .. •' VI' - \\\ , . ,t....4.i.,,_ -'..!--ft?" .---7'.7.' , ' 4 f•ft.' 1 re'"'"..i"• , , • A" , '*) -,e --. •._,44 - . - - ,- r • .',. "",,rpir-4 ,-ir , '.E._. ,:. '- ';'-'- '-;S‘.---\,..7-."---!,.."' ' ---- ,--":„ • 4 .11F- , - _ ..-., -..---_---.E.,,,,..„....7.,,-,...f.--,,:, •'•"'" - i '...- . . t' --'• - .. =- •-:-: ,a- :: --, !-.1 . i. 4F .,. - ' . . • .. ---L--7--,..-:" :.! it- 341' '-' - .1y-,......,,• - -- .",7-1,7,---.-- * -1. - 11.4!,•-'.... 1• - h 's.:141- , .471.ec. - ,-.1-;t4t.vr 1 I f•-• -:. • -21 p - _ 1 184) --• -• -". • • •ei.:7- ,Lr -7 'p'••‘r ., .... .7'.4t" - - •---• . T. 'ii 1 _ © 'IrZS Ce -_...... ......•: ..., - 1,11 .• R.,,• 7N- ' .iikg,',.•-•43:41/W , A' :- - c , . ,••, - • CS , . ., -s.'_V; It• , - • . ' ,1,1- ' „_-_,,,,_, -•• •..4-•••,.#044-••-• ''''- . _ • '''' - - A , ..,_ --, cz.) •-::... ;--1 Y c"' ,n'r .., -. • - ---. * - } _14,..'""Ze.'.. _.• •.: ••••----..1.-," .t 041 ' ' 'A.,- - - " ILL.:- ',Alt 't.rs",44cf4. 4:,"}"-:. -i :i• "'"-. ,•c:1'1 ' .-117- r oh'' ....J - '. - C • '.1.... . . - - :". .1 jr ' - ••• .N-11,71 I . -,-13;441144'0*, ' - A -'-,..;e,`2';'), 4.... • -%•'• ''" t' ' - ,r "• - 7:, _. •• r. GO) C.) 4 ..z. • . : :•I->t.• -4- --514--1. -.4 . ._ - .. ...,-.„--.4„..„0„ -. . - ...., -. .,v,. . _ ; 4 .7 -_ -....*• '.' -q-- . if.1 .4. -f7t- -. •0 .-. - _ -..-.7_, - • -- 7.-f... ,,,.? - -'--. .;!-,,, - rt•)- • a.4 • ., = - • . . 2 '7.4:I.... iti:4 !".'...7.AZ,';". 3.-1-•-•;:r-'.: . .!. . - .-3 . --- *.- -,-. -, r ..,..%.E. .. ...,.... i..eir .. ., r- t '' A lr• * -.: - .--rirt ---'''•' ' - : ?-•.--•<'---•'-'--- • '' ;. • .../.„..I..177.41$*4:...0..,:T.r. ••••-,A.A.' .1. _ t- Wm - A•, I it-sti-, lit at* ., ,,,,,..,, .,...-• __- v l'f' ,, • 1 - . 4 4/1-7.t 4 ' I •- .---=,f-l'""•1.c.4 ....‘".',W- - ,`" I.--- - '" -IA ../." 14 - ' 'art- --.-11 1,/ - 'g• .•*-- ' '- PO- Z., 1. '4 .ar•.• • A . .. • , • 1. ... pt.. 1.4. . . -I. '"" ,*:1**--4.-...;:rc..si'..7X-, *•,,-.4. . it .,'Lt.; "I'l-.Sks . •, _ ,t, ;','i P.--1.-491!4...:,-,941.--' -•‘*-= ".••41if y..•',54. ...40:-7,14./. 4MEMBIAhr•-:' .... :"."W....)11,417..", ii,,..despem.• i. ---V• "zit:4074, -i 4-- -- t. •- -• . .4...... ,1.114 ire:43.14-1 -• t 4 •1 - -"'‘.:0:4,. 't 4• - "P', -- -- ' 4".-•:, ..,,....- ' ,-11 '11,, - - - 1151111101C-v:- ...,,, ,_ • .,....._.1•44.1,,i. , „P.p. . ,,i• .,••••::..,.4-...„%, .•,:-. '4-"....,',3n-.,,. :-.sr% , '• 4kr,,AE '."5-•,t.„;.; t ,-." " -;•-7,'"" ,'•••/-........',-4"....', '' • ainum Ildatifoil INSAILAMMIF f.IFW IMMIIISINVI'• •. - :E.'„, ..-f4jr."...., ,:-•:' 0..... , ,,;0i•;!..- ..4 iy* .-r .,._, ..: ,, .1.f.- . . •<7•• ----;--4'0 „,,,4, .- ••••„;im alliiralinr1,J, . ., ....„ • -r,,,- .....›.„'.„...2, HI illin isino.3% -.: . 1. .it 717- . ,, _, „:,..,.. ,. __ ,7.- :-..„..__-,..,--„,......_._ -,.*..... ... ,,• .t MEM 4''WI' 4 s *‘" , - -,:nis '-----,,' 7,44;44 '-/ -‘7I ''r ,.;* 7t--- ' • BMW 1 • ... . •S 7: LANE -AIM _ - -'.- .......2"1- -'r' '' ' `4,-.?:': -V--"., •-•F ._ . 7. ,-..../.7,-Jie I INULTe••••_- •S , t a ' -•:.abiclimr,e. , • _ at. 1 . ,, , rt.,3.- •• '-t•-... .• - U4* .:_„osammotwor..!' * . ,, If I .if 1,1 griiiir _ . - - • I - li ' • " p ..- ,,.. r. ' • . ...g.,.... .I, *. .. 1 0,:,.•--;..... r - . — ,.,.w v •••=.--, 11 I t 4 :: _.... _ ... . -*,. .-: ' •i••• • „..,...• ..,,, L-4-.4,. , '..-/-"' i ?, • - 7,- f.... -'.- ,ri .5••• , 140 1 .- - • . 1Zt- ` %- 1-r.': 4 .--.. • • , • ._ .:•• — •i ':e ••:,--- i.- i:. ,....,..,• -••c$,.-;,-.,. ... — iiit1V , ; 1. ' •A;:;:). :I 1. .• .t .. . - 4 - • - • . ,.., 4 • 4% --- !I' Nil. P:. !i i 3,1 . :, • -.. ..- s, - - • ;. '- isl:- i. 'f. ...;. 1 _ .. 4 . i; t 0 .'-r .:•?;.'.-._ :—..-. •.-4 . — - -• 1 ,.. ir - ---.. _,.. :::. ___- _.. ef '.. . • I lit .. i , it" f 4. • 4 4 ., . . ti 24 010 . - -- *.e..• I , i ._ .,. . ;,,-,;. a .-- :-4.;-/- - ,., - - . . ? ... a • •,. -4.•.. •i„,4,.••,. , . ..• •-• . .01.4 fi a, a. •'• ' •i -.. 7,...-,•,,a - ale P .i --. 1"-.....,. -v .... ..,.. . . ..,‘ 11111 r I. 1 - ''' t.:;_,...::-., .?"'.1:.1. 11.-.:4... 1t!!. ___. -. - – . Nr113,--- - j ,.. • . .:i .4.,-.4.,.-4,,.-• I .ir i _ .--; 4., ---.X -.,-, -'' --• 4 . • • ' 1.9,. /t f < _ *1 i . , 1 I I, a- 1- , r atip . `,• ....-. ' ts,_' ") — •- ii• • - ' - --, ... t :".-- 4; ". ',:11-1-1 i . •"_- . ' n -. '.•,'.. 1 ..?- -"--;1A1# -..." - . ..: A :f.. !it. . • -,:. 2 •..i .e..-,.•• I IMO 1' . :ry -..- •t' I.'•_jit - )( 1 - - 7.>" 71r. • . ' 1r i - ' 1 1 , 1 - ' : • -,n. A I r'. •••:;,,.., ,..... I. I , - .- • ,,. .. 1 : ' . :..q... -..-,..- ..,, ,....i.- • i . ...,.-_ .. , - 4-t i – '- q.,. .. . f A .. ickfl.:: .-4 ::-..7.*:-::: — , 1 • • - . t ,.,...),; ,- 11111 1 ill ' 1,; . i •/-Yliti::!'"' ii ,Ili .•• . 1.- i 1 ; ' — v,".-. . . .,_ 0-14., Pii'"•..,....:' ___ 1 . . 1 • .. \ r?'„' ' ':-.'"' ' `; --‘,"-:. —... I 11, \..;-• 1 4 p _ . , _-,-- -,+. . - • ' -2e,:. , --..• - .i,--.7, 6, -.-::.-..-. ':,,,A.,:.!:.,..;, .,....-t. _ • .,:-....1;..,1 '.4g,t_ - - .- ': f4iftifit4 ....... . .i., , .,.„.•:•-•.• ........: 4.- ..::. .:. ,_ ....„..,...„..... . , ., ., • , .4 .....•_ ...,...,,...., . • . ,....• ...„ , ...h ..... „.,„.... ... ., ! -,_:,* _.•.-., „ .:! „ , • , r. !,,,,.1 ,,-.--. , 1 , I , • .,1 , ,--- -,t,-„.:,--: : . •• ....... . RI...' i ,. ., ...: . ....,...,. _ . . . , , 6d ,„r 1 !, i .. - 1 --..-.4.1..,. ....,, .-.1...„,--': I Li ' .'' 1 .- ; -114.•,..„_--,..-..---.--t<.,•-::..-•,--*-- ' ,..il.Pie-•'' '..kf.1h., -..1.4,AA4.•''-''*- ' - - ' . • • • .e ----'•-•YL'‘•' ••• --."-VS. .7•,."-- ..- ' / . -- -•••, .„,.... ., . .-• . • fAire... -- 'r:'-'•---t.)5.-.- --- ''''-' I ••••-•--:::.N. • • '...'"•--7•-•':"-- :?_•'••--; ,...1.-74,.,-V77•.-1, -*.7.-1, " .,,d-tts.,ci,,,FA--,;':„.;01--:,-r.••••••,,r.4 1:.; „1. '. ..., .... .,... '.........s.A., ., . "+"7"4.-:.It'..-.:Itk,e0.7., "...'.. c. .4t.:.. `,,,.11:2- - - " I • -.,-• -- • .• ,, . V i.1,-.-.:*:,.-- ,.-,:,...?!--._,.,-_----..,--7.-_t-.• •- ,.,...-.. .,„,,z., •-•': - ''',“:7''''''''.. 01114-4.0--, l';:. - '_ '-gig. ,-- . 4.i''i. ,. .? ---t- '1..4, -.•.-:.---r-1 II: . ; '....,,--7,,,,:v.r- c...,•-.,' ..,-, :721r,-4,..;:•.--.." -i.,-,' --- .:;IX.: ' - : ;;---1%-;:i.,,i...i....,‘.,.-_,__-.0- '' " ' --*'-;•- ., 41494 — ; . _ -.."...i.:-Ce..1.--r , •,::- - ,.•',-;'''`z.X-'•-•";.....;-... ;:•6-_:.7;-.f• N, _ --'•.• z-' --, i!..: :.'•;•.:-,-:=-:-..t. --:`. .r-,...g',..'y,.iti_.;.-.rA-.1"•..-"'• •". • — • VA-t-45.--• .• ''.1.'--' -- ; ''.......•-t- ...7%•S.•••,-.-•-•- _ > - i;r`ot•-•:..-/- *- : •-,:_...'•'-'• ...' . . f.••-.. „-s:.;--.'._- " -:-.";",i-twoliti • 41* .:".,,, _'••- 1.*4- ,,...:-.,.k. 'F. '• '-'3''''''..- "t. . =.',_,- ;•, *Iftr-4 ,.... .--:-;;;.,''.-- _-t,'' :'',•‘f•.,-..'ili - "• 7.-i• :-',:,,--4'''-$..-...:'.-a/1--.7-• . •,---.1 -.1*-•fl.-•••- . .. — -10 :r. ,.. • •'ll‘-- .. - '':• 'tr-/iit ,... -•-...!!' ' U- --'..1-- • --''-. ' .:4.:-,-':::,;.,-!.`i. ...4A--'''•' .:4. ::'If". ' . 1.-t9 ...:er:.'1•:: '''k- ',:_Tir -4.4,, .' _rt...<Ty.-irv,•-_,..._":,, • i'll :....-r.-::•7k 4.,---,;,!.-.4.• -_ -71._,.,....._ z.-,_ 4_,-----1-: , i-':''''-,--,-;.;::_"..-.4W.4-', . , --),,,]_, • .- _ . .2 ..• , .• 2 r -• 1. -- -V l'..:'.c.'-'---,,tikiiV.:"_,:_-'•-•'.;.:. - ' 1 I' t i-• S ..1i.-:,._,.,-;.,..-';i .:..40-.'..•!,1;:--ii.,._':;-,-...-:•,. • ' t! ' ti.' :?.i:,-----:;--,::',..7:-'.-;t4.:1'1:1;.:-.:-%?..-'-'''.' '..- • , \ , .....; ____ • f.. .!..f.. - , , ..„.._ .. _., .,.A..„.„. , • _ -till. . *.-- --:1-4- ----?---'.7. • If.:-,VitAtt--..- - . ..A, i - -... •-I.-- •- •,-.-_---, , • I • _ .. .---,..- ----.: 1- -, ...i:: ..P.- -..,-. 24e,::- *N. „,, 4-?,..z-•er• • ,,,:.-- 4,,,,,,... • 7, • . 1 I Iiiit kate-ire :- •,:; '-`-f,' - ...--. - r ••CF-';-; '''..i. 4_.-...'-'4'...,C.'::7:-".. I •110;11!; • 1 ,'•,-_'''' .:_'. ..--, ..;!...--- .-..„.,:, 41 2V4.1- - ...-', ,••0414 Aiwa_ ., \ \ , ,::.,..._-. . - -- a .,-.--4.4pg imp • . . -4,, .. .., •:---...,''4,.....f.S..7-...-.:''-',. ‘.- • '- -: it ., ,..r.'4i ; 1 la i : , ' '. *se -WP".: ' ---'' ,10.A..*,,01 ,-e -, -:-. ---Av 4--,..: . . ,• • ...-t4;.:;,-ge.”' ..4.gr••31"41 : •--,— . Irl.WW.:.1-14 p-e- -,1•-....`"...*N • --' „ . .. ,.__ -..""1.,...;:.,%-' . ''.-t."1.-;•1- ,. 4- -....k:''-'1,-,11.':- ' 7- , _,.L .--5•••W-.. 'It"' '..--e.'..5.,-,i'!!°:-.".•-•-:.-..-- r.- -, - --...---.>..z:•--- • --. •,' •,-;-*--.-.,..‘-'4 - ‘----,.---%- ---, .,, ,-.;',..;.--..--1".- ",.:_ . . -..,. -.. -;,-,,-.-_---;;:-c-3.;--. ' 4.:tr,4.---•.- .,- -:-,--, -,----' . - - - - ,„...•••‘...n;-.4„: .....-,-9".•-_ ,,,, ,,-. ,,,;_.....,....„, - ,. • •• - , ' -- - ,L',;;,---.;:t....,,,-.'f"--,, "'W.r-•.- :1)-kt V A-.44-=',..`.144.•':-- . ''- • ' - •1::‘•.-4',/,:4,4, '."-±- - • ... • . ,..-t 4—, P ,.....`. r-, ' '•-, '''...•-_-_::',•:-.- -.,. 4 .:[- *' - ***,*- 2.'",'.7*-- .- ' * 4 . .._!•_.,_ 4 ;:_ /1:::;-- .*".:'-'• : .'''':.:-IX.** -* * '.-',.4 "t. .-,A4Z:.* .- I, -• - -7, .',1TS4W;.••••-• i I- i f . - ..•••• • "I'''.5 7,'r.-....4...7: .i..,•-`%4P-113.:,''',..,.;_f74'S - ' ' •_-• II ' • 1, '-,'.-,1".--•':-.._-.V. -,...---,..,_.a. Zs-r.1- •--,.--- ----v- " ,,-:-- • •: -. -- --. -- ...t----‘ -.2:;-'t"----.. :-=Vi'-fi,:, -••-i.-:;4, - • . . . - - -4,• • -, -• -er.*., - • •- --- •-'.:...'-.--.:v".--- ..'Fi. - li dill• 1 if 'f f ' %.."'`. .r i 1"'...t.';‘,li,' . .**. ,'--..-."-- , ', ...".•4,-c:-, ' * '' T' -,..iip-4: _f.- : -2-_,:_ 4 Atilt : 1 i :..._ _47," ...,..114,......,;40,_:...„: . 4 . - -• •-'..., -,'-•-‘- •-- ',..:-.-;,"'••''.*1-'r-2 ..,-.A ''',. ' ' -- • -••--- . • ,.,-..b-"-.".-41-, '- :.,..-* -±„.NA"t.A::,,,•:-.E.ti,..--,• :---` •;:: .--%, ,_•,..'•+.44. , 1.-. "-''- , ".. , . .•‘: ':,_•‘-"I' : ,.-..'",__,:'!"--.‘ :,,1",".--it--..4;;W*;_, ,;. 1[FR,".WA.'•-•'="-;: ::tt.''.4-r." .• .1'.7.,:,--Xtte''''".. ''''''"--, am qui ra . . \ . . ' ':•-'''‘-'-,;-'.:::‘,..,..,.. ....,;::-..-.7V:-.71,-Ni.::"2...7`-:7:-„..-,-.2_,-:-..-- :., •,- - 10 < =NNW .1.• 1-*''t'' r.,„ -..-.72--c 4 C-.`','''' itat. ... _ . -. " - • -",•, "•''7-x - .,;,;--:., -- .c. `e......--,7;:.-,.:-, - .-----;"-,:„.--_ - ..-', - ------i•'-':w-1.---,- - , -- -• '• -. II - - '--•••'-'• ->',Vitili,".. v.- ri-,:- -,,f.=4- ,. -",-,:-- 7•-_•---....,-,ce•, •!!-Xt0,-,..-• :„N.- ,-.. ,- . -. , _ , *,,....,,•-.,v, .?..,4,,,-r .....:,.._ • .- ..-„,„•• ,--..,7,,,w- ci.. . ,.- ,30-4-je.4.,-..„ -;i-;•• -:;-.::....- -•••...• •.• • - • -.-•-,7--,Tit....:--,,-,:-- ---.-- •• • ins 1.••_ -.-,t-...f._. -.:;,--;-,„z:-.---, - ,e---:--4,---_-_--4,---.-,---:. ._"---,-.. : . - • .-_-_.-f_; -. - -. - ,- - ...,-,124..-‘-.,,,,,,, ., .., . • - --- k " . . ' .-. •,-•.'' ' - ei•i-,-Z,-...-''.-,44-'••,•"..;7;',,frg'•• * _-,,,i.-=, '.- .-.!";-,,...-'',"- -::.._ .., ' : -,"'•,''''' , •--: -•',. -.:'''- • - •ti--;-•:-.,-•:- Atz-4 V".t.t:e%f..-. !•,..' -.--.i-1--• ' " .1 ..„. ,' .)••.;.•.- • • ---_-_ _ - - . • -1,t,...,:. - . - 'II . . , 4 . .A.... • • ' 1 -Al . r • :: i Cg• --..1''' _ z•- ' . 4 - - ` / .. 1 .• 1,, •,, -..- • ,•44! .-4.. -4 1‘. . -,.. s AI ; i •, , , • s•4 'a-nillt - — i • a F alifk--.'• -- A • --- '. ' el"1110 '? I*.t.., -I - "...1::::7 . • . 24 ":/.• r 4i, .d• -.. ' - •t . -- 4• . .::' I :... .,,:;., ‘ A, •-.- -,- .••, A47,r:;7:- . -...,,-;„ .',•tint _ 1Z•,.. ' :.;... - '-'7::;1"-4-..: 5.- .-J • .' -.. ,rail -,...!... 4 , - • ' 1-••-- `: : i :'••i_ ''' . e-,It ;NI • . - • 'Ai •-•., JII,• :.,.••.. ,-. ' jt-:*-4 a•irt"-`,-. .. .,,• ••• • • • iiii :c-,-: 4* . '. • . 4,..-?..z.....,,Y; . ' - • 0.• -/ . t .; .r.1,,iici. -.. •:_••••}- - Ati, , i• ,I .: . .ps• - '. I - .--1... . --• , — : , i, . .f •, .1_4. • . 1 - , ...._4. - . . • , •.A..A A,,",-„.•,.' • :'--.4 4.... -•• .1A.: • -4.i•-• *Pi •75- • -- b.• 4 .. _,. ... / • ;_..*.i.4,• 2,- , 1--.fr•J ,- , , . , ..,,,, •...... - / ; - a 1 , • I \ , .,. .,, .- - ve • - - • 4.r...„,-. --.. .......nk .isik- ' — , • % _ % i 21 i - • . . ,t,71.V1 4) 1 ...,...te. .-,r-:. ..,..., - ) rz.,.... ••••*,--- - . . I ,... --..• - Vr;fs,4'- -1"- - . • ., ..• • • . .1••••• , .' !.... ---. '• •.- -4r...t1-• • .3' -vow ' \ -- , 1:Hvin - .4,•••,.. , • ...4',.."`- IF.. -•*- .7 %Di -,--- j. • : •P.• - - .s'.(21 - • .• --4r; • . ._ ,.,..4,..L Ite . • t- I 1 Ave .•'. .•44.1' . - ...• .. . -ztr•crAt• .'.• • ..57. • ...•••.1 A li itr .1i..W 1 ..%Iete- . • 41.4.- :••Ail:4a. .' ....je, ."..•:. , , ...ZOlt ......4P ' I - :./f• •-" .." . - -.. — ••*:'); • 4 • -..-• _:- .*. t, . ..-tA ' ' i ••••••4-.4-• --• 1 y . I r 7 , - • - • ....' it.--.- ' a` '• -• KM '''-14 . ..: VA541114111Y j; -:-::— ..\-:: ."..44,- '.. 1--,•.` . I.1..i- ..-•P`'' : . ..- • -7,, ' .-0A. ' - ;,-.. •IF-6.- - _ .- i -ds - L-- - • . ,t; ,- • - ' . ' •-• alr" --• •, • • • -.......,_ IV „;.,_.r . . . I-I,. ..-7-...e.,...1..--• ...;-1Y ....et.'V. , .4.-v. --• lie _.••••_ .1. ..jr. -•,2.,.........%.. - ; /1/44.1G.:.„. InNia-iz•• . M. ilk". v•- -.6- . -.. I --r• '1.I---: --j ''..21.%•'---.- a. - '.• .itt .,0-44,te .--,. - ... : • ... - 1 i 4 •0..:.• 1 - . ..: - ...: 1, ..., .-`004 •T'S.-IF.- 'A- - • •.- . .0 ..... : ' --• _,Likiit - ..:‘,• - Ir._ . e_.; .1,:. b.:. ,si• •...I r•:... 0. *,•04V:off.T4 __-„ 4-7 •-•• ''' -.'__ c ' ilt,-441N'IC 1 ,..'...tic ..4 — — - - . „_, , .. 1,• -, - .0410 0 g.... .. -- hod: • .... *,-...,. •%. • . :WC• $'•-:- 4044. 4. .7 ... 3., _4 . ••• - ....... „„ , , ..•.... -_,,--,,,,,,. 7 ."'" .'Lo"r •. • - -,-at'ai: 44-4 - ..• >-,„•-i. lic . ,. -.NNW .''.),I. i%,7. ... '. .• 571. - * ...4.V., --;::'A.. .•.:.i t 1 II. ., ,• , 4 -- +uk ;:..-. % - , .„ . ..15,- . - --•. al , i1.1 -- 2-1:_k-• s . .. .,,. . . .-k-..t.= - • -.,.4.9it.. -,...-,,..o• - 1 i -,-‘::. . 1, t.z.--0' • NI• - -d at -dr...--'• 1 kek -V, . - It-4?V.,-', ' . .,,- ' •'Vpeoi.. 'P.** • 11- _ . -•!+‘ - • .• - . . 1 ?)r•-• . •••-• ;to- • ,- , 7.*-;l• •:-.4 1 - - ' ••''' ...•I: .: kh. .. A i lo, , -7 -,,z.44-01- • it :7- - 7i..-•-• s-....,. ..---,- ---.k.'• .., ..,, --v. •-.-,,, .-- ,br . -.: • - - -.4> • - .: . • - ' ." - '4-'' .04W- '' ' . ..-• - '114.." t. - • :4 . -.. . ..:.'t...u•%::::4:"..il.I.I:::.t:-': .1.,-r.;7:,.'•I ki.r.-j-, :4:k-..".. .-1 °I.'. • ''-•. •I lb...8-'•?1::1 ' .4 •.,s. ;., ') 4-.'s'.A - -•,.....- -.....; 4..-- 41-q.2"- ... a - -• •- --- 3-0• .:- ,- . • -.. •-irlatiPS:r4- -- • ' ...t•I'?' -: ; . . 6 ..;-tlin• a-ai giOts - -- . ..... a - li ..,0---.. -.- .' s''. ; ' . --:" 1;' • I!. --3.' - --67;49C .011 t -_, - lire' I g .31 . -•-• - 4 fl 4 ' "..,"•,..di- ' ar " ,.. ..-;-4,,.._ .. -.. ..../: ...„,,, •_4i. ' i . t - -t .•4:-`:.• .e't,'- '-.f..4- . W'•:-- ..0 4 r a , III ft '• )..C: s $ • ,• t r III�I � .Y.�+y . IFJ! IP i E 11101 AME112,Iiiii t t . . tea- .- ii ,. EiIII, t • p•-� II �. .sf! , i 111111 ' �. �' -i.(. 4II. _ . 4 1: p I. .1 ii. • • • • •{; dQ - - - t •1 Citi:. •. •= Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1994 passenger bus. We're up to an articulated bus at 65 passengers in terms of reverse commute. It's only going to get larger. I guess I'm looking for that type of opportunity where we can help the employers have that type of advantage because it does help them with regard to — employees. I would just go on record with my comments to the City Council and to the applicant that perhaps, and I will extend the services of Southwest Metro Transit, to sit down and perhaps help you identify where those type of advantages may be able to come into this site element. I think this is an excellent idea. I hope we see more of this but I just think we're missing some of the fine tuning in terms of the elements and I would certainly encourage that perhaps staff, from the city, staff from Southwest Metro Transit, can sit down. If it requires a little bit of redesigning, why not take that opportunity now because based on my experience, based on where the public policy is going on a regional level from the metro area, it's only going to pay off as a positive investment now later on in the future. — Scott: Do you want to see this reworked? Mancino: That's what I was going to ask. Wouldn't you want to see it reworked and see it again? Harberts: Well from my professional experience I would say yes. But I would want the, I would really encourage that the applicant want to take that initiative to do it. I don't want — government, public policy to be a hinderance but I want it to be viewed as a very positive and like I said, from what my experience is, as well as with where the region is going in terms of public policy and transit, I think if you take that little extra time to maybe take another look at how transit and how this type of pedestrian element can be blended to make it more advantageous, it's going to pay off long term for the business. Mancino: So we have some issues that we want to see. Scott: Yeah, reading from my notes here we see traffic circulation. We see impervious surface. We see two major things relating to the Highway 5 and related ordinances which appearance of the warehouse addition. We have setback concerns on the Kindercare facility. Are those major to the point where we want to see it reworked again? Yes? Okay. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: Okay. I will move that the Planning Commission not approve the site plan review — #94-1 as shown on site plan received. Conrad: Do you want to table it? — Mancino: Oh, okay. I move that we table it and see it again. With all the recommendations 14 L L • L Page Number : 1 L C1> Unique Identifier 94110073 S LAuthors Hendee WR . [oteler 3C . Institution Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee 53226 . Title The question of health effects from exposure to electromagnetic Lf field= . [Review] hed i t h Physics_ 66( 2 ): 127-36 , 1994 Feb . Mie;)m '_,ub j -c t Headings Cni ld iect_romagnetic Fields/ae [Adverse Effects] Environmental Exposure Radi ation- Induced/ep [Epidemiology] t +.Neoplasms , Radiation-Induced/et [Etiology] L ;.;r;ited I-tater/ep [Epidemiology] Abstract •.Eaibie health effects of exposure to low-intensity electric -ind magnetic fields ( EMFs ) are receiving increased attention in the. scientific l : erature and , especially , in the public media . Lai•oratory research at the cellular and whole animal level has L demonstrated various biological effects that may be related in some manner to the effect of EMF exposure on people . Howev<er , the exact mechanisms of this relationship are tar from clear . The studies suggest that EMFs might be cancer promoters but are unlikely to be cancer initiators . At the level of human epidemiology , approximately 50 studies have examined the possible correlation of EMF exposures with adult and childhood cancers . Although the possibility of a correlation is weak , it cannot be discounted , and further research is needed . In the meantime , a practice of "prudent avoidance" of prolonged exposure to EMFs is warranted . [References: 89] <2> _'pique Identifier 9; •9251 Autho L lauchem Institution Radiofrequency - - lat . - Division , Armstrong Laboratory , Droopks _Air Force base , T. Title Allege ;�alth effects of electri r magnetic fields: a-{•-_Lional misconceptions in the lite ure . [Review] Source Journal of Microwave Power & Electromagnetic E •- �y . _:k' ject Headings 2 • Pag Number : Adult Animal Child *Electromagnetic Fields ae [Adverse fects] Environment. l Exposure Female Human iia.. *Occupational Exposure r _ _ te e :=ia! or Occup= iorial exposures .o electric or magnetic .__ids have been r orted to be associat. d with health problems , iclri'y' cante=r and reproductive rrlish_ s . Misconceptions about these a eged effects continue to be blished in the L and ..:clentit is literature . Invalid st-tements relating ..se : tects are challenged in this paper . ,'ase reports and with exposures to video display . . rminais , !f,aor resonance ce in agiri , microwaves from televi on _ - _. ..=. .itter facilities , ceiling cable electric heat , pulse , power lines , traffic radar unit , and ' 7.upz.- iona1 exposures are analyzed . [References- 1S2 i. ... :e Identifier AT• 1 1 C EMI and cancer . ORAU Panel on Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields [letter ; comment] . J L'•• Science . 260( 5104 ): 13-6 , 1993 Apr 2 . n `subject Headings >,dint Brain Neoplasms/ep [Epidemiology] Drain Neoplasms/et [Etiology] Child *Electromagnetic Fields/ae [Adverse Effects] Human Leu.Lemia/ep [Epidemiology] Leukemia/et [Etiology] Neoplasms/et [Etiology] �weaen Unique identifier '440&3f-96 rut :-!or s K Ft: _ to i S . Pharmaceutical University . L 1. _ of epidemiological studies on the relationship of residential electromagnetic exposure to cancer] . [Review] [Ja-,ane _ Source Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi -- Japanese Journal of Pu tic Health . _ 40( 10 ):917-25 , 1993 Oct . Me3H Subject Headings Child *Electromagnetic Fields/ae [Adverse Effects] L English Abstract Environmental Exposure Human j sNeoplasms/ep [Epidemiology] L Neoplasms/et [Etiology] Occupational Exposure Risk Factors t. l3. ep idemio1o_•ical studies have been published that sa _,gam s= that residential identia.l eexposure to electromagnetic fields g nerated mainly near power lines could increase the risk of cancer such as leukemia and neurological tissue tumor . : .. _ , For.thodoloc,ical shortcomings of the studies are such t..i� evidence nc_•t st'i _i fn��u'jh to allow conclusions to L studies have also been published for adults . L,cept for cases of occupational exposure the findings do not shoo that residential electromagnetic field exposure is a risk L factor . However , information is too sparse to permit firm .. . .. _•_on.s . The existing literature strongly indicate further -evr �r_rs in the area should be pursued . [References: u9] L • identifier L. :epsen 3 . Johansson T _Le `!y children ( letter )] . [Danish] !-.,ource UgesKrift tor Laeger . 155( 41 ):3311 , 1993 Oct 11 . MeSH Subject Headings *Abnormalities/et [Etiology] Abnormalities/pc [Prevention & Control] 4Abortion/et [Etiology] Denmark *Electromagnetic Fields/ac [Adverse Effects] L Female Human *Noise , Occupational/ae [Adverse Effects] Pregnancy LRisk Factors L L Page Number : 4 Unique Identifier Authors Ver r,asaio PK . Pukkala E . Hongisto MY . Val jus JE . Jarvinen • : ieikkila KV . Koskenvuo M . Institution Department of Public Health , University of Helsinki , Finland . Title Risk of cancer in Finnish children living close to power lines _ [see comments] . Source -_ • J . 307( 69 9 ):895-9 . 1993 Oct 9 . .object Headings Adolescence Adult Child Ch..ld , Preschool t i�ort ::studies kEle_tromagnetic Fields/ae [Adverse Effects: 2:,. i ro me ntal Exposure Female t iriGl& Finiand/ep [Epidemiology] Hurii n incidence i ittant -• 1ntant . Newborn Male . ._ •piasris/ep [Epidemiology] ._o-•3 ..-srr:s;'ems. [E ioio.c ] Characteristics Risk i act._.re; , ii l.' . Gov 't O_JLCiIVE---To investigate the risk ot cancer in children living close to overhead power lines with magnetic fields of > or = • microteslas ( microT ) . DESIGN--Cohort study . SETTING---The whole of Finland . SUBJECTS--68 ,300 boys and 66 ,500 girls aged . --19 years living during 1970-89 within 500 m of overhead power lines of 110-400 kV in magnetic fields calculated to be > or = 0 .01 microT . Subjects were identified by record linkages of nationwide registers . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Numbers of observed cases in follow up for cancer and standardised incidence ratios tor all cancers and particularly for nervous system tumours , _ __:•:aemia , and lymphoma . RESULTS--In the whole cohort 140 cases of cancer were observed ( 145 expected; standardised incidence _ ratio 0 .97 , 95% confidence interval 0 .81 to 1 .1 ) . No statistically significant increases in all cancers and in leukaemia and lymphoma were found in children at any exposure _=vel . A statistically significant excess of nervous system i•:aE found in boys ( but not in girls ) who were exposed to ri:aC:retic tidos ot > or = 0 .20 microT or cumulative exposure of c•r = 0 .'40 microT years . CONCLUSIONS-- Residential magnetic L Page Number . 5 L. fields of transmission power lines do not constitute a major L public health problem regarding childhood cancer . The small numbers do not allow turther conclusions about the risk of cancer in stronger magnetic tields . Unique Identifier 40 60797 Authors Olsen 3H . Nielsen A . Schulgen G . Institution L'anisn Cancer Society , Division for Cancer Epidemiology , k Copenhagen . L Title Residence near high voltage facilities and risk of cancer in children en [see comments] . L. Source :2MJ . 307( 6909 ):891-5 , 1993 Oct 9 . m l t 5ubject Headings Adolescence Case Control studies L Chinti , Preschool ,,:: n ;.ark/e-p [E piderniology] • -Ii_lec _romagnej is Fields/ae [AdversevEffects] Environmental Exposure : HL!1:ta!n infant . nfant , r_ _a��r:lv:e;•:Y= ._n ep [Epidemiology] :- :•pl asris/et [Etiology] Residence Characteristics Risk Factors Support , Non-U .S . Gov 't f- I.Ftrart ;_!� J,..:CTI'VE- ' To investigate whether residence before and atter birth near 50 Hz high voltage installations increases a child 's risi of cancer and whether risk correlates with the strength of the magnetic field . DESIGN--A population based case-control study . SETTING--Denmark . SUBJECTS--1707 children under the age of IS with leukaemia , tumour of the central nervous system , or malignant lymphoma diagnosed in 1963--86 and 4708 children taken from the central population register . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Proximity before and after birth to existing or former 50--400 kV electrical transmission connections and substations L and associated historical electromagnetic fields calculated on the basis of current load on line , phase ordering of line , and oist.ance from the dwelling . RESULTS--A significant association was seen between all major types of childhood cancer combined and -c•sure to magnetic fields from high voltage installations of : or = 0 .4 microT ( odds ratio 5 .6 ) . At > or = 0 .25 microT n• signiticar±t association was seen ( odds ratio 1 .5 ). A possible L Pare Number : C association was also seen with Cases of Hodgkin 's disease at : or = 0 .1 microT . CONCLUSIONS--On the basis these reault.s and additional descriptive data on electricity col-tsumption and incidence of childhood cancer in Denmark since the 1940s it was concluded that the proportion of childhood c. rcei possibly caused by 50 Hz electromagnetic fields must be small . riq_te Identifier c;ci ',0794 A t,nor D'. aper G . 1ltie ti- r'c .end childhood cancer [editorial ; :8 4 r 1993 O c t meaa_ngs . ontroi Studies -_ectrome: _i _ Fields/aa [Adverse Eftects1 _ v... ams/et [Etiology 1 • • - _ .. ..� _ _ n H . _veoenstal BM . Paulsson nit of Expel . mental Pathology an- Risk Research , Swedish - :-si _y of R,_ricu'tural Scie. tee , Uppsala . Tati of pulsed m -metic t : elds on the developing mouse embryo erratum ap. ars in Bioelectromagnetics 19'i;3; 14( 4 ): 393] . Source D:oelectromagnetics . 14( 3 ): ' 97-204 , 1993 . MeSH Subject Headin:;s :14bnormaliti -s , Radiation-I ,iuced Animal *Electro agnetic Fields/ae [Adv= se Effects] Female *Fe Death/et [Etiology] _ • r..tal Resorption/et [Etiology] rice 'i. _e . Inbred CBA Pregnancy 7 Support , Non-U .5 . Gov 't - rart The ir:-l_!.en'_e of a pulsed magnetic field ( PMF ; s. tooth with r L Page Number 7 ; ._ microseconds linear rise time and 5-microseconds de ay time . L .-ea k strength of 15 microT , and frequency 20000 pps ) vorre-c_e•_ on the embryogenesis of CBA/S mice was investigate"' in ffive L _•;per i ments based on a total ot 707 exposed and F43 unexposed _-•5< rav i das . Sham and PMF exposures began or day 1 of _.___aL - on ( experiments 1 and 2 ) , on day 2 ( :7. -periment 3 ) , on day 5t expe . ment 4 ) , and on day 7 ( experimen 5 ); all exposures continued ntil day 19 post conception p .c . ) , when they were terminated , =t which time the follow ' g variables were measured: umber of imp tents; number of plac- .ital resorptions; number of L living fetuses; umber of dead f- -uses ; number of malformations. in living and dea. fetuses; an: length and body mass of living fetuses . Control da 's were -am-exposed concurrently with corresponding , PMF-e ose dams . With the exception of experiment-. 5 , in which : xposure to PMF started on day 7 p.c .. , all groups of expose.: mic. had significantly more placental resorptions when - - mpared w th concurrent controls . The L. SEC resorrLion rate was ot reflected in a reduction in size r in the number of itters . A significant increase in ma.:.tor _d fetuses was not seen ' n any of the exposed groups , : -:- _ tips were pooled . Only in = periment i was the number fetuses affected by exposure t• PMF . The effect of PMF . ;-ie implantation rate was not signif i_ -r:t . Body mass and + _* exposed fetuses were significanti reduced only Nine: L - i egan day 7 p c .( A3�T PAC TRUNCATED AT ?^. •O 1 Fey.ctino M . Koskenvuo M Olsen iii . Pukkala E . _ _.je n G . Verkasalo P . .: . c fields and c- ldhood cancer [letter) . } fis c nV e . 3-, :'( 32 ). 1295 . , 1993 Nov 20 . L r; ! ..upject dings Child Clectrorriagrie i_ fields/ae [Adverse Effects] Human [Epidemiolo L *Leukemi /et [Etiology] ,r; Neo-•ia- s/en i Epidemiology] *Neo J.asms/et [Etiology] Rim , Factors L L ori re Identifier 940262 Feycn:t_n•j M . Ahlbom A . L Page Number : C of Environmental Medicine , Karolinska Institute , roc ..:. 'm , Sweden . F a :",etic. fields and cancer in children residing near Swedish nigh-voltage power lines . ATI:eacan Journal of Epidemiology . 138( 7 ): 467-01 , 1993 Oct 1 . MeS Subject Headings Adolescence Case--Control Studies ChildChild , Preschool Lohort Studies Confounding Factors ( Epidemiology ) iectrictr/a€- [Adverse Effects] :._ _ctrom uletic Fie_ds/ae [Adverse Effects] +. ironmerltal Exposure/ae [Adverse Effects] _ , C :i,z n a l Exposure/an [Analysl.s.. - ema._e .� NexOorn [Epidemiology] [Etiologyj i a toys .;r= . Nor i.' . _ . Gov 't �_ ... Lupidei!ioloQYJ • : - c c .-.-ic•1 study i•.as conducted to test the hypothesis that _ = _ . e to „,t_•,:otic fields of the type generated by pov: -r lines increases cancer incidence in chiic'i en . The study D71.-E= consisted of everyone under age 16 years who hat on a property located within 300 meters of any of the __0 • •il''.: kV power lines in Sweden during the period 1960- 1905 . Were followed from their entry into the study base 1905 . A total of 142 cancer cases were identified -:.. _ - .. a record linkage to the Swedish Cancer Registry . There were :-;9 leukemia and 33 central nervous system tumor cases . A _ _tai of 550 controls were selected at random from the study base . Exposure was assessed by spot measurements and by : : _v _iations of the magnetic fields generated by the power lines , taking distance , line configuration , and load into = count . Information about historical loads on the power lines ._ was used to calculate the magnetic fields for the year closest in time to diagnosis . When historical calculations were used as exflore assessment for childhood leukemia with cutoff points at _ - = ._; 0 .2 microtesla ( microT ) , the estimated relative risk over th two exposure levels and was estimated at 2.7 _ = .,'" idence interval ( CI ) 1 .0-6 .3 ) for 0 .2 microT and over : • 'c -- tren~ 0 .02 . When the upper cutoff point was shifted to -• L. Da F Number 9 L _ . 3 microT . the relative risk was 3 .8 ( 95% CI 1 .4-9 .3 ) ; p for Err.._. = 0 . -7)5 . These results persisted when adjustment for there :founding factors was made . For central nervou lym-•homa , and all childhood cancers combine r , was no support for an association . L < 2.L _. .:i• Identifier Authol. B FelieT.Etein P . '•y _t a -_.: •_mi . end electromagnetic fields [editorial] [published L erratum appears in Leuk Res 1993 Apr ; 27( 4 ): 3`= L. kesearch . 17( 3 ): 197-0 , 1.993 Mar . u jac Headings Child _. .-•magne..jt Fields/a€+ Eta. _`_ , L _iv6cil P1 . heijers Jri . _ l_. , `,er! 33 . _ _U.- ;.= :c F . Thstat n ~ J` yC.t of Epad .mioi_c . University of L_:.._•°..1'. j , ':=..s= tri•.- . k_.-E.n.:er mortality ana residence near electricity transmission a rat:osp ective cohort study . ' Journal of Epidemiology . < _; 1 ;: 9 1= . a 93 . e __ n;= Cause of Death Cohort Stuaies 1_•c=ricity/ae [Adverse Effects] 1E:ectromagnetic Fields/ae [Ad . _rse Effects] '1-.-.v_ :onmental Exposure/ae [Adverse Effects] LHumanw Male ,.,. -- -==m_ %mo [Mortality] Netherlands/ep [Epidemiology] 'Power Plants Residence Characteristics - ros ective Studies studies in recent years have raised the possibili+y that to extreme low frequency ( ELF ) electromagnetic fields Page Number - 10 ff....., be hazardous to human health , in particular by the promotion or initiation of leukaemia and other cancers . To determine it nis ex:r•osure creates a long -term hazard to the public , the :fortalit'y of a group of people identified as having lived in an Jr an quarter of Maastricht in which two 150 kilovolt. ( kV ) • : _ines and one transformer substation are located was investigated . Using the Dutch population registry it was possible to identify retrospectively 3549 inhabitants of the quarter who lived there for at least 5 years between 1956 and Of these 1552 study subjects lived within 100 m :f the electricity transmission equipment and were exposed to magnetic • _ _. intensity of 1 .0-11 .0 milliGauss . The overall standardized mortality ratio and cancer mortality ratios were either not o onl slightly elevated . The study does not support previously • po ted associations of exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields • leukaemia , brain cancer and breast cancer . r - _ A . Car. vno E.E, : .. ,_a 2 . ;arcram•..to-,.if.._.:^_, L . • ._ n•___ Hernandez nandez DM . Gomez-Delgado A . Mejia- Ar augur.. m . _.anc _•va.l A . Martinez-Garcia MC . Clinica , Hospital de Pediatria , Centro XXI , Mexico , D .E . _ o= " to h` .- tension electric power 11 = and its with leukemia in c h:i!drenj . LSpanisn, del Hospital iritant_l de Mexico _ 1-.0( 1 ):32-8 , T 1 .j5 . _ . . . _: _-c t Headings Confro Chid Confidence Intervals _.lectrc•ff:agrietic s_ ieids/ac [Adverse Effects] English Abstract ICriv ronmental Exposure/ae [Adverse Effects] Human Inc i •fence L _ emia/ep [Epidemiology] _. . = emia/ef_ [Etiology) Mex_ _c/ep [Epidemiology] Odds Ratio -� Power Plants Prevalence Regression Analysis :esider:ce Characteristics :ban Population/an [statistics & Numerical Data] INTPoDUC I =N . mere are ditterent risk tactors which have been it Page N�mber:' : 11 to ne presence of leukemia in children . In the past of these factors has become relevant , the risk of in an area near to high electric voltage lines , ,:e . erators of electromagnetic fields of low frequency ( EMF ) , _ can cause development of leukemia in children . OBJECT;'' - o - -_ n whether living in an area close to EMF generator L sources , electric transformers , high electric voltage y distribution or transmission lines and electric substations , is a risk Tactor in the development of leukemia in children living in Mexico City . MATERIAL AND METHODS . A projective study of _ _s_-- =ontrc.l was accomplished . The cases were obtained from .-.- _ale of the third level . The diagnosis of leu^._ ia in its . .-enL varieties was confirmed througn biopsy of Done margo a . controls were selected in the same hospital from inpatients •- : - . atier;ts with different problems , except neoplasia . A e,f:ple of c l cases and 77 controls was analyzed . The !o^ of the • ontrols and cases were visited using a coJed with the different study variables . To the memory bias in relation to EM; , the subjects we.",:: different pictures pointing out the different sources of w :ficin were asked . iiaL ing obtained the information , odds ratios ( OR ) were calculated tor the different - . _ - _ -._ __ons as well as the confidence intervals at 95t tie _ L,Dois -ic re,o ,ssic•r; was accomplished to know the - _ _ - ;:L•wL i _ . There were no differences between the ano controls according to the relative who gave the L cu,-rent e ,f children , the parent 's ; . . parent 's l ire p, _n: 's oL !pation , t was fo• nd that ell sources of EMF , whicn were involved in tne s _- _ _'e nc• + h- h ghest , the ones livin near to ' : cflsion wires :f high voltage with anof and 2 .5 ( 0 .97-6 .67 ` respectively . ':en t}'.= oistce of exposure was controlled , the highest OP was Tor L , - _ - persons � Of 2 . 12; 0 .7`_- 5 .05 ) . When the analysis was wi";•_ have moved from the residence , it was et the OR was .hove 1 in all the essoc _etionc_ th:. ._ _ .-SLi err.: distribution wires and with the distance t?":;- :.- : „= was the electric substations . rurtnermore the multivariate analysis showed that the risk continued only for distribution wires . CONCLUSIONS . The EMF exposure was found positive , however this is not very precise , that is why it is essary to carry out other studies to confirm the existence of the association and correct possible biases which could appear ;--. .-ir:g the research . L. L L L L 40.fik - ANDERSON LAKES CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 8781 Columbine Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • (612) 944-2133 — DR.JAMES AMUNDSON CHIROPRACTOR April I2, 1994 Mayor Donald Chnuel City of Chanhassen — 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen_ AIN. 55317 — Dear Mayor Chmiel: I was at the April 9,1994 City Council meeting where there was some discussion on developing additional warehouse space at the Press. Along with this proposal, a Kinder _ Care was to be built next to the expansion. There was discussion as to what effects the proximity of power lines may have on children attending the day care. I ran a literature search regarding the subject and I have attached the current research. I have taken the liberty to highlight areas that seemed appropriate. From what I read there does not seem to be a threat to individuals that are located close to the electromagnetic source. To be honest with you, I thought I would find information to the contrary. _ I hope this information is helpful and should you need any additional search to be done please to not hesitate to phone me. We have just recently sold our house in St. Louis Park and are closing on May 31, 1994 on a home in Chanhassen. I look forward to becoming a member of the community. Again, do not hesitate to call should additional information be needed. Sincerely: Dr. James Amundson 4 ' _ IE t 0 ® 3 sr m 7 , z 2Y'`yi,iiri 0 = Q .. .. .fr.Eryfc J �o3sefic g a If! ; 4 W • .1 41 :0 'L 1 **; 4::-.1 ? ? h X y r ' E�. �ti: .. 14 z z m NIC J�• �A�� = n Z �y�r O • ,:,,,,,„=.i 4 =• Y , 'j�y�.t ' tif S �� 4 Y T ii 1 W t• .w'�int^�yit�����: a c ' .�. y 3r `c 1 'f. I -- . S P ? Y = 1 2 •1 --_ --- -_ MOM TIDO _ :t. 0 . - Il ir . a •-i- - - l t.- Tt\ �\� 1 o U • e t co g8, • i` WtarJ✓. — • 0 Cr 1 1 J:t\ �, i • Ai - .17 j H 1 I I 1 .,.• i -i-,.8 .. Ill I 1 ' I ,,.I,IIi II 1("{I� I ,` `-� is - ;I 11 I 1 ��-I" I I �U11111 A-M3N0 ,S.Iri lii :�(il{IIi!11'Illi 1 J n PI B r lI I 1 I 0 I U!'U Illi!! m 1 fi .I.I•i;f x `-1 ., ( i ` F — l I 1 I • WON I I 1 , - ,r 1 �; v1G is ... II �. I ~ Sal. - I' I !:: I i, I ._ I nac ' I 1 1 i•1 1 0 y1Rt G 1� J t al 1 0 No::.N.dz•i noxa • :I •i W 1 I ,y 1 YL i , 'w�i 1 T.^ .j — - 1 Art 1 tiSl4 11 1 _ . II 1 . : I • � _ 1 it I - - ; Ji^V I ' I i u` t d4� ! 1 1• z1..,- JL' ( • • 1 I sg • I ; ' I �- I 1 • 1 1 _. `, - _ _ - • ------__----_ -d �I ____________________________ ---- Asia trw3nv Witt tstI I . - .. . . ' 0 15 ...... Cn 0 Z — . . . • P 0= - • co B • - . x • Lu 0 . 0 . — - 1 1 . . . . . . . - „.. . . I . . .. . _. . -.... I - . - • ILJ , 1 . •• . Z X • . 11 i • -I- I be — • _._ --_., . i s•c•• .IC.T.tt . .. 1 I ± .....mmai-.-1---- ---- .... ...„„..'... avoli,Taa.... 7 17., , : /,. - ' . . .;--\ el i i f Z ••••••-• --':' - -..---...:.:-- -..---....... ..i* -.7 —•-- '' '- ;„...--1 3,,,,,,i,i.:., ' 1.' 1 i il 0 -.. •..-..-:.......\ i ---. , . -/, • 4 .! 1 1 \' i 4 , • i.' [i I ......, : , , I 1 i i ' _ < --... - -- --- -—- - f CC.i : .e•"-"--. .- , t• ; ; . . . . - 0 I I • . .. i 1 I H; !I t II. 0. CC _ • ... _.._.- , .1• i ti 1 I I! 0 - • , - 1 4.--,..... - • • . • ': 1 1; • •i . . . i I (..) .1 / . • '!':-.2 !1 i I I t 1 / - - 8 Cl) • ) : .• •••.. .: ' ' :..1 . 1 - I '1: p -... 8 cr. . • . : k 1 :i• • . I I:, •1 1 i f .-. • . • . -. . • ... ar) 1 .. I I!' CC Q. .i.- . • . . •••; • N. 1 i 5 i ,.., e I • . .:: , ..,, , z .7., - ,,• I. : I 1• ..-: ..-- .- --:., z ; ,• _ , 1-, 0 .., -. ••- -. • . . 1--,!1. :,..- . i•. ir -. ( 1 I 4! • , . 1 ' ---------C.,..,..- • = ri'.---5,-.7r.sttc,1,1 -,4 -r- - • 1[117 . - - .IiiI• . ,;i•'i:•, .,i--.t1iat:tc1-,•o..1..._c..2i..,. .1.....•_-..\.,-', __•,...j d.e1 c`---i.;,:r.-• / \.. ) v 4#••• - I-dz_.a/a...a;,.-ti..,...is1_,,rnv,:a 8@- -,—•••-•• .,•, .1 , •: 1.;:".!.-1„t•.!•.`-:1Ipi..:--!.f:-.:1. :•!!.;.P.,..,:;:-.•.i•!;1III.1. I.•I1 ,I,I :;li: ,tri!r f...f. . • _ - r .- -: ) 1 11I _ k ' III 1 . a •' ! 11:'. - .1•1. ' ., 1:.• . ,•- ..•;.- • .'.. . ".. t'F: • a. .--- j! . ' . i . 11 I • I •i ___L 1„, . „ - :i: e -.1- ,,e 'i ,.) D • "-a •• • ,• ; ; :• ; . , • • I - ^'w .: •ii 1 1:7 — • - i• c• - .9 • ? .1 i I' I • ,.:- 1 . El •q 4 . ,."..- - 0 v. ! '.t ' J! 0 b• !4 i ".- .1 .... , \ :I 1 I iO • ' -... • I Ci ...•-:-.0.- ! .. , •• ' i i ; --, I 1! 1 `,. c. ! : ( . 0 . --. ‘. ' : I 1"---- -.7.- . 0,‘... I. . 1 1,.,... ...: • i 1 — 4a-. .,. . • . • . i - _Ts._ •....Tata II . '..- _Iv--;--------) 5 I I , 1 V iilLf II - 2S2.11 3111413A ! --. I 4 ' . . .4. : C — - r • (is ,.. • 1 — i N I j as t1 j 1 c.i f t j 1 Ilnj�®jam; , jt�. , Si t , i " rt i t,i! ii; r * C s, r o '4 tie _ kill] •• 1 . h i tl , s a � . t 4 d` if 1 ` F 1O 1 - (\ = J ii L V : . . yl: ti ii I— is t • ' j ! q : n; R 3 �is 't ll • • z `� \ 6 t11 l i" p�� - O • 1� G.SY • I I r - 1 _ . R-:.iRI r CC .�_1 1_ - �. _ • i I •1. 3Q - ' o I i T71 0. o I. I G ili rS:Wi tit.rill yI I! tti .amu"1 � 1. . li J;,i rt „F. I rl • �� 0 a .,- - [], 1 zi, I !. i.:i I. ,i- cr , j � l 3Q � ta i1,: :• ,!t I_ .! 1 1 i ..,,_ , _ _•••_,----n----- • [1: I •.: z..- . ! , i • i , 1 — I- .1.. ,. I11 i flt1I i – !Ig f l , — 1 t s: • �. V,• i j • ¢ NGGNYJX)1100tl I j; • I i y 1 I i .53nc �l3Sir'aieo I. • 1 I S ! I • • • r` i �,, - `' I j 1 I 1� -- I I. i, 1 i i i I I,'.. �a I i i :.I •• i!• 1•.. O �, •� •Li—.i • I •1• ,or - • IZ = = II 1 1 I i . 11 II . 1 i I . I I • I I . i 1 i i si ii i 1 ii •••m � i I �' __.___ _iJ i • 1 ' •• . i • • r • ..._ • s11 � Ifj) !;ij / 1171 s :"1LL' 0 4Cf 11,1.17 - C I alt, 5 : Fil:113111:11111M1111011 yr ' dila I II% o f , 1 1 i �-,•% $ dD Ii i � ilili WV I ! i � +' Ii i - � - , yay�10 — lu All ! 1 I lib' r"Yll� A1 Y7 �1�v1r1 h� • `= E Asa Illmollomllegra ate •?.. f 4 i l: i! ` 'ai` _ - �� p �� n � 111.11g1h531611"1 �'�>1►j G — ^ liIMIi�i�ilili�il Hill II ! Li- I r , Oil Ma 4 — 0 • 1 r • � = •- I �� I0• I to I — i al 1i1 CC 1 . - _ , 1 1.l Ii i .i..��; ;1iii:11 sJ 11- linlittht ti 1 r_ —1T'1f 11• i IIIIi,'�i 1.. ii!iili: tl t - 141 t IfLLL.•..• ti HOW.. •' o• I •� i y} I !l• •. 11 11 ' i;. i;1:1, � •. o , ill 1 1 t 'L�: I QG•l• -t • V' ..1: ..— s - 11♦ — i ' 1 i f • , w 1 o c :i ' (i 1 ��� tc .8 1 I - 1 - it ' 1 - ' — .- Ifs >: • I .▪ I I. 1 — t 1 11 O _y ' tl 1 i I l� O 0..' :4 . 1 _ 1 t ' I 1 • —� u'! 1 v . 11 , �. — LI I r — O . © 6 — G i I Sit1 n o Ia 311: o :1 I itj. hia --' t. '' �I f l d i t Y 2 i r. J I j i{ ft! 3 3 4p1 0 .,; cc � T .- jt t i'11111 i l 3� i�+ W; IC IS i. ¢ n i '1'.j t�iti �j it t w ' • ! }' tu' '5 i N fill 11 itui nil li , S is . i.. .. . I I I W e — CC • V f :::• - .K'02: - - 3.151400 S . - -- .LS:•lA1311N3AV—LiIt-UI :7.– tt „• ••••• r- " ... 1 <i� – ~ r I y� • a_ i — i ( , ¢ �\IL. ± --1 f ( I • ..0 v u — I z , _—� . I r • I — • v; . — f A_ 3.4,77//777/7774774,77/777,11i — — — — — —' – - I _ s a\`/ V l10, — I i r. `, ` J .oma r1 n e , � , .♦ i [/J O j / //T77/777/!77/?Tl, I G n • r- i 0 / SS1M- CIi5C�Oec is.I - ill 1 I / <<„,(:,(<<<,,, ,_,, , .:( ..,• (..,,.. , s Y -1 \ : , . i$a i i km, ( ) \ FT), i i; . . * .' T a \' \ \ \ .; Z.! IR�: ` 1 i" , g., ,, .,., , , . .. .., _ ,,,�\\„\,\ . ,... s,.: I .. ...,. Sgk : ; . JZfi-i .,.._. ( _� 1 ... � ".mw �ro.c. _ 1 ' �JtiA117t1Ct�I. ,\ — — 1 r ! Y z d'I>s S 1:2312 . c 3 • -til' 7:I/ C . . _ r I co j f 11:'A I z o fir.: m o ^^�� ',7Z :t wU v - MME�+rl • o . e Wi F- y I- L a ., I t i� ES .Di El . -• i y r t i► i T ` z l Q4 4. . .� '-• 0i lc z F- F _ '' F0 • > a - > — a • J W L 1 J ^F_ W W W W - W + C CO ` -, Cl) 0 W Z _ U) W - - �- _ ..... 1 i . .--_, • . 7141•11310.:.. ..1 . PI , .I. MI "-- f . ..• _ . . • . . : 1:i; 044-• g . oE — I . . t • .._, =__...4 w, . MI itil . . -•K,.. . - – 7 ... 7 . • la GI 1 :.;:,I -if 's 4111 t I • . ..1`ci i -. . ''- .,. a, . .... 1 ._ _.. .- ..r:,_ . , c .. -'--. 0 .g limMill - %--. .;.. - ---.4 'ftwie.: t•••_‘. .- • .,7-.1••!.• : •4114 "i WI U .-. • . C 0) • 4.41s.E. 11111 . , . . MB I. r-...... 1 –Zt,Z12.JUNI U ejt4 . .m. . ' - - 4 4.1 i • .... ..., .,.____.. •___•.• ....i.e.. ..... f...., .. . ,..., 4 11--:tI I • - ........ — ii-•.e--k i :.,4.,•111181 1 141 . .-.4 - - -,....:. i ii I . Ir 4 1 . . IMIN. ,7- ._ -- h ti N i i .., . OM IIEW=•i. I i bill S ii — . _,......./.1. - 1:: .4.- -- is. .. •3 t • .... .. _ i W.; Wit ,,... ..„1 gib ,a 11 I .. . '•T.40- '-' ...".• - IJ-74 Mg ilrw 42. 14:---••••,..--.. • I f: iti: ••i ;; PirAl - kM4'.1 •.• I . - • _.X • 4 .i ..- I .... 1!:41... % . — 15 • 4 I... i . ..3=5..., • . 1. .T.-- .. a U"' • • ..- II 17 -. iliP 0 . 0111 15 < 1. w ... . x . i— . I— • . 1— . cc co • ... .... 0 . .-411. 0""jilj . . . . . ys e• -l.35 P.03 • in t I i } r... TOT LOT PLAYGROUND zD -10.0. _t____ t tiçj PROPOSED t� KINDER CARE u 10,315 SF u : 1 13 13 manivial , . .61140__ 2::xle____a___ 1 1,- ' 6. 4 ( t t _1__ O W -,Iiiiiii to IIJIiJ ! fIIIljIO 0 co co CC P to o mr iLL1iiI1fJJ1l4 ' 1y" _1 ' I ,41 1 I re, / .c.gz. • I 0 aR X2217. 1r I 014.03�� - , $ $4' 50.00= I I I i t STATE HIGHWAY r MAY-04-1994 17:80 FROM P " ASSDCIRTES..LTm. . . . TO 9375739 P.02 ----) 4%----) %- } I -- . (.: • • •l Ql4T ,. .... . r• •••• rlINIM.IF 0=1 .1 .. • IMM.173 4 I F ______ a ____ ______ o. ...._ .FI -._ \ C i 1 \124. W• maMEMEMI `C o oiti IMMMMEN •• 010/ C '''''.1"/4744 .. ..". . a'L SF___ allmmr momm, S 00°28: 1 " m .nnon mom AMMO IND _ — . S 00608'51 " E CITY OF *Pt.111 CI1ANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer DATE: May 25, 1994 SUBJ: Neumann Subdivision Request Update Background This item appeared before the Planning Commission at their May 24 meeting. At that time, _ staff had recommended that the preliminary plat be tabled for the following reasons: 1. Relocation of the storm water pond. 2. More detailed tree survey. 3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. 4. A 60' radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. 5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot including trail and dock specifications. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and tabled this item. Since that time, the applicant's engineer has revised the plat to address these issues. The revised plat has a couple of changes. Most significantly is that the alteration has been minimized to the existing pond located in the corner of the site, reconfiguration of the lot lines and the shortening of the cul-de-sac with a planter island. Staff has a few minor concerns with the plat, but overall we feel it has addressed issues that were raised previously. Planning Commission May 25, 1994 Page 2 The plat still proposes 9 lots with 2 of the lots containing existing homes. Outlot A is being proposed for the wetland. Staff is recommending that Lots 1 and 2 be combined. Thus, only 6 new lots will be created. Analysis The first issue that staff had requested was the elimination of the number of variance requests through redesigning the lots, and wetland avoidance of the ag-urban wetland located adjacent to Sandpiper Lane and Sandpiper Ridge. The applicant has redesigned the plat so that there is less alteration of the wetland. Although there is some mitigation required, staff feels that the replacement is not in the appropriate location. The proposed mitigation is shown adjacent to Sandpiper Lane on the north side of the wetland. Staff feels it is more appropriate to place this mitigation on the south portion of the site where there is less tree loss. There would be a significant amount of tree loss along the north side. Staff would be opposed to its location on this side. In addition, the applicant's engineer has shown the wetland as an outlot which staff supports. It is approximately 40,800 square feet in size. At issue are the two proposed lots adjacent to this wetland. Lot 1 would have access off of Piper Ridge Lane. This lot is approximately 33,560 square feet. Lot 2, which is 23,320 square feet, is accessed off the extension of the cul-de-sac. Lot 1 would have a driveway grade of over 18%. Staff feels that with the relocation of the wetland mitigation area that these lots need to be combined into one lot. Staff would recommend that these lots be combined and the wetland mitigation be placed as previously discussed on the south side of the wetland. Staff is recommending that there be a "T" intersection from Tanagers Lane and Sandpiper with the cul-de-sac. A variance would still be required on the existing Neumann home. The road has to be located between the wetland and the existing home and a 17 foot front yard variance would be required. The road surface itself would be a ways from the home but the existing right-of-way line would be approximately 17 feet at its closest point from the existing home. Staff would recommend approval of this variance based on the fact that it is the only way to access the property. The other existing home is the Weimerskirch's. The home is 18 feet from the front property line. The applicant is providing a 60' radius on the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac was shifted to the north to accommodate this expansion. Staff is recommending a front yard variance for the Neumann and Weimerskirch homes. An additional issue that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting is the street vacation of Minnewashta Avenue. No portion of this street has been vacated, which has been verified by the applicant's engineer. Staff is recommending vacation of this street as shown on the plat. Action is not required by the commission. This will be forwarded to the city council for approval of the vacation. The applicant has relocated the storm water retention pond. Staff had recommended that it be relocated somewhere between Lots 3 and 4. The applicant has shown it located behind the Planning Commission May 25, 1994 Page 3 existing Weimerskirch's home (Lot 3). Staff feels that the ponds needs to be placed between Lots 3 and 4, specifically to minimize tree loss. There is a 30" maple that could be saved, but a 28" oak that will be lost even with the pond relocation. Staff feels that more sensitivity could be accomplished for tree preservation by the relocation of this pond southerly between Lots 3 and 4. In addition, the easement from the cul-de-sac to the pond needs to be relocated slightly to the east in order to preserve existing trees along the common lot line between Lots 3and4. Another issue that was raised was the dock. The DNR does require a marina permit because there are over 4 boat slips. In speaking with Ceil Strauss from DNR, more than likely they would support the marina permit based on the fact that they are allowed up to 9 slips based on the recreational beachlot ordinance and they feel that a common dock makes sense and helps preserve the wetland. The exact configuration of the dock needs to be resolved as far as the depth of the water. The applicant will have to verify the water depths before the dock is designed. The DNR is flexible in the proposed layout. In addition, the DNR has no preference whether or not the dock is permanent or temporary. They feel that once the posts are in place, there should be minimal disturbance to the wetland based on the fact that it is a boardwalk and will be above grade. Attached is the modified staff report with the changes made are either shown in strike-out if no longer applicable and in bold type if added. C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: May 4, 1994 CIIAIIASE N PC Update: June 1, 1994 _ tz...i � CCDATE: June13, 1994• CASE #: 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP 94-2 WAP 94-2 VAC v: anenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF; Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot; — Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of a wetland; and 1,-1 vacation of right-of-way located on Minnewashta Avenue, Neumann z Subdivision. — Q LOCATION: South of Highway 7, South of Sandpiper Lane, West of Piper Ridge VLane, along the northeast shoreline of Lake Minnewashta. — J a_ APPLICANT: Mrs. Henry Neumann Schoell & Madson, Inc. — Q 2841 Sandpiper Trail Suite 1, 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55305 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District — ACREAGE: 23.95 Acres Gross 23.42 Acres Net DENSITY: 0.38 Units per acre (Gross) 1.38 Units per acre (Net Upland) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family S - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta _ E - RSF, Single Family Q W - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta 0 , WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property WPHYSICAL CHARACTER: The northeast portion of the property is characterized by gentle — i"' rolling slopes, a small Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh Wetland and sparsely wooded areas. There are also two existing homes upon this portion of the parcel. The south and western portions of the (!) development area contain portions of severe slopes and may be recognized as "Bluff Impact Zones" — by the DNR along the Lake Minnewashta shoreline. At the bottom of these slopes are natural wooded wetlands lying adjacent to the shoreline of the lake. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential r TAAThCMT B NEVA/TS" RK 4800 I ! // __ l _�� maw. 010 I I , 1111. 14Fir 0300 % II.°I ..-147,14-.2 �� ,'�-:c�f- it �,� - „1 *7r�Orrin� r ��V ; e: -ems ; +r-- 1111_1_10 411 .• ' • la a r�.__I�� "-. 1,4 41.7014"-- :Dili-4-..-rut Ili< ----4-- 414"7gt&i:4 '1 ism., r0400----- -----0.ireiiallh.-....,,, .a=0". - - ,.• :Ai ing es; • • r� 4.��d��„ 4 � \,,ter; ...ARK im,_ ,.` 11 .1 lerk4Alp " �� o �rL IN11� 164,00 4.,-„_Ip �ilriewei tt SUBJECT PROPERTY • _ = : �� 61.. �� r .j_QC r rn if mg I ( . ill alrrz■=_ , _W/J L,�rE uoo • i - _�: LAKE /. r COLNCRY 1 t VII OAKS ►zOP�t, - M / N N E W A S N T A • 4811 / , z I- 7.. W V' REWONAL .. -/ ' 7000- .. r,na w .c _ _ '__�_PARK MI w __ t F U'2 _i Jr ir ' 4 r �� wNARi iOr . 71°°-: - ' ,'7'14.1701CiNo..-____. ,. . --.- tarry * ror Uullll.y7 ,,-:••;,-••_./ 7200_0, 200 u , ��� �: _..�— - i _� ,., I ito ,�� A... oni 7300 ` �' ►/i ,_ . *yam ` ltk ��. [Darr.+•40 ./‘% , \ . ■ [Darr ` ail 1',)= 0. 7000 a Q• .i y�ls Z IMF Millain 1P- --'' it SI 0 Wit 1700 MO 1 . ,.. ..,. ._ 7,00_. ,.."7.' _• , Al I v woo— I M00 % PPM" 11 8200r---- •l110 7T[[[7 _ IO/O id .r,....iiii: �3 P[0� 0D , �' 17,,';'7:i ..1"11111111.41141MILIIIIIIIrili -. ,..nn Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to develop a 9 lot single family subdivision. This subdivision is a replat of Lots 19-27 in the Minnewashta Park Addition, which was platted and recorded on November 14, 1887. The proposed development also includes a request to vacate and abandon the unimproved right-of-way from this original plat known as "Minnewashta Avenue." Two of the proposed 9 lots will contain the existing homes presently located upon Lots 1 and 3, Block 2 owned by Mrs. Neumann and Ann & Arnold Weimerskirch (daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Neumann). The proposed access to the development will occur from the proposed 400' 360' cul-de-sac which aligns as an extension of Tanagers Lane to the north. Access to Lot 1, Block 1 along the easterly edge of the property will be the only lot which will gain its access from Piper Ridge Lane. In general, the overall density and large lot single family use of the land is found to be a quality approach to land development in an area that may be classified as "sensitive" from an environmental perspective. — Staff is recommending that this plat be tabled until revisions can be made. These revisions include the relocation of the storm water ponds, lot revisions around the wetlands and a more detailed tree survey. The plat revisions should eliminate the requested variances. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The beachlot does meet the standards to allow 3 docks with 3 boats. Staff is recommending that there be one dock with nine slips to lessen the impacts to the wetland. The applicant is also requesting a wetland alteration permit. The Water Resources Coordinator and Assistant City Engineer are recommending that the wetland alteration permit be modified to lessen the amount of alteration. Another engineering issue is the location of the storm water ponds. Staff is requesting that they be relocated. These recommended changes will effect the layout of the plat. In addition, staff noticed trees that were not included in the survey. BACKGROUND The subject property was a portion of the Minnewashta Park Addition platted in the late 1800's. The portion of the original plat has remained on the books since this time and was never developed according to the plat of record, except with regard to the homes built upon the two lots in the development which presently access Sandpiper Lane via a private drive. Minnewashta Avenue is a platted, undeveloped right-of-way which circumscribes the perimeter of the Lake Minnewashta wetlands area. This roadway was never built from a Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to develop a 9 lot single family subdivision. This subdivision is a replat of Lots 19-27 in the Minnewashta Park Addition, which was platted and recorded on November 14, 1887. The proposed development also includes a request to vacate and abandon the unimproved right-of-way from this original plat known as "Minnewashta Avenue." Two of the proposed 9 lots will contain the existing homes presently located upon Lots 1 and 3, Block 2 owned by Mrs. Neumann and Ann & Arnold Weimerskirch (daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Neumann). The proposed access to the development will occur from the proposed 400' cul-de-sac which aligns as an extension of Tanagers Lane to the north. Access to Lot 1, Block 1 along the easterly edge of the property will be the only lot which will gain its access from Piper Ridge Lane. In general, the overall density and large lot single family use of the land is found to = be a quality approach to land development in an area that may be classified as "sensitive" from an environmental perspective. Staff is recommending that this plat be tabled until revisions can be made. These revisions include the relocation of the storm water ponds, lot revisions around the wetlands and a more detailed tree survey. The plat revisions should eliminate the requested variances. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The beachlot does meet the standards to allow 3 docks with 3 boats. Staff is recommending that there be one dock with nine slips to lessen the impacts to the wetland. The applicant is also requesting a wetland alteration permit. The Water Resources Coordinator and Assistant City Engineer are recommending that the wetland alteration permit be modified to lessen the amount of alteration. Another engineering issue is the location of the storm water ponds. Staff is requesting that they be relocated. These recommended changes will effect the layout of the ply :n addition, staff noticed trees that were not included in the survey. BACKGROUND The subject property was a portion of the Minnewashta Park Addition platted in the late 1800's. The portion of the original plat has remained on the books since this time and was never developed according to the plat of record, except with regard to the homes built upon the two lots in the development which presently access Sandpiper Lane via a private drive. Minnewashta Avenue is a platted, undeveloped right-of-way which circumscribes the perimeter of the Lake Minnewashta wetlands area. This roadway was never built from a Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 3 practical engineering perspective as well as from a strong ecological rationale. To staff's knowledge, there have been no other formal development proposals for this property. SUBDIVISION DESIGN The subdivision is laid out so that there is minimal street improvements planned, large lot features, preservation of wetland areas, etc. There are, however, a number of design considerations which have raised substantial concern in terms of the overall design for this project including lot configuration and engineering design issues. There are a number of subdivision design standard variances which have been identified as a part of this application. Staff believes that the majority of these design variances can be eliminated through the changes in the plat design and lot configuration. The variances identified in this proposal include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Street ROW width at 50' vs. the 60' required. 2. Cul-de-sac ROW width at 50' vs. 60' required. 3. Lot 5, Block 2 20' lot neck vs. 30' requiret 4. Lot 5, Block 2 flag lot pad location with 0' foot front set back vs. 30' required. 5. Lot 1, Block 1 30' set back to wetland buffer strip vs. 40' required. 6. Lot 1 Block 2 existing house front set back 17' vs. 30' required and Lot 3, Block 2 at 20' front yard setback from the cul-de-sac ROW. (Staff supports platting variance due to existing conditions and ability to minimize impact upon wetland across street). 7. Lot 4, Block 2 flag lot pad location with 0' foot front set back vs. 30' required. SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' side Block 1 Lot 1 35,560 345' 290' 40' avg. 10' buffer Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 4 Lot 2 23,320 157' 145'+ 40' avg. 10' buffer Lot 3 38,116 100' 234' 40' avg. 20' buffer Block 2 Lot 1 20,300 128' 130' 17'front existing home Ordinance 20,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear75' 10' side — Block 1 (con't) Lot 4* 40,900 125' 241' Block 2 Lot 2* 35,130 126' 218' Lot 3* 40,750 90' 250' existing home Lot 4* 41,220 125' 250' (flag) Lot 5* 44,010 130' 295' (flag) * Lot area based upon Lake Shoreline - Must subtract waterward portion of lot below OHW Elevation FINDINGS Preliminary Plat - Section 18-39 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the RD Shoreland Zoning District for Lake Minnewashta. The variances requested can be alleviated with revisions to the plat. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 5 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional — plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable land use plan element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, — vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site may be suitable for development provided the design issues as identified in this report, can be effectively addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the city. A more detailed tree survey needs to be — provided. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, — sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure, provided the design for required storm water improvements, and streets can be effectively addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the City. The location of storm water ponds needs to be changed. The wetland alteration permit needs to be revised. — 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to cause environmental or structural damage provided the proper re-design of the project can be achieved by the applicant. — 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Findin : The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements and vacate and abandon an inappropriate unimproved right-of-way. As a part of this — application, a paper street will be vacated. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 6 a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site pub!:: improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and pro%ided the proper storm water drainage system design can be achieved by the applicant. SHORELAND REQUIREMENTS The entire development falls with the Shoreland Zoning District of Lake Minnewashta, which is entitled a Recreational Development Lake. All lots meet the minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot size requirement where adjacent to the lakeshore, except for Lot 2, Block 2 which has an upland lot area of 19,990 sq. ft, as indicated in the preliminary plat lot tabulation data. The upland area of the lot is the standard imposed by the DNR relative to meeting the minimum lot size area requirements in the Shoreland District. According to the DNR, the upland portion of the lot begins at the OHW (ordinary high water elevation) which is 944.5' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Minnewashta (please reference the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated = April 18, 1994). For Lot 2, and all other proposed lots with lake frontage, the OHW level occurs out into the wetland areas. Therefore, all lots are found to be in compliance with the minimum shoreland lot area requirements. These same provisions hold true for the recreational beachlot which will have a total lot area in excess of 70,000 sq. ft., but below the 233,805 sq. ft. gross area which follows the shoreline as identified on the preliminary plat. Based upon these requirements as established by the DNR, staff recommends that the applicant resubmit the lot area calculations based upon a property line which follows the OHW Elevation of 945' (NGVD, 1929). LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The development site presently contains a very substantial quantity of mature and young trees of varying size, species, quality and locations. The tree information submitted by the applicant presently does not meet the City's Code requirements with respect to tree preservation. This includes, but is not limited to: supplying information about all trees with a caliper of six (6") inches or more vs. the minimum twelve (12") inch size as identified by the applicant; supplying information about all trees on the site, specifically including the high quality stand of Oak and other trees not identified upon the proposed Lot 2, Block 2 (Staff would be open to supporting an alternative set back consideration for this lot provided the applicant can produce an effective tree preservation plan for the significant trees located upon this lot); and that the applicant further demonstrate the ability to maximize tree preservation. relative to the proposed building pad locations and limits of site grading as identified upon Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 7 the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission may also wish to direct the applicant to perform a "Tree Canopy Coverage" analysis to more fully assess the existing tree inventory — upon the site and to more fully assess the proposed impacts upon this inventory relative to anticipated development tree removal. The applicant will also need to supply, as may be required, a tree replacement plan with particular consideration given to any vegetation which is removed, whether planned or not, between the house pad locations and the shoreland/wetland areas for all riparian lots. The applicant has prepared a tree canopy plan. The subdivision has a 50% base line canopy coverage (upland). The ordinance allows a 35% canopy coverage. The plat proposes approximately 10,000 square feet of tree loss. The canopy coverage should remain above 45%. No additional trees will be required. Staff is recommending tree conservation easements for each lot outside of the 1,000 square foot building pad to ensure preservation of trees. WATER RESOURCES Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10-9P). Therefore, development around the lake will have to meet the DNR's shoreland ordinance requirements. The lake is designated as a recreational lake and this requires a minimum structure set back of 75 feet. Alteration of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into the lake, fix nutrients, and preserve shoreland aesthetics and wildlife. Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landing, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures or facilities. If an area is to be filled for a beach, a DNR permit may be necessary depending on the size of the beach and the amount of material placed. WETLANDS The following is a discussion of the two wetlands associated with the proposed project: A wetland designated by the City as natural surrounds the proposed project on the west and south side and lies adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is identified in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as A4-6(2). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine forested wetland (Cowardin PFO1C). The value and function of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance highly discourages alteration to this wetland. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 8 A wetland designated by the City as agricultural/urban is located in the northeast corner of the proposed project (Lot 1, Block 1). The wetland is identified in the SWMP as A4-6(1). The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a combination of inland shallow and deep fresh marsh and wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 3/4/7) or as a seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/forested wetland (Cowardin PEM/FO1C). The value and function of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance may allow some alteration to the wetland under the use of the Wetland Conservation Act's (WCA) sequencing criteria. City Wetland Ordinance - Permit Requirements The City will require a wetland alteration permit for any impacts to associated wetlands. In general the ordinance follows the guidelines of the WCA with the additional requirement of a buffer strip and a structure setback from the buffer strip. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Strip Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Natural 10 - 30 ft 20 ft Required 40 ft Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft WCA The WCA permanent rules have been effective since January 1, 1994 and the City of Chanhassen is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA permit process. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland _ replacement ratio of 2:1. The notification process is a minimum of 60 days after the replacement plan has been submitted to the LGU. Replacement plan forms are available at City Hall. The LGU may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the it finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the activity impacting a wetland complies with the principles associated with sequencing (WCA rule 8420.0520). If this is considered a minor project by the LGU, however, where the functions and values lost due to the proposed drain or fill are less than that of the proposed replacement, an elaborate search for practicable alternatives will not be required. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 9 Clean Water Act Section 404 The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such basins with predischarge notification [(see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. For impacts to areas between a half acre and three acres, the Corps requires that the applicant demonstrate that the impact cannot be avoided or minimized before considering compensatory mitigation. The wetland for the proposed project can be considered isolated if the impact to the wetland is less than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes impact to the wetland can be avoided by adjusting the lot lines to the south which may eliminate one lot. GRADING & DRAINAGE The preliminary plans propose grading for the street, storm pond and around the wetland on Outlot A Lot 1, Block 1. The wetland is proposed to be partially filled to achieve the necessary setback dimensions for building pads on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Staff believes that this is a waste of a valuable natural resource and, accordingly, the lots should be pushed further to the south to avoid alteration of the wetland. In addition, the mitigation measures will push the wetland and water table closer to existing Sandpiper Lane which may jeopardize the road's structural integrity. Staff strongly recommends that the wetland be left in its natural state with the exception of filling for the proposed interior street. Wetland mitigation is still proposed along the north side of the wetland. Staff believes this will still remove trees unnecessarily when better alternatives exist such as adjacent to Lot 2. A storm water pond is proposed at the end of the recreational beachlot. Staff believes this is an inappropriate place for a storm water pond. It is approximately 400 feet off the street and will result in tree loss, not to mention the difficulty from a maintenance and accessibility standpoint. We believe it is much more feasible to develop a water quality treatment pond adjacent to the wetland and therefore the wetland can be recharged by the area runoff This is another reason why Lots 1 and 2 should be shifted south to provide room for a water quality treatment pond for the stormwater to discharge into prior to discharging into the wetlands located on Lot 1. The wetland located on Lot 1 currently drains through a culvert underneath the existing driveway on Lot 1, Block 2 along Minnewashta Avenue to Lake Minnewashta via an open ditch. The City already holds the necessary easements for the extension of the storm sewer as well as the maintaining the neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff also believes that this will save a significant number of trees on the recreational beach lot which was otherwise proposed for the stormwater pond. Staff recommends that this culvert be eliminated so that the wetland outlet will limited to the proposed storm sewer system. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 10 The City's ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation in the homes adjacent to wetland areas be 2 feet above the wetlands ordinary high water level. This would at a minimum require that on Lot 2 the lowest floor level be at 963 which will require additional fill be placed on Lots 2 and 3 to provide the adequate grade separation. The grading plan should be revised to show the appropriate grading on these lots to achieve buildable pad elevations. The plans still show a building pad with a first floor elevation of 963. Both Lots 2 and 3 are designated as "flat" lots which do not have a basement or lower level. This will meet the city's ordinance requiring the lowest floor elevation be 2 feet above the ordinary high water mark. The majority of lots contain significant stands of trees. The grading plan does not indicate the grading limits on the lots. It is suspected that the lots will be custom-graded when the individual homes area constructed. It is recommended that individual grading and drainage plans be required for the treed lots for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Both Lots 2 and 3 are proposed as "flat" lots. Lot 1 is proposed to access from Piper Ridge Lane. A portion of the driveway grade for Lot 1 will be around 16% which exceeds the city's requirement of 10% maximum. Staff recommends that Lots 1 and 2 be combined and access be from the new street (Tanagers Lane). Staff believes by combining Lots 1 and 2 will give more flexibility in building on the lot as well as minimizing disruption to the area. The existing "knob" on Lot 1 gives some added difficulty to build on. — The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees will be waived. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. The applicant still will be required to pay the appropriate stormwater trunk fees associated with this project. Currently, the single-family/low-density rate is proposed at a rate of $1,980 per acre. Using the applicants lot tabulation sheet, this equates to 6.54 acres at $1,980 or $12,949. This fee would be required at the time of final plat recording. If the fees have not been adopted yet by the City Council then a letter of credit or cash dedication could be escrowed until the Surface Water Management Plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 11 The plans do propose collecting stormwater runoff through a series of catch basins which carry the storm runoff to a stormwater pond. Again, the stormwater pond is not in an acceptable location and will have to be located on Lot 2 adjacent to the wetland or some jrelocation acceptable to the City. The applicant has relocated the storm water pond behind the Weimerskirch house (Lot 3). Staff believes if the pond is shifted slightly further to the south towards Lot 4, more substandard trees could be saved. In addition, the storm sewer pipe from the cul-de-sac to the pond should be shifted to minimize impact to the trees along the common lot line of Lots 3 and 4. Stormwater calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Stormwater ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. Erosion control measures are shown around the wetland area as well as the stormwater retention pond. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall to be built in front of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Block 2. The retaining wall should be built outside of the City's road right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. UTILITIES The site is located within the City's Urban Service Area. Sanitary sewer and water service is available from Sandpiper Lane. The applicant is proposing on extending the sewer and water lines into the site. The utility installation shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. There are two existing homes on the parcel. According to the City's records, one home is connected to city sewer and the other one is not. Both homes will be required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may utilize the existing wells on the site until they have failed at which time the properties must be connected to city water. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 12 STREETS The preliminary plat proposes a 50-foot right-of-way along with a 50-60 foot radius on the cul-de-sac. The City's ordinance requires that a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac for residential urban development. The applicant is requesting the reduced right-of-way to minimize the impact to the wetland on Lot 1. However, additional right-of-way will not require additional filling of the wetland. The filling occurs with construction of the street and utility installation. However, staff feels due to the close = proximity of the existing house on Lot 1, Block 2 along with the existing right-of-way in the neighborhood, the street right-of-way may remain at 50 feet, however, the cul-de-sac radius must be increased to 60-feet to provide adequate turning movements for fire vehicles as well as snow storage and utility installations. The 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac encroaches closer to the house pad on Lot 4, Block 1. A way to alleviate this would be to grant a variance on the house setback or an easier way would be to reduce the overall cul-dc length by 10 feet. The street is proposed to be constructed in accordance with the City's urban street standard which is 31 feet wide back to back. Street grades range from 0.5% to 2.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. Street construction plans shall be required with the utility plans to be submitted to the City for formal review and approval. The street appears to be a continuation of Tanagers Lane south of Sandpiper Lane therefore it may be prudent to require the street be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court to maintain a consistency in street names and addresses. As a result of platting the two homes may be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and City's address grid. RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The development proposal includes a conditional use permit request for a private recreational beachlot. The beachlot area contains a total of 233,805 gross sq. ft. with a total net upland area of 45,165 sq. ft. excluding wetland area. The lot area calculation will need to be recalculated as previously identified. The private beachlot would include a boardwalk which will extend 190' across the wetlands and into the lake area where a common dock would be located with 9 boat slips. Staff strongly supports the combined approach to providing a common lake access via a single boardwalk through the lake wetlands area. This proposal as presented complies with the requirements prescribed by the city's beachlot requirements and the standards as set forth by the DNR. The location selected for dock access is also the most practical from a positioning point as being the shortest path through this important ecological area. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 — Page 13 RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CUP COMPLIANCE TABLE Association Compliance P.C. Item Request Standard With Standard Recommended Association Neumann Sub. Lake Minnewashta RD Number 9 80% / Yes of Homes 1000' rule Size, Sq. Ft. 233,805* 30,000 s.f. Yes 1st Dock — 20,000 s.f. each add'! dock up to 3 max. — * Size to be reduced based upon area to be recalculated relative to OHW Elevation Shoreline 1,200 l.f** 200 11 per dock Yes ** Shoreline distance to be reduced based upon calculation relative to OHW Elevation — Motor Vehicle Access No Prohibited Yes Off-Street Pkg. No Prohibited Yes — Boat Launch No Prohibited Yes Buildings No Permitted n/a Seasonal Dock 1 3 Permitted Yes Dock Length (190' Bdwk.) 50' or 4' Depth Depth (90' dock, plus whichever is Unknown? — cross bars) greater Neumann Suhdivision _ May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 14 Dock Width 4 ft. 4 ft. Yes Cross Bar 20 ft. 25 ft. Yes Length Dock Set Back 500 10 ft. Yes Canoe Racks None 1.5 racks n/a = 1 Rack Slip per lot (9) Sail Boats None 3 n/a Moored Boats at Dock 9 9 Yes Swimming Beach None Permitted n/a Marker Buoys None Permitted n/a Swimming Raft None Permitted n/a Beachlot Buffering Yes Required Yes _ Urban 80%/ 100% / 80% / Yes 1000' Rule 500' 1000' Port-a-Potties None Permitted n/a PARK AND RECREATION On April 26, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this plat and made the following recommendation: The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 — Page 15 building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. Current residential single family — park and trail fee rates are $900.00 and $300.00 per home, respectively. Section 20-232, General Issuance Standards — 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. Finding: The dock will be a boardwalk reducing the impacts to the wetland. A combined dock with 9 slips will also lessen the impact. — 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The beachlot is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. — 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not — change the essential character of that area. Finding: The applicant needs to provide details about the trail to the dock as well as — specifications about the dock. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: There are several beachlot associations on Lake Minnewashta. This — subdivision is just to the east of Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, — police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Findin : There will be a trail off of a public street to access the beachlot. The — members of the subdivision should form an association. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be — detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 16 Findin : The beachlot should provide members of the association a recreational amenity. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. — Findin : The subdivision needs to form an association to keep the beachlot maintained. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Members of the association all live within close proximity. Boats will be launched at the regional park. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The beachlot should be properly maintained to remain compatible with the surrounding uses. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Findin : The beachlot should be an asset to the neighbors by providing recreational opportunity as well as protected open space. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The request meets the beachlot ordinance standards. RECOMMENDATION Preliminary Plat Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 17 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #94-3 as shown on the plans stamped May 17, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 4, Block 2. 2. City Council approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue. 3. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street. 4. Lots 1 and 2 shall be combined into one lot. 5. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. 6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management - Practices Handbook. 7. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water trunk fees associated with this - project. Currently, the single-family/low density rate is proposed at a rate of $1,980 per acre. This equates to 6.54 acres at $1,980 or $12,949. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. 9. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails. 10. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. 11. Tree conservation easements shall be placed on all lots outside of the 1000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. 12. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the wetland's ordinary high water level. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 18 13. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. 15. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. 16. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 17. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right-of-way and maintained by the property owner. 18. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 19. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. 20. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department. 21. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 22. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 Updated June 1, 1994 Page 19 23. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid." Conditional Use Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit #94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20-232, conditional uses." Wetland Alteration Permit "The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit #94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site. 2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. 3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10'-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback Ag/urban wetland 0-30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback" ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 22, 1994. Neumann Subdivision May 4, 1994 — Updated June 1, 1994 Page 20 — 2. Letter from Schoell and Madson dated March 29, 1994 and April 20, 1994. 3. Wetland delineation dated March 25, 1994. 4. Letter from DNR dated April 18, 1994. — 5. Preliminary plat dated May 17, 1994. STATE OF [ Q0 Q DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO 772-7910 i._ April 18 , 1994 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director CI L'r- City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: NEUMANN SUBDIVISION, PROJECT 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP, LAKE MINNEWASHTA (10-9P) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Aanenson: We have reviewed the site plans (received April 1, 1994) for the above-referenced project (Section 4 , T116N, R24W) and have the following comments to offer: 1 . Public Water Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation which alters the course, current or cross-section of Public Waters/Wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Lake Minnewashta is 944 . 50' (NGVD, 1929) , and the activities which may require a DNR permit are grading, the placing of the dock and the placing of the stormwater outfalls. 2 . It appears that the developer is aware of the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. We encourage the developer to continue working with the City of Chanhassen in preserving wetlands on this site. 3 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Lake Minnewashta. 4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 5 . The 100-year flood elevation of Lake Minnewashta on the FIRM Map (July 2 , 1979) is 945' (NGVD, 1929) . All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations of both the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Kathryn Aanenson April 18 , 1994 Page 2 6 . Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000' from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you should note: a. The project area contains bluffs (i.e. , slopes that average 30 percent or greater over a horizontal distance of 50' and rise 25' above the (OHW) top of the bank) and steep slopes (i. e. , slopes that are greater than 18 percent) . The bluffs overlooking Lake Minnewashta should not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Topographic alterations should be minimized on the steep slopes. b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is the area within 37 . 5' of the OHW. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff. c. Less than 25% of the area of each lot should be covered with impervious surface. d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake Minnewashta using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. e. The applicant appears to have lot lines extending far beyond the OHW of 944 . 50' (NGVD, 1929) of Lake Minnewashta. The statewide standards for the management of shoreland areas state that only the land above the OHW should be used to calculate the lot area. 7 . Lake Minnewashta should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW should be noted. 8 . You should be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on your project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 9 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. 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 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson April 18 , 1994 Page 3 of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. 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. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. 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 c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Ellen Sones U. S. Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta Chanhassen Shoreland File C I TY 0 F 11111110111, C 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 S MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director l FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (A"I<j DATE: April 22, 1994 SUBJECT: 94-3 SUB, 94-2 CUP, 94-2 WAP, & 94-2 VAC (Neumann Subdivision) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 28, 1994 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Analysis: Inspection Division's only comment at this time concerns the street name. The propos€. street name must be submitted to the Public Safety Department review. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid redundant or similarly named streets. Staff would like to suggest that "Tanagers Court" wou_d be Lb.e most appropriate name for the proposed street . The new street will appear to be an extension of Tanagers Lane and the similar name will provide for quick recognition of it 's location. It will also provide for a termination point for Sandpiper Lane. Staff does not think it appropriate to include the suggested name as a condition, but would like the developer to be aware of the recommendation. Recommendation: The following condition should be included with the conditions of approval. 1 . Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\neumann.kal Preliminary Wetland Classification, - Identification and Delineation for Mrs. Henry Neumann — Chanhassen, MN prepared by — SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. March 25, 1994 _ Wetland Classification, Identification and Delineation for the Neumann site located at Chanhassen, MN Summary Based upon the information provided to Schoell ane vladson, Inc., we have identified two wetland basins on the property. The wet:. nds were field delineated on January 24, 1994. Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory maps indicated the presence of two wetland basins at this location. Based on review of Minnesota Depaitiuent of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters maps the two wetland basins. Wetland one is located in the northeastern corner of the property. Wetland two is located along the west and south boundaries is designated as protected water number 10-9P. The two wetlands are also identified on the City's official wetland map. Project Location and Site Description The site is located approximately 1/4th mile south of the intersection of Minnewashta Bay Road and Minnesota Highway 7 in Chanhassen, MN. The site is approximately 9.2 acres. Tl.i southern portions of site have remained relatively undisturbed for a number of ears. The property consists of gently rolling to ,teep -:ills, currently most of the upland areas are wooded or occupied by two residences and bounded by Lake Minnewashta on the west and south. Characteristics of the Wetland Basins Basin 1 This wetland basin is approximately 0.8 acres in size. It is classified as a Type 3 (Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh) as defined in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). Based on the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) the basin is classified as a PEMC wetland (Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded). The wetland basin is located in the northeastern portions of the property. This wetland is also identified on the City of Channhassen's official wetland map as A4-6(1). The City of Chanhassen has designated this wetland as an Ag/Urban Wetland. Observed wetland vegetation within the wetland boundary consisted of a — number of common wetland indicator species including: Broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia)(obligate wetland),Reed Canary grass(Phalaris arundinacea) (facultative wetland), Bulrush (Scirpus spp.) (obligate wetland), Sedges (Carex spp.)(obligate wetland) Redosier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) (facultative wetland) and Willow (salix spp.) (facultative wetland). — Wetland boundary areas contained the following species: Kentucky Blue Grass (Poa pratenses) (facultative -), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) — (upland),Box Elder(Acer negundo)(facultative wetland), Willow(Salix spp.) (facultative wetland) and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative wetland). According to the 1968 USDA Soil Survey of Carver County, soils in wetland — basin 1 are identified as Hayden loam which contains inclusions that are classified as hydric soils. The 1968 survey description of Hayden soils states the following; "The Hayden series consists of deep well drained soils that _ formed in friable, limy clay loam or loam glacial till. Permeability is moderate and moisture storage capacity is moderately high". Hydrologic conditions were not determined due to frozen soil conditions. Once soils have thawed hydrologic conditions will be determined. Basin 2 The wetland is adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. It is classified as a Type 7 (Wooded Swamp), and as a PFO1C (Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved — Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) basin. Further inside the boundaries there is a transition to Broad leaved cattails (Typha latifolia) and other similar emergent vegetation (PEMF). Because this wetland is associated with Lake — Minnewashta the size of the wetland was not determined. This wetland is also identified on the City of Channhassen's official wetland map as A4-6(2) and N1-6(3). The City of Chanhassen has designated this wetland as a — Natural Wetland. According to the 1968 soil survey soils are classified as Marsh and Glencoe. Both are listed as hydric soils. Due to frozen soil conditions no soil samples were taken. — Vegetation included Cottonwood (Populus deltoides)(facultative +), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative wetland), American Elm (Ulmus — americana) (facultative wetland -), Willow (Salix spp.) (facultative wetland), Redosier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) (facultative wetland) and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (facultative wetland +). — 2 Wetlands were preliminarily delineated according to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation 1989) as required by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. After the soil is free of frost soil samples will be taken to complete the definition of wetland boundaries. Because the 1989 manual has a more conservative hydrologic requirement than the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, delineated boundaries should be consistent with or more conservative (drier) than those arrived at using the 1987 manual. The site is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District boundaries in the City of Chanhassen, MN. Mitigation will be necessary for any impacted portions of wetland. Replacement of the filled or drained portions of wetlands is required. When this occurs replacement will need to be of the same wetland type and within the same watershed and preferably on the same site. With the passage of the Wetland Conservation Act, wetlands on this site now come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The local unit of government (LGU) is responsible for administering the provisions of this legislation. In this case, the City of Chanhassen will be the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find that, no exemptions apply. The project must be certified by the LGU as having complied with the provisions of the Act that apply during the exemption period. Any wetland impacts must be replaced or restored at a 2:1 acreage ratio in the same watershed as the impact occurs. The act also mandates that restoration or creation of replacement of wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the impacts can not be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. This requirement is essentially the same as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process. During the final design process efforts should be taken, whenever possible, to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. By utilizing this approach wetland replacement costs will be kept to a minimum and any additional permitting will be more easily facilitated. 3 Site Map 4 1 i / \ / • \ 11 r-:_ I i ;\ % \\ / / 1 F1 N /// / • �. \•.) ,1I C 7.74 / p<774)/ I • r1 CI / 1 i 1 l / x .11 , ._._, T rp . . , ._:_ _ _ eft-ditik\\-S11 .% ii11-0,111 i / • , vii:::)\-\14111 1 Ani, lli . . ___,' N.,.. ,. _ INF All i1 ii...., J , i , ,_ ,,,, 10 =. I .. W ;_.,- _______ -- ; . rp I ci -1 iipb:' ..... 1 — -1. op v - • •z 1 -c, .-+‘-''" : %:-. \i':: I4j16 4;1 z ( ............)7:-.4:, Soil Survey Map 5 1 1µ .,...41• ...,r .M-„. +•,. .�(-`nv. )-•� ... '• yam. — f114 • t� I ;..., 1 S r r-- B.-5••.--'7'�S'�'' .■ '�•1 _ is- lir -'f •y� Ha6`. • +r• ......-••••"7......,�- „frith-- . r ,,ect few:.1 e 1...-.' ; Prof LoCp ■' •"*.e_ .i • r , mi '¢r:/-1.4 • + i J• '•t ? w - J • 1 �` rte`,....4,...._.. ti _ ,,;,1,-/-_,•_-__. ♦ Imo! -• "� _ `�+�•1� }r �.- a- ;y-_ >• ••••""!Z r'� `ATr. z:'A/_per....*.......,"Sr iCf t r +� l ` ' viz c. Ar . ! 4e�SL +k' t-y 4r -rr:-% �)' ' .cam s - _.: .r rit' i +-7_ a VVI Q � :;, Q -4.._,.. ,..,?-_-r- 6,„ f --t: i Atfora • g ZA•r-4:.:'I H ori r -+4 r1tA itgr kms_ '""0, it - .: - r.0 f ' 3i? • A.: • ►!2^ � r• .r..7 �3hy44. a • � '�, 1�.qt(V ... t-. i .641: LI y Yrl'- 4'�" ic - 1•- \;xe:�. t e.. 'N... _ +pi( - r 7tre 7ilt7?:- "e: ... ” \- t t • +10"--N....-" , r_. l'41:„ .�xa.--....r.....� s•v • , �. --.. n� aC {'Li - af•a -i":-♦- 'Ie�r '4 # .y31• :-: r <�� �, S p V i,•• Ar.,,m. ..,. .,..,..t.w....,-,-,:t . ,, ,.... J .. �'F' . "S4 ` 0'=t =``. .•�)f .I<iIR� (V IJP®_ _--A- ` :. A +, .�pjLLfirt--<---.41.-. r },jdly�y��:. � , �.. . ! �, ''sem a ,`0� �;`may:> -5fr�•'.kias6y; ■`a , 2 ..c iZi.'�4.► SCTi r;�r'.►1'i,g. N� •. _ .! � _gyp •r't.`e- . - :' - _ -... .. 'J L _, t• - t. N . ..„ ;ir .7=••••. ..-..,),5'- -"-�:'i.-aw l a - P� ! T�►� _:$1,....., * ' ,. :�;'..f7- '-•,.J -ri. yt 3M"•7 -._• 1L�k! p•✓ ri. va/� �?Raj• _� ``ti � i `•TS►� R' ` �'F� fl yG•i' O N t *ar: <r!�fackm __- ——•'a` -- rL •� --,- • - - . -• -i+ r1 H2E2 ♦ •r-.>r�c- ••. z may'Y� -s 7-.D2•4' 4 Y .sem - • rPe,.,:-, ' y7--;•fir"- :1' ,._ ,.,..e. 4, 1 =i •i.L"-'� -.s' '=" '24`:-"IL r.-5'-' • P11-74"' - HcD - ir !►`:` ''i-,` e" '' -: :- =:"--- ":`�.-4-0:4-I,4---!---4- '•.. :1t•Pd moi': --% t - :�:• '� 4,-- � 1, Vie... ••�'1-_ �f- -••::-....,---.......0 D, - E .e►-= :1 t .�: -- - - _ .- •75,',...s.„._-"-_,•-•„_.-•-:-f- _Hag „f-..;ber••IL - ..!.,.. ,-.......04 vi, T 4-a.,6 t -,47; 4.t s.,p1' ....., 4, .:Aa. teetto r. LI :2. - . cc =..: : -"x�`. w. • ` HaD2._ I- �T=J�Sd, i.- s�y.Tr �.t.� .t.- +.moi.:- ���!'�•`1,..r .4�!!F ` . '��1: -`' '= = vii: ..-l. ..-... ` Ger-- `:.1,� � cD3 • +�r�• E.--,.....-,-_..-,.' ey -4,-... •_�r 'mac..` 11C1`- �aFS q - rs.+q+�B '":i - '.F. C ..r { 11. v + ••••:--••••••• ...,..,...s.•.,-• ,- ,�. 3-s: s._.agl�s�,'• �j J _ �Q 1 :'ti'` `1l+_mo ► ( - _ „... -1--rlri•cg (�� "�.] '3 � •+L �� 'tr t-.� -cit.. • V 41164. ei . "". 1 l 1S ..-7:f._,*::::: • :,': ` rdi, titer- ".- -. .c. . M' alipLlej:1- ss4 _4,4414. . -"4 a,-,--.16 2,- ... ap,-1 • • . • -t*-.. `si. .1...-.. - •ifei:a-_.F1•-1 _ 'ili ji 1-..,, .-..'r i•,--s I r.4.--4.-%• -.awn- A. •1 . . riftzte-4.4ia..,. . ..2 ,„- • i 0,.,...*._,:t .;• -!eq . ‘,„.. ` � !"' i- �t.�i' .:;,� '�, :•its sus. = c pus'-*}•,,-,t-'.,:` r :r- : HsC21.01•V!!0\41.4adcr...ml.f.j aB2 + L Ls (Joins sheet 27) HcD3 aC2 DNR Protected Waters Map GP SHOREWOOD R Z3 W I . Etc f 27.ill W ~r'�' Minnewaaht• • : >:>:: ::i::; ::::: :: : 1 E _ • • • - '•Q l• _ rr '.0 0 . • Project sect Location P • r I t�1 13,w x .1:::: 0 . I - _. - //ZUfn .fi / .•::i•••.:•:::... c , , t • ` ti, a ,- • • .s' Lake II lP / • I„ f•► R f M�nnewasht �' t:° k s 1 • Ta i ack :SJ;:• 111• 1141):.. L10P 7 I rotn �� ii 2`/ A -. SP 11 • '~ `i: :::::-::.,.:, . V---41 !•■••8 ?SAW. 4 • , • 12P ' IB...f►w r,►•,. wrf■s,r ier IA • y ,i _ -_. A....,otAl CHANt�ASSEi Akr•. 7 1.1.........i..•.. 1 ai, \ MP 1101141 III IIIII NM CO 14C CUMIN CO POI •- a f ,s- - - - • - . ...„. .:.. •.•. ... I 1 VO^ {. . • t: 2.0%.4) – • y 2 0W I• , 145w OK..., ti 41 • !' • ,.•nne, o• sot.• .1 ,,� . TO IA I. :•> : :::• ........ 15 N :C- '....::::::::::;.':!:::3::::::::........ • I• I 11. �o 1 I ' :< .Y � — -- •••• 1 PPP • 1! _-_ `b= ti-._•�_r:-------- � — - --- it If f II• E `1` 1 • 2)1 i • -:•'::.::::::':'''.-:•.::::..::••••%"::::: a�::2''' I 1n 1 tit 1 • • t9P 19 , 1 144P :; _ _... _ ' ilia rt1 2.II.4 . I 23 :: 4,1 • ��.ii ::111iL� AIL `� .1 II E 11 I 'i- e il • CHASKA ,. I .0. ».. i 211w .. ' 27 —25 11 i\ts 29 1 • F.A.S.• Iallathan • illir----....„ :-...............%•%,.,........... 219�J ZIBW ' •-. • 1 ii : 4\ Cre i • 1 31 1 33 :; ? a e ,: J, I _ ,. 9.111111r* /�� - CC .fes+_. 1 Aff / • n � C 1 +—tom -- I� .. Aiii . r• ;� .. 1 ®, uzw — • • r 1--: 1 t i.v • ..e• t,� ..-.•:•:::::::::::.... Si:... W e:;:. 1 • asks 1 1 ®:'.:•,' \"' 1 225r1 - National Wetland Inventory Map • r F T 0 IST K A JM L= , \ ,' , . :;�;� 1 Cri II4t• .4 i.P i ,- #..1014111). d% -• • ..._\ • x o t -- •�'• • • • rdr- • t �, 1�;\'-4. -P‘3.-..L '\\ ''\\- •• „j ) Pia I .' 'V.- • • .Z 4I i► \ -�1� r�J� .��)• 1 M• 1___ / 1•: ::. f: �: PFac - i.6 / '�1: nt' •/ `V7.... : ...._ �,�•' • ' til.. o . , . . — 9 . , MF: / �_ ( Balt_. ._.....}4.4i7 ----n- :-•7.7711gpie.ipp...4F- Ten • I :;a\ \ ' .\ • ' • 'a'a Goo .. tnl *),j: II - •,',.toi 5) •Niirriy- - -t'','-f'.1.- .r.\ -4:.b. •• --*N.."---- _ , VI . C1101.1?!..."° id 5 . '''r . ��, - JJJ•-o �= - ., PFO c -,�f i�,�v ; 2 .... . "____ sli 1.47 . . .1 •....• ••• ,k 4, VI re wilt I\, • 11//,'',- ---'-!_ -41 I ••-_,-;N....“, • 1 . )) i......„);-):.:.--;_z-zz. :„ .. C• .• '• \' ("---. \ .. - 1 ....________. , TL.p�.k •ad :I• ' fit G , X11.14N-- r� r`I,t �'� -„M!.4-11-6,....:4 -•--...: --� . . �- �,.• rr•-• .0," .1, .17----:49, - 4 - * .• • -% A- ... -..- il s.,•) 3447117 i ' •ii P • ..ti — (.. i Pu ,t,,�--,o / it ► puBP P4'• -I • .1.1 -a '.!N. . • ,•t QEMG_: � - �� '•; • - ���. • I�' " ;"- \ i'‘.•-•-ti. ILL N. P ' . if. ...._.,t___ •�G�. • ��a ;Ab�'?� ' Gwb. �, i . oke 84 - �►. " ' �� 0,1 t 1 1 *.\... ), . , / Ci. ••1 i I PEM ------::-.. .\ 6 -G A/- re -=y ,r1 u• iJ ' , • �j4 " , / .... /� ; /o •••, 2.7 ,,,,or". •).„...1.../. - ' tit.I v I \fill4 -,:.--.:. %.4-•f e‘‘a; ....c‘ -.II 7110. .r. 4 v,I. .‘"elfriitt7.4!>" 1.0 :-- 2/,..ktrP ,.-- , 1 ..,: .• ,••,_ \ , taw- ;F..„;.•, 4,„,.1,L.. ...- .11 - - .../%-i--,,-.. 441,a,...--.., -;<•-if i ';----• ..` ‘ er-- .----- ' ri' - .................— A-4 !--- .i.r .-....till 1 ii-•al:4- •I lk •rr. 1 q• ..,aii;,------ .,-....... 1 t..., :-.; 2.- . •,......... . - . TA 1,„ ii,,,.r/5:pip%) .11„....._, , .,• •..i...., • .,: •, ., ---;•so - - 00 - . --.,51 f l• • '..7/i r• •.1... v i - • re i , .,,...,...N,. "',. , •\.,%._-.. -%T....7'::::-,- 4,-. 4111 1'''iii 0 i $ L, .i.11,...wLf , •r 1 . • ,...,, 0,-,,, ,,,, , .....,, . tr.If ' -'..-It.°1/. ' 0 a •. • li---i- 1 t i /.. . .j I i /2 11,14-N -'. 0; --- -('• • ( ' • • t.-.- • • •-ft.--.J.... Yr..) i e,z, '‘..il ).14 r. . . , - -- '1- on, a ---*--- . , 'k. -i-( , 4 A. ,_. . , so ---, r..--,,. l• lap ? ( • ;i� _ r ; = .' i , I �_4, rb ...a� I • 1: � • .1't ��, r , - C , ): -__,, Iv i r. `'�„ •� „ . I I '' - id , - I f$ -' .. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3- 1 consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen, with the amendment regarding land acquisition consistent with the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commission also approves Resolution #94-2 and directs staff to hold a public hearing on the program and plan on May 23, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND: AND VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, NEUMANN SUBDIVISION. Public Present: Name Address Herb Pfeffer 2850 Tanager Lane Harry D. Peters 18800 Ridgewood Road Ann and Arnold Weimerskirch 2831 Sandpiper Trail Olive Neumann 2841 Sandpiper Trail Art Johnsen 18300 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka Ken Adolf Schoell and Madson, Inc. Laurie Johnson 2731 Piper Ridge Lane Delores Erickson 2762 Piper Ridge Lane Mike & Sue Faulk 2791 Piper Ridge Lane Chuck Rosenberger 2772 Piper Ridge Lane Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: Kate, under the recommendation you outline the issues to be addressed. Has there been a chance to talk with the applicant about those? Aanenson: Yes, and I'm sure they'll speak to some of those too but we are recommending 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 tabling because we feel like the relocation of the pond and if we look at the wetland and where they're mitigating, it may change the configuration of those lots and we thought that was a big enough scope that we want another chance to thoroughly review it before you and get your... Harberts: On one of the items with regard to the redesigning of the lots, because of the variances requested, do you anticipate that you'll be able to bring them into compliance? Aanenson: Well I think we can eliminate a lot of those. Certainly you know like if it saves trees or we can save natural features, that that's certainly a reason to give a variance...maybe not all 9 lots are going to work. Maybe only 8 will fit on there and that's the things we'll look at. Again as stated, that we...alteration to that ponding...so maybe they can get 9 but maybe 8 works best. Harberts: Well I'm just looking at some of the variances that were requested. You know a 17 foot setback. A zero. I guess you know, depending on what the action of the commission is tonight, is trying to, I guess we're looking at what do we gain by considering the variances and what's the benchmark here, especially at 0 and 17. • Aanenson: We're not asking. What we're saying at this point is that we're recommending that it be tabled and they go back and try to work out the lot design and maybe we can eliminate a lot of those variances. That's our position too. Obviously there's been a very good effort to try to save the natural features and we do commend the applicant for doing that but we think they could, with a little bit of tinkering, make it even better. That's what we're asking for, for the reason for tabling it. Harberts: Good, thanks. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Mancino: I just have another question for Kate. On page 7, under Water Resources. And I'm thinking about Block 2. The houses on the south side is a wetland and then it goes into Lake Minnewashta. It has under water resources that there can be limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting and pruning. Tell me, on Block 2, those houses. Can they go in in their back yards and put a walkway down to the lake through the wetland? Aanenson: No, that was our understanding in the doing the common beachlot so they wouldn't have to do that. That goes back to the monumentation we just approved. Putting monumentation on this buffer at the buffer setback the natural...maintain the integrity. And that's another reason looking at the variances. They may be warranted. This is a tough site. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 We've got a natural wetland surrounding the entire site plus another wetland on the corner. But again you have to balance those. Is 8 the right number? Is 9 the right number and then work with fitting in the topography so. Mancino: It's a beautiful site. Just a wonderful. Scott: Good. Dave, do you have any comments? Any additional? Hempel: No, I pretty well covered it. Scott: Okay, good. We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please identify yourself and speak into the microphone. Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son-in-law. Mrs. Neumann is here tonight. With her, my wife Ann next to her. Mrs. Neumann is the owner of the property. She has owned that property for 60 years and lived there all that time. My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. And so we've seen Chanhassen go from a very rural community to as the city gradually closes in around us. And about a year ago we decided it was time to develop. But we wanted to make sure that it was developed right • because both Mrs. Neumann and my wife and I plan to continue to live there so we want to make sure it's developed properly. So we went to an old family friend, Art Johnsen who is a realtor. He is our representative and he works with his associate Harry Peters. They are...and we went to Schoell and Madson engineering firm and Ken Adolf is here tonight to present our plan in a little bit more detail so I'll turn it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson, engineering... The design of the subdivision was really intended to minimize the amount of grading and...that's going to be necessary so in general what the plan shows is grading in the streets, grading in the necessary storm water basin and some alteration of wetland that was occurring to the grades as shown. I'd like to just cover some of the issues. As far as the tree survey. All of the trees were not located. They're in general the area behind the two existing homes and the lot inbetween those two homes, which is not planned to be built on in the near future. There are no construction planned in that area, removing those trees. And again we're down to the 6 inch size being requested. We will supplement the previous tree survey with that additional information. There's been considerable discussion today about the location of the pond. I've discussed that with Dave Hempel and with the owners and they have agreed to a pond location in the area that Dave had outlined on the plan so I think that will work out okay. The owners really want to retain 9 lots. We'll have to see what can be done with that to retain the 9 lots and still meet the goals that the staff has set forth in their report. One of the things I want to probably let you know that 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 it is eliminated, there will be some wetland alteration just for the street construction. That's where the big, the setback variances is occurring is on the Neumann residence where the street has to be snaked inbetween the residence and the existing wetland. That's the reason that the right-of-way with the 50 feet is being proposed and a significant variance of the front setback. By doing it that way, I think as you can see, the thru street or the proposed street lines up pretty closely with Tanagers Lane to the north. Providing a 30 foot setback up from the Neumann house and a 60 foot right-of-way would have significantly pushed that proposed street into that wetland area. So there will be some mitigation required. The owners would like to retain the existing vegetation. That provides a nice screening on the south side of Sandpiper Lane and we're probably looking at doing any necessary mitigation along the lakeshore probably right adjacent to where the storm water pond is proposed.. as long as there will be some construction activity down in that area anyway. I think that for the most part that covers the main...I'd be happy to address any questions. Scott: Are there any questions for the applicant? Harberts: I have a question maybe for Dave or for the applicant. With regards to that Tanagers Lane and with the new road. Does it line up dead center then or it kind of like slightly off? What I'm seeing, it looks like it's slightly off. Ken Adolf: It is slightly farther east but it's not that significant. I think it comes 10 feet from lining up...to the center line. Hempel: The actual roadway itself I think could probably be adjusted within that 50 foot right-of-way to be more of a center... Harberts: Dead center line. Arnold Weimerskirch: Could I comment on that? The map I look at are somewhat inaccurate in that regard. The map show a rather sharp right angle turn between Sandpiper and Tanagers. In reality that isn't a right angle turn at all. It's a large curve and there's no way of telling where Sandpiper ends and where Tanagers begins. I'm not sure how significant that is but I don't think anybody would look at our driveway as an extension of Sandpiper, or as an extension of Tanager Lane. Then as a matter of fact I would recommend that to me it's more logical to call it an extension of Sandpiper than it is of Tanager. We get quite a number of confused visitors wondering where Tanager is and where Sandpiper is. So to me it would be more likely to call that Sandpiper rather than Tanager. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Arnold Weimerskirch: I do have one other point I would like to bring up. When the sewer lines were put in we, the property was assessed along Sandpiper Lane or Sandpiper Trail. And what is now Lot 27 was assessed 2 units on the premise that there would be 2 houses built fronting onto Sandpiper Trail. That's all wet then. This is 20 years ago when...Those lots of course are not buildable now so it does seem fair to me that those assessments be eliminated now since it is not buildable property. Scott: Can you respond to that? Hempel: We can certainly check with the city's assessment clerk and see what, if any, assessments have been paid on that parcel and if that area is deemed unbuildable due to that wetland and so forth, the applicant probably does have a credit coming back as the parcel, so we will take that under advisement and update you. Arnold Weimerskirch: The assessments haven't been paid. They were deferred based on being a senior citizen so they haven't been paid but they have them. Scott: Okay. Anything else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to speak about this issue, please step forward and identify yourselves and we'll go from there. So would anyone like to speak. Is there anyone here for this particular issue? Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer. I live on the corner of Sandpiper and Tanager and I'm. Harberts: Which side? Herb Pfeffer: It would be on the west side of Tanager...the curve on the lower left hand corner. And I really haven't seen any of the information about the abandonment of the right- of-way of Minnewashta Avenue and since it impacts me, as I am the property owner adjacent to that, I'd like some explanation. Scott: As far as the. Herb Pfeffer: As far as if the roadway is abandoned, what happens to my property that's 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 adjacent to the right-of-way? Scott: So you're located, run that by us again. I see Sandpiper Lane, Tanager Lane and I see just south of, okay. That's what I was thinking. Herb Pfeffer: Right here. If you're going to eliminate Minnewashta Lane...exactly what's all abandoned? Is it from this point further? All the way down or what? Scott: Dave, why don't you speak to that. Hempel: At this point we'd be looking at vacating the, probably the portion west, laying west of Tanagers Lane and reserving a drainage utility easement down to the lake where the city has utility lines down to. Herb Pfeffer: You mean right here? Starting at this point? Abandoning it. Hempel: That's correct. As long as there's no other homes being serviced by that parcel. Herb Pfeffer: Well, then we've got a conflict because we've got a beachlot down here that's. Aanenson: It'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: What's that? Aanenson: Past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: Oh past. It won't be vacated here then? Aanenson: No. We've already approved that. The City Council approved a non-conforming permit for that beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: That's right. Aanenson: Right. So we'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeffer: So will where it be vacated? At what point? Aanenson: Once it starts to take the bend to hear east. Herb Pfeffer: Over here? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Herb Pfeffer: Along the lakeshore? Aanenson: Right. Through their property, yes. Herb Pfeffer: Okay. Then are these going to, you know you don't show that roadway coming down here and I really don't understand it. We're going to have additional, these are lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and so on. Are we going to be building houses down in this area? Scott: No. Herb Pfeffer: No. Okay, so the purpose of the abandonment here is for what? Hempel: To eliminate the unnecessary right-of-way that's essentially in the wetland. It serves no function. Scott: It's more an administrative. Harberts: It doesn't serve a public function in other words? Hempel: No it does not. Aanenson: It's a paper street. Arnold Weimerskirch: It's under water. Herb Pfeffer: It is. It is under water. Harberts: So is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Herb Pfeffer: Yeah a portion, well you don't really. I can't really tell from this map exactly where the lake is or the road is down there but I'm assuming you're going to say it's going to be abandoned right at the water there. Harberts: Kate, and I'm guessing that if the commission decides to table this, that this would be an opportunity to maybe review this in detail so the residents do understand what's being abandoned. I don't know, it might be easier to show it on other maps rather than transparencies that have pictures. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Ken Adolf: The right-of-way proposed to be abandoned is directly behind the Neumann house that's in the section right here. It's really south of where Sandpiper Lane is. Harberts: How far does it go? Ken Adolf: Well most of the street has already been vacated. It's just a small area right in here. It's this area right here. Herb Pfeffer: Just that section there. But how far down does it go? Ken Adolf: Well it used to go all the way around. Arnold Weimerskirch: It goes all the way around. Ken Adolf: So that's already been vacated. Arnold Weimerskirch: The land has been platted in the 1800's. Presumably at a time when...and that plat is there. It is under water. I don't think that's an issue here. We surely don't intend to build...so it would just be vacated. I would presume the city would want to do that because it's a nuisance for it to be on the map when it doesn't exist in reality. The Minnewashta Manor Homeowners do own a lot in the lake. Scott: Sure. I remember seeing that. Arnold Weimerskirch: But they do nevertheless have a right-of-way to that so we have no intention of preserving that. It'd be just to erase the fictious road right-of-way that doesn't exist anyway. Herb Pfeffer: Okay so then that right-of-way will go to your property, be on your property... Arnold Weimerskirch: Well I presume it will but it's wetland. Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at this particular public hearing on this issue? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: Kate, would a wetland alteration permit be required for the construction of the dock. Do we know that? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: It would be required? Aanenson: Well, we've done it on other ones just to make sure. Really all we've done in the past is to say that they...a boardwalk and that's why we're asking more specifics. How it's going to be constructed and looking at that but we've done it on the other ones. We did require a wetland alteration permit and as a technicality we did insure that it's built, a permitting process on other lots that do have wetlands when I think you're impacting it. I think that's, there will be minimum loss but we want to see the type... Ledvina: How would you mitigate that type of scenario? I mean for constructing a dock. Aanenson: What we'd look at is any removal and basically that's why you go over the top. It's just the posts going in... Ledvina: Yeah but I mean if you're restricting the vegetation from coming up, is that altering the wetland? Maybe you're not filling in it but I don't know. Mancino: You've got to put the posts in and there's a lot of work to be done in that area. Ledvina: Right. How do you get in there? Develop wrecking stuff as you're trying to put the thing in. Okay, so that's a specific thing that we'll know about when we have details on the construction of the dock. Aanenson: Right. Ledvina: Okay. Now as it relates to the area that's calculated for the recreational beachlot. Now we're not using any of the area that's wetland, is that correct? Aanenson: No. It'd be upland... Ledvina: Okay, the upland area. Aanenson: But let me make something else clear on that. The ordinance, the beachlot ordinance indicates a grade on that as far as, it doesn't say it has to be upland and staff's ability to interpret that...upland area. Ledvina: I would support that as well. And there's a formula as it relates to the number of docks and the number of boats. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: It's on square footage. Ledvina: Square footage, okay. And that's what's been determined 9 boats with the potential of 3 docks. Okay. Well, I would support the construction of one dock with the 9 slips. I think that's the less intrusive technique for providing that amenity to the beachlot. I certainly want to make sure that we have a good handle on what's going to happen to the wetland as it relates to the construction of that dock and that we take the measures that we need to protect that area and also mitigate, if that's deemed appropriate so. I think that I would support the development and I would agree that the developer's done a good job of trying to be as sensitive as they can to the wetland near Sandpiper Lane and if staff deems it appropriate that the setback on the existing Weimerskirch house is, if we need to compromise that, I would support that. I guess I would like to see it back again so I would support staff's recommendation to table. Scott: Okay. Nancy? Mancino: I would like to ask Mr. Chair if we could ask the applicant how they feel about the one dock with 9 boat slips on it as in the staff report. What their opinion is, etc. Instead of having 3 docks. Having one dock with 9 boat slips on it. Scott: It looks like it's drawn in. Arnold Weimerskirch: We're fine with that. That was our proposal. Mancino: Oh, that was your proposal? Scott: Well it's on the plans that way. Arnold Weimerskirch: Correct. That's what we proposed in our original. Mancino: Okay. My mistake. Thank you. I have nothing new to add. I support staff's recommendation for tabling it and bringing it back with the revisions and the recommendations that they've made. I would like to just add to it that we do perform a tree canopy coverage analysis of the existing tree inventory. And that we be supplied with a tree replacement plan and use our pending new tree preservation ordinance to follow that. And that's it, thank you. Scott: Good, Jeff. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: I support staff recommendations on this. I would clarify 5...stated the seasonal dock. I believe the DNR, if you leave the posts in the water, the support posts in the water, it's no longer considered seasonal. You may want to clarify exactly what kind of dock we're dealing with there. With this dock specification on 5. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would support staff's recommendation to table it. I appreciate what the applicant has done with regard to the trees. The natural amenities here as well as with the dock. I'm sorry I had to step out but I hope that that road issue was resolved or at least the information can be brought forward to the gentleman that lives on the corner there. I would really support trying to eliminate as many variances as possible on the redesign of the subdivision. I don't know, I'm just real uneasy about some of, well at least with some of the variances that are stated right now that exist right now so I would just encourage to eliminate as many, if not all of them. But we'll certainly leave that to staff and the applicant to work out. But I appreciate the responsiveness from the applicant. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: I think the applicant gave us a good proposal. I think staff did a good job of analysis. I'm real impressed and I think our ordinance played real nicely with a sensitive area like this so it's all peaches and cream. I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it for the modifications. Harberts: Just one other thing Mr. Chair. I would just like to draw emphasis to the road system lining up. Tanager Lane and whatever this new road will be called. I know the discussion by the applicant with regard to the curve. Dave, you made the comment that maybe we work within the right-of-way. I think it's very important long term, in terms of circulation, in terms of traffic patterns, that we get it lined up the first time so. Scott: Okay. I support the staff recommendation. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I will recommend that we table the applicant's request so that the plat can be revised to address the following issues. One, relocation of the storm water pond. Two, a more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. Three, elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. Four, a 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. And five, a sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock specifications. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Harberts: I'd like to also add Nancy, if it's okay with regard to the lining up of the Tanager Lane and the new road. I know Jeff had brought up the discussion point about clarifying the dock, seasonal or permanent. Mancino: I think that would be under 5. Farmakes: I think that can be under specifications. It is listed as a seasonal dock. Harberts: Okay. Was there something Matt that you touched on? Ledvina: No. Scott: Do you accept that amendment? Mancino: Yes. I accept number 6 as lining up the Tanager and the new street. Cul-de-sac. Scott: Okay. Is there a second please? Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation with the additional conditions. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the application for the Neumann Subdivision #94-3 so the plat can be revised to address the following issues: 1. Relocation of the storm water pond. 2. A more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. 3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. 4. A 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. 5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock specifications. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 6. That the applicant try to line of Tanager Lane with the new cul-de-sac. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LUTHERAN CHURCH OF LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,560 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE LNDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE. Public Present: Name Address Don Wagner Architects Professional Association Jim Dewalter Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Nancy J. Manzey 17229 Round Lake Road, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: Question. The front of the building where the steps go up, is that the part that goes into like the narthex into the church part? Do you know? Aanenson: I'll let the architect. I believe that's the... Harberts: Into the church? I guess my real question here is, does that meet ADA? I mean if someone was in a wheelchair, how do you get them up the steps? Don Wagner: Okay, I'd like to answer that. My name is Don Wagner. I'm the registered architect and I'm representing Architects Professional Association. We're an architectural firm in Eden Prairie and we have been selected as the architects to design this particular addition to this facility. Your question regarding the ADA. What we are providing are, according to ADA rules, we're providing 5 new stalls. Some of them are 5 foot wide. Access spaces on each side. One with an 8 foot wide stall for a van. Two of those spaces are located right down there on each side of the drive. They are intended to serve the lower level. That area's about 4 feet 4 inches higher than the lower level so consequently you would need about 90 feet of a horizontal run to drop to that 4 feet. We have 110 of bituminous surfacing that would go from that area to the new entry that we're providing with 23 CITY OF 0:1‘1 CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: May 26, 1994 SUBJ: Revised Preliminary Plat for Patrick Minger The applicant has resubmitted the proposed plat with many of the changes that were suggested as part of the first review of this project on May 18, 1994. Specific changes include the following: reduce front setback to 20 feet shift easterly cul-de-sac ten feet to the west - estimate base line, required, and post development canopy coverage show a 30 foot tree buffer along the perimeter of the site revise cul-de-sac radius to 60 feet - revise alignment of westerly cul-de-sac intersection - incorporate 20 foot trail easement within Outlot A revise grading plan to show standard dwelling designations show 60' by 60' building pads - show existing trees on grading plan revise storm sewer to provide a single discharge point and one pond and provide NURP pond calculations - revise fire hydrant locations The applicant has addressed most of the issues brought out at the first planning commission hearing. However, staff believes that additional tree protection and a better transition can be provided through the use of tree conservation easements and the installation of a private drive at the end of the easterly cul-de-sac. To accommodate the change is the cul-de-sac location, the cul-de-sac may have to be skewed to the west and Lot 13 would then be incorporated into Lots 11, 12, and 14. Staff has revised the staff report to incorporate the changes prepared by the applicant. Issues that have been addressed or that are no longer pertinent have been struck through. Additions to the report are underlined. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with conditions of approval as noted in the staff report. \1CITY OF IIAHA! E C DATE: 6/13/94 CASE #: 93-25 SUB, 94-1 REZ STAFF REPORT - L PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval on 9.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots 1 and rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single- Family Residential, RSF and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to 1 Z permit a front yard setback of 20 feet 4 () LOCATION: South of Timberwood Drive on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. A parcel L lying in the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota. Q— APPLICANT: Patrick & Karen Minger 1 Q 8221 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 L (411) A7n_01 .7 L PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 ACREAGE: 9.46 acres L DENSITY: gross: 2.01 units per acre net: 2.17 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING L AND LAND USE: N - RR, Timberwood Estates S - A2, single-family home, and RSF, park site E - RR, Timberwood Estates L Q W - Galpin Boulevard, and PUD, Trotters Ridge 4 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site L O PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site currently is densely wooded with a central hardwood type W forest. There are significant stands of trees scattered throughout the site with the predominate L species being oak. A drainage incline traverses the eastern third of the site from north to south emptying into a tributary of Bluff Creek. The only unforested area on the site is along the existing v/ driveway, which follows the northern property line of the site and the area near the existing house. L The high point of the site is at elevation 960 and is located approximately 500 feet from the entrance on Galpin Boulevard. Additional high points are located at the termini of each cul-de-sac. 211)(1 LAND ITSR PI Recirlenti21 I nw Dencity - Net Derail), L2 to 4.0 units L HilT2IRIE4C- I \\ 1T-11V.-i'. T I., --•;--r- =NNW' V I 0 0 ARK ,7-VII,Wi fc, 1 . .41E4 DOW a Tr 4c1' - <I. 0 LAKE ---i r )1 f ...A c.. A, ... , ----: . -- ,• , _.) ..3 .. ,.. _ • . --. , - , • ____. ,,..T. , . , 1 4 K iro 1 . E i ‘ 9) ' ' t • ANN w A, • , „ - ti - • PARK lig o P°141 ,___. _ # ! , i i s. : r— ._ I . , — ,..ii. — ic..: 0..0. . ' ( (i 4 Y I i . 1 ,____________zq: • ' 8 0 UL E V A R D NV 17-75--5- . . . ---------........,____---_-/ .- -.. 1 r---1 N .. Q- ..- • ( \ ..- ,s, , 0) 60„....\\,....,•-_L.....„.„.;n4-D__ (........„1..... 1 _ . k• 1 • . __•c„. , _.......... . .,,,,., • _,;k:,:,..,±3,„ _mak ___ ,.— • • _ _ _.....„...., \ ts { • , I WESTERN. Mir .. . -; , P . ..... Location ''' --V.,„\iti'' __. --,3.-- •• _.,- : --(-\ • •_- ; I-1 i?-to.„ .:. -- r---::: P 0.9 , l-.- • • k ex. .., .-, LAKE ''..:,.;,... "`..".-.'.•ti; ?:g:Ei:I. .,. • ..a.%.1 L '1 . -----"(•••. . "IC - -:N.... - \.' 0M-ir - •'''' \ ‘ s'i ' W . --' li,..-- ... U 0,'-'5.e'' ' Q-1311011- .. .• 401034 ' ••' --- -.---- - t ;-- _____ .A.--- _ 11111r. ), . . i i • • __•7'- _ . '7,.. I 0 7 ilill 0,-. I V ."' z --' all (441 • it do' , . . _ i .:.1.... • _ A.,,,, r,......___- ;:4506 ,it,'. - ;;44.1 .: • .,.- , *;Au.11.1113 Up OtIF 4 i i: • — . 1i -__ --- -A>.‘•-• \43 it%1.1011111112 iiit(%••A146 ...4: A-7; •' \ ..,," • - • -?" '1,-\ • • 0 VIP wEr t, , 1.4.r91 (CR 18) PARK t Nan, BL VD ' e` ',....' .. .- . ...% e e• • •1. ------- -- %- ___ . -WC:41.I-4 . • L.13..11. 2 ,, . --;Af 1 -0 -- - ,- -l- ale• tt7 ,r.". _ 11131.12 rA N cv voo-1 :,y 4 I: '.1 c_i i :::: ' ' 9,4 :!k• 46 8800-1 e_-.11., • - ., I , li \ _. ....• i • r -* .1 ..-- oI . _. , . - - • • - , . • • % \ \ (- 6900----•-t- 0 i1 i - el r4 as If 1 e Ail 1 t.• , . 0.n 0 * A , , 7,, 4. . • , N 900:--I _ . — (VAR,--... I Cr - t 0 HAssE • z ctiAN FARK 40 / • 9100 ''` 63 , \ 42 0 ; cc51' 1 Q9/ I q 9200 - -- - —-- ---- - - - 1 • ----i—--L___ ; — 1 I 9100 .„ of • '-'./ d 9400— : , ,.... ' iA - 1- . ./ N i / , — 9 5 0 0— 1 I , • 1 , Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the subdivision of a 9.46 acre parcel into 17 single-family residential lots with a net density of 2.17 units per acre and the rezoning of the property from — Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF. The project is located approximately one-half mile south of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19). Proposed lot sizes vary from 15,000 square feet to 367280 37,480 square feet with an average lot size of 4 18,879 square feet. There is-enne are two outlots that is are proposed: to be combined with the property to the west. A trail easement will be necessary along Outlot A or Lot 17. The subdivision is located in a densely wooded area with a predominance of significant oak trees dispersed throughout the site. The preservation of substantial areas of undisturbed trees will be a great amenity for this site as well as the city as a whole. — In order to facilitate the preservation of trees, the applicant has proposed the reduction in right-of-way width from 60 to 50 feet. Conceptually, staff can support the use of reduced right-of-way width. However, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification to the right-of-way width reduction. - .- . . This realignment will create larger lots around the perimeter of the site, creating a better transition from the large lots in Timberwood Estates and allowing them to establish tree conservation areas. Additionally, through the reduction of the required front setbacks, which the applicant discussed with staff at a meeting on May 10, 1994, the applicant should be able to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property through the preservation of the existing trees. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the submittal package for the final platting of the development. It should be noted that the lots within Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees on them. The realignment of the streets as recommended in this report may result in the loss of Lot 13. This change would reduce the net density to 2.04 units per acre and raise the average lot size to 20,900 square feet. Staff, while supportsve of the general layout and concept of the project and is recommending that this proposal be .. : - - - • - -- - •.-- • • _- - •• . SS- .. - - - - . . . ' appeared to agree and will adjust the plans accordingly. Upon receipt of the revised plans, -• - . ' - •. - ... . . - ..' -. .. .. .- • . approved subject to the conditions contained in this staff report. Staff is recommending that an extensive tree Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 3 preservation easement be incorporated into the final plat and that the applicant investigate the use of a private drive to serve the four lots at the end of the easterly cul-de-sac. BACKGROUND This parcel currently contains the home of Pat and Karen Minger which is located in the northeast corner of the site. The property is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision. To the south, parkland has been dedicated to the city as part of the Stone Creek Second Addition. The city cemetery is located just to the north of this plat. STREETS/ACCESS The project will be accessed from Galpin Boulevard which is also known as County Road 19. This roadway is designated as a collector road by the City's Land Use Map. The applicant is proposing the use of fifty foot right-of-ways within the development. Upon review of the tree removal plan with a 50 foot right of way, staff has concluded that up to 53 trees will be removed instead of the 44 trees shown on the plan. The close vicinity of the street gradings will most likely damage 9 additional trees. On Lot 1, a retaining wall should be installed to help preserve the 34-inch oak and a 28-inch oak . There are also two oaks that may be lost due to the construction of the park trail. Therefore, staff recommends that the trail be relocated slightly to minimize tree impact. In addition, the tree removal plan with a 20 foot house setback shows that 68 trees will be removed instead of the 61 trees shown on the plan. Staff has concluded than an additional 7 trees will be lost during the grading and construction of these house pads. The loss of an additional 16 trees to the site is still less than what would be lost with a 60 foot right of way and 30 foot house setback. Therefore, staff is comfortable in compromising on the 50 foot right of way and 20 foot house setback to preserve the tree resource. The Minger's private driveway shall be relocated once the street is paved and the existing driveway removed. The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop driveway. Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments regarding this proposed subdivision. They have indicated that consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access and turn lane. . . _ • ' . _ . . with 60 foot radiuses in the cul de sacs. However, the City's tree ordinance does provide Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 4 the 60-foot wide right of ways. In any ei.ent, staff stFengly Fecommends maintaining a 60 preservation by the reduced width. The plans have been revised to reflect a 60 foot radius in the cul-de-sacs and have incorporated 60' by 60' building pads on most of the lots. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen Galpin Boulevard to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has provided additional easements to the city in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore, additional right-of-way is not needed at this time. The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to city standards (31-foot wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. Staff still believes that the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac will afford additional tree protection as part of the development of the site. This alternative will most likely result in the removal of Lot 13 to make up for the lot area lost on Lots 11 and 12 with the relocation of the cul-de-sac. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. Oudot A is proposed for a trail extension to the city park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that future lots from the west will not be able to connect to the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighbor to sell/convey Outlot A and grant a 20-foot wide trail easement to the city centered along the west line of Lot 17. Due to existing trees, the exact alignment may have to be determined in the field to minimize impacts to the vegetation. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION located on the plat. The applicant has provided a canopy cover delineation, to performed the base line canopy coverage calculations, as well as estimated the amount of canopy coverage that will be removed as part of the development, and to incorporated 60 by 60 building pads on the lots. This review shows that there is a Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 5 96.5 percent base line canopy coverage. It is estimated that there will be a 56.2 percent post development canopy coverage area or 5.32 acres of tree canopy. The tree preservation requirement for the site is 55 percent which amounts to 5.2 acres of tree canopy coverage. Staff believes that the applicant will be able to comply with the requirements of the subdivision landscaping requirements and that they will meet or exceed the standards provided therein. Conceptually, Staff can supports the use of reduced right-of-way width as well as reduction to the front setback requirements. . .. - - • - --- This- The realignment of the easterly cul-de-sac ten feet to the east will created slightly larger lots around the perimeter of the site and allowed the creation of tree conservation areas. - . .. ' -. .' -. . . - . . . . • .. . Through the reduction of the required front setbacks, the applicant should be able to incorporate a treed buffer along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property through the preservation of the existing trees. It should be noted that the lots within Timberwood Estates that abut this development have few if any significant trees on them. Staff is recommending that a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area be dedicated along the perimeter of the plat. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees be permitted. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of Lots 2 and 3, and Lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the north lot line of Lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of Lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of Lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements. As can be seen in the table below, ample area remains of each lot for the placement of a structure that does not encroach into the conservation area. Additionally, the dedicated land accounts for approximately 70 percent of the required canopy coverage area, 3.63 acres of the total 5.2 acres required. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 6 CONSERVATION EASEMENT IMPACTS ON DEVELOPABLE LOT AREA LOT LOT PRESERVATION DEVELOPABLE PERCENT LOT AREA AREA AREA DEVELOPABLE 1 25,030 12,250 12,780 51 2 15,000 7,000 8,000 53 3 15,000 7,000 8,000 53 4 16,950 8,500 8,450 50 5 37,480 19,955 17,525 47 6 16,410 5,850 10,560 64 7 16,860 9,150 7,710 46 8 21,760 12,850 8,910 41 9 20,310 11,000 9,310 46 10 20,010 9,280 10,730 54 11 15,180 5,500 9,500 63 12 15,000 53,20 9,680 64 13 16,220 5,937 10,283 63 14 17,580 5,575 12,005 68 15 18,290 6,640 11,650 64 16 32,580 17,800 15,050 45 17 18,150 8,000 10,150 56 A 6,510 B 1,480 TOTAL 328,940 158,127 171,333 52 Staff is recommending that a Woodland Management Plan be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 7 of the City Code. The applicant will also be required to submit a landscaping plan for the development. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. The applicant shall also revegetate with ground cover, trees and bushes the area of the existing driveway to their home upon completion of the roadway to their lot. Also, a minimum of one tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot, either existing or new, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. GRADING/DRAINAGE tree loss. The proposed building pads are only 40' x 60' which is below the city's typical area of 60' x 60' and, in some cases, mote. Staff encourages the applicant to realign the easterly cul de sac and shift the lots westerly in an attempt to preserve a buffer of significant oaks along the east plat line between Timberwood Estates and this development. Staff also There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and 12. The drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage on the lots. The final plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area. The revised plans still have not adequately resolved this drainage concern. The plans propose a drainage swale immediately behind the houses. By exploring the use of a private driveway, it may be possible to pull the house pad away from the drainage Swale. Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right-of-way on the Dempsey parcel which is immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr. Dempsey to acquire easements and other negotiable items. One such item is for the first southerly cul-de-sac off the main street. At this time, the applicant is requesting to service Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 8 the four homes via a private driveway within a 50-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to grant an additional 10 feet of right-of-way if the city's current design standards are maintained. This property owner would be required to upgrade the cul-de-sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed this with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that if the property owner to the west (Dempsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be a method of explaining the responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would not be responsible for any assessments of the upgrade. Staff has again visited the sight to determine the impact of grading on the vegetation located on the north side of the proposed entrance roadway. The property line runs down the middle of the vegetation and therefore much of the trees and bushes should be preserved even with the road construction. This should provide a good buffer to the property to the north. The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies from a regional perspective the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s PONDNET model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the water quality basin, these fees will be waived. The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single family/low density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 9 fee of $19,980. This trunk fee is negotiable upon the developers contribution to downstream water quantity improvements. _ - - • - - Y. .. .. . . '. . . . , . . . - -. -- . - . . . : : . .. . The plans propose to discharge runoff from the front yards and streets into a storm sewer which outlets into a stormwater pond just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. This = however, will require easement dedication from the neighbor (Dempsey). The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year storm capacity. The runoff from the cemetery should also be considered for ponding design purposes. This is a small area from the north side of the entrance to the top of the cemetery hill. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) requires that this pond meet Walker Pondnet standard with a phosphorus removal efficiency of 64 percent. The pond must be capable of retaining the 100-year storm on a temporary basis since the downstream storm water Quantity improvements are not constructed yet. - - . . . .-, -- . -- .. . . . . .•. ._. .. . . - . - _ .. - • . .. . EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional erosion control measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. UTILITIES The city is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this parcel (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and extend them into the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout, some minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal may be necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are performed in conjunction with the plan and specification approval process. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for water. The city has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 10 follows: 1) Minger - 18 units = $40,410; 2) Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 lots as estimated by the city. However, some of the lots within the plat are very large and therefore consideration for reduction of one unit may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission or City Council request that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the applicant into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted. Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Dempsey parcel in conjunction with the overall project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight single-family lots. The applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no charge to the neighbor at this time. However, the applicant is requesting the city collect and reimburse them the connection charges when the neighbor utilizes the individual services. Staff and the applicant will work together in determining the actual dollar amount it takes to provide these services to the Dempsey parcel. This "rebate" program has been done on several occasions on other projects where the city has reimbursed the developer a portion of their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did not want hook ups at that time. The parcel contains an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility construction, which will need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains. Construction of street system and utilities will destroy the current septic drainfields. In addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet of the sewer line be connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another existing home (Dempsey) just off the first cul-de-sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet of the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner and applicant, they request that the city grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic system fails or they sell the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the septic and well sites will not be impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in good operating condition. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Outlot A is being proposed for trail dedication purposes to connect this development to the park site located directly to the south. At a meeting with the developer and the neighboring property owner, it was also discussed that this outlot may be sold to the abutting property owner to help straighten the property boundaries. If this option is used, a twenty foot trail easement will be dedicated along the common property line of Lot 17 and Outlot A. At the time of final platting, the developer will be required to pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 11 On Tuesday, May 24, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Minger subdivision. Mr. Pat Minger was present at the commission's meeting and participated in the discussion. Issues of concern to the commission centered on the public trail access to the parkland south of the subdivision via the west cul-de-sac. Not only is the commission recommending that this trail be accommodated through the acquisition of a 20 ft. utility easement, they would also like an 8 ft. asphalt trail stub constructed from the cul-de-sac to the rear lot lines within the easement. The commission wishes to ensure that public access to the trail is maintained if the west cul-de-sac is constructed as a private drive. This should not be of concern since the applicant will be dedicating a 50 foot wide right of way along with a 60 foot radius in the cul-de-sac. The Commission recommended the following conditions: 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. 2 Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park. 3. Construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement. The city shall reimburse the developer for this construction. 4. Design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17." REZONING The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF, is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot area Lot width Lot Depth Sq. Ft. Ft. Ft. Code: 15,000 90 125 Proposal Lot: 1 25,030 361 150 2 15,000 100 150 3 15,000 100 150 Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 — Page 12 4 16,950 92.5 150 — 5 37,480 85# 160 6 16,410 100 145 7 16,860 175 145 — 8 21,760 83# 138 9 20,310 55# 138 10 20,010 70# 139 11 15,180 110 136 12 15,000 102 133 13 16,220 101.8 224.4 14 17,580 136 142 15 18,290 119 143 16 32,580 60# 164 17 18,150 76# 154 Outlot A 6,510* 22* 134* Outlot B 1,480 60 30 Notes: * is intended for dedication as a trail segment; # meets minimum requirement at _ building setback: Outlot B is a result of the realignment of the intersection and may be sold to the abutting property owner or retained as open area. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; — Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District lot dimension and area requirements. The applicant is — requesting that the city approve variances to the right-of-way width and building setback in order to facilitate the preservation of trees. Staff believes that these methods will save additional trees_, The — applicant has clearly demonstrated that significant tree preservation is a direct result of the requested variances 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; — Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed density of the development is within the parameters established by the comprehensive plan. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 13 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The subdivision should provide an attractive neighborhood for the residents who move into the development. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure as part of the improvements required of the subdivision.. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: While any development of a natural site causes some environmental damage, staff believes that the applicant will have minimized the impact on the site based on the conditions outlined in this report and the revisions to the plan. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Findin : The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure and is located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 14 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of 93-25 Subdivision and 94-1 Rezoning providing for the preliminary plat on 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single-Family Residential, RSF and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 - feet throughout the development subject to the following conditions: - .. - .. - - . . -. • . -'- -- - _I -. . .' .•• - ... . 2. Demonstration that the rcgaested med €icat oes to-the subdivisien regeifemeets for trees. 3. Revised dregs incorporating the relent-ef the stree 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. 2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement . The city shall reimburse the developer for this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17. 3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18-61 (d) (3) of the City Code. 6. Incorporate tree survey en the proposed grading plan. 4. Incorporate on the final plat a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area to be dedicated along the perimeter of the plat. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees be permitted. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 15 development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of lots 2 and 3, and lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the north lot line of lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements. 5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. 6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first lift of asphalt. 7. Provide water quantity/quality ponding according to SWMP requirements. 8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34-inch oak and 28- _ inch oak on lot 1, block 1. 9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system 10. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 11. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. _ 12. The applicant shall investigate the shortening of the easterly cul-de-sac the use of a private drive to service the four houses at the terminus of the cul-de-sac. 13. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 16 14. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 15. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their existing wells until they fail, then the parcel must connect to city water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and/or local codes. 16. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. 17. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10-year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. 19. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 20. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 21. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 22. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into Minger Addition May 18, 1994 Revised May 26, 1994 Page 17 the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980/acre excluding wetlands." Attachments 1. Development Review Application 2. Revised Preliminary Plat/Utility Plan 3. Revised Preliminary Plat Grading/Drainage Plan 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated 5/11/94 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated 5/5/94 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated 5/2/94 7. Memo from Bill Weckman dated 4/25/94 8. Letter from Robert Generous to Patrick Minger dated 11/5/93 9. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 10. Letter from Peter Knaeble to Bob Generous dated 5/19/94 11. Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 1994. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: q c : c "-‘ o,ie /21 `^5 1^ OWNER: a ADDRESS: 2. 1 izft (e-, 3 fva�. ADDRESS: C LNot w 11.p S5 E /frl 5 1 r 7 TELEPHONE (Day time) V-10 - c7( TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. X Rezoning S D a 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARJWAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Y Subdivision C, r r TOTAL FEE $ - - /115 S A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME O1 '„p t r LOCATION SC- oti `' oj��; �lvr�. S- T � �rwopa( a,LEGAL DESCRIPTION .S Q Q a`i arA e a (Proi, O w i Ars t;14) PRESENT ZONING 4-7._ REQUESTED ZONING RS- - Res:ol. 57��(s. �4�: �, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lcw Pa.i c. y 1€€ 5:0i. REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION CowR s :L7 ''s70(. REASON FOR THIS REQUEST r v `/ J c r 17 SF Joos. 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. Ar Signature of icant Date 4 y /21/ it -1 e171-t Signature OT � ner Date Application Received on — 'W-ti Fee Pai f 155 Receipt No?s'6`�-� �74---6 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. :=f ‘,...,3; 11.E t q I,. ` \ ' :,%., + n 11 i `9. + I I l'; �{ p_LOIN BLVD(cSAM,IDI , ‘c,,,, ....,.., ,i,..,11:5--,,, INV- ---, t 1,, . , t ti I . /..\\\\ _-_-_,,,101. : ; ii •ii ....,..."/.0. 1 ....„,-- .‘,..; /fl ltt� I r , , — .........„,...- /------------------. _...../ ,.."1 [XI' pi. '; r� -----'>(7 ____ -------___-/-11 /' --- ,--,-,=',';'-'''' _; \poi ', ,', 7,' I .,...--'' 41 " 1. /' I X11',/ "'" '���--- ��� i /.. , / . . . i/ • \ ' — Y 1, ...2. .--r_...7.;..--- lir . 14 ........ 'i• i / r 1 1 ,,' ♦a p �, : 0 • --__ .--1 _ -�,...„:_1 , ...it , , ,....., i ' 'i tl, • p1jj . A \ ..,,,.\;,,\"\\.!.,,,,,,,..,i\\,..\\::\\.\\,‘,:\..,.\,,,\ � \ � �� i�� 'a — ,�~.. pI I If I (IA l 45 ' \ 1 1 1 �'ii '�� OM _ Ua I 4.,iSig 7,1 o \ ,/,/ ic, • {. % p . \ 1. I I —� \ 153 \111\I 1 Nkli• ;V,\ \ I Prik‘t,-.D 1 *-11—.... 't'll-N - "i" if • \III`\ \ ‘4"-4 - `Rj I / ! �VI. : - �\ \\ \ 1 I.\ \ \ •\ - - \ l I . \ 1 I I / 1 / Ron Krueger & o� O 18i ti -I PRELIM. GRADING/DRAINAGE PLANL ;3:-.17:- 17::::-_ ( ' Associates, Inc. I T f f : ..o once.�m�A rti� L 1 N 'o MINGER ADDI770N 5301 M 0v.at Ku�.w 1 t CHANHASSEN,MN r _t^'+ MY.1001131d1A 60430 00 6612I 537-2000 0 01 ,a _ 1I: Sa! ..• w:►w awn.f ' .114 —-4_8_— M —"Intl- 11- 'o •400.00' r I Caller• // 1i„!r _' ___ , _ ,....._:_...,:.„.:4, :_ .... ..: :" 1 • 1- _____, w '_ 1 .-z •_ , co • ----I-- t s. ./ �'� // j 2 „,,,,.......„.)07,. / N. �� — , ”-- ,i";•///,'-) ,' NN iv !rill' // // _ / ,1—.. • : IV:4W •1/7.; ^Yo ♦Z.1.0 \ g\ t r.' tr NMI i i I/ r// I // r a t y:St= Y S2.. ..k' ..0�.g• H�v YC41/ / :14 P. / 1 I / / r 1 -- / , W . \`- I- I / r :-'it ---r" w1» r 1 \\ 1\ t - ` .r // �. ,; T'---1=44 _tet o i a, ... , ..•., ‘''' ‘ \ ..„../ I .e•----. IS .P." . 1 1/ . r r'a l \ t _iir ♦ _ 1 t \ s j h= s ai"i A ♦ ♦ �' �'� '' t ii J• (}(fl ? Cj{-{E Sus ° \ ♦ ♦ _ .. ' --- ---•'-- ' \ . ,Ii !til=cibir+f 14 �[r(i \;x'.\\„1 -♦41 I1 1 `�/ �^ I /!t i 1 1 I i'11-1}=•=-r11- i \ Ill % �� y 1..'' '. `II '+ 1 ;,, 1 \ •7fslll r� =+s:jirr i //// -!' 'I..-------,r-� '. 1. ` I \ • l��f� #�'_ [Fitt [ - 7. - — .6 _ 1 S ti -it t \0 \tI/ ! / . ____ • \ r - - TN • II- .11 ‘Ii1 I I A ` • 11\ - • • 4 1 \ \,„ _._.,..,s\.``.\ ♦\ .'♦,w\.♦ x`63_. 3 - / 1 I 1: 1 1 / Ili i ii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii7 ... i ` r. I TYISIPW00o[STATES iil :i::3: ;{ r..... '4" y•- •_rr s '€Ix_ pp : I '$• s:saasa$s::s€esiiti _ "4 rt / i f; B I I 1s ..� Ron Krueger & oo ...AlReA - i I = 4PRELIMINARY PLAT / UTILITY PLAN :== = I 11Associates, Inc. 1 r O s _ ..� n 3 1 a�mums,ws®rr maw 1 t S MINGER ADDITION \ ... _ 3301 M,s,pUSTpu @otArv++0 1 CHANHASSEN,MNB..........n=. cosv:w4:1m. exw o� OM sat-me O::_._:.:-:: _......::. ._._. CITY 4 F i ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 11, 1994 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Minger Subdivision LUR File 93-22 GRADING & DRAINAGE Unfortunately the grading plan does not indicate the existing trees on the property. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount of tree removal based on this plan submittal. It is recommended that the existing trees be placed on the grading plan to determine exact tree impacts. It appears only grading for the streets and utility improvements and a few of the house pads will be completed at this time. The remaining lots of which are all treed will be custom graded at the time the building permits are issued. Staff has meet with the applicant,developer and neighbor at the 12th hour to discuss some of the concerns we had with the street alignment and lot placement adjacent to the significant stands of trees. Staff has recommended that the applicant go back and look again at the roadway alignment and house placement on the site in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree loss. The proposed building pads are only 40 x 60 which is below the City's typical standard. Staff finds that in subdivisions of this nature, a typical house pad would disturb an area of 60 x 60 and, in some cases, more. Staff encourages the applicant to realign the easterly cul-de-sac and shift the lots westerly in an attempt to preserve a buffer of significant oaks along the east plat line between Timberwood Estates and this development. Staff also recommends that a front yard variance be considered on these lots in an attempt to reduce grading limits which in turn reduces tree loss. There is an existing drainageway on the property through the rear yards of Lots 10, 11, and 12. The drainageway will have to be maintained or relocated to maintain rear yard drainage on the lots. The final plat should dedicate a drainage and utility easement over this area. Grading for the street will involve grading outside the road right-of-way on the Demsey parcel which is immediately west of the site. The applicant has been working with Mr. Demsey to acquire easements and other negotiable items. One such item is for the first southerly cul-de-sac off the main street. At this — time, the applicant is requesting to service the four homes via a private driveway within a 50-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The future subdivision of the parcel to the west would then only be required to grant an additional 10 feet of right-of-way if the City's current design standards are maintained. This Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 2 property owner would be required to upgrade the cul-de-sac to a full city street. Staff has reviewed this with the applicant and is comfortable with this scenario; however, we are concerned that if the property owner to the west (Demsey) sells or vacates the property that there should be a method of explaining the responsibilities with regards to the upgrade of this road so the homeowners on Lots 14 through 17 would not be responsible for any assessments of the upgrade. The plans propose to convey drainage from the front yards and streets into two sets of catch basins and simply discharge into the adjacent property. This method of storm drainage is inadequate in accordance to the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff has been working with the applicant to redesign the storm sewer system to have one single discharge point and pond location. Staff believes the most prudent location is at the low lying pasture land just south of the entrance on the east side of Galpin Boulevard. This, however, will require easement dedication from the neighbor(Demsey). Therefore, at this time, the storm drainage plan is inadequate as well as the grading plan. UTILITIES The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this parcel (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to connect to the trunk utilities and extend them into the site to service these lots after June 15, 1994. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required as a part of the final plat submittal. A preliminary utility layout plan has been submitted with the preliminary plat. Upon quick review of the layout some minor adjusting of the hydrant locations in accordance with the City's Fire Marshall may be necessary. Detailed review of the utility layouts are performed in conjunction with the plan and specification approval process. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,275 per unit for water. The City has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1) Minger - 18 units = $40,410; 2) Demsey - 7 units = $15,715. As you may have noticed, the plat reflects only 17 lots, not 18 lots as estimated by the City. However, some of the lots within the plat are very large and therefore consideration for reduction of one unit may not be warranted. However, should the Planning Commission or City Council request that the applicant provide a buffer yard to save significant trees which forces the applicant into 16 lots, then a reduction in the assessments would be warranted. Individual sewer and water services will be provided to the Demsey parcel in conjunction with the overall project. Based on a mock plat, it appears the site has the potential for eight single-family lots. The applicant will provide these individual sewer and water services at no charge to the neighbor at this time. However, the applicant is requesting the City collect and reimburse them the connection charges when the neighbor utilizes the individual services. Staff and the applicant will work together in determining the actual dollar amount it takes to provide these services to the Demsey parcel. This "rebate" program has been done on several occasions on other projects where the City has reimbursed the developer a portion of their costs for constructing the lateral line and individual services adjacent to parcels that did not want hook ups at that time. Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 3 The parcel does have an existing house (Minger's house) which, as a part of the utility construction, will — need to be connected to the new sewer and water mains. Construction of street system and utilities will destroy the current septic drainfields. In addition, city ordinance requires existing homes within 150 feet of the sewer line be connected within 12 months after the line becomes operational. There is another existing home (Demsey)just off the first cul-de-sac. This home is anticipated to be within 150 feet of the new sewer and water lines as well. However, after discussions with the homeowner and applicant, they request that the City grant a variance from this ordinance until their septic system fails or they sell the property. Staff is in support of this recommendation since the septic and well sites will not be impacted as a part of the street and utility project and are in good operating condition. STREETS The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared blacktop driveway. Expanding the driveway use to a city street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has submitted comments regarding this proposed subdivision. They have indicated that consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access and turn lane. The applicant is proposing 50-foot wide right-of-ways and 50-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs which are below the City's urban standards. City standards require 60-foot wide right-of-ways with 60-foot radiuses in the cul-de-sacs. However, the City's tree ordinance does provide compromises in the street width and right-of-way if it can be demonstrated that reducing the street width or right-of-way will significantly save vegetation or retain the existing terrain. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate to the City that significant savings of vegetation will occur. Therefore, until the applicant has provided staff with this information, staff supports the 60-foot wide right-of-ways. In any event, staff strongly recommends maintaining a 60- foot radius in the cul-de-sacs to provide adequate turning movements. The applicant has agreed with staff on this and will change the cul-de-sac layout accordingly. The applicant is still proposing to submit 50- foot wide street right-of-ways and demonstrate the tree savings by the reduced width. — Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen Galpin Boulevard to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant has provided additional easements to the City in conjunction with the city sewer and water project. Therefore, additional right-of-way is not needed at this time. The street system is proposed to be constructed in accordance to City standards(31-feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs and possibly reduce grading impacts and tree removal. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. Outlot A is proposed for a trail extension to the City park immediately south of this development. Staff is concerned that future lots from the west will not be able to connect to the cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighbor to Bob Generous May 11, 1994 Page 4 sell/convey Outlot A and grant a 20-foot wide trail easement to the City centered along the west line of Lot 17. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide erosion control measures during construction. Additional erosion control measures may be employed during new home construction in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the street right-of-way proposed at 50 feet wide and the lack of storm management facilities, staff is recommending that this item be tabled and brought back to the next available Planning Commission meeting with revised drawings addressing staffs concerns. Staff has met with the applicant and explained the situations to the applicant and the applicant's engineer. The applicant appeared to agree and will adjust the plans accordingly. Upon receipt of the revised plans, this office will prepare another detailed staff report for consideration. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer g:\eng\dave\pc\minger.ppr CITYOF - CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II — FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 5, 1994 SUBJ: Timberwood Estates & Galpin Blvd. Planning Case #93-25 SUB I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements: 1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire — hydrant spacing is 300 foot maximum. 2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of — existing street names to minimize confusion in emergency situations. 3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203. 6:Wleryvn1'93.25 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 'Of k DATE: May 2, 1994 SUBJ: 93-25 SUB (Minger Addition) I was asked to review the concept plans for the proposed Minger Addition stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; APR 18, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in ordei to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations. Recommendations: 1 . Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. 2 . Revise Grading/Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3 . Revise the Grading/Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. enclosure: 01/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\minger.bg: . 01 ,:., CITYOF i . „it, \ . .. ,s.,,, CHANHASSEN _ . ., . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 --. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4c4! 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. Friel°or RLC) Designates Proat 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 Fairy 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. WO FLE - - \ -, — RLO � . 3 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 s; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 73-4 I y PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ; •• CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE (612)361-1010 ` 600 EAST 4TH STREET.BOX 6 FAX(612)361-1025 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 _ AIN ES°� COUNTY OF CAI V t April 25, 1994 To: Robert Generous, Planner II From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Rezoning Proposal 93-25 S U B The following are comments regarding the rezoning proposal for the property on Galpin Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated April 19, 1994. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway _ Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided = 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) was given a County State Aid Highway (CSAH) designation a few years ago. CSAH 19 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. It would appear that as a minimum, a 100 foot corridor should be established for a potential 4 lane urban roadway. The proposal would need to meet at least that minimum. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed area if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. The proposal includes construction of a new street access. We would assume this will be a City street. Consideration will have to be given for turn lane installation at the intersection with Galpin Blvd. An access permit will need to be obtained from Carver County for construction of this access. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer I ";C`1 Vl;rj Printed on Recycled Paper Contains Minimum 10%Post Consumer Waste ,; . _ A 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. 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. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. 7. Reconstruction of this portion of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. A number of the concerns expressed above can be addressed in the reconstruction project if the project proceeds as planned. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning. CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 November 5, 1993 Mr. Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Minger: City staff has performed a preliminary conceptual review of your project. The following list represents areas that will need to be addressed in developing a plan for the site. BUILDING The site appears to contain areas of peat and muck, terrel loam, and Glencoe silty clay loam; all of which are typically unsuitable for buildings or on-site sewage treatment. Soil boring tests will need to be performed. Areas on the site may be unsuitable for building pads according to the Carver County Soil Survey. If this is the case, geotechnical reports and/or soil corrections will be required. WETLAND There does not appear to be any wetlands on-site. There is a wetland along the eastern boundary of the site, outside the property. It is recommended that the site be field inspected for wetlands. PARKS A 20 foot trail easement for trail purposes will need to be included in the plan to provide access from this property to the park to the south. Park and trail fees will be assessed at the time of building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The Current rate is $600.00 per lot for park fees and $200.00 per lot for trail fees. DRAINAGE AND GRADING A storm sewer plan should be developed to convey storm water runoff from the streets and front yard areas to storm water retention basins. Storm sewer system should be designed for Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 2 a 10-year storm event, 24-hour intensity. The storm water basins should be designed to meet the City's water quality standards (NURP) as well as maintain the predeveloped surface runoff discharge from the site for a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity. It appears the prime location for a NURP basin is on Lots 26 through 28 adjacent to Bluff Creek. The site grading should be designed to limit tree loss and maintain the general rolling terrain by incorporating the existing topography into the site design and minimizing required grading. The applicant may want to consider reducing the cul-de-sac lengths by implementing the use of private driveways to minimize impact on the site. The private driveways, as you are aware, are limited to serve up to four homes. A detailed grading, drainage and development plan will be required with the preliminary plat submittal stage. STREET ACCESS The site currently accesses from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 19) via a shared gravel driveway. Expansion of the driveway use into a City street will have to be reviewed and approved by the Carver County Highway Department. Galpin Boulevard is earmarked for upgrading within the next two years in conjunction with the new school as well as the recent residential development along Galpin Boulevard. The upgrade will most likely widen the street to a four-lane urban street section with trails or sidewalks on each side of the street. The right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard currently exists at 66 feet wide. The applicant should be aware that, in conjunction with subdividing, they will be required to dedicate an additional 17 feet of right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard to arrive at one-half or 50 feet of the necessary 100-foot wide corridor. The street right-of-way for the interior streets will be required to be dedicated with the plat at 60 feet wide consistent with City standards. The street system should be constructed in accordance to City standards (31 feet wide back-to-back with concrete curb and gutter). Private driveways could be used to shorten the lengths of the cul-de-sacs. City Code allows up to four homes on the same private driveway. The private driveways shall be constructed 20 feet wide to a 7-ton design within a 30-foot wide easement area. A cross-access or driveway easement will be necessary to ensure access to the 4 lots and spell out the maintenance responsibilities. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street system and drainage system will be required to be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and guarantee installation of the public improvements. The applicant may need to enter into a land exchange with the Dempseys in order to facilitate a relocation of the roadway and to permit the siting of homes on both sides of the proposed 3 road. Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 3 UTILITIES The City is currently extending trunk sewer and water along Galpin Boulevard adjacent to this site (Project No. 91-17B). The applicant will be able to extend municipal water and sewer into the site to service these lots. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates as a part of final platting. A preliminary utility layout plan shall be submitted with the preliminary plat submission. This parcel will sustain assessments for the extension of trunk utilities to the area. The assessments have been determined at $970 for sanitary sewer and $1,275 for water per unit. The City has determined the number of assessable units for these two parcels as follows: 1. Minger - 18 units = $40,410 2. Dempsey - 7 units = $15,715 EROSION CONTROL The site borders on Bluff Creek, thus erosion control measure will have to be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The City will require a Type III erosion control fence adjacent to Bluff Creek where grading or utility work is proposed. TREE PRESERVATION Prior to developing the preliminary plat, the applicant must prepare a tree survey of the site specifying the type and diameter breast height (DBH) measured four and one half feet above ground. All tees six (6) inches or more DBH shall be included in the survey. These trees must be tagged, numbered, and included on a survey of the site. In developing the plat, including road and utility alignments and house pads, tree removal should be minimized. ZONING AND LAND USE The property is currently zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District which permits a maximum of one unit per 2.5 acres. The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as low density residential, 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. It would be possible to rezone the property to RSF, Residential Single Family, which permits lots sizes of 15,000 square feet minimum. Minimum lot dimensions in the RSF zone are 90 feet of frontage and 125.feet of depth. The minimum building setbacks are 30 feet front and rear and 10 feet on side yards. SCBDIVISION The subdivision process requires that you initially receive preliminary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. You then have one year to come in for final platting Mr. Patrick J. Minger November 5, 1993 Page 4 approval from the City Council. As part of the subdivision process, conditions and requirements may be imposed on the development beyond what has been specified above. Additional issues and conditions may arise as more information is provided and other City departments or other agencies provide their input. Finally, you will be required to enter into a subdivision development contract with the City as part of the approval. I have enclosed a Development Review Application and Subdivision Requirements summary for your use. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 937-1900, extension 141. Sincerely, Robert Generous Planner II Attachments: Development Application Subdivision Requirements . , , �sit -..i. _ \- , dl 1 ur// ,: 4.- U r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION 761111. .-4 41W us PLANNING COMMISSION ro.0 1E 41110 MEETING :' fw,;� � : • Wednesday, MAY 18, 1994P111 ; at 7:30 p.m. lint/b €, �im� • City Hall Council Chambers i \�,. - 690 Coulter Drive re."00 Project: Minger Addition ,.. ..".„ dditioni ' „, _ i ism upli .' PARK .�00-1 Developer: Patrick Minger . _ :-,,,,,v416,7-. ...iM00— er � ,wf Location: South of Timberwood Estates .•oo --1- I 1 o ` on Galpin Boulevard © , � - 1 .e00 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in _ your area. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 8.46 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat into 17 single family lots and one outlot located at 8221 Galpin Boulevard, south of Timberwood Estates. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform — you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 May 5, 1994. HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC. & TROTTERS RIDGE OF MERLE & JANE VOLK CHANHASSEN DENNIS R. & JEAN ROLLINS 941 HILLWIND RD. NE 2765 CASCO POINT RD. 2081 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE STE. 200 WAYZATA MN 55391 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRIDLEY MN 55432 ANDREW & SUSAN RICHARDSON GREGORY & JULIE SORENSON CURTIS & JEAN BEUNING 8120 PINEWOOD CIR. 8121 MAPLEWOOD TER. 2381 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK & NANCY BIELSKI RICHARD & E. LARSON JEFFREY G HEINZ & 8140 PINEWOOD CIR 8141 PINEWOOD CIR. JOAN M. PADRNOS-HEINZ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2071 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRADLEY J. FOLEY & JUDITH A. WERNER ROBERT & NANCY KROCAK DAVE & KAREN MAENKE 2061 TIMBERWOOD DR 2051 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 2041 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDLE & TERESA CORFMAN WILLIAM & LANA MILLER JAMES & BONITA ROEDER 2031 TIMBERWOOD DRIVE 8121 PINEWOOD CIR 8101 PINEWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY & BEVERLY GREGORY & JILL PERRILL CRAIG & MARY HARRINGTON VANDERVORSTE 2101 TIMBERWOOD DR 8140 MAPLEWOOD TER 8141 MAPLEWOOD TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY TIMOTHY & VICKI DEMPSEY GERALD & LOIS GUSTAFSON 1000 HESSE FARM ROD 8241 GALPIN BLVD 8341 GALPIN BLVD CHASKA MN 55318 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER & GAYLEEN SCHMIDT 8301 GALPIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRA ENGINEERING, INC. Land Planning - Civil Engineering - Consulting 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd. Edina, MN 55439 (fax) 831 -3093 831 -2989 May 19, 1994 Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Revised Preliminary Plans Minger Addition -- Dear Bob: Attached are 17 sets of our revised Preliminary Plat exhibits (with 8.5 x 11 reductions), per your Staff Report ( 5/18/94) recommendations, and the recommendations of the May 18th Planning Commission. I understand that this project will appear again at the June 1st Planning Commission meeting. The plans were revised as follows: Maintain the proposed 50' R/W to preserve trees. Reduce front setback to 20' to preserve trees. Shift east cul 10' west to preserve trees. Approx. 28 additional significant trees would need to be removed using 60' R/W and 30' front setbacks. - Show baseline (existing) tree canopy area (9.13 ac., 96.5% of total site). Estimated post development tree canopy area (5.32 ac., 56.2% of total site). Show 30' tree buffer area along north and east property lines. - Prior to final platting, the developer will submit a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300' of the entrance road. - Revise culs to 60' R/W radius. Proposed 31' back-to-back street width. _ - Revise alignment of west cul intersection, Outlot B to be sold/conveyed to neighbor. Show 20' trail easement within Outlot A. Outlot A to be sold/conveyed to neighbor. Revise the grading plan to show standard dwelling designations. Show 60' x 60' building pads on the grading plan. Show existing trees on the grading plan. _ - Revise storm sewer to provide a single discharge point and one pond. NURP pond calculations are attached. - Revise hydrant locations per Fire Marshal requirements. I believe that these changes satisfy all of the issues and concerns in your staff report. If you find additional concerns, or if you have any questions, please call. We — appreciate the cooperation we have received from all of the City staff. Sincerely, /4114/1344/41(---- Peter J. Knaeble, P.E. CO Pat Minger (w/ encl.) — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that's attached to the building that faces to the north All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SLNGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Bielski 8140 Pinewood Circle Andrew Richardson 8120 Pinewood Circle Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Peter Knaegle 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina 55422 Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd. Jean Rollins 2081 Timberwood Drive Joan Heinz 2071 Timberwood Drive Richard & Elizabeth Larsen 8141 Pinewood Circle Craig Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Bob Generous and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions for staff. Conrad: It's a good staff report. I guess just philosophically, it's zoned agricultural estates. That's what it's zoned. What, and I didn't do my homework, what else is zoned A2 around there? Generous: Everything south of there basically. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Conrad: So is this an eating away at the A2 and basically saying well, there really isn't a A2 area other than Timberwood? Is that what really this is going to boil down to? Generous: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Generous: It's providing urban density for...2 1/2 acre minimum under A2. Scott: Okay. Would the applicant of their representative, do they wish to speak? Yes sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Peter Knaegle: My name is Peter Knaegle. I'm the engineer for the developer. My address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. With me tonight is Pat Minger who is the owner and developer of the property and also lives on the site. We're not prepared tonight to make a detailed presentation. A lot of the information...city staff and much of what staff said, we're in the process of making changes based on the recommendations of the staff report but we're here tonight basically to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or some of the neighbors may have. In fact because I'd just like to reiterate that we are in the process of making changes, we're going to be submitting them back to the staff in the next couple of days and they will be incorporating all the requested changes in the staff report in regards to ponding, shifting of the roads, larger cul-de-sacs, tree canopy plan. But every item will be addressed... Scott: Okay. And do you have a copy of our latest tree ordinance? Peter Knaegle: Yes I do. Scott: Okay, good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public bearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, please step forward. Identify yourself and give us your address and let us know what's on your mind. Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I'm the property owner directly west of this proposed development. The one where Dave and I have been talking about some essential ponding. Pat and I have been talking about this issue for over a year now. Since he first found out I was going to be buying it, he let me know that he had plans to develop this 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 so this is not a surprise to me. However I still have my concerns and I've shared those with Pat and we've been trying to work together to come up with a plan. There are some issues though that I feel very strongly about and I want to put before the committee. One is the drive. Specifically...It's currently a very mature, classic element drive. It's surrounded by trees and you drive up in it, and it's this warm green tunnel which brings you to your home. It's a route from the busy city to the homestead and if those trees were taken, just for the sake of a 10 foot discrepancy to an ordinance, I think it would forever change the character that I drive through every day and that if this development does go through, which would cause the people to drive through. And you'd end up with just yet another new development with lots of space as you drove into it and nothing particularly interesting about it. So I think for the people that would be living there and for the people that do live there, I would ask that we really look at this 50 foot, to save the trees. My personal side, the second issue is the loss of privacy for myself and my family. Currently I'm surrounded by woods and most people make the comment that when they come out there, it's like you're living out in the middle of 50 acres. Can't believe you're in Chanhassen. And I can walk out of my house, go to my barn and don't have to worry about who's watching or don't have to worry about anything. It's a very peaceful, serene area. Any development there, no matter how careful the developers are, is going to change that forever for me and so that I ask that any plans, certainly protect whatever privacy they can by spacing. I know some people from this development around that with 2 1/2 acres are concerned and when I look at what their...back yards with trees in them and in their back yards they've got hundreds of yards and I'm looking at the 60 feet to a road that's going to be about 40 feet from my bedroom window. Pat is trying to work to make that less of an issue but it's still going to be within 100 feet, I don't think without really taking a lot away. That's going to change my privacy and I have concern about that. Conrad: Where's your house? Tim Dempsey: If you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisance, which I certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they come out but basically it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It would minimize the destruction of foliage between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It would cut down on just general nuisance traffic of people thinking that...someplace I can go out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 I think if I was a home buyer, that would enhance the home that I was looking at if I knew it wasn't going to be accessible. But the way the road goes, and the plan I gave Pat showed it somewhat different than I think the people in Timberwood Estates probably would object to the way I would like to see it. And that is I would like to see the road follow the current driveway and keep that bend away from coming so close to my house. That will keep the road traffic and the nuisance traffic the farthest away. Now it would have an effect on the number of lots, in fact the development. Because he's got some economics that he's got to deal with and I'm not, he doesn't make me privy to his economics so I don't know what the break even point is here. But I could certainly prefer...suggested to him in my drawings, that the road follow the current drive and it would also I think minimize some of the trees that the street would take anyway but of course the houses are going to take some. That would keep the road and the traffic nuisance at least further away from me than it currently does now where people coming down that road you might see headlights and hearing noise that I don't hear now and that would put that further away. That's my comments. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Mark Bielski: Yes, my name is Mark Bielski. I live at 8140 Pinewood Circle and I guess I would have all of the same arguments for keeping the road where it is as the other gentleman did for keeping it...600 feet of property just to the left of the house which is going in on the other side of the driveway that's in red there. And I have all the same concerns about the traffic and the headlights and just privacy in general. And I know when we moved there, it was zoned agricultural. Now it's going to high density and I'd just like to know what is the criteria for changing. You know if somebody just comes to you and says, can I change the zoning? Do you just go ahead and do it or exactly what do you follow? Can I take my lot and make it high density? It's zoned agricultural. Aanenson: The City has a Comprehensive Plan that guides all the property...the property is guided for single family residential. And it's been that way since our comp plan was adopted in 1991. So this area was, it's currently zoned agricultural but it is guided. There's other areas of the city that don't have development on it and are guided. Mark Bielski: Can you explain what guided means? Aanenson: It's a comprehensive plan that's approved by the Met Council designating future land uses in the city. Okay, inside the urban service area there's designations for all the property inside the urban service area. When you've got sewer and water are available, given the ultimate land uses. Now right now people are still farming or under utilizing the property and then generally it's given an agricultural zone. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Mark Bielski: Okay. I guess my concern is number one, the loss of privacy. Cars. The width of the road that would access the site. I'd like to know if any of the trees along my property line are going to be taken out. And the development would infringe on my property at all. I know sometimes when you have a road that's fairly narrow you have to go beyond property lines to get the sewer and water put in. And if that was the case, I think that I'd probably lose most of the trees on my property line. Just simply because there just isn't enough room but you go right down the center of the existing center line of the road. Scott: Okay, excuse me sir. Dave, can you address that? Hempel: Sure. That is correct. A majority of the tree loss is not just from the street right- of-way it's actually for the utility construction that goes on and boulevard grading. The street construction usually falls within the parameters of the trenched excavation and with this plan here, the sewer elevation, in order to service this site, would require removing quite a few of _ the trees on that 50 foot corridor. Even with the special construction techniques. Trying to reduce the impact on there so. The tree loss is for the first approximately 300 feet I believe it is and then where the road bends to the south there, the remaining trees will be on the property line to the north...preservation easement in the back yards. Mark Bielski: The thing that really protects my lot from the density housing is that existing tree line. It's nothing beautiful but it's got some scrub oaks and it's got a few red oaks in it and it's got some box elder but they've been there enough, they're mature enough that it does provide a good buffer and I think if you put the utilities through, if you took those out, you'll just open that whole view to the south for the higher density housing and the road. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is in the staff report, you'll see that the staff recommended a landscaping plan along that side where the trees would be lost. Obviously they're not going to be the same size caliper that you have out there today but in time they will reforest or revegetate that area. Mark Bielski: But I think realistically those will be in 20 years or 25 years. = Hempel: 5 to 10 years approximately. Mark Bielski: I haven't seen, I've been there for 5 years and I haven't seen a pine tree grow up more than 2 feet. I'm just trying to be realistic. You know it's going to pretty well decimate that back area back there. Conrad: Dave, when I look at the tree calculations, I don't see any trees on the plans in that first several hundred feet. So what's a function of? You're saying we're going to get 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 significant tree loss but again, as I see them measured here, none are in the right-of-way. Hempel: Actually there are quite a few trees in the right-of-way. In the commission plans did not provide the trees... Conrad: Okay. I don't think we're seeing what you see on our plans right now. Mark Bielski: I don't know if any of you have been to the site or to the area but...and take a look to the south, you can really see what buffer there is. If those trees are gone, it's going to really devastate our view and our privacy and one of the reasons we'd like...is we set our house fairly close to the back lot line. Now I bet we're within 100 feet from the existing driveway to our bedroom window and had I known something like this was going to happen, I probably would have moved the house another 100 feet towards the cul-de-sac that we live on. So it's kind of a, it's getting a little bit close and I hope you understand that. Hopefully you can go out and take a look to the site. Come over to, you're welcome to come on my property and look to the south and... Ledvina: We will. Question for Dave. Will there be a construction easement associated with this road here that will involve the removal of trees actually off the property? Is that what's going to happen? Hempel: Not on the north side. Not on the Timberwood Estates side. The property that will be probably most impacted will be the Dempsey property on the south side...trees outside of that 50 foot strip. There's also the city's cemetery lies just north of this road. It's fairly heavily wooded at the entrance but I'm not sure...goes back at least 300 feet off of Galpin Boulevard. That's where the trees will be lost along the property line and as you continue east on that property, the road bends away from that north property line and the trees that are out there today will stay so. It'd be nice to show on here where the property line is and cemetery as well as the adjacent properties in Timberwood Estates to see exactly where the trees are going to affect. Scott: Dave, here's a what if. What if utilities go on the other side? Obviously we're going to, what's the impact there? Hempel: The elevation drops. Scott: Is it because, as I'm looking here where you've got, as I'm trying to read this it looks like it falls off rather quickly. So you're just saying logistically they're really, engineering wise, there's less of an option? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: It does require...some of the utilities that go through there... Scott: Okay. Alright. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Just two things that I have. On the, I would agree with Bielski's view is that the committee consider, as far as the protection. We're one of the last in this area and probably as far as with the large lots or small acreage type properties in that we had as much protection. As much as could be given with either buffer, which is being considered all the way around our development as far as with the elementary school. With the other proposed lots that are coming in and this is probably the one that's closest to us coming in with houses as close as they are. And that whatever consideration you could give, most of the owners that are abutting right up to this would appreciate that because of the way, our lots are set up. Especially Bielski is probably the closest right there. The other consideration that I have is, along again that north side just to the east of Bielski's residence there's a low land that originally was a swamp area that was for ponding at one time. Even sprayed it for the mosquito control and it was supposed to have a culvert that went through originally, when the plat was developed, to go under and Pat's driveway. That was in route to the east to run as a drainage ditch all the way down through Timberwood to the east. And as we relook at how, especially in conjunction with these new lots, how that drainage is going to work as far as on the engineering of it because currently it is not draining well. I know several lots there the water just stands there and it's a mosquito breeding ground right now. If they could either look at, if that could be compounded with additional drainage by the sloping of these new lots that are going to go in, that could also create further problems in there. That's only the comments I have. Thank you. Hempel: Maybe I can address that Mr. Chairman. As part of the subdivision, it will be maintaining the pre-developed runoff rates of the site. The continental divide, as I'll call it, it does break at the northerly property line of this subdivision. Part of it drains east. As Mr. Harrington indicated, there is a low lying area just north of this plat which drains east out to Timberwood. Mr. Minger's property there's a high point that's great for drainage to the north and also to the south and that drainage break will be maintained with this new subdivision. So essentially you'll have just a back yard of the home draining to the north as it does right now. The remaining part drains south into the storm sewer system and water treatment pond. Joan Heinz: I'm Joan Heinz, 2071 Timberwood Drive. We own right east of where they're trying to build that and like my neighbors, before we bought our lot we researched and we saw that that was zoned agricultural so we felt pretty confident that there wasn't going to be houses back there. So our big concern is just loss of privacy and the fact that we're all 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 wooded back there now. We own about 50 feet into the woods and we're just concerned that instead of looking out our back yard, there's going to be these...and that just seems like a lot of houses for what is it, 8 acres. That seems like a lot of houses back there. Thanks. Drew Richardson: My name is Drew Richardson. I live at 8120 Pinewood Circle. I'm on that 800 feet of, what did you call it, a tunnel. Mr. Dempsey called it. In the winter I look out the back of my house and I see basically the horse pasture Mr. Dempsey has. In the summer I look out and see trees and granted, like Mark said, they're not the best looking trees but they are a very nice border. I'd be concerned with loosing that. At the back of my property there's a fair drop off that goes up and then comes down and that's where all the trees are. I have trouble envisioning how the drive is going to come through there without basically wiping that out. Without building a wall or something. I guess you'd have to see it to really understand. That would be, that's at the corner of the cemetery...You're welcome to come out and look at it. Come out and see what it is. Thanks. Jean Rollins: My name is Jean Rollins. I live at 2081 Timberwood and my property is by Patrick Minger and I guess my main concern is, besides the number of houses, which does seem like a lot between our woods, is the drainage site which you said wouldn't be getting a majority of the drainage. However I live right on the border of the ditch and my property is wetland...washed out from the increased drainage and have a terrible time getting the water to drain. And my other concern is that, is there going to be erosion that's going to come down from these other lots and fill up our ditch again? Because right now the city has had to redig our ditches in front of our houses twice...increased drainage or erosion is just going to clog it further. It's going to add more water to it. Scott: Okay, Dave. Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, the site will not increase the runoff to the Timberwood Estates development. The water will be conveyed by storm sewer to a regional holding pond. Hopefully there from the Dempsey property which overflows and into the Bluff Creek corridor. It should not affect Timberwood Estates homes. ...there's a lot of drain tiles in the area in the ground with springs and so forth that creates some problems in that area. Scott: Okay. Good, would anyone else? Yes sir. Rich Larsen: Hi, I'm Rich Larsen at 8041 Pinewood Circle. I live next to the Bielski's and to take the last issue first. Drainage is a huge problem in Timberwood now and I don't know if this is the forum for complaining about that but nothing has been done. I live in a swamp that Craig Harrington talked about. And it's been a constant problem since we moved in. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 The City is doing absolutely nothing to help us. They've been out there several times but told us...I'm wondering, to help alleviate some of the concerns, can we somehow tap into that drainage because as Craig pointed out, the drainage has been diverted away from the Minger's property now and it has to go at a 90 degree angle at our property. Water doesn't like to turn at a 90 degree angle so it collects in our back yard. So is there a possibility of tapping into any new drainage systems...because it's not working now. So that's one comment. A second thing about that, as...said, we too found that it was zoned A-2 when we moved in. Nobody bothered to tell us that this is going to change. It's agricultural now but it could be high density housing and to deal with the overall planning that if you isolate Timberwood as the only large lot area, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's going to be very uncoordinated looking so I have a recommendation for you guys. If you approve this thing, that you require a 1 acre minimum lot size for this development. That would tie in better with Timberwood. It would reduce the amount of traffic past everyone's house. I probably live a little farther away from the road than the Bielski's and the Richardson's do but it will still affect us, especially if the trees get reduced. So that's my recommendation. That you look at requiring a minimum of an acre lot size. That's awfully dense for the area and requiring an acre would also save quite a few trees and help that. And the last question I had was, when another development's being proposed, there were a lot of discussions about roadways and somebody from the city said that there's a minimum setback between roadways. When you're looking at putting a second street into that new development just, what is it boulder? Whatever. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Rich Larsen: Stone Creek, thank you. They said it was a minimum distance between roadways. I'd like to know, there's Timberwood Drive and yet you've got that proposed street going in. Isn't that closer than the minimum requirement and is there a variance being proposed here? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The street spacing is adequate for the ordinance for that type of street... Scott: Okay, and then when this is upgraded to a 4 lane, how does that change? Would it become inadequate when they decide to widen it or how does that play? If this were a 4 lane today, would there be adequate separation between the cuts? Hempel: That's what we're working on right now. The comprehensive transportation study predicts...in the future so our comp plan guides us for what our street widths will be on certain collector type streets, but this has been designated as a 4 lane urban section. In the future an urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. That will change the spacing... 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay, so the spacing is adequate for as big as that road is purported to be. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, can I have a motion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: The only question I had on the streets. We've talked quite a bit about cul-de-sac lengths and I don't see that being addressed anywhere in the staff report here. They measure the cul-de-sacs at 900 and 1,000 feet respectively and I'm just wondering, was there any thought in connecting two cul-de-sacs? Bob, or Dave. Hempel: Commissioner, maybe I can address that. We thought about trying to loop them into a looped system there. Unfortunately it does make a lot of double street frontage or lots with streets on 3 sides and probably would be reducing the amount of houses out there a lot and would increase the impervious surface from the street. We also even looked at, future extension into Timberwood. Those are large lots there. At some future date...probably subdivide as well into smaller lots. So part of our job is to look at future street extensions where feasible or possible. We know the impacts the Timberwood Estates residents have had with the Stone Creek development, the Hans Hagen development that's developing and proposed east of the Timberwood Estates. There was some consideration there also to provide some stub street to Timberwood for some future extension. However, due to the size of this small parcel and how we envision it developing, you have the creek on the south side. You really can't develop any further to the south. You have Timberwood to the north and to the east there is an opportunity to stub a future street connection that way but I don't think the residents would appreciate it. We do have other streets in the city that are somewhat...we're looking at 17 homes on here which is going to generate a large volume of traffic for a dead end street. Public safety has looked at it and didn't seemed to be too concerned about the cul-de-sac. Ledvina: Okay. Well I can see, certainly see your point as it relates to the scale of the development. Looping those together, you'd have essentially maybe 6 houses, at the most, inside that loop and that's a lot of street. It wouldn't seem that efficient for all that much pavement so. Conrad: What does our cul-de-sac ordinance, what does it say? Ledvina: Can you address that? What happened? Did that die at the City Council? Aanenson: ...we've been shooting for 600, 700, 800 minimums...what we'd be doing is taking out more trees and...impervious surface, which is one of the reasons why we 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 recommended private drives. Ledvina: Right. So are you recommending a private drive for the, that would be the, let's see, the west cul-de-sac? Hempel: Temporary common drive at this time to serve the...The intent however is to dedicate a full right-of-way with the future intent of upgrading that road when the Dempsey parcel develops and subdivides to a full urban street section. The problem we have with those homes that will be platted that way on Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. Those will be responsible... Ledvina: Okay. Well I would favor the use of techniques that could save as many trees as possible along the drive and I even to the extent of supporting a reduced right-of-way. I think that could possibly be employed along that north boundary for tree preservation. I think I would also support staff's recommendations to pull the easterly cul-de-sac further away - from the Timberwood lot lines there. I think that would provide a little more buffering capacity in that area. Also the reduced setbacks are an applicable alternate in this instance. I think that can also help. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I would agree with staff's recommendations and Matt's comments. We're going to be getting this back. I guess I personally would like to get out to the site and get a closer feel to the issues that have been expressed. Just to understand visually a bit more of what we're looking at and after that, maybe a better condition when we get this plan back to kind of... some of those issues. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'll make sure I get out to the site and walk it. I would like, when it comes back, I would like staff to give me some guidance on the A-2 district. I'm not convinced I need to rezone it. Unless there's some really, unless I feel there's some capability here. But I also want to see how it fits you know and Timberwood sort of set a precedence in terms large lots out there and whether I was for it or against it, it's the matter it's there and we zoned it this A-2 because we felt it made sense. Now so when I said, I'm looking for some vision. I guess I'm looking for some realism. Is there a demand for A-2? Do we see that as something that a property owner could reasonably get, sell today you know and again, I don't know what you do staff but I need that kind of insight. If A-2 is, if these large lots are not going to sell and they're a detriment, then I think we owe it to rezoning. But I'm not convinced yet. I need that insight. I also respect the Timberwood residents in terms of what 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 they moved out here for and what they bought. So therefore, I'll be real interested in how the developer adapts to their neighbors and there's a lot, it looks like a lot of tree loss here and if you want to stop the tree loss, you keep it at A-2 folks. That's an easy one. That doesn't take a lot of insight so, yet I think we have to be, so whoever brought up the fact that something can be rezoned. Yeah, something can always be rezoned but we did guide this for large lots. So before we rezone it, I think we've got to take a look at not only this but we've got to be kind of, as I said, I prefaced, I said hey if this goes, well then we don't have a A-2 district out there. We have Timberwood and so I think we've got to be pretty confident that A-2 is something that's. Aanenson: Let me make a clarification. It is guided for 15,000 square foot lots. Conrad: Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Okay. Scott: RSF. Aanenson: ...I just want to make that clear. We can get a legal opinion on that issue but... Conrad: Thanks for those comments because I was not sure of that Kate. Anyway, that sort of deletes about my last 3 minutes of conversation. I think, I'm real concerned with tree loss here. I'm concerned with what the residents have to say. There's some big trees here and I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it and wait for more information. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything else to add. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table the development, Case #93-25, Subdivision 94-1 and that the additional conditions in the staff report be addressed by the applicant, as well as the commission's comments this evening. Scott: Good, can I have a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we support the staff recommendation with additional comments. Is there any discussion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Preliminary Plat #93-25 and Rezoning #94-1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be revised to meet staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SLNGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SLNGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KLN'GS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: Name Address Steve Johnston Loucks and Associates B. Fuller 1075 Red Cedar Cove Terry & Bonnie Labatt 2981 Stratford Ridge Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Cuddihy 3900 Stratford Ridge Lowell & Janet Carlson 4100 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Susan Morgan 4031 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Ridge Harold Taylor 3861 Stratford Ridge Allin Karels 3920 Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant tonight. They were unable to attend because...We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and...recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on 24 CITY O F IIAHASSN CC DATE: 6/27/94 CASE #: 93-4 PUD STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of Property from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD, _ Planned Unit Development for low density (16), medium, and high density Z (192)residential units and neighborhood commercial uses. Q 2) Site Plan Approval for 192 Unit Owner Occupied Multifamily V Development 3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site — LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street. LL Q APPLICANT: Tandem Properties — 7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310 Rlnnmintnn MN 55419 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: Approximately 61.62 acres(gross) 37.78 acres (net) DENSITY: Single-Family 2.24 u/a Multi-Family 7.13 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND 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 WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is currently being farmed. It contains two wetland areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial-High Density Residential), Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential e 'PAS 1'2a ; d ' [i�' w ::i AWri , i 1 ° r la A 6 . . IlWaValmarralalkill g2111 am ��c Wp Nr .NM © —^ :n ..�F.t. i. JA4.: ‘' �_ � �� � �F- �� WPM �� '��" �:��� , PPter•d v, I,7 c= is "EIJI%1 ,41. a . 4101,1111.1 � L�� � rr Wm 1111111 ill .,41.4n" / Iliad e Naafi in ® � =. BG ____Itium-1-. mom& , 5 - x.1:;•1 15I• 0 1111 L 'hitlitlitiD ■,.... , , O. -;,.1,„: �■ CB . i radhuihr ��1* _ .,.,,i ,... ti,,, ,. ' ... �w ap. nie yi 4 r.���. Air. .1 . ir:70 ...a il a are."4.171- �� HANNpA./� g � � T� � �• ■ . V .,NNEESTi-IrE. M/N/ PA ISP '' f-. 4 * ^ ►40 . • • 1-114 ��-%," : • ,,�, Alm E ■ ,•A� ` ' 4 1: t 4 a .,/ 'relay A•al. • 4r: iiiiiP ,& —8100 PARK d Vain-00 t MS .. , ■ -r len �:�11 �� •,FR/CE : 820c.Vi - - ` Z• ' 040MARSH . ��� �� / It� j LAKE �:��. SINNEN CIRCLE PARK �• ., *' UD- ' �\ a• L A KE ,5111SA N yito i i .,gismNI RD„,. .„.„__ .:::, __ ,,, v� 4, Rich At -SH c�i P. \\,..... , inik*:$ ,..8z .„,_ iz T AcAteirciii1 --4 NEL___ -- J ...... _ 44----- , `iiv raluit,- pok- R .414174, VP Mt' .. s-,b6,,,A- RSF • „00. .„-- -_ p- ' R12 ,,--0 P ONO 5... tio V •.. : . -�� '1g1 21 - . - cr itePi7rN L - :11 �VAR ----� -� ��8�� /I '��-, , l S A1.111111E( RD ��� PUD° �Q / /HE/GHTS RE411, I tP _ Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This proposal includes a request for rezoing for a preliminary planned unit development, a preliminary subdivision, and a site plan review 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 61.62 acres which includes a 8.87 acre outlot that will be reserved for neighborhood oriented commercial uses, 26.92 acres for multi-family housing, and 7.15 acres for single family housing. Block 1 is proposed to have 4 four-plexes, 4 six-plexes, 6 eight-plexes, and 4 twelve-plexes. All _ proposed units within Block 1 are two story. Blocks 2 and 3 are proposed to contain 16 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 10 four-plexes and 2 eight-plexes. All proposed units within block 4 are single story. The total proposed units on the site are 208 units. Development concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. This is an area of concern to staff who views the site as supporting only future neighborhood commercial uses, believing that more intensive uses are inappropriate. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type uses, although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The commercial site is located in the northeast quadrant of the future Hwy. 101/Hwy. 212 interchange. The request for PUD zoning enabled the city to establish a range of allowable uses and design parameters. The single family lots within the PUD meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The net density is 2.24 units/acre after removing the roads. The average lot size is 19,459 square feet, which is consistent with previous conceptual planned unit development submittal. _ Portions of the site are located within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. Under DNR regulations, this site is impacted by their Shoreland Ordinance and will have to be reviewed and approved by them. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 3 The Comprehensive Plan shows the area in the southeast quarter of the site (east of the wetland and south of 86th Street) guided for 4 to 8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre which exceeds the district's density by 0.6. In order to meet the required density, the applicant must reduce the number of units from 58 to 54 units. This could be accomplished by moving those units west of the pond. The remainder of the site has a density that is below the permitted density. Staff raised this issue at the time of conceptual approval and stated that we felt comfortable with recommending approval of the 8.6 units per acre in the southeast portion of the site as transfer of density is permitted under the planned unit development ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council supported staff's recommendation and recommended approval of the proposed density transfer. Staff also pointed out that the overall layout of the units blends well. Furthermore, this density could be transferred west of the site, which would result in packing some units closer together. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The proposed multi-family will generate a total of 37% of hard surface coverage in Block 1, and 49% hard surface coverage in Block 4. The PUD ordinance allows a maximum of 50% hard surface coverage, which is below the minimum requirements of the ordinance. 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 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, four different possible alignments with sidewalks and berms, 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 worked with staff to update his original study. This work has been completed and an alignment has been selected by the City Council (referred to as alignment #3). The conceptual PUD approval was contingent upon the City Council selecting alignment #3 as the official alignment for Hwy. 101. The plans did not effectively take the four proposed alignments for Hwy. 101 into consideration. Staff brought this issue to the applicant's attention at the time of conceptual approvals and Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 4 accordingly, the applicant prepared an alternative concept plan which accommodated alternative #3. The applicant incorporated alternative #3 alignment which resulted in 4 more units in Block 4 and the neighborhood commercial area was increased from 7.72 acres to 8.87 acres. In the future, the T. H. 101 alignment will result in the removal of two existing houses located north of the proposed Mission Hills. The project generally conforms with plans for the realignment of the two highways as the city proposes the future extensions. 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 private gravel road. This road provides the only access to Rice Lake Manor subdivision. The city does not own nor have 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 proposing the alignment of West 86th Street be altered by swinging it to the north as it approaches Hwy. 101. This should provide for better sight distance and intersection 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 with the exception of the most westerly right-of-way of 86th Street, to allow 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. An additional trail assessment may be required along West 86th Street to facilitate a sidewalk. 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 of 1993. We believe that they have produced a plan that is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We 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 moderate cost housing. We believe that it can meet or exceed ordinance standards and become an attractive addition to our community. There were issues that staff raised at the conceptual PUD stage that remain unanswered. They include the following: Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 5 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 and City Council's input. 2. Site layout and design is acceptable but there are many shortfalls. 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. This has been the only issue that staff and the applicant has been unable to reach an agreement over. The applicant has stated that he will be providing the Planning Commission and City Council with a model showing the existing elevations and the newly created ones. They contend that with the berms and proposed landscaping, there will still be an interesting topography on the site. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the Preliminary PUD Plan be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. SITE CHARACTERISTICS This site contains rolling hills and two wetlands. The majority of the area is planted with corn and soybeans. There are trees scattered along the edges of the site. 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 retained Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to establish the best alignment for Hwy. 101. This study has been completed and alignment #3 was selected by the City Council. However, no plans exist today with regards to upgrading T. H. 101. Long range planning anticipates upgrading T. H. 101 sometime after 1997. BACKGROUND The parcels that are included in this plan 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 6 On August 18, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled the concept approval for Mission Hills and directed the applicant to make some changes to the plans prior to it appearing before the City Council. On October 20, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the Concept PUD application with numerous changes as reflected in the Planning Commission's minutes dated October 20, 1993. The issues that were identified by the Planning Commission and residents at the October 20, 1993 meeting were as follow: Issue: The residents of Rice Lake Manor requested that the number of single family lots be reduced, the size of the lots be larger, and a form of barrier be created between the two developments. The applicant has reduced the number of single family parcels from 18 to 16 lots. The average lot size abutting Rice Lake Manor is 20,000 square feet. In speaking to the applicant, he indicated that he plans on installing a chain link fence between the two subdivisions to prevent trespassing. This was a request made by some residents of Rice Lake Manor. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff pointed out that the density appeared to be high and requested that it be reduced. Also requested was the reduction of hard surface coverage on the site. The applicant has redesigned the site by placing mainly single story four-plexes along the north portion of the site and two story four, six, eight, and twelve plexes south of West 86th Street. Under this new site layout, 14 new multi-family units have been added and 2 single family lots have been eliminated. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50%. The hard surface of the site is in compliance with the ordinance with the exception of Block 4, shown in the Alternate Concept Plan. The plan indicates a 55.83% hard surface coverage. This plan was prepared after the Planning Commission meeting. It accommodates alternative #3 for Highway 101, as prepared by Fred Hoisington. This plan must be revised to meet the 50% hard surface coverage required by ordinance. The density of the southeast portion of the site as identified in the comprehensive plan is 4-8 units per acre. The density as proposed by the applicant is 8.6 units per acre. However, the north and southwest portions of the site are guided for 8-16 units per acre. The applicant is showing a net density of 10.03 units per acre in Block 1 and 6.18 units per acre in Block 4. The overall density of the site is below that required by ordinance. Furthermore, the PUD ordinance allows transfer of density within a PUD if the overall density does not exceed the density shown on the comprehensive plan. Based upon the following, staff is recommending the applicant be permitted to maintain the existing site layout. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 7 Issue: The plans lacked park and trail facilities. The applicant has converted one of the four-plex unit building sites into a private recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The total area of the lot is quite small, however, in the range of one-half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. This box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. Issue: The Planning Commission and staff have been concerned over the type of uses in the commercial portion of the site. Concepts for the commercial uses on the outlot have not been included with this submittal. We have met with the owner of the land (Mr. Klingelhutz) and voiced our concern. He appeared to respect staff's opinion and agreed to neighborhood commercial type of uses although he believes commercial development is a long way off and is unable to provide definitive plans at this time. The type of uses that were agreed upon are 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, churches, or other similar uses. At the October 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Mancino indicated that the Highway 5 design standards should be incorporated within the commercial district of this site. Staff incorporated these standards in the standards and design section. Issue: The site is being mass graded. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 8 This still remains somewhat of an issue. The applicant has revised the grading plans which revise building elevations north of 86th Street. In addition, seven retention ponds are proposed. Staff recommends that the number of retention ponds be reduced to two or three. Issue: The previous plan showed private driveways and curbcuts accessing off of West 86th Street. The plans have been revised to allow all units to access off of an interior street. Issue: Landscaping and berming was lacking on the original plans. The applicant has revised the plans to allow berming along the west and south side of the site. Also, trees have been added along both north and south sides of West 86th street. Issue: Building elevations were missing with the first submittal. The applicant has submitted the elevations of the units for review. They are of high quality and meet the standards established in the guidelines for the PUD. On November 22, 1993, the City Council reviewed and approved the Concept PUD which contained changes recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council approved the plans with the following conditions: 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%. 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 9 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 provided 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 and the adoption of alternative #3 for Highway 101 alignment. If a different alignment is selected, these plans will be null and void and the applicant shall be required to resubmit the application and procedure process (to Planning Commission and City Council). 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 May 26, 1993 Page 10 10. The applicant shall include a drain-tile 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 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. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 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. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from = Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 11 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, 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. 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage in the Alternative Concept Plan for Block 4, is 55.83%. Plans must be revised to reduce it to a maximum of 50%. 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. 19. 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. 20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped 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. 21. 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 would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3. 23. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street. 24. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 12 — 25. The applicant may proceed with plans received October 26, 1993, if an alignment for Highway 101 has been chosen and the applicant can demonstrate that the plans submitted October 26, 1993, can accommodate the road, sidewalks, and berms. 26. Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development. 27. A trail be installed along Highway 101." 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. 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 two 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 providing access to the single family units. The grading has been revised north of 86th Street to the extent possible due to land use (building size). The wetlands on the site are proposed to remain intact. _ 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 13 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. 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. The design of the commercial development should be consistent with the residential development. 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 Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this application. To meet their requirements, the applicant is providing a tot-lot and sidewalks through the site. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 14 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 90% of employees surveyed live outside the city and commute to work. The main 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 chosen an acceptable alignments for Hwy. 101 which is conducive to this development. These steps will improve traffic management and design techniques. Final roadway improvements such as turn lanes and street widths will be addressed with the construction plans and specification review process. MnDOT will most likely require temporary by-pass or auxiliary turn lanes along T. H. 101 at West 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: Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 15 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 An offering of mixed income housing General Site Plan/Architecture The preliminary plat and 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. Staff is proposing 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 material on the building exterior 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 is enclosed with the plans and appears attractive. Each unit has an enclosed attached garage. The two story buildings located on Block 1, reflect some architectural variation which make the units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4, have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation and interest. This could be in the form of changing the shape of windows from one unit to another, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. The street lights along W. 86th Street should be of an ornamental, human scale design. This will give the street more character. The city council had requested the applicant provide street lights and sidewalks along W. 86th Street during the conceptual approval process. Street lights are normally required with all development proposals. Two types of lighting fixtures are available. The standard fiberglass pole or corten steel pole like those located along Kerber Boulevard. The choice may be left to the City Council to decide. Mission Hills PUD — May 26, 1993 Page 16 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. The commercial development shall physically blend with the residential component including building materials and colors. 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 (no drive-thru windows), office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses. 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. The Planning Commission and City Council recommended the standards in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This will result in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101 and 212, and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 17 Residential Commercial Street Commercial Residential Parking Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Setback Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' 50' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' 50' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' 50' d. Development Standards Tabulation Box BLOCK USE Net Lot Density* Hard Area Surface anerage Outlot Commercial 7.72 acres 1 (villas) 136 Multi-Family units 18.00 acres 7.55 37% 2&3 16 Single-Family units 8.55 acres 2.24 4 (garden homes) 56 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 49% ROW Street and court 1.17 acres West 86th St Right-of-Way 2.23 acres Hwy 212 and 101 Right-of-Way 18.68 acres TOTAL AREA 61.67+ * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium density, 4-8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre, which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to this transfer. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this transfer at the time of conceptual approval. Lot Lot Home Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear Mission Hills PUD — May 26, 1993 Page 18 _ 10' sides BLOCK 2 Lot 1 23,374 117.48 198.83 Lot 2 20,196 100.30 201.96 Lot 3 20,824 100.31 208.23 — Lot 4 21,386 100.17 212.5 Lot 5 20,898 100.45 207 Lot 6 21,566 116 189 — Lot 7 22,006 125 176.5 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 16,349 108 150 — Lot 2 15,126 95.6 155 Lot 3 15,554 90 172 — Lot 4 16,185 90 180 — Lot 5 15,232 127 134.5 Lot 6 24,778 55.62* 189.06 Lot 7 25,092 78.30* 189 — Lot 8 15,752 76.6* 135.25 — Lot 9 17,026 112 147.5 * denotes lots located on a cul-de-sac e. Building Materials and Design Mission Hills PUD — May 26, 1993 Page 19 RESIDENTIAL 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. FindThe PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1, — reflect some architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape _ of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. COMMERCIAL — Intent: The commercial develompent shall physically blend with the residential component. 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. 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 20 _ 9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 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. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 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 22 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 May 26, 1993 Page 21 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 architectural 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. 8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height. 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on _ the sign. RESIDENTIAL — Mission Hills PUD — May 26, 1993 Page 22 _ 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. h. Lighting Finding. 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 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 previous 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 preliminary grading plan proposes building floor elevations for the multi-dwelling units north of 86th Street between 902 and 910 which is best suited given the size of the units. 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 not maintain the rolling hills effect which currently exist today, however, it is difficult to do so with this type of development (multi-family - large building pads, etc.). 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 not believe the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th street could be adjusted further in elevation to give some variety and different appearance without reducing the number of units. 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. In order to avoid excessive runoff rates and ponding along the back yards of Lots 1-7, Block 2, staff thinks that the applicant should install periodic catch basins and storm sewer with a culvert under 86th Street. The storm sewer Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 23 should discharge into the pond on the north side of wetland A24-3(1). The grading plans do not propose any grading on the commercial outlot at this time. This can be addressed when a site plan is submitted for the site. However, drainage from future development of the outlot should be addressed 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. Benning has been provided along proposed T. H. 101. 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 street was relocated northerly to avoid filling the wetland. West 86th Street is proposed to be graded within one (1) foot of the normal water level (NWL) of the wetland and pond. This will create problems with the street's structural integrity. West 86th Street will have to be raised to 4 feet above the NWL of all ponding and wetland areas. The entire development proposes three storm water drainage basins designed to meet the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. These NURP ponds are necessary to pre-treat stormwater prior to discharging into the wetlands. The conceptual plan has not yet specified the stormwater drainage patterns that will direct runoff to the drainage basins. Staff will require storm sewer and runoff calculations and ponding data prior to final platting. As a rule, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the pre-developed runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of stormwater detention/retention facilities. The subdivision's storm sewer system should also be designed for a 10-year storm event. Staff will also require calculations of pre-development runoff rates to the existing wetland basins in order to compare runoff rates to these basins after the site has been fully developed. 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 has determined that maintenance responsibilities of the storm water retention ponds shall be provided by the city in order to ensure proper drainage through the development once the site is built out. UTILITIES Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 24 The previous staff report on the conceptual review of this development indicated that the feasibility report for the Lake Riley Hills development would have to be upgraded. Since that staff report, the feasibility study has been upgraded to reflect the current development needs in the area. A public hearing is scheduled on June 13, 1994 to consider the Lake Riley Area improvements. This development relies on the water service which is proposed to be extended as a part of the Lake Riley Area Improvement Project (Project No. 93-32). Without these public improvements, this project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint due to the inadequacy of municipal water service to the site. Therefore the project should be contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32. Staff has also reviewed the capacity restraints in the existing sanitary sewer line along Lake Susan. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer service from the existing trunk line located in Trunk Highway 101. Staff has determined that there will be sufficient capacity in the existing trunkmain as long as the new trunk sanitary sewer improvements which are proposed within the feasibility study for the Lake Riley Area improvements are followed. The Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project will sustain assessments against this development for both trunk and lateral sanitary sewer and water benefits. The feasibility study for the Lake Riley Area improvements has calculated the estimated assessments for this development. The applicant has modified their utility layout plan to incorporated installation of a 12-inch watermain along future 86th Street consistent with the feasibility study. Depending on scheduling, the City may allow the applicant to install the 12-inch watermain proposed along 86th Street. The City would apply a credit towards the applicants overall assessments for said construction. The credit would be applied for the oversizing cost difference between the 8-inch watermain and the 12-inch watermain. The proposed utility lines located outside of 86th Street right-of-way and "A" Street and Court shall be a private utility system and maintained by the homeowners association. Due to the magnitude of this project, the City will require that all utilities be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Fire hydrant placement shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City's fire marshal recommendations. 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 Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 25 The plans propose on servicing the development by realignment and upgrading existing 86th Street east of Trunk Highway 101. West 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 concept plan 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. The right-of-way for 86th street appears to widen as it approaches Highway 101. 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. Staff feels that due to the intense use it shall be increased to a minimum of 36-foot within a 60 foot right-of-way east of the commercial outlot with no parking restricted on one side of 86th Street. "A" Street and Court shall be the city's typical urban street section (31 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter back to back). The plans also propose a sidewalk/trail along the south side of 86th Street. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. The sidewalk along West 86th Street should be a 6 (six) feet wide. A 5 foot wide cone sidewalk should also be extended north along the west side of "A" Street for future looping back to T. H. 101. T. H. 101 is a major collector street and will serve as the only access to the site. Currently, T. H. 101 carries approximately 4400 vehicle trips per day. A 66 foot right-of-way currently exists. Unfortunately, T. H. 101 is classified as a temporary state highway and as such, it has no improvement funding source. MnDOT wants to turn over T. H. 101 to Carver County or the city. Because of imminent development, the city has officially mapped the future Hwy. 101 corridor through this area. The plans appear to be compatible with the approved Hwy. 101 alignment. The city or county have no immediate plans for upgrading Hwy. 101. Long range planning has this section of Hwy. 101 earmarked for upgrading sometime after 1997. In the meantime, safety related improvements such as the proposed intersection improvements (turn lanes) will have to be provided by the applicant in conjunction with the first phase of development. Since Hwy. 101 will be upgraded by the city, the applicant should dedicate a portion of the right-of-way with this development. This type of street would normally require a 100 foot wide right-of-way. The approved highway alignment consumes approximately the westerly 230 feet± of the site. Staff recommends the applicant dedicate with the final plat, the westerly 50 feet as right-of-way and the remaining 190 feet± as an outlot for future acquisition. Since the city will be a major participant in funding the upgrade of Hwy. 101, this parcel may sustain assessments for their fair share of the benefit. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 26 letter of credit for future upgrading of Hwy. 101. The amount of escrow will have to be determined after a preliminary design or feasibility study for upgrading T.H. 101 north of the T. H. 212 interchange. The interior streets are proposed to be private. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintaining the private streets. The streets are fairly well laid out. They provide a "looped" street system for good circulation. The intersections along 86th Street are spaced appropriately except the first street east of Outlot A and south of 86th Street. However, due to constraints such as the wetland and proposed access to Outlot A, staff feels comfortable with the intersection location. The plans have been revised to eliminate individual driveway curb cuts along 86th Street for the multiple dwelling units. 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. Due to the public improvements proposed for the site, the applicant will be required to enter into a Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Development Contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public utility and street improvements and comply with the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant should dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for future extension of 86th Street, "A" Street and "A" Court. The entire length of 86th Street shall be constructed with the first phase/addition. 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. Wetlands and Proposed Alterations The property appears to contain three wetlands and one of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. The following is a brief description of the wetlands on site: Basin A - Basin A is located just south of the proposed location for 86th Street and is classified as a semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBF; Circular 39 Type 5 inland open freshwater). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural impacts. The basin is approximately 2.4 acres. The street should be realigned to avoid impact to the wetland. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 27 Basin B - Basin B is partially located in the southeast corner of the property and is classified as a partially ditched/drained seasonally flooded palustrine emergent/unconsolidated bottom wetland (Cowardin PEM/UBCd; Circular 39 Type 3/4 shallow fresh marsh/inland deep fresh marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland indicating that the wetland has a low to moderate functional value due to agricultural and urban development impacts. The basin is approximately 0.5 acre. This wetland does not appear to be filled as a result of the proposed development. It appears that there will be no fill or excavation to the existing wetlands on site. Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditions of Approval This project must meet the requirements for wetland boundaries, buffer strips and proposed setbacks as stated in the City's Wetland Ordinance. The wetland ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands located on the property. The structure setback and buffer strip widths are as follows: Wetland Buffer Buffer Strip % Native Structure Setback Type Strip Minimum Vegetation in from Outer Edge of Average Width Buffer Strip Buffer Strip Ag/Urban 0-30 ft 10 ft Optional 40 ft The amount of native vegetation within the buffer strip is optional around the agricultural/urban wetlands. Additional vegetation is not necessary where vegetation already exists. Once the buffer strips are determined, the applicant will be required to monument the buffer strips with a city approved monument on each lot. Erosion Control Staff recommends that erosion control measures around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. 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. PARK AND RECREATION The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as lying in park deficiency area #2 (see map and Zone 2 narrative). The 2000 Land Use Plan identified a 20+ acre site to the east of the proposed subdivision as future park/open space (see attachments). A design study for this future park/open Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 28 space has not been completed, thus it cannot be predicted what type of facilities could be developed on this site. The area is heavily wooded and is squeezed between future Highway 212 and Rice Marsh Lake. The City of Eden Prairie has also identified the land in this area lying in Eden Prairie as future open space. They are planning for a Highway 212 underpass to the east of this location. A second proposed park site was identified in the southeast quadrant of this zone in a subdivision applied for by Mr. John Klingelhutz. This future park, if acquired and developed however, would be severed from the subject site by Highway 212. During initial conversations with the applicant concerns that a recreational amenity of some sort had not been included in a plan to develop 192 dwellings which will assumedly house in excess of 400 new residents were expressed. The general response received centered on two things: 1) the applicant asserted that the targeted demographics of the development will not require park space, specifically play equipment, and 2) an attempt to hold down costs is being made in order to produce an affordable end result. The position that the people who would eventually purchase these dwellings represent a profile of our society which will not require play equipment and/or other park amenities is a misnomer. All segments of our society need and value open space/parks and recreational amenities. The city's recreation section of the Comprehensive Plan states that park and open space fulfill three primary functions. "First they meet positive human needs both physically and psychologically. The second function of parks and open space is to enhance and protect the resource space. The third function of parks and open space concerns economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate values." A suggestion was made to convert one of the lots located south of the wetland from a four-plex unit into a recreation area of some type. This conversion would take advantage of the largest wetland on the site, is centrally located, and would provide for site lines from the private street across the wetland to West 86th Street and vise versa. The applicant has complied with this request and has provided a 1.3 acre area for it as shown on the site plan which is quite small, however, in the range of one-half acre. It is proposed that this amenity be of a private or association nature. The components of the facility to be at the discretion of the applicant, but typically including landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a trail on the western perimeter of the site paralleling new and old Highway 101. The site is also boxed by east/west trail links to its north and south. As referenced earlier, this box will be completed by a second north/south trail to be constructed in Eden Prairie, linking Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Riley. The location of this development calls for the construction of an important "middle" link to this box, running east from Highway 101 to the terminus of the project. At a future date, this trail sidewalk system will be extended into the future park property, eventually connecting with the Eden Prairie trail system. The proposed Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 29 "A" street should also include a sidewalk which can be extended to the north with the street's future extension. The presence of the large ag/urban wetland and the proposed park space creates the perfect opportunity for this pedestrian system to include a loop around the wetland. This type of trail would typically be constructed with a bituminous surface and its construction would be considered for trail fee credits under current city practices. The sidewalk components of the system are to be constructed using concrete at a width deemed suitable by the Engineering Department. Sidewalks do not fall under the purview of the Park and Recreation Commission and are not considered for trail fee credits. These concepts of a park space interrelated with a sidewalk/trail are depicted on the attached plan. The presence of the neighborhood commercial area would benefit greatly from such a system. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary Subdivision#94-5 and Site Plan #94-5 as shown on the plans dated April, 15, 1994, subject to the following condition: 1. 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%. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT. 3. The number of water quality ponds shall be reduced to three. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 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. 4. 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 30 5. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds prior to final plat approval. 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. 7. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the city council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk water facilities to service this site. 8. 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. 9. The applicant shall include a drain-tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 10. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of site adjacent to T. H. 101 for right-of-way. The remaining 230 feet± shall be platted as an outlot for future road right-of-way acquisition. 11. 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. 12. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 13. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 14. 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 31 15. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The Tot Park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 16. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, 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. 17. 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. 18. Approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32. 19. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 32 — 20. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 21. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Addition monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Policy enclosed. 23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207 (a). 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e, street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. 26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. 27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (c). 28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203 exc. #1. 29. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city shall determine type and placement. 30. The city council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the south side of W. 86th Street. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 33 PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "Approval of the preliminary PUD development plan with the following standards: 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 shall 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, churches, or other similar uses. c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of-way. The Planning Commission and City Council recommended the standards in the Highway 5 Corridor Study be incorporated into this development. This will result in an increase in the parking setbacks from 20 feet to 50 feet on Highways 101 and 212, and from 20 feet to 30 feet on 86th Street. Buildings located on 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. Mission Hills PUD _ May 26, 1993 Page 34 Residential Commercial Street Commercial Residential Parking Parking Building Setback Building Setback Setback Setback — Hwy. 101 50' 50' 20' 50' Hwy. 212 50' 50' 20' 50' West 86th Street 50' 30' 20' 50' — d. Development Standards Tabulation Box _ BLOCK USE Net Lot Density* Hard Area Surface Covente — Oudot Commercial 7.72 acres 1 136 Multi-Family units 18.00 acres 7.55 37% 2&3 16 Single-Family units 8.55 acres 2.24 — 4 56 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 49% ROW Street and court 1.17 acres West 86th St Right-of-Way 2.23 acres — Hwy 212 and 101 Right-of-Way 18.68 acres TOTAL AREA 61.67+ * The area east of the wetland and south of 86th Street is guided for medium density, 4-8 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.6 units per acre, — which exceeds the guided land use net density by 0.6 units per acre. The area west of the wetland and south and north of 86th Street is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre. The plans reflect a net density of 8.46 units per acre. The PUD — ordinance allows a transfer of density within a PUD. Staff has no objection to this transfer. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this transfer at the time of conceptual approval. — Lot Lot Home Home _ Single Area Width Depth Setback Family _ Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/30' rear 10' sides BLOCK 2 Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 35 _ Lot 1 23,374 117.48 198.83 Lot 2 20,196 100.30 201.96 Lot 3 20,824 100.31 208.23 — Lot 4 21,386 100.17 212.5 Lot 5 20,898 100.45 207 Lot 6 21,566 116 189 _ Lot 7 22,006 125 176.5 BLOCK 3 Lot 1 16,349 108 150 — Lot 2 15,126 95.6 155 Lot 3 15,554 90 172 Lot 4 16,185 90 180 — Lot 5 15,232 127 134.5 Lot 6 24,778 55.62* 189.06 Lot 7 25,092 78.30* 189 — Lot 8 15,752 76.6* 135.25 Lot 9 17,026 112 147.5 * denotes lots located on a cul-de-sac e. Building Materials and Design _ RESIDENTIAL Building's exterior material shall be a combination of a five inch aluminum siding and brick. The architectural style is generally classic with details such as arched transoms and Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 36 soffit returns over the entries of the one story homes and horizontal transom windows over the two-story windows. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The two story buildings located on block 1, reflect some architectural variation which makes the units more appealing. The one story units located on Block 4 have limited architectural variation. New elements should be added to give the units some variation. This could be in the form of changing the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. COMMERCIAL 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. 8. All buildings on the Outlot shall have a pitched roof line. 9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. RESIDENTIAL 1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5" aluminum siding and brick. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 37 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. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 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 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. 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 21/2 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 openspacesnon-parking and non- arkin lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped,pe , or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2. Outdoor storage is prohibited. 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 Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 38 COMMERCIAL 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 architectural 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. 8. Individual letters may not exceed 3 feet in height. 9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 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. h. Lighting 1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 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. Mission Hills PUD May 26, 1993 Page 39 — 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. 5. Lights along the private streets shall be ornamental and of human scale. Lights along West 86th Street shall be provided. The city shall determine type and placement. — ATTACHMENTS 1. Project summary. 2. City Council minutes dated November 22, 1993. — 3. Plans April 15, 1994 MISSION HILLS PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Ref. 93364 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Mission Hills (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Highway 101 at 86th Street West OWNERS Al and Mary Jane Klingelhutz Keith D. and Carol S. Bartz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard and 2209 Acorn Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lexington, KY 40516-9645 DEVELOPERIAPPLICANT 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 �IY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 18 1994 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. 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 4 101 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 \Vest 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 4101 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 Fast 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. Total Area: 61.67 acres Page 2 , DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING: Existing Zoning: Agricultural Guided: SF/MD NC,HC Proposed Zoning: PUD SITE AREA: Outlot A (Commercial) 8.87 Block 1 (130 du Multi-Family) 18.00 Block 2 (6 du Single-Family) 3.45 Block 3 (9 du Single-Family) 3.70 Block 4 (56 du Multi-Family) 8.92 R.O.W. A street and A court 1.40 86th Street R.O.W. 2.23 Total Development Area* 46.57 *TOTAL AREA (including estimated R.O.W. for 101 and 212):61.67 Ac. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Outlot A: Highway Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Site is largely governed by adjacent R.O.W.s (not yet acquired) Approximately 8.87 acres Block 1: 4 -4 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 4 - 6 du (2 story)attached residential buildings 6 - 8 du (2 story) attached residential buildings 4 - 12 du (2 story)attached residential buildings Block 2: 7 single family lots Block 3: 9 single family lots Block 4: 10 -4 du (garden units) attached residential buildings 2 - 8 du (garden units)attached residential buildings Page 3 PROPOSED DENSITY: Multi-Family 192 du on 26.92 ac. 7.13 du/ac net Single-Family 16 du on 7.15 ac. 2.24 du/ac net Lot Size Minimum: 15,126 s.f. Maximum: 23,374 s.f. Average: 19,459 s.f. Combined: 208 du on 37.78 ac. 5.51 du/ac gross PHASING: Phasing will begin at the western edge and move to the east. Single family lots may be included in any — phase as market demand dictates. Phase I — Blocks 1 and 4 (west half) Phase II Blocks 1 and 4 (east half) — Block 2 and 3 Phase III — Outlot A - Commercial (by others) PROJECT NARRATIVE -. EXISTING CONDITIONS = The proposed project area is a 46.57 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 an unplatted gravel road. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed project follows very closely the land use guide plan prepared by Hoisington-Koegler Groups, — 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 o.-, water pond area; all are indicated on the guide plan. The residential units in — Block 1 are two sto ..ndominium style .ts in 1'9.buildings of 4 to 12 units each. i`k 5IP .1t<<krliv Uig �/( `mac{ `��� Page 4 — DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (continued) 4e if rty Blocks 2 and 3 consist of 16 single family lots which act as a buffer to an existing single family neighborhood east of the project. vda�r� y Block 4 consists of 12 medium density garden style (single level) attached residential units varying from 1o4 4-8 units each for a total of 56 dwelling units. c,•••:( SS All attached residential units will be owner occupied and the surrounding yard areas will be in common ownership. In final platting the southern units will become condominiums. Association covenants will be developed to govern the two multiple residential areas. At this time, the nature of the proposed Highway CommerciaUNeighborhood Commercial parcel remains subject to a number of other planning issues. This will probably be the last piece to develop. Its perimeter, beine 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. It is anticipated that access will be requested off both 86th Street and future Highway 101. 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. PARKING Each unit will have a 1 or 2 car garage 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. LANDSCAPING 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, Red Maple, 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 and ornamental trees. Landscaped monuments and entry islands will highlight the project's entrances off 86th Street. A central irrigation system will insure that the site landscaping will thrive and continue to enhance the living environment within the project. 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 sidine, shell white soffit/facia, and gray velour brick. Page 5 GRADING The site is graded generally to take the maximum possible advantage of the natural ground elevations. We have designed the site grading in consideration of the proposed grades of Highway 101 and Highway 212, and tried to buffer the site from their impact. The site drainage will be directed through 7 sedimentation ponds throughout the site which are strategically located above the recognized wetland areas. These sedimentation ponds will pretreat 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. An 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. An 8" P.V.C. sanitary sewer line 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. Each unit will also include drain tile which will be connected to the storm sewer system. 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 will be built with mountable 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 west end of the project and may include all the single family lots (Block 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. PARKS AND TRAILS Included in the design of the site is a 6' wide bituminous walk along the southern edge of 86th Street and traversing the project from east to west. Tied into the walk is a 6' wide wood mulch trail to loop around the central wetland area and link the Tot Park to the main walk system and interior private loop road. The Tot Park is a .3 acre site located central to the southern residential area of the project. The park will include a play structure, bench seating, and pea-gravel base. Page 6 SOILS The Carver County Soils Survey, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, indicates the majority of the site consists of Hayden series soils, 0 - 12%slope. Hayden soils are generally characterized as loamy soils well suited for the development of structures and roadways. Included within the project area are several areas of Glenco soils. These soils are silty loams that are seasonably wet and frequently pond water on a temporary basis. As expected, the Glencoe soils are located in areas identified as wetlands on the plans. TREE INVENTORY The survey indicates that the parcel contains no overstory vegetation. The property has been in an agricultural use for many years, and only some scrub willow brush exists along the edges of the eastern wetland areas. WETLANDS Wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on June 2, 1993 using the Federal Manual for Identifying 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). 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 (Palustrine emergency semi-permanently 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 expected, 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 cannot 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 has 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 ....!.• :: -- P.; T.:‘ 1,!,.4i, , •..ri••, gz, . r. — III pi 10 ...,,...;• -.: 22,,..lii. i' : ..1 ,i - .--(: ,•1 , 1. 1 41. 01 Ji..liti,t i 44 ...i.:11.,t t;'!ti-!'...!i. : .:•: l'i I(/ 1,"1,-11 i 1:1.:Ptr! it. — 1. .0,--Attl-.- ,i ..1tVhili ,,,, qtt ill iiIt;litt , !I ithth;t:1 .. / 1 g ---- , • 4; t I iii 1;.! iiii;i-:vi 1 li i.o.i, z „ 1 Ill Is I ,tiltf. .1 0 1. If t' 4 1.!.1410 I t, 11.110'W 1:t :11.11•1= , J. iv I-!•,t f — 14141.iiiif 1 !;:. .41.-11111 : . I , I . ' I E ligi (it P, ; ij, iillt.•1 r it E. 1.11d1 . •-•-"-' t: _ 1-'-• I- • • iti .---.-!! • i: .: . ,„.• 74 :•_t :0 IC. 1 • i . . !. . • r r-..- -1 . •••• c iii Alishill i J! .:Itithlit I 75 -. : ..• c Ili : 1 10- 1 i MI I:11 : ili 11; 1 il: I flU) ..I I C.) 1 — ..V I • . . . . I I -- — •. 6C • - N ••- 0 ‘.. I IL •• " N • . • ." •;:..' \ n 0 ..• - .....: ...... „ — , , 5/ 1 ' — z--- — • .,...:..,; . ,f:.:: .,..:1: . ..,.. ,,.... . . S/Ild. • . . ..); . tel , I.^.z_t •.4 .., -": L. 4; ft, it ' -,. - • • . \ . • . 4 • . • .‘ 1. ....: ;5',...4-.4,.. 1 - -.. •'• :- • ;Jli • ; 1'; iorso • ' , • - )- -- ' AN/ -1(6,-, -• / , , - . ; . -*Ida . . - i i — \ 4rti I•i-- ti;log 1 • , ....., „. ,u .... r....... , . ,..._...... re ..itii.,..,„) 2 • ....,. ._.. •--,. ................, eid-kifike i 1 '77-1 Jil -:'j:i :i;,...-.;-•-t- drasittlihat illerilill f ' — '' .- '' `N dill i ge III NM 1:4.1. suldka i a- 1 ,..... .,* %. pi . . -lergatiurip - siw pat z . • , i 1 , . 1 .1 • Apip - , 4....- •••'' '.. • UN------. •aft.. ..1:2,4 min (........ -..-- .I 1-. - , a mom• le row a ei ,. ! 'VW Ups. -t• , I . — . • , .. • Mil '41.3). 4 yb• .•:///16----iii:i *.--" •,.., AMIIIIhne - / •I : .. "-- -,• i:, ' :1_ • ; 4::i. • ..cf•-szch ito • t -'••', -- ,----5-ra• \--,\::_i'....4.040.9.9.1;Y:1 1 -- --- -- ' mlii" , i ! — , i, ....1 ,r.: a , LT-- --- .,--=4 -.• - --:- I: -- -' ' -..--.--/,- r--= ' . • -.---- - .i - -,:.---;is).:2 a-..-,..-:... -,..:41,.4-$..,,,,... 1,,szidi 1 • . „ ..,,,,-, , ......,1 in r. 4 r 7.--.... - • L _ __.•I ' ,,-• - - •- - "-#40 ' elm ,..,. -_ .... .-. _.... , I •MINSIBRI MINI 2 '1 : a • '• ,•••••••te,/ •••IF ..... I I t te, l••- 1 tang ° ' . ' -1.°• •..ib•,. 4W" 'iWAI : . •- • i j -. j...i•. _..dat IgHIPS tt i'• ii, I • , 1 ' . • • . " -W. `IP' -:'ft.'. '4,17.../ . - , „ Aig,, /AM./it li,,, li L 4:44S. t...•4 ,.•. q! 1 . 1:1.-174.11.'N, II 1,10_1 ladIP I s /.04,41-.1% „,. kIrterir• , I, . a Itt' •.•-' I it; • • • • . • . • • , - " .:, . .. . ., , , .. . .4,..,,,,,,,,,,, ..„,,,,.,,,„4„/., „....,...„........ „,.....,,,.„„..,„..... ... .." , . ....._.. .. . . . • • . .•,..,:,..,...,,,... Nr el% ,..o,, Yible.40 4p.. ...I s V: /•...z.--:.'.:.' ...... ... ' •. ct„7-41; \.. , CA% AT'' ..-.xr„ 41 VI 4 , a; 1.041 NU,' -• •• ! ei .• / •*-• ..;:' .,' , : N ; .., ...V - - • . Cre.tedahl Nit"-:': : .. .1 I: • ig:it .,.,•,:„ -... . ..../ ....v., ••••:\ / • .• 4 ., ..s. .'., . --- • ,,,,, . I !I•• 111'•.1 i ,... . •Iii:. • .s., /:/. N N. N.\is4:\\\,6.-15.•.,a2-: - / ..".•--••--"••••• •••••*-N*111 . \: :. .• • \ ..• •.. I 1 M." • \ \ ti \ - /......'L-IT •••• X•-•• ... . ... - '... PP•i '' . ../ • \ ' ,..„.. l''1. / ;...! . I • •I •. ..... .—.I-...• • , . I • • • 0 , , .1 / . .. . i I • . / , H . . 'gai ; / • . .• • \ .5.-- ' .. • ••- - - , -\• \. ‘-... •'•.\ . . , • ail , Ike . : • Pit."; 1 _ R • • . , . •A • 4; -1 - -' . - ! NB,•-. - , •• •--- • -s. .. ‘, s . • • / 1 : , ..,- i. . *• 7 — `, • . . i . N., - I ,. - ..--. _ — ____j_! .1i ._ . - . - .. . -•- ---. ___ _. _ ' \ - • . •., I . - : alT. • a c c • IT,T. = : E t . r-L:,127;7:_r_kiii...;T::711.7:-:-...1.1271:117_,....1. • e t • • O • • CO -ix o o • :— Li •• i m • : _ of : t . . , 1 I 3 O i • •e it - E • • •e n _L 'U ,. 11 IIi • • ; O ••� O c = • c cc vo, Y O': a I V I I I is=. Fo' m o • �I.+�. S...!•:•6147.• .a3 _A• .tdo .. ; C. III ' iIi I ;oa E i « woo < c • =ensimairritl L,.., is- o � 1i1. 11111111 -i o — O° ;c-I P •o nn Oce, • •S ! 11 !• : \. . - .L\ , i I A \ i..• b, a bat. . z:\ c I i 'I 0E2 1111/.41O := : b . 0 a ••!! !pL ag1a�..j.... ED " - 4.3.,. _:-eriti.i) orie, v ' g . r.; eirriti %It?, f 1 it i llinaMel:si i.. ... b.: i 04* a.a a ' • 41 4t,I4.1b4 .. ,Ii.,i. . . )1fillw I.. z.1 IIII' ; .. 41 'i 00411$' 4 • • 1 fty . 47/4)1VA* .-/". • r1,4k ' N, . allf`. r Nq••�' •R�a'�' r. ii I1 . .. \ \ - / p: 1 i - . i •• i /3 31:•: — I •` " — !1-. ..i - : 1 ..; I gtif \\ ••'•�•\ 1,1 is Do'i / N L� J` OW �Ywp / ' ' �'—% • \ \ . • . o • . • v s. ..- e '\ _ ; •i • • n ' , au • i ° JtJ — 1 I =? • — o ' ..iij ____ _ . - .7_-..---____----"'- ____,--r,„-"i7 C Ct4 -c \ 1 ! . i c _ 1 if A • �\ _ & 1r� a. lz u. , ii i (.. z - - - '� fes- F tiakli------.: : } i ' i_____... -: = _ _ '' t I V o I l �y rte" 0 t r r d• r • • 11 l•-,g ,.. ___. . .: 1 i If,r 1 ; „. .. ,, ,. \.. /\:.,:_______,: .... i./ , .,-.-, „,. ..._....., „..tc,-- , • ,., _ .,„ • ,J) . . x„..„. , ,, , .L_,,.,: :_ 4 1 , — \ .I.' „!......=.•..- /77 . I ,,,,/1„,., ,4,...:4 ! . ----7- : ' 1 I • l — . It •.„,....c.„d ; 1 I c1 f i 11111 ' _,_ � . / , . �_� . •-. _,_ .. , ' 1' I _ ' - .,fir` -• 1!ili[ i2• .j ! t •i( ��;i it '/ '�`7. Lx .-1- 2,; )1 x – �� I _ 11 il -5 llDfl' ,: .. � �1., �, : P..- _ ,. 1 1 is ttf-C 1 1 it, 'c� ! — ' N •I i 5 [ • fVIC i � ` / • v_/L�, `-=..� f-�.1_ 0 1 • Igl .// t� _� .fit'.' �/5 Jk.;;.„- •:'`.. ../../ _ :ill — lil cr-- . z. •." ...: r. , .,-,'s,t%.. . it,,,,,,, , ,...,. ........,,, , , . , . ... . ... „, ... .„. . ....:., , ,. , „.. .. ,..__... . , ‘,,, ,. , . ...,-... c:.,„,, z.„., :-. ..rx ,.. " I • ••.;,\ \\ -- fi Y. c--)v '• ,,t• • �, ��, — • i 11 v6. IN 51. t g . {� - - o o= — 1 ,.. • H , . 1 - ¢ 44 l r alI oz 2c i i_ it- •�� (l( _ V ► _ itu.¢ a r t ;,. .; ,/ o 0 — - i ! dt..:---:-. -ii i ; I - - - ' ---*-4;-+--.--( i • . . 1 Vz--4. -, 4 • . - /FT _•;r_l_f__.' - ..,i ,. , i . , z , , r 1 / _,...3_,i--- ..stIrri...' . - I• I . 1 — :__ 1 I • i� I . • / .. n s also lI afiiii ' . � t — _ -(...:).L.:.:,...,.�—i i I • 114r .7 .--.� ,1 , • I. 1 , . • I I s 11 ', 1! s� i 4' I oil I_ i i I F �'" ecr i'.i _r "1-' 1 of :71.1;! .!;il� 1 1 + , ; -2- . ! 1ji "1 ," --cb ' II 111 II• •i 1 � I 'r'=' I , l 11 1111 1 ; e II 'I i f 4 Fr�'▪ �- , r '_ �4.: II 11.3(; • ' 1 a /'. , 1j1 !1 ! . psis!3 , , . . // If III j • Irl 11 . ti 1 1 - 0j Ili / 1, �1 + ; $ •1) • Y 11Ij1 1 33 lti ?:s i litil 1 • f 1 1 i I. V' { r%� •_ . '.•J I Ili l � Blit 1. IF v, r'e� • _ l_- •r' f 1111111 4 W I1111, •'I 3- -F-',.•g-b: 11 on 1. s c illi x \� :. _y �, , r -. .;* !,on 11.a'.u'. I,! II a2..i.,...,:N'..- Lx.:,r./'• .. .!Z 4r I '' ! • ,1 I �1,, � � -'� t. :J 14IIIIIIVIIIIII l�jl+1111111' ;I` Ir j "" 911 - . .t`x 1111111ltiodiirrii it , • r•e ii - `.vt.. \: /, 1Ii1111 If1414.!! ; 1! • • 4 ,? �.,.I.`� t' _ 4• ‘"1 :'• 4 , ',' ! 11 111 ' l: • = • 1 1 s .•, `- :@•-• . .F. ii111ifl11lil 319!s ` 12 1 Y , `.•. `�. t� /,' / / lI 111/1!111 ,livii-1/111 10.- • • • C /I /!// • ! /%%// ' . : i I $ 1 1 ; U - 2.6.1 :.• ______ _i... ____ __ 0 so §� N j ii —. a.- •%8 j ( I R• _ ..— v, I ao .n e M i 1 n V '-'1 ° • oS ;',€ I i CC L.7 I u. i. _t--- I 0 ♦ i ���� ll I \ I `_ -1 _A srnefT 1 1 R I ._ �. _ I i I I I c r \ e., \ — i - I ; ,. .1 a .______ . i. ,,., v \ "1 i I I 1 i:!i ii I I i.1 .1.-11 co 1 r• L..:,.., ati ; . . _ _____ii tea• . e t , - i CI \ ,s4.:. , - - ^. iii E- ^ • ., 3 ♦ • ^ I io R �.. t. Io 1II . .....7 ' i . i el .. . .- ......<::-...."'..... .e. • f• ,/ •.' .. 2 . — s / 1 1_ j /41, 1',,.7.-.-,,,..--•.: • • - i•y 7 _ ..e / i St 1. .7 , ....: ,,.....- --:' ....1! 1 1 ..„....., _. ., .,.. ... 2 s," . ...)1 ill 1 / Y f• :! , iii >r I, t • " R • is . R X • N \ i/ . , . O' t. 7r4 r' . / - a:;.1 . -I ›/ .- \ \' / • \ •\� // • \ / i\ a — \ \ • . / 1 r. R ' \.-.--/ J — : • U : /• 17 '--L---:•' . i 8-i.,----71------ :i. - f- i .. 1 -_------.......____---- I - l E i!".'2 •:i ' ' ' •.: _.. / / I 7,,1 '4•",' ! i ', (• 1.2.7-s/-7::: \ m — •i•-i•-•., , C, , • z stli .1: • I . ,........, . j ) /' -. ...; •••••,...r• I ..,". • ,/,---•• ' --- , dr--.-• I. 7 - 1 CC i"fi:"4 .3▪ 0 I; ' • % L-' i- 1 2 Z.5 1 _I ,_—_411ilif4lill .1 ( ii•-.7 1...,:l... . di 7 } 1.- • # - ii ---- --., - - .....u,-. o _ 1 ii i rzii.ci_t_pil :\.. 1/1:......., , , F •-1-' • z • ../ i i , , •• '---r. . -----1 . )1t1'. - ' •. 1-7--.----.-T .'..'... , li I( --•-•-7,=.2._ . ... .- ..... . .-1.: 1,....i. _.1 t ,i i. i • , --.,I. , ., . 1.i-1 . i 1 t I c — :i I --iii " :177.-- 7 .. C.--,-....._ • ' ____I- , .. li.s. x 11 I :-I . •-_-_-_`-- -4. .7--..., 1- • -I 'II re-1-1- n• I ! • t: -- -- I ._. .{ i'''"- - , 1- 1.-1---'• ' : i • • --t-4'I 1 I I 1; / .... II'll 1 ' i . L73- •I - -.2.. 4. • .T.77.:15.. -7L7----,..771: :• . ilil !I 0-'j:1-7. 1:• .. 1 . - Id-- - ; -2-i-- 1. ...,'' _ ; ... --__=,0 - --1 I 1-t-:-C. - • - ' 1 1 ii - . --. 1 I Fr 1 . . I ( ; . 1 . •, g i. s. t 1 .....,...- .--:--_ ____ r_ _, \.:,-\,,...1. .•. . i i r— ..... 1 ..,,,\ L.—:. ..1. o.L....L.:.1. j 1 I i 1 i i E. • II , I I j 0.e.• i e .—, 1 I-1 ' '-Ili -- 1, ' 41 -- / 1 I --Fr' )" :'I , I' ---- - 11• .. i I . r" .•i , . G 4 I t•' 1 1.;--.- ' -.7-.1'1.-L 1.. I:1 • ,..m, ---''. / 1 i t ,_ • .-____I _:- it - i :- p. i.1 • 1 .---7: i --H--t-E -s•I I.I, r-, -- : ' • i r ii ‘ .... i.1 i• - I .., • .1 li 1 i 1,1:lir;.•• , - t i•-:'.-.- : -.,.! \ ... 0 Ili • `' ,.. . 0 '. • ' ' . :1 j•0 I i i 1 !, .. 1ti I -.1.4. • . ▪ ii I-1J IN I i j 3 rI - - . gm' i y! i 7 .• -I, L. — el I :- t • -!..... ,i ,i „I 1 1 I .., . : 1 11 i ..C.\."-.. .1. .1.....i.-. ....._ . . 1. i , II ..:. .‘>-.: % I \.:4 I • r- . ,,.-.., )...,..0.. ........, ,,, . . .. . _ i 1 ) ,•••••.:,,.;•..„..;,.-e:...1 -r•• ! iirT ri I I ; ' •'' '4'•• ..7-, •• t. . .- ...:_, I ".„,•-•„.......••• : ..i..,_ i.0 !i• • / i ll \ ./ i ..../ 4.e.iti ' e-•. •_-,-!--,.. ..- , -. !--,-- : •., 2 I . 1 , .....„ N. . -.7. • . ..... 1)• ...., . i , _,-. / -..,..e,, -. ; :......: -....N_ --- — .,,/r.,":,/,...#.• . - , . • i- • ,. . . ti•,• t. /,- •- ---... /i/.....Ai--..if,,,,_ ,..:•- ,. - . . il i 1 ..- •EL-. i '.7,;7467 ::.-, l i..4.):544`..%'-,. 4. 1 I° - tr÷' '.i S'.../1‘,....„):je• . :..' .-4.,-.,.. : i. .I. k.,/ .. t..< e! /.:. e'-:.' i %••• - . V' ) .-'1 .-' •-•-•"---17--..,_ L"'"1....' - .--,:ft. /L-:.;:,-,..-..--.- .,. ..' . 0, .. . I 7.-±7-,,:r. , •..,. ! ---,... . - ti' a: • - 1 I ril ."1-e-.....,..„ I. **.--- _____S'...‘..--'--.4.:._-ey-,) , ; , ..,......._-_-_, a> •-•,-,t. ...,...--,.- • . , _ .,. - (1- -:' • • ' .'1.1.... :- • j 1 .1, • --, , • ,-„,.. ! \ -. ••• 5 ' • • I ..... 110....°1°. - •:.t t i!. %%4%, OS"' . • I1 • .. - 1.1 . . • . ..... I H 1 I • I.1 I 1% ..".11:6•-"7"v'' ..... I I - i G 7 • i _ . _ ,•.-,1 ti.: ... . , 1 ' I I I 1 I % ' A i I , /1 1 :i d — ' I it • I . 1; t - "I , , .: If 1 r, . 1. • •• i 1 1 1, I', ! . .. . III il1 0 ii if, 1 I I li L I I I 1•L-*-16:10.--- 1 1 • ,,'I I , li : if • 1 itin t 114! 1i1111/ 11 i * J" I I • I I 11; I i : 11 I-:FM!: ii.!I.'lli I; . I .1 Ji 11.,. ii I ... . _ li ! i ". t • : fr: = :_ ! ii I 11611 it ii I',Ii i I I- ; , i : : : = ist I • i ,i 4 -r.1..t. .......fa‘ l ...., 1 • / '11 If III 1 . . 1111i 1 211 I s" • ‘ 11 - . 1 . $1 I s•I • jil : : ; ii • . 1 i ! 1 i ; ii .! r i tt 1 .,/,, lq 1 j i ". I i • 1 , t -,. ii. I -! ; , 1.1. z r ll' • .— C.) = 0 . CC 1(!iiiif:j 'itLI.,.•41 ii W1 ' 11 ' 1111 ; Illilliii ' ! Cl itl 1 M- Of CI • 2 — !inPlirCLI•VA I 11! , 1 , 111 II ! 1st ii it ! • ; I '—. II • 0 • , ..1.•:_irli4 I 11! t SW V : " : II' • j • I i 1 0 i II.-7t4 4.1P1r4g; i '1; 1 . I . . 1 t 2 ii II 11! i: P : i . • - i lit . isi : IIHI !I :1: st li ! is ] cc 7•1 Ili'Ff.sv:'7.4...,...q.1-.1"1; 0 ‘, il ,••,).7.0'n „.i.•!.. .-' , , 1 d40,_______ .171- . I-- _ 0 z . I • • = . 111 1 2 i i 1 : . , • , 1\ i I \ /• .' • 1 cL E 0 --- I i , '\ , - • i • .' ' 1. ' '‘. W \ ' . . / ,./ Atli ' Ilalla \ : . '. -' "•1 , - ‘ .• 4 ' ‘•- c" -ill • v c\ • . - --.... - - ' • • ) 4 • • . 1 r - ' 4 - I '-- • I tan . . ' 1-. — '- --... .. i -- z.......1., .,... ____ _ _---•—I-- - --"-:-------,: i; a ft-liaph, Ilutdia: h (..• , ‘. . , ,........„7-4--2 . v, i.- ,_.,--:•._ ,_....,..,,.. .,,,,„,.„,,,,, ,, •-,,,kr....0,4., _. ‘_, ,:_.,..:..„, , _ . . . , 1. _ , ,. tv-.14. /... . • .4.-.-.. .. „ iii- ills - , 41,.. .40.....,10_ ....., _,..1 i 1 , •_ . .4,• ; - ; ._.... /ip i 1 r or., 0-, " r • I r I _.,a ,. 1 • #' 1 .. _.. . ..,..4....,..., , it,.... ....,. ii .-/i I i • : . . L ., • — '. --tr'i ;;;• 1 • I 411/474 I ____.--,-)4•. cii(0... 11' _ , ; morum:0- - _.,_-----, •,,,...•„,,,A,„ 0 u. , 4-1..*44.:- i .„-.7.-.„------,,.?.. ,y-- .i:- ii.o.111111,, 1 • i • ; ..._ Co -44..s.4' ----7-•-• ,,-' • / i 4111.aid-ris4 0 14' .c.,..,-;,..; ' Zi.--.'"=:---ily AIM,• .• if I 1 ,,11 Issw_C. itirVia't.../4LITO 1.1. I rill t..0.,. 1!1 Inv. '69r0 .6 i f - -II 111:71W • - 1 0, 1 , — 1, ••—•••• ' • , • ,...1104, aii i . , ll I isir, .. 11Pat i 1. I !I 1 2 .4 "'.1.•ce'. 44.:4- ''ril4t7.7111 I 4114*.t;:r ."••All'i'0'. /Al:47 I! ; 4.•••a.,t.'Ir 9 Asl, 1 • - •l' . 1 i• 1-S444 filtif er'*6-. I I ii it.011- ellt42. '.1 I, - 1 I!t ? ! k I I I 01 il 6 41 I• :, I I i; . -41•A•IM7 >, 41.411°I°.COVIN:P . .'- ''4 .1 46. /,' - • I - %.- .1.44*.c //' -. 1 11/IS 44 "e :_...-1! 4t I , ie.;o.- 4 Co Itp• •.**/* - i ‘'pr. • 4.0. iii : 1 t - %.i - ,41b.- •a 4V••:,4*-'s• ..- ,• .. :-_-,_.t,41,;.4-• ..;.=---.-i -i. - .:.1w40 .......*„...4p,4:71.k.., , 4,,,,14.1....... ..,,,........e.it. .. .4- • Niris ih I. • " ' I ,0,1 ,- - eAW• Z,P•c./• ‘ iitt:4-11plaa_.;.:•Mb,4114!"., . li 'WT.& -, C.-i.;. r". -''• NO. .-'zwo-olgrAci.';.*tip, ! • ...___... ,—..., • gze -, – . -‘ Waft.. 111-1:. lip. .t. .. . ' . f i 4146 .. . i t • ,li mlIettit ;b.:: t, A v. _ • • , I '••• .'0,, A.. • -h, at . • 's 's 1 a . ...b.f.' //' 7 .. . 1•111 - -74.:** • -. 'tik ::. •- , • • • 'd 1• I . • r i . . i o t•. D"Ff ; • - III : • ....1.. - , I i 1 1: I •:i:' ., s• . . /-' ,' ; . • . ... . . .\ss • . /-,,,- - % • 1 . _ .\ / •/ -- • • ' .- 0, • i . • '‘' - • : I ,..___.... . . , , . . •... •, - - _ • , • , - : \ , . • . . ' . • . ‘ . - . • - • 1 . . 1 , _ 1 , I ) - WWI — N � � � � II � � � i III I � ! ll I � � � ili ` NI if 1 i � I 1 co I j i �. I Iff; �� I • a. J+ r_1t C � 1 i = O jJIIIiCII � I I i}i' ; I o � l � �= is ' ' • O = ' I ' I � 13 NI Ili f :t " HI' Ij1 ! ! ! : HIIHiiH a 1 ' ilill I i ±42 1 . . If ,I • f . ili N W F- CC Q W CCr a 5 • W ! 9r • � Q • it1 131 f, ' I, ! Jtltltltl - i i ill ¢ 3 i i 3 44. i 4 > U t 3 e` O .J 0 r. 3 s E a 9 • I f a` Z lis • ;°:3 L. 9 E S rl;_ ‘71 Tit • sIt 'f____ . ail sil I . , �, . . ss; :: • IL it..,..ir -• i i i i i i t •i\ d Mm a ; Y I I IrFf I o _ # 4 $ r t� a : i i { 9 Si i . ( ~ —OO0 a - - g51gii1k1E co I. . _ 4 .i P I f,. 1i ! O • • 9 (► El i; , 3. i ; i jj � — IIIII � ! • ! ill i -i i ' � ! i � Ij ' I `t r'' —'. s cn . I I I I S,.. 1 � I 'a' J • 5 i.. (�] Jas i c IIjij Ss•. ' 1I ! E I I ! • : = I 1 ! 1t�t . 1 i aro i �= ° I O ! ! tef t �t n i }' S L .. I i ,y coN iHHHHiIh1 I i • tz i • I , Ti 4j /j • i 44'2 a 1 H _ (m H Cr• f ILa.O . 1 7 7 W ' 1 F e F F F �: I i - I- - - F a Q YO O H : ., :Iii: i C 5 - C F E .! %lei ' d H cc d ! ,:!-e i fisc 3 r-� ,�; �. epee Z — :aa 1 • ` # -• T fid � � ci}SI Hi ill I a c O c 1 ". Q o . I. . I_ I I O — d r . Z I O. I -.. ,fit 1 i a J H T31. �ti I A — i G • e F E F F F F ;t ;: ` i. • i i i 9 r r Q LI — aAtt it 2. o w+ I. ii tttLEI : l '- i I -- r.. lifire — • # Is - a` t i _ 's SIi jE is iii i4—...3J ; 1 s= :; .7-..r-: 1 ii $ r , , 1 I' .. ;f CF F I F F F s ti • A — ii 5 'a' t J ) I r i� — Y M I t b t ! , : 1y d} IE Efi es ii >8 ii la is : :5 'ds I. " is a Fr sa r'' 'sciHli :Ftid . iEli i 7,1 • u u 2. . 7 Zi .;;.:-. masseriuet.D ...ii! 1 p...i . . ,. , 1, , • . . • , .... ••_j—,. _I-- SITIH NOISSI1 0-I1 ' I gF- e 2 ....): . C st . i . . • : .ri : ' ! I 1 ! • ' ; ; i--• L --- -: ..- ill!' 1; 2-. 2 , • - , • 1 • I g.... ... 2 • -- —•---, • . , c..)- .•=z .t! ' WI 0 = 1 N• • 1 0.1 .12 Li, C ..- . ... .. i=; i ' . • . -. 1 _. • ..........., ...,1 1.•••.{....1410....). : • E . • c = c 1, • c . .._ :.,-. .. .. . ... -S-, ..... :-. •.7 • 4 -,- 4 i... ,. A , . - - , 4- 1.I . t — i f .. . •. MIN _,_..,•-P• •r=r-I • . 1 . aillat , 1117404'..- - ' t•:;•• •• • - or . — ' 14111L_Hil . /4 IM i'' ......—t-- •11,_ : aiihw Jr ,...- • -1 iPi ili --: =1 , I‘ ..– .... k . i • •-.,.. ,:.. ... , --............_. • C f C \ T\ 0 • i!i i al , 0 ea• li ••••si 'm i -,4 -"" g ', . : ... I;' A;. ..4,.. • • 4 t ,l'ir, ;a\ :1..„.....7.7,:. . us ... IV. -4"r77-. r•Z-?4P-"i \‘`..r;.- ' 1 . 4..` • 4...a.1 :1'.\11iT3:.;;, 4'i 1 RI :,\-..;effu;. r.. . C. 1. i t t A ::.. ...g.„ ; 1 ',.0..s.- 'II ik-M111 tcLk‘ \ iiim t 114i111-1 I 4, , imui • .... =4 L - .. . . ..: .....„ • . • J", L . • - •-•-•-•'''''..•:" '--".-.4 --1' • .--•-,:' '. -"•- .4 .- = - -4,-.. • -x;T..,-7,4-- st,pt----, .-:".--,:-- --=';•*W"=4.....1: ',- :-- -7. -:-------t-2.- , - - -- Z zz uassequeq� ; , Au , . , I eV 1= Shill NG1SS1& ! < _ yc !!!IQ, � m 1 � •Y E o — ■ 4. 9 - L 1 ..7 ::X 2 -; — ii W • s :4 1 7 1 ?i - ! . I L ''s - r • • L I - - 1 y T . 11D LG.- J :. i J • t -L___. ±-_,..A x Z '2'i ;,•-_,-. uassuqueto !ii I I i;:- • Z E . . • • STIIH OISSIIV, !i;! ' '. _ ; I if!! , 1 a c 0 I 5 E ., : 1 __..... .___ ..< :". . . li .1 4 li ii,: .. : ,.• . • ' . . 7– <: •!..i . iii! !i I = S' . 1-:• . 2.! ....! _ ,z. =.: 3 i >. .;;;I II Nflii . 1 c i ,,,,, .3 :. •• P—I- • ! I WI- ----,----••••••••••• IMO • r. E C —. . 0 7 • c.: –' ..... : -.. •••• ,-1 s li= . 7.--. 41' .t * 1111m. .r . ...jii:..' U • T .CC ....: . \ . \-77.• ". ic... • (c IMP N-t3 O ,,- L IPPd •Am .... ... fir, ,...( k _, "......... • l• ,.,Ti ME i,e-• 1, .= . \.‘ i — \` .1.1 :?A' iri-.,:!:!Lte.: •inamil 4. .. < g. • 4 iti■..... - 4 1 _ ..,., ,... S 'a ). 4 ,. /111191,i11.11114 r, 1 ...._ i.ig `• L a. \ \-, 'iiiIIII:11!,lirt ] < GI . fal l' \ Ci liii. --=-- 1 44 !fill:pE .f t ti.l'h\ V ,q:1111 lilt;,I; (171 :Ai I.11110111r.121 o. \ • n'ilill'''... .., tI e"'' 4,• I . ii .. iag..•.; litIMBI .'1.1.= • ... . -.....; 1 =I 1 4 I .--.a .—. Isla .,, ...- . iis • . 1 iguAl et 1 -.. ... • t -; _ \ .: l — ,s........• — if < kt,..k.....641k.- •• • ,itei - : i I a . 1.. . i li • - - ' ,Emos , , i= 1 ! i.. • . i -14 ",_,.. . .. .1,....... : ..... . \, Iiiriz • L • . . 1 it. *h• hum - • Iiiml UaSSeqUEID ! I!i4 i Orci . I ml• - STIIH NOISS111tWiisaPl.rolIl;!I ,IIi1 • ill ate 1-.c.i- a2.-5.z ,'1 1 ! ' ' .1.'1 < - I 1 i i 1 : — - , E a . c .. .0 c. .. - ...c .... • a --- .: . • _ . r — . :' _5- . 1 D D ---# — --1 i .. ! / — - i . . 1 I L ___ ..; I — I I N . i C: — . ,-- .. 1 1 — a a 0: 4, > c. . 1....._ - r 1 o To II IT _ 2 _• .2-.—: .Cq ' 1 W i i t cal 1- 7 cc ... . - - . ;-:- -;'d - • ! 11 1 _ 12 I 14z1:..-N., Lf i il _ ..., 11 11 iimi I . _ 1.--1. 4. as j • •,— I r % ii.1 I t — <If . I la 4 •1 .a . f'""•-\..\\ / - — 3 A 1 a I 1 _,1 4 . i1 •el.II - st-r•-.-.....0_,........... ?-- -,....; --", -.:-.-:::.A'_-..... •'-``. .•,..'=-, -,--- '-:-4-k - ----. -‘ .-". ---i'-- - '- .. -- -'... -..---.-''.-- . . z• '2'i z::', uassugueu I ,.," in I ' ' • SI1IH NOISSIIV • :: I 1"5 il I , ; I v, : 1 •e.• . ' I 7 17-- I 1 . • p—. =' '.---. <2 =•••• - 0 i , - 4;1 i .== • I ..g 1—• oiii i ' ! i ' l :C CR 1 — 7"- = < - . • I ; ; i I I i . '''' • ---" 5; .1.•S ;:;i I ; I ,-1 0: • • I > 1 c„., -_ :;•i • • w I I: . III I 1 I 1 1 ; 1 1 1 ; • it!f! .> i-... • : al ,! . :. , , • • I i i ; i ..-1 ... i ____„-.__.,1.........4.0 m..... .. ••=0 1 IA 4.• • E c .e ;..... os• I .— _ IIE:. him= VIIIIIIIIrsi _ /40 . P ft-t--f.• . , _ —, ...1,. .. ,•••• ,. 11:C _ : / . --C •. "" . ..._ pit. , ,..„ 1 hi B 0 I. \•S 1 I . '1 1 seAl luti110.1.1 1=1. URN 1 — ,t• lir • IIINffli w ...' 1.- -. Rill' ,m. \.......7i 4. ... .r.=........_...,,,.....,,,l. 4A, I= .... . ..1 ,, N `• ;4. 6. \A.A. •am anewt• . I ill „Iliad! ,,. 1 . . ....... . ...... „...._.,.,, ........„, . , 2CIM If,- SEC 1 T.:.-ER 6... \• . * I 1 t I • . • I [1_7-=-=-2, . ism S 6. • I--imeteR / <7" ...... __ .,,_ II • . 1.... " . 41. 4:11'fe‘ t'.(*. . - I! • . . $' - .... •,r1 rhq11I • al;I,. / 1,1' 11.11 111,1107= 2 •_. . / , .ll ',111! i•.,. ./ 7. r.). -IN••1.11.11,,,,,;1 2. V" l'h" • .,1 . . .1 . NH iifiildi ,.. • 'III) :1!! „,0q,,I!, EE - - ,,....,m, ,,..... . • , I ,... ..• ,,,,,,,-...•;,..„--,..--_------..- - .- "----..--.-:,-.-„:„..,..:-.. .i... ---.--..--2_,_.......- . _._ .___, _,.... :. ,.„. _,....._.,. -.._, „:.. .-. .,:;:-.*. -----•-:,. - -.._, Z -±••1 :,,•-. uasstoequu !;.0.• , Po • , ••.—i z.-- i E ::61 .1 I i i 7-. :,•••:.• STITH NOISSIN Iii- I 1. l't , :::, it i.• 1 ! I ; ..• . ; ,- --_.-• z. 1 4p Ili ; • -7-: 0 E• •;. i!.i.i c ; I i i i - 'i . i:i; I., 63 =1 ; 1 I I i • !I,. ..'-F.- C Dic! I - f : i !I; d i .f. €:i!! In ! MOO - • . i .1.m.•••=.any•m...m•••.I em• •••••••••....11 • 4. ..... -... -, - • -.. 4 4 -1, • • ...,t. — i .i I.. • t . I r -...... H I •,-,- 1 ,-; • . . •-7 • J ,--- ... i) - _ ----1 . . ... _ • . _ , . . . , . . iiii... . _ 1 . . ...... . ,r. 2 c I 3 .. \ • '7, c 2 i • :a a 1 . :1)171.4..11167:3: to • Bil,,Ti 5 ••:2.-7- 6 I 0 2 = 1 -_--_,.. 2.- 1111 1 — mo, ____, r, j • 1 Nati— • ii . 1---- , • 16-1-. - _ . • . _ - i _ I_____ i_____ 01 ILA i • • 4 _________ • . 4 - \• ... • •,10 • . . • .----: !" . . . . . • . * . .... . . . . . . .*'..-- •.. ‘..-.›........441r4 ....;64.,;*:••-**'......:*k' -'2.-7‘..'—.7."-4'-'7..—•••••7 * :: *•' .:- -.7- , . .....—.••..-r.- ; Z 1 i ii UaSSEgtiglID !i;-,!1 PC.' I. I. ! 1 N ••.-.-... Z.-- S111H NOISSIIN i; 3, ZK . ' ,, , i ! Illi : ; : , -. "it 7- :e%•.- ,, ...; : . 1 ; , i , iii .; — .:- I 1.1 1 . la i i • ; ii ! . :"•••• <it .. N g ., s 1 I : ri , I i I 1 I 1 I .• ,_.... 1,- .....: .:-il LI es CC ..... ' C.-% =:: i;ii • I 11111i f• 1 i i It111 . II '''E,' ii ow . 11 t i > . ! , ; ,f : • : ! . ;i • -:. dm. - . " Wm. .,4 .,If r . it 111•1 5 i . V '.4OM yf (EA 1- •A.....1":.146' M.f• iMIF . * / SI r ,,,'• . liaslia •. 1= •,_ \,* lk•4! ef , z. %, '!,, .1. !'''•-•1 "k //iM -ANEMIC 11.1 'MIMI ;:. Lt., • i. i ;I' •Iiiiimil; 172 a.. a ..: .. .4,,,,•I • ?: e .1,. , .,,: .= , ..i .2 flu 0 5.•'4 .5.;;3, • 1 ,,,,....., LL„ • "' - Sk .• / / el __, . . r• ...:•ff,mil . •,::.. -• Piimrt-. : • • 11. 1 \ --Li .... rii . ci . , ... !- ,. .... - or '..,- •Wilt - ij • ). • .7.1 ....... 11 avimiims. .. • \ .- .•; IRE ;. .• IMP • . Ci. •i".2,;:1- i-;1124.1°1 ti . /W1111/1 : ).-::-.rt.;I f•-• izr.'"- t• • 7 1 -••• .2 ,*T11111111 • • - 1 MO i '4, = ...0 am,. - . `..\,./7'"-, : _...icti6:4,...lin• . t... _• 21::: 1 ) , ,, . -• ' ,,, , : i ... Is. . . . ,t ••..7) _ —MI I • .6. 1 ri. ••• l• \.• ----1- , - -L-'•1 4:47'.- •:--,-- . .--..-----; ,-•-- ,., - . ,.• ',.. _, ,:...-... _-.. .......-- --;,- ---.".-.....'-,---.--,-. t---.f...--•.:,-:,--.-:-. . .-.—.3-4;11,-;-:_z-;. --4, • ..-..1.3,--::--_---.--• •,....c...--..- • -,- • --- ...- ------- - "-- Z/L •-•• - •1•—e E' sit I • , 1 GIC S111H NOISSINI ,' i - 2,, 1 : 5 i ''' i .4 . . ..., f.,... :. : .....• _ : s I • '.1 - 7-- .<; t.• H!! li 41 i t 11 ,,_, i; ; ; _., ! . ,l, 1 I , d11 . 1 • = 6: .._ U ft .... ; ! ' 1 ; I , i 1 1 ! 1 1 i I ! 1 , ; i.j ! , 'I . .. i —.---.........-,.--..... .... .,... . . - i ... . . . • . . —. ?,...; . — . .. •'i .._ _ I' ... . : . . L..: •. I•..: . 3 . 4... ..---.. — ...." ....... . ...., „_... • < < -- I ... m D ....—-... 1 • ...---. . i 1 . co co • . m M - cc I Ye..,'. _imo . = CD 111 c Imt... D W I 1 Ct - .iwzr.=C1 ai,M t = = IT, -g. i I • , . r a. . — ce T. . I• A "5 2 elm —. i • a. L.- N. '• :.'2 s .--I. WI, <,....4 • . =412 — ' .1•-• _____!_0 • " . . . 11111P1 ...p. . r147 1 i I g t.7• • .... i Al .. s . . I Ai t o•E ."43..t:Z.;--:4-5"jr,j1.--.". :..."7•*7:1'....;=-V.:-.•••'-ir-"."-- 7,i1-4.....:,.. -...,-,,-,::-;:,..i-,..-:•,:::-.,--.7.-.4.4.2.:-:..."7.•:.. ...-,.-..-,i,..... .......,-,. -..,..---_-., .2---:,,..,:•,-.,„4--•.:.....4-....y....- -_.. . I.ni , 1 --- • .7, . I •.7. • - lEitPal•- ••• -'ego - .o. . m•-. .-, =le. '...t.k. '')ills-:."'".''• •IIIII0 1/Emil 1 . ,.•• I 4 I,.: .,_-_....-.. ....----,____,to.)•-• .7-:: 7.7.--- •i! S :)ert . - .14 4,I • ' I I I 1 11 Lill—HU 0 ii...7•••- -4_-_ -,,.•‘,. , •• • 4.844. - vr. t..- ini• 0 •::—.......; -,; -. r, ..., • .." 7,....f - f' 7..f.: -IP-• . 4P. • .......-. ... l-----;- 'tt ' .• • I's TL: In• r , -,-; -.. -.;(' . - - --'-'..i.:6-2:-• .:,) - 4 ti 'I' lk -:::•.ViarE6 '. .'' ..)'•'(.1 ','erCr ' T"•••• -An' tt'k ti 1140.1.1:1 "It ....---.:-•=-s. T....77 :26:p "I g Zr . , ----..... ,-. , .., I.k 141ainsor i* i 1741.IMMIII .1---- - 4 :iv pm- r l• -.. tuna , ------keN r., . % 4 t • I.,1 1 I t-y._ i •a.. 0 • ‘,t VI — ..--. .- '- ,-- --- .11 __----, 11 11 4.` L•i!miinft. z ......_ Tts ----_ . . •._. -..„.:7,...7,-L.- - --! . 1 ..iumuum .,,, ---4-• '44Pi• • ,,- •-:--`- :- ,- I! *I.( • ..-1- '• 7..,, . - I, 1 1..i 4! Mini . :-.;-4 ,-.•=61.17i. ,iles : ....„:...._....... .. 4::. ._ 4, . • , L.:.• 1 :-;—ki-i- -.:... ---"f• ... Ji...77.---.,„••4';:iiht i 1 Alli i . . •-• .--_-,, ---' : -• '--' 7...la-.1 -''"\., flr• • i• n - .41LAM.,!.41;04 4 I b 1 .rti -- •-n• ------41 • 416.: :21. ri. ••• ; •: 1 o Ill = - - 1 •V• 10 • :•1131111r. • >441 to, ,--- , ." gi? -'-' 4 • LMT a• • - ... , 11 ....-7113=_ ' I- .. I i l'.':Y -II i'.4.fr7-1.--ACIMIN-. • ... _ :,.... CI; — ,13' • 1 ' t LJ LJ Li'll ti,b--- I .0 I , ....., ii_ ..- 11 1. •••••1 k '' .11. iqj 4=a111 0 D 0 0 , ,_—. 0.1) ob ---. 0 0 1 =__. . — • .,....— Cr) I% •• -.4:----- , iii,n1111 0 0 0 eip, ... • •—• .— ,, v -., -._ _._ •:: r, il l' ''..i •• ',C 0 , • .. .A..• i -- /Irg Alt I 4 thc•;- -- ' lAir;-1V it = I : al • • 7. -____,_ = Ps* • ' 1 I k I --- l'i4611)1• °.; • lq itti . g ; t -'"•.._______ It 0 ;Li ii liji ! iiiiilliPMEENErr:' . ;Iiiit'll'-9 5.,„,.... ..... i.,,...... , ...=_ ••=• ;OWL;111111..1-171 :-.4.. .•...,..1410:: 3* 7:7 • .1 i 4,4 iiiiL • Or-. 140 it: . ;.jenjormimp,.. = Ci) i li MU 'Inn I .- .- — fillilMllW i A 14...MIIIIMPI 4.77 -I----------- .- C/D c., I I ki.r:.,-.•' ". /-1-:111111WIIIIE _ •_, , ,____ -...--- - IAN' iv' 1 — 111111111111 .1 ____ t,...-.5 =•-• 0 4..)r••• 0 Z ..c•-• = i flp ;II,ii.:rtis. ; -L_...••!..•.-- g E S.- au cr.c ,...•se _ .1 ' s,-I'll '=-:7.7_—_ .-- It:r.., <0 OMNI ...16, .1 V : V -:0 4 qii.- .. . TM' ..... •-•1 Z =ta. °CI' V11114:eFtfr... % 1$A 1 11- T.TZ• E 5 w 0 -Afro t . ,v. ,,,i .-______- =it i CI --;,,,I Vir It 1"04. ,—:11111111Mmur 4 _ ...... „. ., ...._ -47-iilhi :, I 4111 -mumiiiiiiiii 1,.. • 44 1111144! .i: Wu li :f r--P -.--c--,irt: -.--..-E---:- ----_- ... .„;, ,1,0 . F t • dillii Ic :i ' 1: 11 4: IN ; 1 4 iii, . /1 _ . • ii.„6„,a- . 1 I ! .1- II. ,• 411M111 . — .. • ' '4%:;•111O I; I' . 1. • • 4 0111111 iNEMINININt re Eget - -.. . ,, , • it. .i, 1 7.---_- . - - • - • . =.----- . vF, .=-.9.•.:0 -...; .... gi ;'• :11., . -.40...., LT O ,! _ .......onsol: • --_-......-...........=.... ro:•••Z 0 ,.•-%a •';=4:1*a lif 1 • 1 . II • • • ... - ,,,, 6. . ,,,t.... h4.'N-.=,.1•N•-....1......6 t).- •-)• .—.%,.d-.t iP•I-".tI•2.1A1I--k:•l1t:.oI1.i'1 4 . 1 ti ,4 _;-1--- •---_-.----_':"--*".___.—..:.—c-..-.----.--.-,•---.-....:-- 7.,__•--.-- ._.--.-.-.. ZL3i•.Ze•4a=2/.9Z4.-.:.. s9ESe: Imo ) fs: P.• -. . 4: ei 1. : i-•G ..c • 0 t i2E:3.7;, ...m ; A IN:*':ljli;" Lilillijbilk!, s:•-• ‘7.. ,.. .." ..kAtff, , st, „..}-ii, 4..4,- -, . /-t,----:. = "Namia.u..- 11- s al:Z m ,-� iiimi yx a�: -� o 064 i Z 1CD M � L _ � Imp Q M O CD 0 \7. f z C w 8 2 J Cr O i- 1 - Z // M"'' cr,'' Y / 0 0 zO wC 7/ // z Jo Z ,� z z C-7) oLLI O � c:; o� � iimim g Do \ IL.......1., ,.. r � _ ?< bz < 4.1?....\ 0 1 E= .0 CO\ LL1 Ce Z ---- • �Z �y WT°o x . Ce 0 Q v -- L:: I = rv Z Z.Axz ` ` CL C Li<Uc 1"1 < �Il.: `z )11* C.� °OZ� Z _Z<.i N L` Z 5` s-J s F C C J ..a 0 0 JI - r:.: _ ca �cr, I I Ce Z LU v. aSk I D < .44/ 1.*07CC (..Dz W 8 } lir 1 cr O n o 0 ce ( , °Z0 Z _>o O JLv [11:3 Z L" o c H w= r L-71-H .."; Z Cr 0 p = Z Q o Am - DQ' r=v WI o .• «< II w ce 1------ ,..-6'F, W ?_ H � — QQ �o O L — Z ; ` ZO - -1-1 nw r Q = �0Ca Qr= Owl r— C --—ec _ _ .c, Irl C E z `/ Z J z 1 => U ?Cr Z,<C. _n i Zc t y Z .cx ��,-..' 91 _,-.�,'�� }cam `ti, � �. + ---,--1,71 MISSION HII,Y, �,_ -��^ i _._ ~ ` OFCHANHASSEN `'.� �� • N. . _ `v l..,_:"...--4,"_.___ __...,.... !"', ..".• ".. ^.....r.. T-=, _ ....44,.....--.1...z: i c _a ���.� ��r ---- �Yz3 :il �i N;1 =• 'M?�T=moi _. [y fi `•. :�ttcrsa- -_� -S i�� Ir.,--:-..------ -_,..7, }. ..._=. r...... ....„_____________:___ ..._ • r 1 sz t 1 ..•-:-_-."` lIa I. �t•. ,r P.- -- ,�,, :5 a__ ��'. i� ',1 t 11 MI'1'1; ra'.r r • • - T i , e. ��, �Ir I ' J .J'• �' ;c '�a" --.r �" _^-`�- rTw..r �� '� �'�L -Qin ,�a. -�---- . �".�ya=4: • - ,�,r.+i ar -v 1J ^fir `s" -__ :,.•-•:,..--,-.1 sa X",7 _ �1Qt81+a : dl ;, 1r4F , ii --_ -+! If obii•=-..•••-• fp tf F, ��l_ 7� .^�- - _. �• _Jam:_ � 4... - r Ailiet { n' i '' Vt ' , ,_ 3q . • r • /= ,, •,dwP57.. �rA \.�i�1N:,`�,,�hiyy�!���''i+.1� - :j�` `, A 'do- _44*:: C-'4: - '.."... ...---.1...., ''-'-‘ -7..t .ts. ...- -.F. ~F • c..p.t..1... ...••• '4a •-...7.".^ 1.1 10.•.. .1"" t,.... lil 4104. ,. --3--- -'-' ..,•49V4E-41-4X...-:•^`' ,r f g. ''''r .41NA % ''.-- -. trill- _. .41, ----• -• -•t— - -r-1-- 4 "e-..0., • ,+ . ter_e _ ,� �� t.•- _� �?`_ _ - r...• +y",�- 1-tri. - - 1 f /�/� _-- _dam �_ _,��_ ••?- f ;]1 1 1 . , - ----'---::--''..•-•'`------' • •. -•-• 4 1•,_---....--_- ' lir . .. ,.._.... .__.,....,., l'1 , y_-__.,, . ...,... .- ,_-....,_______,--„,.. ,_ _ ... .... ______......._,_ . . . .1a...1 li. _.....p_44.............z. •, tr, 0 - ---r --, .— _ ,-.11 :a 1 . _ier. ,..,....... • t _ --At.. E.,... . . . .. • ,.... ., Komi i x its -..-e° ■ _ ---- F. it • i ,� �!+� • _ ,� ohs e�-.I'� kT.'��,lsTy„�+::lli+ : s.��- �.uar jv "nr i. Sf 1J :Ai*.<,-•a���;i- • • �, ; - • • w..r fr =s:, .rs.WYour LCOPYRIGHT.:99- Builderforl/e -:L R0171.15ND COMPANY.INC. Q RO�I'TLLTN D 1�?:.cM COC�7C Obi'.'. SEEBL7LDE.R FOR M C AC.l?L. DET.-U S 7, A D HOME SC3,1"\G PLANS. EQUAL HOUSING 1 J. V TM OPPORTUNITY THE BRECKENRIDGE at MISSION HILLS „..__________f/47 __ . \is„....,...., KITCHEN 0 DINETTE r UTILITY * I0 \ • LIVING ROOM - . — _ GARAGE , mr—TmLommr- II 11( <F.." MASTER BEDROOM ON I- 1j1 lI 0 , ,. IIS ; MAIN LEVEL ri , f___71] ! : : : - OPENTO BELOW BEDROOM UPPER LEVEL L .. _... . . . *Your_. : 000PYRicxr,1994 Btii erfbi'life A'NCONCEPT °NLYROTTLL�ND THE ROTTLUND COM.P.tN7.LNC.CCOPYRIGHT 199-1 SEE BUILDER FOR ACTUAL DE.AILS ON ALL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTI'OF THE LANDSGIPLYG AND PLANS. ROTTLUND COMPANY.INC COPYRIGHT LNFRLNGE.MENT COULD RESULT LN LEGAL PROSECUTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHTL1W. EQUAL HOUSING HOMES • H ---11 ' MISSION HILLS 1 OF CHANTIASSEN VILLA HOMES ps...i).- --A-2t ..-N, . _•,,-t).0., • -.)-2.... .. . N. # erV 1 .2 . t 1).1" •',.4 - I ..1 a el i ..:477 ZnIo. ....... ".!..- .. 1! „,01#4."4.1e..1.-' 4: % Ili ... ''..."."'"'"." .. .....". ....."- ,". .......11.4' :714".. •IN').4 4. SD, "1 A Vs A . „.... ,...,,,r............_„.. . ... ... -,..:. ,... ..... - ,„, . .j.,.it 1 .....---- 1 • ......... . -ii . . a rar.--. ...lim:.-....... .,-r....-„,,_tt.....f.f-...,;,„_--..:___._- _.---- ,-. -4.....v......- :a L____="-...1;26'..nL'..V.: *s-sN."‘ ,•-•"1. 1 ...._II•mo........__Ty.. Ay • - --7 - -6,,-, ''..-..:k'-' ,.......__ __ r.n..-.L...._.„,_____...7.=. ..-;"--!"_-7:ss,mr------------- ...,-.:?...., 6. . ....... ,,,,,„,- 'ortliftir - i. ...----."...lar........, ...„..,4,.z...., ...., m. iim-F---1-i-- .... r4cMialms, Powlalim ....catt-L-.7 ,`"1311/4NINIManmmensmum..."" Iv ......, .... ..,..i..a==:r — ...... ! gim . • , , . „a ... ........ ,.. . , .,.4 • ' til ,,,,.. 4.. _ i.. ...____ = i_111_11 311:101 =1\x"el• ...I ...no!... ..... .wiLik ,"11.1k •••••••••••••• ".. 1191C1' 'l" ug •N I.: .. . em . ,...... i.ts ..... ''..L.,.. ........,__ ...4.. ....1.--, .. ..... .8.Ilimaan•aa = Li i , 1 0 = _Li.; . ...s. , t ,......,-. ..... ,.....Z.... ......s. mum...•..... :41. 1. I.88. ...:.si .....-6126- '-lirlm 1.‘, .___._,... ..... - ::• ...M.%1115311131.1,100,"...A.M..11MWOMEIlmsbNIIIME=II•rtm.... -; .-.. re...... NS.'....s%....c;:::, '•, ,_. •. ' ',0, 6. .....:;,,,, IMII IOW , Mimi%- - ...Mk U'Cisiet;ZQW''''''-''-'."--‘.---.‘.' , 2..„aim: wria......r... ..i..„_:_,....., _ ,p..,06 ....)_....."00100...".„.....r, --..---- .. :....1 OW 1••• = it 1154MmZ:.2-1:. : 'WI I 1 -Uri:a.=-Jki mid---" 'X.ii RI mu jet ••=1;:-E-2.= ii E.:-.7-77--arir-- :1111111 :II:: z-7:1-1741:-:-:-±1177-7;711,1iii---c--:"I :1-----.7.-7:7-i:-.1:=7-717 i L =i." r;:-.--- --ZZ-Z-111111111 MEN El iii ii ..1 -•• : 1.d Fraa: pop= =EN 44404itir. 1.4 r. 3L ' t • b l' .t" 11 .Vg\!' . . :. ••a, ,r` , ) Ir V I i w i q• 1 ,,A1.__/- - (10.)-1 'ii lartagiArdtr7i.47--- _------ V.. eft( :i ki I .05. , iiiik !lit 1 hr.-, 00 —- .I._ ,- - -t i r I. 4111111;11 ittOt •- • - . A A. Ili 1 , I ... •-•i..$2=''d lia tilt ttlft dij at, tivxil w . . (041, ... .1._ L L L • Your -: OCOPYRIGHT.1994 Builderfor Dye ARTLSTS CONCEPT ONLY. ROTTLUND THE ROTTLUND COMPA.NY.NC CCOPYIUGHT 1994 SEE BUIIDER FOR ACTUAL DETAILS ON ALL FLOOR PLANS AND EIEVATIONS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE 1ANDSC.APING AND PLANS. ROTTLUND COMPAN ,INC COPYRIGHT DiTRLNGE.MENM TM T COL1D RELN LEGAL PROSECLTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW f=1,EQUAL HOUSING HOMES _ L=I OPPORTUNITY • • .. rDINE ] IE O DINING 1� KITCHEN r THE ASPEN f'r °«/1 // 7: , at MISSION HILLS - LIVING ROOM 1 GARAGE /, <!--- 1/ jin. ...,.....„„, J. MAIN LEVEL aulm.mmnr BEDROOM CD ): H0,,............... , ; OPEN - BELOW O am' 21 MASTER BEDROOM -I 0 r UPPER LEVEL 1 - Your 1 CCOPYRIGHT,1994 Builder, orLife ARTISTS CONCEPT ONLY. ROTTLUND THE ROT LUNO COMPANY,LSC.C COPYRIGHT 1994 SEE BUILDER FOR ACTUAL DETAILS ON ALL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE LANDSCAPING AND PLANS.1 ROTTLUND CONCPACOPYRIGHT COULD RESULT LEGAL PROSECUTION UNDER FEDERAL COPYRIGHT EQUAL HOUSING HOM \ TM�OPPORTUNITY City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 12. Preliminary PUD applications will not be processed until the Highway 5 Corridor Study is approved by the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190 DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE ON 62.05 ACRES OF PROPERTY AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF WEST 86TH STREET; LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Joe Hautman 8551 Tigua Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff: This is a planned unit development consisting of single family units, multi family. The multi family is 4 plexes, 6, 8, 12 plexes. The single family is basically located along the northeast corner of the site... Block 4, which is highlighted in blue, contains 4plexes mainly and two 8plexes. Those units are single story and the remainder which is located south of West 86th Street are all two story units. There is a little over 7 acres along the southwest corner which is built for, or guided for neighborhood commercial. We've been working on this application approximately...One of the main issues when...appeared before the Planning Commission was the fact that the majority of the lots were 15,000 square feet lots. The applicant reduced the number of single family parcels from, originally we had 18 and now we have a total of 16 units so that it exceeds that 15,000 square foot minimum. In fact a majority of the parcels that abut the existing neighborhood are in the 20,000 square foot range. Another issue we have at this time was hard surface coverage. The applicant amended the plan to meet the required hard surface coverage. Parks were lacking. Park plan was lacking on the original plan. The applicant changed that and the plans now reflect a new park as well as sidewalks that connect future TH 101 throughout this subdivision and hopefully sometime in the future with Eden Prairie. The commercial portion and the type of uses within the commercial portion of this site has always been a concern and we would like to see the type of uses that would be there. However the plan, there aren't any plans at the present time. We tried to highlight some of the uses that could possibly go in there and we have met with the applicant and he seems to be in agreement with staff. One issue that still remains a problem is mass grading of the site. Currently the site has...especially the northern portion of the site and unfortunately with these plans, the applicant is mass grading the site. We are recommending that the applicant take a look at this site again and try and maintain the existing grade when designing units on it. Landscaping was lacking at the beginning. Now we have berming. We have additional landscaping than what was provided originally. The landscaping around the wetland is going to be native to the wetlands. Building elevations were lacking. That was provided again with the submittal. Overall the plan as a concept has come a long way and we are recommending approval of it. There is one issue that staff should point out. One of the reasons why we pulled the item off the agenda 2 weeks ago was because we 12 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 found out that this alignment does not accommodate any of the future Highway 101 alignments that were m prepared by Fred Hoisington. We asked the applicant to revise the plan and...Block 4 that is going to see the most change. Well with this design we accommodate Alternate #3 which was prepared by Fred Hoisington. This option results in moving 4 units. The commercial area is reduced from 9 acres to 7. A little over 7 acres. We're recommending approval of those plans with the condition that Alternative #3 is adopted as the official alignment for TH 101. If that alignment is not approved by Council, these plans would be null and void. With that we're recommending approval. As we pointed it out to the applicant and we told them that there are no guarantees which way the Council is going to vote and they decided that that was a chance they were going to take. So they are fully aware that the Council has adopted an official alignment...Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant, would you like to come forward and please state your name and your address. Jim Ostenson: My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with the Tandem Properties. We're located at 7808 Creekridge Circle in Bloomington. Also with me tonight is Dennis Marhula with Westwood Engineering, our engineer on the project. I really don't have anything to add to the staff report. Basically we worked through this plan over the last 3 to 5 months. We've worked with the Highway Department on 212. We've worked with Mr. Klingelhutz on the neighborhood commercial. We've worked with Fred Hoisington and the other people that are affected by TH 101. The neighbors to the east that are in single family and tried to work on just a number of issues that have affected this property. We have some other renditions, earlier renditions down here that would reflect the generation of changes...gone through that probably aren't necessarily to do right now but we're in agreement with the planning report. We understand what the concerns are with TH 101. I talked with Fred again today and if you see approval of this, we would continue to work with Fred on TH 101...preliminary plat Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions that we will have at this particular time? Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm curious as to whether any of the neighboring. Mayor Chmiel; Is there anyone here from the neighborhood wishing to address any of this at this particular time? I know that we have the Minutes of the meetings that we've had before and I see Al, you'd like to. Okay, if you would just move that Mission Hills down so we can see your smiling face. Thank you. Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. As you probably know part of this project is on some of my land. The rest of it is on Keith Parks' land who lives down in Kentucky. The concept plan for the commercial portion of this, and it's been brought up many times when we've discussed it and I think these people should understand why there is no actual concept plan on the commercial portion of this property. The fact is that Highway 101 has not been aligned and the location of it has not been aligned and I-Iighway 212 is looking like it could be the year 2000, if ever and to spend a lot of money drawing up a concept plan on something that you cannot see the future on, is an effort in futility as far as I'm concerned. I think I've agreed to what could go on that land as a commercial, neighborhood commercial and I know that if the mad is ever built and I come in for a project on that portion of the commercial property, that I'll still have to go through the Planning Commission and Council...everything that's going to go on there. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If none, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I guess I don't have any particular questions. I have some comments. Would you like to go through questions first? 13 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to hear some comments. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do it all in one shot? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Whatever your choice. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I realize this is a concept plan and I have this same problem with all of our concept plans. I would like to see more detail but I realize that that's time...I'm concerned about the TH 101 realignment. Are we putting the can before the horse? It is one of the issues that will be coming before the Planning Commission on January...? Paul Krauss: Yeah. We had a neighborhood meeting on...second neighborhood meeting. I think you're aware. Sharmin pointed out Fred's been doing a study on this. There are four alternative alignments starting with don't do anything. Kind of keep it where it is right now with moving it all the way over to the east...impact on this property. We expect to have that up before you, it should be up to the City Council by February. And we'll be asking you to basically amend, pick which one you want. I mean we'll make some recommendations. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation and the residents have some feelings about it but pick which one you want. Amend the comprehensive plan accordingly and officially map it which is the step we wouldn't take 4 years ago. So it really becomes cast in stone and then it's a matter of the long haul of lobbying MnDot... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, which is a concern in terms of could it currently handle this size of a development if it stayed the way it currently is for the next 5-10 years. Paul Krauss: Well, that gets into an area and maybe it would be appropriate for Roger to comment but I tend to get a little bit leery about holding a developer hostage...beyond their capabilities of doing anything about Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I agree. I have concerns about the mass grading. I'd really like to see the• developer work with the topography of the land. And then there was also the possibility of a chain link fence between this and Rice Lake Manor which. Mayor Chmiel: I was wondering if it had 1 foot of barb. Sharmin Al-Jaff: Those were requested by the neighbors and as a result. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I would have a problem with that if that came back. A big problem. Not only looking out for the existing neighborhood but also for the residents coming in living in the townhomes. Very happy to see affordable housing being addressed. I just wanted to comment I don't know if anyone else read the article about what went on at a City Council meeting up in Maple Grove a couple weeks ago where the residents were up in arms about affordable housing. I would hope that we don't see the same thing in our community. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm ready to go ahead with this until we look at the alignment of TH 101. I'd like to hear what the rest of the Council has to say. Councilman Mason: I think in concept it's good. I understand what Colleen is saying about not liking concept approvals but I think we have to start pushing people or showing people the direction we want them to take and this seems to be good direction. It seems to me that's quite a gamble to say well, I'll put all this time and effort into it and if, gee if they don't go with Highway 101, then we're going to get shot out of the water. I'm concerned about that but if they're not, I certainly won't. Acceptance of this as a conceptual plan won't be my 14 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 driving force between, or how Highway 101 should be aligned. I would hope that they would not assume that would be the case. But conceptually, I can tell that this has gone through a number of changes and it appears to be getting better each time. I also am concerned about mass grading. I would want that as one of the conditions on this. That's all for now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Did I understand you correctly that the realignment in effect causes the loss of one 4 unit building and 2 acres of the commercial? Paul Krauss: That's the worst case. Councilman Senn: But there's nothing proposed on the commercial so that's pretty open ended and if you lose one 4 unit building out of a project like this, it's hardly going to be the end of the earth correct? Okay. You know conceptually I don't have any real problems with it. I agree with Colleen and Mike on the grading issue though. I think that needs to really be looked at. I'd like to keep some of the hills and the topography there. Otherwise I guess what Colleen said. It's nice to see some of the price ranges here and the affordable housing coming in. I guess the only other thing I would like to just mention so it's mentioned up front is, as you do go down the road in any commercial...discussed there, personally I will oppose any gas convenience on that site at all. I mean you have 5 within one mile of there now and I don't consider that to be a needed neighborhood service in this particular case. That's my own personal feeling. Paul Krauss: No it's not, the question I would want to pose to you though is, I don't happen to take issue with that at all but it's long been kind of one of the concerns filed away to bring up to the Council at some point. I haven't had a chance to. There's actually 3 other commercial corners around there too. They are on the comp plan. They've been in the TH 101 study before that but to be honest, we've never given a heck of a lot of thought as to how that whole interchange is going to work. And maybe that's something we ought to be taking a look at. To the same extent that we kind of set the die for how downtown's going to develop. There's a lot of space for commercial development. I'll bet you it's about 60 to 80 acres... Councilman Senn: Maybe that should be part of what we look at in relationship to the realignment. Paul Krauss: Yeah, it can certainly be tacked on that. Some kind of a land use program. Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I mean again that's not before us but I agree. It's something I'd really like to see dealt with up front rather than down the road. That's it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this by repeating but I just, Peter Olin who gets very sensitive about using the existing landforms on development now and I agree with the Council. That's a priority. Let's start using existing landforms. I get really, I can almost sit back and just stamp these because we, as a Council discuss the MUSA line and how we're running out of developable space and how much we need it and we discussed affordable housing. We never really defined it. We don't have it zoned. We haven't really said what is our need and let's...so we keep saying, well this is affordable housing. Well I'd like you to define that. This is kind of nice stuff here. I'm still worried about density. We move the MUSA line and every single project that has come before me since the MUSA line was moved, in the 3 years I've been on Council, have maximized 15 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 density. We call it PUD or standard subdivision, it doesn't matter. But it just masses come in and nobody's doing anything with low density. I mean nobody's coming in with this land and building any attractive low density. And the first comment that comes up is, well if we approve Galpin and TH 5, what are we going to do with all the traffic. I don't know. Well it's sure going to need a stop sign but we don't know if we're going to get it. Here we've got a windy, curvy road and we're going to dump how many units on ii 100 and some units. Incredible amounts of housing or vehicles and cars and traffic and city service drains without the, but we're not thinking to the future of the infrastructure. We're sort of building and then we react and build and react and put up more stop lights. I can't get through downtown anymore and they said they'd time them so I could get from A to B but I go from one red light to another red. I don't think the solution of this city is to keep bringing in high density housing and then put in stop lights and try to react to the masses of people we're bringing in. So I guess, I don't have any problem with this but I hope we never move the MUSA line again and that's where I'm going to take my stand and say, I'm going to vote no, no, no and hope we get a little less density in the rest of the city because moving the MUSA line, all of these are good projects with good people. Boy oh boy. This isn't the city I'd like to live in. I guess I like my wider open spaces. Not to diminish affordable housing. I think that's, there could be well planned and well thought out in our process here but okay. The grading. The only thing I would add to this, and I'd like to see the same thing we did to Terry Forbord on the Song property. West 86th Street's going to be a major connector. Wide street. A lot of houses. Cul-de-sacs coming in. I think we ought to go along with the boulevard trees and the street lighting on that street. I'd like to see that added as a condition when it comes back. That there be street lights and boulevard trees on West 86th Street. And now that you've allowed me to editorialize, that's all I've got. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you and good night. Okay. Paul, let me ask a question when we get these conceptual plans. I noted that there's no PE signatures on any of these. Is it normally not required even though it's a concept plan that should be on these plans themselves? And an architectural. Paul Krauss: We really, I mean I know that you raise that point repeatedly with the formal submittals and we've been trying to do that. On a concept it's so touchy feely and we've been working with their engineers on it. They clearly have those people on board. But we haven't asked them to verify the documents in terms of... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So the next shot that comes at us, it will have them on there at that particular time? Paul Krauss: Yeah. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too had just a little bit of concerns regarding TH 101. Will that have capacity enough to carry the volume that will be coming off of TH 212 as well as proceeding on 212 plus all the additional traffic that's going to be coming from developments within that particular area. Is that going to be enough to carry that additional traffic? Paul Krauss: There has not been a traffic study done since the Eastern Carver County traffic...and what that said is clearly this thing had to be upgraded concurrently with Highway 212. In the short term I can't tell you definitely one way or the other except to shoot from the hip. I mean we've already upgraded half of this road. It has a good intersection with Highway 5. I don't know if the analogy's an appropriate one but you know it's probably not any worse than Highway 101 is north of Highway 5, which is not to say it's great. And it certainly is sufficient in some safety respects. Again, this is a State Highway. You know the State of Florida has a concurrency requirement that says nothing happens until everything's in place and it's not a taking to do that. But where we have developers, for example we have the Terry Forbord, Lundgren is looking at the Rogers- Dolejsi piece south of here which is 114 units. Single family homes. That will add 10 trips per home. We are 16 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 working with them to make them pay towards upgrading Lyman Blvd and internal streets and to upgrade the utility system but we're simply not in the position to intervene for the State and say you've got to upgrade a state highway. We can make them put in safety related improvements. Turn lanes and that kind of thing and we certainly will. We'll do that here too but there's a bigger issue at stake there when we're trying to move MnDot off of dead center. Councilman Senn: That's like trying to move the Rock of Gibralter. Mayor Chmiel: That's a chore. Just a chore. Okay I guess with that I guess I don't have any other questions. Other than the fact of the grading as well, and I guess I see that as a concern with that to minimize mass grading of that particular site. We always, when we go to PUD's, I want to make clarifications. What is the city really getting for this as well. I want to know just exactly that part of it. But other than that I guess I don't have any other questions at this time. Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: I have a question if I could. Paul, how does this relate back, and I know we have the alignment problem effectively with TH 101 but is there anyway that that trail configuration can be worked into this along Highway 101 so it's dealt with...or at least accommodated regardless of how TH 101 in effect gets configured. I mean if I'm understanding this right, we're probably not going to take final action on this until we do on TH 101 so shouldn't we just stick it in as a condition that we're going to require the trail along TH 101, whatever the configuration may be. Paul Krauss: That may well be appropriate and you can certainly put in a temporary trail...You know the north end of this, it still doesn't touch on the city trail system...but it's not that far away. Councilman Senn: It's not that far off from it and it seems to me that you could come up with probably a fairly reasonable trail path that would stand at least a little chance, or very little chance of changing from what I've seen on the plans, correct? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: I had that as item number 26. Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see that added. The only other thing that I forgot about, and I'm not sure whether this is appropriate for the developer or for the city but it ended up to be kind of interesting discussion last week with 3 city residents that currently rent in the city. They're single parent households and they work in industries in Chanhassen and the issue of affordable housing came up and I kind of said, well I think it's corning. You know and the responses were real interesting. How do we know? And stuff and I'm not sure whether it's something we should look at the developers to do or if it's something the city should do but I would certainly like it to be a consideration now as we're proceeding with a couple of these projects to set up some type of vehicle, especially if you go into our industry such as Rosemount and other places like that and actually notify the people that this housing's available. The rates it's available at and maybe even go so far as to run it out and show them, hey. This means like a $500.00 a month payment which everybody paying rent more than that. Really I guess promoting it but going beyond general, or I'm going to say normal marketing modes. But I think that's something that could end up being really a win-win for both the developers and the city and maybe - it's something joint. I don't know but I think. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's something that Mike had brought up some time ago as well. And I think that's something that could be looked at to see. A question that I was going to have is, what is the, what are going to be the costs of these specific units? Do you have any idea? I know that Centex has indicated their's 17 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 and your's is probably going to be $5,000.00 less. No, I'm just. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it said 70 to 80 in the report. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it did say in there but is that still what you're really looking at? Jim Ostenson: Yes, that's the price range. We actually have three different price units and unfortunately this item got on the agenda a little earlier than we thought and the fellow from Rottlund's not here. We have more of a traditional townhouse that's on this plan in several different places that would be approximately $100,000.00. We have the villa which would be the 70's and the 80's. And then we have a rambler unit which is really designed for empty nesters and we have a one level unit that would be, I think this is about 5100,000.00 also. Councilman Senn: Yeah, it said 80 to 90 in here. Jim Ostenson: There are really 3 different multi family options on this site. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Paul. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the HRA had authorized Fred Hoisington to do some work with the major employers in town to do some survey work to find out what the marketing need is, what the desire is to live in the city and he's in the process of doing that now. And it's been talked about from time to time to see whether or not there are ways in which the city could intervene and assist in terms of possibly down payment assistance programs or something like that. We think that a lot of people can afford to be in housing like this but some people couldn't afford...to get into it. If there's some way to defray some of that or absorb some of that and there's some programs potentially out there that do that. That that would help. And I believe we've got our financial counsel looking into the possibility of what's just out there. Councilman Senn: With MHFA and all that. Paul Krauss: Yeah. With the State, right. The State programs. Councilman Senn: Yeah, the State... Mayor Chmiel: I think we're, Michael did bring that up at the HRA at that particular time and they are in pursuit of that. Okay with that, any other discussion? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion of the recommendation for. Councilman Mason: I move approval of the conceptual planned unit development east of Highway 101, north and south of West 86th Street with the concerns noted by Council about mass grading and the boulevard and the lighting. Councilman Senn: And the trail. Councilman Mason: And the trail. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and you did indicate the PUD 93-4? 18 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 Councilman ?s,-iason: If not... Councilman Senn: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve conceptual PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, revised September 4 and November 12, 1993, with the understanding that the developer will address the mass grading issue, and subject to the following conditions: 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%. 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 19 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 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. 7 �� 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. 10. The applicant shall include a drain-tile 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 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. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission. A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 17. 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. 20 City Council Meeting - November 22, 1993 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. 18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site exceeds the permitted 30%. 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 ad__dressed but may result in a need for additional open space. ' , I9. 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. 20. The applicant should hold a neighborhood meeting with area residents to gain a full understanding of their concerns and attempt to address them. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hoped 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. v22. 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 would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 23. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface coverage may not exceed 30% of site area. Eliminate the driveway access located west of"A" Street as shown in attachment ". ✓ S Street light and boulevard trees be installed along the collector street in the development. A trail be installed along Highway 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE 1994 POLICE CONTRACT. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'll comment briefly on the packet of materials included in the Council packet. The first of month when I originally prepared the memo recommending an additional 3 hours of police contract time. The Council and staff budget meetings have not been completed. Because of the present uncertainty regarding what budget cuts may be necessary, I'm changing my recommendation regarding the police contracts slightly. What staff is now recommending to you is that you authorize a police contract with Carver 21 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: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: May 26, 1994 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18-57. Streets, by amending sections (n) and (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16, and Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading. BACKGROUND Staff published this ordinance amendment for the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting, staff noted that the City Attorney had suggested additional changes which required staff to republish the requested amendment as required by City Code. On May 18, 1994, staff requested that the Planning Commission discuss the requested ordinance amendment and give staff some direction and feedback on any changes or issues they wanted to see addressed. The two issues that were raised were the impact of this amendment on affordable housing and hard surface coverage. The private street ordinance will have a positive impact on both the hard surface coverage as well as affordable housing because the streets are built narrower. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The current private driveway ordinance sets standards for the Residential Single Family District only. A number of the high density residential as well as non-residential use proposals that have been submitted to the city, have been utilizing private driveways. The zoning and subdivision ordinances do not have standards to measure these types of private driveways. Staff is proposing = an amendment to the subdivision ordinance, Section 18-57 (n) and (o) and to the zoning ordinance, Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows: (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 2 urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57 (o). (o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private driveway street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private eway street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. If the use of a private driveway street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The common sections of a private driveway street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the driveway street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. 2. Private driveways streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 3 Parking on the islfiveyy private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway private street shall be prohibited. 3. Private driveways streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C). 4. Theey private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a 10 year storm should be included •- -- - --- . .- _ - .. - city engineer. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. 5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private driveway street intersects the public right-of-way. 6. Theme private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. 7. Thevtaway private street in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. 8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. ARTICLE XXIV. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1101. Driveway and private street setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office and multiple family districts. Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 4 The following controls driveway and private street setbacks and widths in the business, industrial, office, and multiple-family districts: (1) The width shall be measured between driveway or private street edges and shall be as follows: Type of Driveway or private street District Maximum Minimum One-way traffic Business 20 22 4-2 20 Two-way traffic Business 44 36 24 26 One-way traffic Industrial 24 22 4-2 20 Two-way traffic Industrial 39 36 24 26 One-way traffic Office 24 22 4-2 20 Two-way traffic Office 34 36 24 26 One-way traffic multifamily 22 20 Two-way traffic multifamily 36 24 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The City Council recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment Sec. 18-57(n) and — (o) Design standards for private driveway streets, and the zoning ordinance Article XXIV. Off- Street Parking and Loading to read as follows: (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57 (o). (o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private dFivewy, street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 5 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private-dfiveway street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. If the use of a privately street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: 1. The common sections of a private driveway street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the driveway street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. 2. Private driveway) streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. Parking on the driveway private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the driveway private street shall be prohibited. 3. Private driveways streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 429.101, Subd. 1(C). 4. The private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a 10 year storm should be included - - - -• - -- • - - -• -- - - - - city engineer. In the R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 6 5. Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private driveway street intersects the public right-of-way. 6. The-dry private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. 7. The d eway private street in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts, must be located within a strip of property at least thirty (30) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a thirty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least forty (40) feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a forty foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefitted and impacted parcels. 8. Maintenance and repair of utilities located within the private driveway easement shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. ARTICLE XXIV. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1101. Driveway and private street setbacks and widths in business, industrial, office and multiple family districts. - The following controls driveway and private street setbacks and widths in the business, industrial, office, and multiple-family districts: (1) The width shall be measured between driveway or private street edges and shall be as follows: - Type of Driveway or private street District Maximum Minimum One-way traffic Business 30 22 42- 20 Two-way traffic Business 39 36 24 26 One-way traffic Industrial -20 22 4-2- 20 Two-way traffic Industrial 39 36 -4 26 One-way traffic Office 20 22 44 20 Two-way traffic Office 39 36 24 26 One-way traffic multifamily 22 20 Two-way traffic multifamily 36 24 Planning Commission — May 26, 1994 Page 7 — ATTACHMENT: 1. Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 1994. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we said, we make recommendations to the City Council. They make the final decisions. Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, except for one as I recall, but you can get those from City Hall. There's nothing wrong with calling and lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this again. The directions are quite clear from the other commissioners so I'd like to ask for a motion please. Steve Johnston: Could I address the commission please? Scott: No. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table preliminary plat, Case # 93-11. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93-11 for Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this as soon as possible so it looks like June 1st. Okay, thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18-57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (0.) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVLNG R4, R8, R12, AND R16 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item and stated that because of a change, the public hearing would have to be re-published. Scott: That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinances. I think if we're talking about an R-12 or an R-16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know, 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 dueling ordinances so. We need to see how that's going to play. Maybe we have to do something with, you know if it has to do with a public safety issue, obviously we have to take that into strong consideration but then if it impacts the ability of someone building an R- 16, that may preclude someone's ability to do that so, just as long as we don't, I personally don't want to have to deal with that when we're considering a large development, which is probably what we're going to be getting when we're looking at this kind of zoning. So anyway. Al-Jaff: I might add, for instance the development you were looking at before this one. Kings Road was going to be 31 feet curb to curb. So in most cases it will be below the 36 that is recommended or that is requested by the Fire Department. But again I have been looking at the ordinance before and I asked for their input and that's what they requested. And that's what their reasoning is behind it. Scott: Okay. So you're just looking for comments. Al-Jaff: Input and comments. Scott: And then we'll have another public hearing. Ledvina: This is the, you know the forest through the trees. I mean talk about all these things creep up and when you look at a multi-family and all of a sudden you're going to require a minimum of 24 feet. You've started to build a barrier to affordable housing again. I mean these are little things and maybe I'm off base but I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at the overall goals and see what's happening here. I don't know that that makes any difference but I don't know. I think it's kind of a creep process. Al-Jaff: So you would rather see the private driveways narrower? Ledvina: Narrower, I don't know. And getting back to Joe's issue with impervious surface. I mean that's going to work into it too. I mean you get these things fighting against each other. You're trying to get the densities up to make things affordable. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out. I don't know how it all fits together but just a thought. Al-Jaff: Well... Ledvina: Than having a full street, yeah. Right. Nutting: Is this guidance or confusion? 49 _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 —1 Scott: I think you get some of both from us. More of the later than the former sometimes. Ledvina: This is a public hearing though, right? Scott: Not yet. It wasn't properly noticed so we'll have to continue it. To be continued. Conrad: Just philosophically, I'm sort of not listening so bear with me. Philosophically the standards for a private street, why are they different than a public street? Al-Jaff: We would not be maintaining a private street. It would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Whoever owns that strip. It will be dedicated to... Conrad: So in terms of construction requirements, it would still be the same for a public versus private? You've changed some tonnage requirements. Al-Jaff: Correct. What's required. We still want to have emergency vehicles to be able to access the roads but we won't be maintaining them. Conrad: So this is a, there's some environmental impact here. We can allow a private street that may not, they can come in at a smaller size with a private street so that's one thing this does. What else? Al-Jaff: It reduces hard surface coverage. In comparison to a full fledged city street, which requires 60 feet typically. Aanenson: We see them a lot when we've done condominium or apartment projects and you see them...Again what it goes back to, as Sharmin indicated, the impervious surface. What we're doing right now is trying to legitimize what we've been doing. As the attorney indicated we're promoting private driveways for whatever reason but certainly not, there's really more streets when you're serving more than one person. And we're going to...and we usually talking about land functions and things to do that in and it does address...wetland plan. Our tree canopy, which I think is really on the cutting edge of tree preservation. And now with this private drive. Again, it's tools to preserve landforms. Conrad: Yeah, I sure like some of the tools that are in place or real close. It sure makes some decision making a lot easier than willy nilly. You know it's nifty stuff. Ledvina: Does that mean that sewer lines don't go as far and you have longer laterals and things like that? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: Not necessarily. Ledvina: I mean because your city improvement is less. I mean it's not going all the way kind of thing. Al-Jaff: It would be than the private street's. Ledvina: Well I mean just for example White Oak Lane. The one that we had today. This evening where you're actually truncating the street 100 feet or something like that. Well, that means 100 feet less sewer and are those laterals coming in longer or does the? Aanenson: Actually it came to a Y and they all separated. Under that circumstances it would come just like a big cul-de-sac and they all have their connections off that. I think you have to look at it on an individual basis depending on where the driveway is split off and... Ledvina: But that means longer laterals right? Aanenson: Again, it depends on how the lots lay out. I mean it may have a continuous... Ledvina: I don't know that that's necessarily bad but. Aanenson: That's a legitimate concern but I think it would depend on the length of the common driveway. It's just like if we looked at townhouse project...and this one I don't think so. When we were looking at the Oaks on Minnewashta, I think the laterals... Conrad: So do we recommend private streets? Are we recommending or is the developer requesting? It can be either? Aanenson: On this one he. Conrad: Well, in our ordinance. In the ordinance -. it staff saying, we don't want to maintain that or build that. Al-Jaff: Well if he's going to meet our standards, therefore we don't want to maintain them. Aanenson: Are you asking who's asks for them? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Normally that's the only way to subdivide the property, we would recommend 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 that. Or if for environmental reasons it makes more sense. That would be two options. This engineer wasn't even aware that was an option so we showed him and he said well hey, that makes sense. Great, I'll...can save more trees. Ledvina: Are we compromising our infrastruction though for people to gain access to their houses? By doing this. Aanenson: As far as, do they have an association to maintain that segment? Ledvina: Right. Aanenson: Well that's a trade off. It's a trade off. Ledvina: I understand you know but. Conrad: I think it's a nice tool. It gives us some liberty to do some things. Ledvina: Sometimes it's going to work really well. Sometimes if it's misapplied, it's not going to work. Aanenson: I think we've got...where we apply it and certainly for the right reasons. Not just because well, the developer wants to do it. There's got to be a specific reason. Scott: And then what happens? Let's say you've got some sort of a homeowners association or something that has, I'm thinking about like a R-16 and then for some reason the association does not take care of it or something like that. Is the city going to end up with the responsibility? It's just like henceforth and whatever. If your association doesn't handle it, get your shovel out. I just don't want to see stuff coming back where the city's going to have to then maintain something that's not easy to maintain. Al-Jaff: The intention is also to have all those agreements with that association recorded with the County. And Kate, I don't know how much weight that carries. Aanenson: No, but that's what we do right now when we get those agreements... Scott: Okay. Do you guys have any questions or comments? Ledvina: No. Aanenson: I guess we wanted to have this...because the next 2 weeks agenda is...hopefully 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we flushed out a lot of issues tonight, we though we tabled quite a few of them... Al-Jaff: So the two issues that you definitely want us to look at is, impact on affordable housing as hard surface coverage? Ledvina: Well, just some thoughts. I mean I don't need a science project or whatever, or a research study but what I'm thinking about is, and kind of working off of your comment is that, we've got things that we're trying to accomplish goals and are we putting hurdles in the way of ourselves without even knowing it I guess. You know a lot of times we look at things. We work hard to do it right but we don't see it in light of the big picture and that's, I don't know. Scott: Do we need to do anything? I mean do we have to vote to continue? Okay, it's continued. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: ...Just a reminder that I need somebody from the Planning Commission to attend the charette on the 26th. I think Nancy was going to try to. Ledvina: What charette? Aanenson: That's on the Bluff Creek. Ledvina: What's the? Aanenson: It's from 9:00 to noon. Possibly 12:30 down in the senior center with Bill Morrish and we're going to try to... Ledvina: Those day meetings are really tough. I'd really like to go but I just can't sneak away. Aanenson: Well after we. Nutting: Didn't Nancy say something about a charette? 53 • y� p v. ��,yy� yam. JS!7'� 'Rp.c�' 41 T •T � SF ;- tc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Matt Ledvina and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any additional comments or questions for staff? Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission on Minnewashta Landings landscaping? Hearing none, would the applicant like to make any presentation at this time? Ken Durr: Not unless... Scott: It's totally up to you. Okay, if we have some questions, we'll ask. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Are there any members of the general public who would like to speak about the Minnewashta Landings project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Ladd? Conrad: None. Scott: Matt? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: I think it's fine. Scott: I agree. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the — landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition on one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition of one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — PUBLIC HEARING: DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT FOR A SIGN PLAN REVIEW FOR ABRA AND GOODYEAR LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AT 40 AND 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST. Public Present: Name Address Joe Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments from Planning Commissioners. Can I have a motion to, or — excuse me. Does the applicant wish to. Joe Harding: Yes please. — Scott: Please state your name and your address. Joe Harding: My name is Joe Harding. I'm with Dolphin Development, a construction company and our address is 530 West 79th Street here in Chanhassen. We've been there about 13 years now. We have been working with the staff on this...so they sent me to kind — 2 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 of represent the...That is rather than have someone here from Goodyear and someone here from Abra and their respective sign companies, they said why don't you go and...we've been working with the staff for some time on these signs and there's only one exception to, a little bit of a surprise to me which I saw in the staff report, and that was a brick pedestal for the directional signs. We agree to everything else and then in your recommendations that the staff has made, I believe it's number 8. It reads that brick shall be used to cover the metal holes. It is not our intent to use brick for the bases for the...and in Chanhassen there's not been a whole lot of precedent for these directional signs. In fact there's not many around. The closest example I could give you is about a stone's throw from here over at Chanhassen Bank. What they have and what they've done is the same thing we intend to do. Is use the same metal that you see in the buildings. That is anodized bronze metal for both the sign framing and for the posts. These signs, as with the bank, are functional. They do their job. Their primary purpose is to direct people and they're trying not to make an architectural statement. We also think that because each one of these 3 signs, the small directional now, are in a landscaped area to start with, that by putting a 16 inch square, and that's how big it would be for the pedestal...kind of a look out place coming out of the landscaping area. So I'm here tonight on that issue alone. The rest of the recommendations I agree with staff on and will ask for your consideration in allowing us to go ahead and do these directional signs with a metal anodized post. A bronze anodized. The same that's predominate in both the Abra and the Goodyear buildings. That is in their emollients. In their standing seam metal and their capping work you have cappings on the tops of buildings. And if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best... Scott: Good, any questions for the applicant? Okay, good. Thank you. Just a question for staff. Is that, the brick around the base, is that a requirement from the new sign ordinance or? Al-Jaff: The conditional use permit, we wanted the signage to remain consistent throughout the site. It was something that was brought up with other plans that have been before you recently and we just felt it was the direction you wanted us to move in. Scott: Okay, good. Nutting: Have we looked at directional signs or is it really more the monument signs that we've been looking at? Scott: Well I know that we came after the Planning Commission saw this so that's why I'm kind of, conditional use automotive in a business highway? Al-Jaff: Correct. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay. Ledvina: Well excuse me Mr. Chair. Just a question for the applicant. Do you intend to provide any landscaping around these signs? Joe Harding: Sharmin, would you put it back up there. Ledvina: Or are they in landscaped areas? Joe Harding: Yes, they are in landscaped areas. In the case of the Goodyear, only one sign. None of these by the way are illuminated. They're only one sided. Ledvina: Okay. These are not illuminated. Joe Harding: Not illuminated. Ledvina: Okay. Because let me clarify that because on the drawings that I have, they do indicate that they are illuminated. Joe Harding: Yes, that's been changed. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Joe Harding: In the case of number 1, the Goodyear sign. The one and only Goodyear sign which will say Goodyear entrance, that is right next to and underneath a maple. In the case of number 2, I believe there's also and I don't have mine here with me. Maybe I do. I think it's a flowering crab up there. Then over number 3, it's between two other trees in a grassy area. So that, yes they are in a landscaped area and to have this 16 inch square coming out of there just doesn't seem to fit. Does that answer your question? Ledvina: Well I was wondering if there was any specific treatment for the sign itself or right around the pole like shrubs or something like that? Joe Harding: No, no. This was a new surprise to me in any event so I haven't thought of that one. If there was a post there only, similarly. For grass cutting purposes, for maintenance of what is there, we wouldn't have accents or annuals or anything planted. Ledvina: Thank you. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Joe Harding: I did take the liberty of making this up, which will show the 16 inch square and the sign on top with the 4 x 1 sign and show the proportions somewhat. This is from the front. This is from the side, because this is a 5 inch wide sign. It is a little odd looking. Scott: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody from the general public would like to speak on this issue, please step forward. Give your name and your address and tell us what you'd like to say. Tom Kotsonas: Yes, my name is Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne, which lies just south of Lake Drive East behind the buildings. I guess I'd mainly like to emphasize our position and it sounds from conversations, we're worried about illumination from the side of the building. From that side. Also I think in genera :•ie signs, tents, banners, whatever. I'm not sure what they're about to do but be considered what it does to the effect of driving down Highway 5. The buildings as they stand now with the brick, which is close to the color behind your, at least in my memory, the building's do have some nice appeal to them now but like I said, we're not real excited about them being there but they're there and they do look nice and I would urge you to keep the signs and various types of things very moderate and very discreet manner, keeping in mind the residents that live along behind there. And what we have to look at on a daily basis. Not once in a while but on a daily basis so we're worried about illumination and it sounds like, from what I've...there will be none. I don't know if I'm sure about that but it sounds that way...As far as the posts go, it seems to me that brick posts, that blend with the building, would look much nicer than metal posts sticking up out of the ground. In deference to the developer here. I think they blend with the building and they would, that type of a...in the ground would blend also with the landscaping and the colors. Just the natural colors around there...And again, it's something that we're going to have to look at all the time so I want you to take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you sir. Joe Harding: Could I comment? Maybe I can answer some of his questions. Scott: Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Joe Harding: Sharmin, if you could put up that same one... 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Al-Jaff: Which one? Joe Harding: That one you had up last time. When we first submitted our sign plan there was all the signs on the south end of the Abra building, which is the building to the right in this drawing. It was an illuminated. We did ask for illumination and we have since retracted that and said, no. We will not illuminate it. You also see that there is a...the lot, if you will between the residences across East Lake Drive. Lake Drive East and we also talked with Goodyear and they decided to move, in our plan we have submitted their signage to the west side of the building. So the only thing that really faces the residential area is the south wall signage of Abra's. The directional signage, which are 4 feet high, aside from the wood that stands between the residential area and us now...development of that third lot but those 4 foot signs, which are not illuminated, will not be seen at all from the residential area. Because of the berm and the trees on there. So I think that helps you understand that there won't be any illumination on the residential side of this. What Sharmin has written up and that's what we've agreed to. Tom Kotsonas: The first sign to the west, which is the western side, does affect because there is going to come a time when that third lot and those trees that are there are going to be gone, from my understanding, when they develop that third lot which is just north of the water. Whatever you call it. Pond. Man made pond that's there now. The sign furthest to the west is going to affect those houses that are at an angle. Joe Harding: When you say furthest to the left, you mean. Tom Kotsonas: That one right there. Joe Harding: That is a 4 foot high sign. That's a 4 foot. That's a 4 foot. Tom Kotsonas: With those two you're getting close to DataSery and you have fewer houses because you have the park directly south of those two signs. The sign to the left or the one furthest to the west. The first one over here is the one that the neighborhood is going to see more than anything else. Joe Harding: If you've been over there you know that this drops down. You won't even see these signs. You can't see them from the road. Tom Kotsonas: ...from Chan Estates. I'm just stating that I'm there every day so I mean I know what I look at and I know what I see and in the winter time I come down Highway 5 so I'm going to see, and so are my neighbors, are going to see whatever stands up there. We're asking for is the most subtle...signage that we can possibly... 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay, seeing none. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron, comments. Nutting: I don't have a lot of familiarity with this project. Pre-dating me. It seems to me the main issue is just the condition number 8 and the brick versus the poles. They're 4 foot in height. Al-Jaff: ...5 feet total. Nutting: 5 feet total? Al-Jaff: Including the sign area. Nutting: Okay. And the legs below the sign. Al-Jaff: Are 4 feet. Nutting: Okay. We still have the sign ordinance too which needs to be addressed but I guess I would, it may seem a little cumbersome but I think there's a consistency issue that we've been addressing with this and I think I would opt for consistency with staff's recommendation on the brick. Other than that I don't have anything else. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I share those same feelings. I think about the sign over on Highway 7 and 41 for the Super America right there and they have a larger pedestal type of sign and then they do have a directional sign that's a monument sign. It's a low ground sign. It's a brick and it's done very nicely and I don't know. First of all I don't know why a directional sign has to be 5 feet tall but I guess that's up to the applicant. Because all people need to do is see it from 50 feet or 100 feet and turn in. You aren't attracting any people from any other locations and I look at them, the signage at Super America and it's very effective and it's very attractive. Maybe if the applicant, I would support the requirement or the staff recommendation for brick and I guess I would suggest that the applicant take a look at some different possibilities in terms of height. I think with scale you can make that work out pretty nicely. So again, I - support staff recommendation. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Ladd. Conrad: That's an interesting debate. You know do you make the signage, if you block it in, you block it in. Do you make a sign that could be not real obtrusive? Do you make it an object? And that's what blocking is. Whereas right now it's not very massive and therefore — it's a debate. I don't think the applicant's persuaded me right now. It's hard to tell you know. In that case, if I can't tell, I'll go with the staff's opinion. I think you may have a chance to talk to City Council on that one. I think what I've heard is very rational what the — rest of the commissioners are saying and I think the staff is trying to lead a consistency here. Yet I'm looking at substanance. I'd rather not make a sign bigger or more obtrusive than you need to and what I see is not very obtrusive so, but for lack of having too many alternatives — here or a real good definition of what it looks like, I'll go with the staff report. The only thing that I think the signage requirements are good. I like what the applicant is doing. I like how staff's worked with them. I think the Goodyear signage is just fine. The Abra — signage is just not very good. Now we haven't measured the square, and I'm looking specifically on the north elevation. I think the south elevation is okay. The north elevation is just super ugly, and I guess we're kind of, you know if they meet the 80 square feet. Now — that is the absolute. It's 80 square feet per side based on, what's the rule? Is it based on street frontage or is it based on. Ledvina: It's 15% of the wall area. Al-Jaff: They are below the 15% wall area. And they are at or actually below the 80 square feet. Conrad: 80 per, on that side? Al-Jaff: Correct. Per street frontage. _ Conrad: 80 would be, 3 feet x 30. Nutting: But are you saying per sign or per. Al-Jaff: Per sign. Per frontage. — Conrad: Side of building. Al-Jaff: Per side of the building. 8 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Conrad: Now I'm looking at that garage door you know on the left side, and specifically the north elevation. You know, a lot of this stuff goes right by me but when something just doesn't look very good, it's just like a red flag and that's just not a very attractive signage on that side of the building. You know I see a garage door down there. What's a garage door? 8 feet? 9 feet wide? Something like that and then I see this big A that's got to be at least, on the facia or whatever. That's 4 feet high at least. It's probably bigger than that so there's 40 feet there. I don't know, maybe they meet it. And you're, I think your staff report says you haven't really measured that yet. Didn't I read that? Maybe I'm making that up. Al-Jaff: Okay, I measured it. Conrad: You did? Okay, and it meets the standard. Al-Jaff: It meets the 80 square feet. Conrad: Okay. Al-Jaff: This is a conditional use permit. You could regulate the size of the sign. Per ordinance they meet the requirements. Conrad: What is the, the auto body and glass. What kind of sign is that? You know the Abra sign is fine on the left hand side but the auto body and glass, is that a back lit? What is that? Al-Jaff: That's what they would be permitted. Back lit. Conrad: What is it? Is it back lit? Joe Harding: It's back lit, and the correct name of the firm is Abra Auto Body and Glass. That's all part of their name of their company. Conrad: Yeah I see that in the south elevation. It looks real good. I like that. It's only when you take it out of the logo standpoint and you start spreading the word across the front it's, I don't know. Joe Harding: And as Sharmin said, this would all be in back lit and separate letters. Conrad: And what I'm seeing, you know the Auto Body and Glass is not even lined up with the Abra. It just looks like bad design. Maybe you're aligning it with the bottom of the circle of the Abra but it's just not very good. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Joe Harding: See the line above Abra Auto Body and Glass? Conrad: Yeah. Joe Harding: That's where the standing seam extends backwards. Now we could drop lower, _ the Abra with the circle to get it in line with that. Conrad: I'm the last one on this Planning Commission that even picks on this. But this _ really bothers me. This just is not, you know I'd rather, you know signage is a big deal in town. We're spending a lot of time on it and this just doesn't, I'm just not very comfortable with what you're presenting to me. And boy, I don't want to see this back, to tell you the — truth, but I sure want to send a clear message to the City Council. A clear message to the City Council that they'd better look at this when it comes in so they're happy with what it looks like. — Scott: Do you want to, Ladd as part of your motion, do you want to put a condition in with the position of the two elements there? — Conrad: You know Joe, I just hate getting into design issues. I just want good looks. We'll do something like that. Maybe I'll make the motion and I'll make up some words. — Scott: The floor is your's. Conrad: I just, boy. Scott: Yes Sharmin. Al-Jaff: You might say something similar to what's ont he north side. Conrad: The north side is good. You know. Nutting: You mean the south side. Conrad: Whatever the side is yeah. The south side is good. It's fme and Goodyear is fine. _ It just looks good. It fits. North side of Abra doesn't. Those are my comments. Scott: Do you have a motion to go along with those comments there? — Conrad: I hate making motions on stuff that I don't like to get involved in. Okay. I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the sign plans for Abra and — 10 _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions. And as per the staff report. We're going to change the wording on number 1. The monument sign, which will be on Highway 5 side. I don't care if it's perpendicular. You can orient it anyway you want but it's going to be on that side and that's the only change wordwise there in response to the applicant's request. Number 3. We'll change the 80 square feet per side. That's okay with me. Now. And all other conditions per the staff report I accept with condition number 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that faces, that's attached to the building that faces to the north so that we get a better idea of, well. Cut that comment there. That's what I want. A bettering rendering. A better vision for the City Council to review the merits of that sign. Ledvina: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with modifications. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of sign plans for Abra and Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions: 1. The monument sign which will be on the Highway 5 side, shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. 2. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 80 square feet. 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,size, materials and heights. 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 — 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. — 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that's attached to the building that faces to the north — All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM Alt AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT _ LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Bielski 8140 Pinewood Circle Andrew Richardson 8120 Pinewood Circle — Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Peter Knaegle 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina 55422 Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd. — Jean Rollins 2081 Timberwood Drive Joan Heinz 2071 Timberwood Drive Richard & Elizabeth Larsen 8141 Pinewood Circle — Craig Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Bob Generous and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. — Scott: Questions for staff. Conrad: It's a good staff report. I guess just philosophically, it's zoned agricultural estates. That's what it's zoned. What, and I didn't do my homework, what else is zoned A2 around there? Generous: Everything south of there basically. — 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Conrad: So is this an eating away at the A2 and basically saying well, there really isn't a A2 area other than Timberwood? Is that what really this is going to boil down to? Generous: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Generous: It's providing urban density for...2 1/2 acre minimum under A2. Scott: Okay. Would the applicant of their representative, do they wish to speak? Yes sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Peter Knaegle: My name is Peter Knaegle. I'm the engineer for the developer. My address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. With me tonight is Pat Minger who is the owner and developer of the property and also lives on the site. We're not prepared tonight to make a detailed presentation. A lot of the information...city staff and much of what staff said, we're in the process of making changes based on the recommendations of the staff report but we're here tonight basically to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or some of the neighbors may have. In fact because I'd just like to reiterate that we are in the process of making changes, we're going to be submitting them back to the staff in the next couple of days and they will be incorporating all the requested changes in the staff report in regards to ponding, shifting of the roads, larger cul-de-sacs, tree canopy plan. But every item will be addressed... Scott: Okay. And do you have a copy of our latest tree ordinance? Peter Knaegle: Yes I do. Scott: Okay, good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, please step forward. Identify yourself and give us your address and let us know what's on your mind. Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I'm the property owner directly west of this proposed development. The one where Dave and I have been talking about some essential ponding. Pat and I have been talking about this issue for over a year now. Since he first found out I was going to be buying it, he let me know that he had plans to develop this 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 so this is not a surprise to me. However I still have my concerns and I've shared those with Pat and we've been trying to work together to come up with a plan. There are some issues - though that I feel very strongly about and I want to put before the committee. One is the drive. Specifically...It's currently a very mature, classic element drive. It's surrounded by trees and you drive up in it, and it's this warm green tunnel which brings you to your home. It's a route from the busy city to the homestead and if those trees were taken, just for the sake of a 10 foot discrepancy to an ordinance, I think it would forever change the character that I drive through every day and that if this development does go through, which would cause the people to drive through. And you'd end up with just yet another new development with lots of space as you drove into it and nothing particularly interesting about it. So I think for the people that would be living there and for the people that do live there, I would ask that we really look at this 50 foot, to save the trees. My personal side, the second issue is the loss of privacy for myself and my family. Currently I'm surrounded by woods and most people make the comment that when they come out there, it's like you're living out in the middle of 50 acres. Can't believe you're in Chanhassen. And I can walk out of my house, go to my barn and don't have to worry about who's watching or don't have to worry about anything. It's a very peaceful, serene area. Any development there, no matter how careful the developers are, is going to change that forever for me and so that I ask that any plans, certainly protect whatever privacy they can by spacing. I know some people from this development around that with 2 1/2 acres are concerned and when I look at what their...back yards with trees in them and in their back yards they've got hundreds of yards and I'm looking at the 60 feet to a road that's going to be about 40 feet from my bedroom window. Pat is trying to work to make that less of an issue but it's still going to be within 100 feet, I don't think without really taking a lot away. That's going to change my privacy and I have concern about that. Conrad: Where's your house? Tim Dempsey: If you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisance, which I certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they come out but basically it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It would minimize the destruction of foliage between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It would cut down on just general nuisance traffic of people thinking that...someplace I can go out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 I think if I was a home buyer, that would enhance the home that I was looking at if I knew it wasn't going to be accessible. But the way the road goes, and the plan I gave Pat showed it somewhat different than I think the people in Timberwood Estates probably would object to the way I would like to see it. And that is I would like to see the road follow the current driveway and keep that bend away from coming so close to my house. That will keep the road traffic and the nuisance traffic the farthest away. Now it would have an effect on the number of lots, in fact the development ecause he's got some economics that he's got to deal with and I'm not, he doesn't make privy to his economics so I don't know what the break even point is here. But I could ce- ly prefer...suggested to him in my drawings, that the road follow the current drive and it woll'd also I think minimize some of the trees that the street would take anyway but of course the i:ouses are going to take some. That would keep the road and the traffic nuisance at least further away from me than it currently does now where people coming down that road you might see headlights and hearing noise that I don't hear now and that would put that further away. That's my comments. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Mark Bielski: Yes, my name is Mark Bielski. I live at 8140 Pinewood Circle and I guess I would have all of the same arguments for keeping the road where it is as the other gentleman did for keeping it...600 feet of property just to the left of the house which is going in on the other side of the driveway that's in red there. And I have all the same concerns about the traffic and the headlights and just privacy in general. And I know when we moved there, it was zoned agricultural. Now it's going to high density and I'd just like to know what is the criteria for changing. You know if somebody just comes to you and says, can I change the zoning? Do you just go ahead and do it or exactly what do you follow? Can I take my lot and make it high density? It's zoned agricultural. Aanenson: The City has a Comprehensive Plan that guides all the property...the property is guided for single family residential. And it's been that way since our comp plan was adopted in 1991. So this area was, it's currently zoned agricultural but it is guided. There's other areas of the city that don't have development on it and are guided. Mark Bielski: Can you explain what guided means? Aanenson: It's a comprehensive plan that's approved by the Met Council designating future land uses in the city. Okay, inside the urban service area there's designations for all the property inside the urban service area. When you've got sewer and water are available, given the ultimate land uses. Now right now people are still farming or under utilizing the property and then generally it's given an agricultural zone. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Mark Bielski: Okay. I guess my concern is number one, the loss of privacy. Cars. The width of the road that would access the site. I'd like to know if any of the trees along my property line are going to be taken out. And the development would infringe on my property at all. I know sometimes when you have a road that's fairly narrow you have to go beyond property lines to get the sewer and water put in. And if that was the case, I think that I'd probably lose most of the trees on my property line. Just simply because there just isn't enough room but you go right down the center of the existing center line of the road. Scott: Okay, excuse me sir. Dave, can you address that? Hempel: Sure. That is correct. A majority of the tree loss is not just from the street right- of-way it's actually for the utility construction that goes on and boulevard grading. The street construction usually falls within the parameters of the trenched excavation and with this plan here, the sewer elevation, in order to service this site, would require removing quite a few of the trees on that 50 foot corridor. Even with the special construction techniques. Trying to reduce the impact on there so. The tree loss is for the first approximately 300 feet I believe it is and then where the road bends to the south there, the remaining trees will be on the property line to the north...preservation easement in the back yards. Mark Bielski: The thing that really protects my lot from the density housing is that existing tree line. It's nothing beautiful but it's got some scrub oaks and it's got a few red oaks in it and it's got some box elder but they've been there enough, they're mature enough that it does provide a good buffer and I think if you put the utilities through, if you took those out, you'll just open that whole view to the south for the higher density housing and the road. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is in the staff report, you'll see that the staff recommended a landscaping plan along that side where the trees would be lost. Obviously they're not going to be the same size caliper that you have out there today but in time they will reforest or revegetate that area. Mark Bielski: But I think realistically those will be in 20 years or 25 years. Hempel: 5 to 10 years approximately. Mark Bielski: I haven't seen, I've been there for 5 years and I haven't seen a pine tree grow up more than 2 feet. I'm just trying to be realistic. You know it's going to pretty well decimate that back area back there. Conrad: Dave, when I look at the tree calculations, I don't see any trees on the plans in that first several hundred feet. So what's a function of? You're saying we're going to get 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 significant tree loss but again, as I see them measured here, none are in the right-of-way. Hempel: Actually there are quite a few trees in the right-of-way. In the commission plans — did not provide the trees... Conrad: Okay. I don't think we're seeing what you see on our plans right now. Mark Bielski: I don't know if any of you have been to the site or to the area but...and take a look to the south, you can really see what buffer there is. If those trees are gone, it's going to really devastate our view and our privacy and one of the reasons we'd like...is we set our house fairly close to the back lot line. Now I bet we're within 100 feet from the existing driveway to our bedroom window and had I known something like this was going to happen, I probably would have moved the house another 100 feet towards the cul-de-sac that we live on. So it's kind of a, it's getting a little bit close and I hope you understand that. Hopefully you can go out and take a look to the site. Come over to, you're welcome to come on my property and look to the south and... Ledvina: We will. Question for Dave. Will there be a construction easement associated with this road here that will involve the removal of trees actually off the property? Is that what's going to happen? Hempel: Not on the north side. Not on the Timberwood Estates side. The property that will be probably most impacted will be the Dempsey property on the south side...trees outside of _ that 50 foot strip. There's also the city's cemetery lies just north of this road. It's fairly heavily wooded at the entrance but I'm not sure...goes back at least 300 feet off of Galpin Boulevard. That's where the trees will be lost along the property line and as you continue east on that property, the road bends away from that north property line and the trees that are out there today will stay so. It'd be nice to show on here where the property line is and cemetery as well as the adjacent properties in Timberwood Estates to see exactly where the trees are going to affect. Scott: Dave, here's a what if. What if utilities go on the other side? Obviously we're going to, what's the impact there? Hempel: The elevation drops. Scott: Is it because, as I'm looking here where you've got, as I'm trying to read this it looks like it falls off rather quickly. So you're just saying logistically they're really, engineering wise, there's less of an option? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: It does require...some of the utilities that go through there... Scott: Okay. Alright. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Just two things that I have. On the, I would agree with Bielski's view is that the committee consider, as far as the protection. We're one of the last in this area and probably as far as with the large lots or small acreage type properties in that we had as much protection. As much as could be given with either buffer, which is being considered all the way around our development as far as with the elementary school. With the other proposed lots that are coming in and this is — probably the one that's closest to us corning in with houses as close as they are. And that whatever consideration you could give, most of the owners that are abutting right up to this would appreciate that because of the way, our lots are set up. Especially Bielski is probably the closest right there. The other consideration that I have is, along again that north side just to the east of Bielski's residence there's a low land that originally was a swamp area that was for ponding at one time. Even sprayed it for the mosquito control and it was supposed to have a culvert that went through originally, when the plat was developed, to go under and Pat's driveway. That was in route to the east to run as a drainage ditch all the way down through Timberwood to the east. And as we relook at how, especially in conjunction with these new lots, how that drainage is going to work as far as on the engineering of it because currently it is not draining well. I know several lots there the water just stands there and it's a mosquito breeding ground right now. If they could either look at, if that could be compounded with additional drainage by the sloping of these new lots that are going to go in, that could also create further problems in there. That's only the comments I have. Thank _ you. Hempel: Maybe I can address that Mr. Chairman. As part of the subdivision, it will be maintaining the pre-developed runoff rates of the site. The continental divide, as I'll call it, it does break at the northerly property line of this subdivision. Part of it drains east. As Mr. Harrington indicated, there is a low lying area just north of this plat which drains east out to Timberwood. Mr. Minger's property there's a high point that's great for drainage to the north and also to the south and that drainage break will be maintained with this new subdivision. So essentially you'll have just a back yard of the home draining to the north as it does right now. The remaining part drains south into the storm sewer system and water treatment pond. Joan Heinz: I'm Joan Heinz, 2071 Timberwood Drive. We own right east of where they're trying to build that and like my neighbors, before we bought our lot we researched and we saw that that was zoned agricultural so we felt pretty confident that there wasn't going to be houses back there. So our big concern is just loss of privacy and the fact that we're all 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 wooded back there now. We own about 50 feet into the woods and we're just concerned that instead of looking out our back yard, there's going to be these...and that just seems like a lot of houses for what is it, 8 acres. That seems like a lot of houses back there. Thanks. Drew Richardson: My name is Drew Richardson. I live at 8120 Pinewood Circle. I'm on that 800 feet of, what did you call it, a tunnel. Mr. Dempsey called it. In the winter I look out the back of my house and I see basically the horse pasture Mr. Dempsey has. In the summer I look out and see trees and granted, like Mark said, they're not the best looking trees but they are a very nice border. I'd be concerned with loosing that. At the back of my property there's a fair drop off that goes up and then comes down and that's where all the trees are. I have trouble envisioning how the drive is going to come through there without basically wiping that out. Without building a wall or something. I guess you'd have to see it to really understand. That would be, that's at the corner of the cemetery...You're welcome to come out and look at it. Come out and see what it is. Thanks. Jean Rollins: My name is Jean Rollins. I live at 2081 Timberwood and my property is by Patrick Minger and I guess my main concern is, besides the number of houses, which does _ seem like a lot between our woods, is the drainage site which you said wouldn't be getting a majority of the drainage. However I live right on the border of the ditch and my property is wetland...washed out from the increased drainage and have a terrible time getting the water to drain. And my other concern is that, is there going to be erosion that's going to come down from these other lots and fill up our ditch again? Because right now the city has had to redig our ditches in front of our houses twice...increased drainage or erosion is just going to clog it further. It's going to add more water to it. Scott: Okay, Dave. Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, the site will not increase the runoff to the Timberwood Estates development. The water will be conveyed by storm sewer to a regional holding pond. Hopefully there from the Dempsey property which overflows and into the Bluff Creek corridor. It should not affect Timberwood Estates homes. ...there's a lot of drain tiles in the area in the ground with springs and so forth that creates some problems in that area. Scott: Okay. Good, would anyone else? Yes sir. Rich Larsen: Hi, I'm Rich Larsen at 8041 Pinewood Circle. I live next to the Bielski's and to take the last issue first. Drainage is a huge problem in Timberwood now and I don't know if this is the forum for complaining about that but nothing has been done. I live in a swamp that Craig Harrington talked about. And it's been a constant problem since we moved in. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 The City is doing absolutely nothing to help us. They've been out there several times but told us...I'm wondering, to help alleviate some of the concerns, can we somehow tap into that drainage because as Craig pointed out, the drainage has been diverted away from the Minger's property now and it has to go at a 90 degree angle at our property. Water doesn't like to turn at a 90 degree angle so it collects in our back yard. So is there a possibility of tapping into any new drainage systems...because it's not working now. So that's one comment. A second thing about that, as...said, we too found that it was zoned A-2 when we moved in. Nobody bothered to tell us that this is going to change. It's agricultural now but it could be high density housing and to deal with the overall planning that if you isolate Timberwood as the only large lot area, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's going to be very uncoordinated looking so I have a recommendation for you guys. If you approve this thing, that you require a 1 acre minimum lot size for this development. That would tie in better with Timberwood. It would reduce the amount of traffic past everyone's house. I probably live a little farther away from the road than the Bielski's and the Richardson's do but it will still affect us, especially if the trees get reduced. So that's my recommendation. That you look at requiring a minimum of an acre lot size. That's awfully dense for the area and requiring an acre would also save quite a few trees and help that. And the last question I had was, when another development's being proposed, there were a lot of discussions about roadways and somebody from the city said that there's a minimum setback between roadways. When you're looking at putting a second street into that new development just, what is it boulder? Whatever. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Rich Larsen: Stone Creek, thank you. They said it was a minimum distance between roadways. I'd like to know, there's Timberwood Drive and yet you've got that proposed street going in. Isn't that closer than the minimum requirement and is there a variance being proposed here? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The street spacing is adequate for the ordinance for that type of street... Scott: Okay, and then when this is upgraded to a 4 lane, how does that change? Would it become inadequate when they decide to widen it or how does that play? If this were a 4 lane today, would there be adequate separation between the cuts? Hempel: That's what we're working on right now. The comprehensive transportation study predicts...in the future so our comp plan guides us for what our street widths will be on certain collector type streets, but this has been designated as a 4 lane urban section. In the future an urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. That will change the spacing... 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Okay, so the spacing is adequate for as big as that road is purported to be. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, can I have a motion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: The only question I had on the streets. We've talked quite a bit about cul-de-sac lengths and I don't see that being addressed anywhere in the staff report here. They measure the cul-de-sacs at 900 and 1,000 feet respectively and I'm just wondering, was there any thought in connecting two cul-de-sacs? Bob, or Dave. Hempel: Commissioner, maybe I can address that. We thought about trying to loop them into a looped system there. Unfortunately it does make a lot of double street frontage or lots with streets on 3 sides and probably would be reducing the amount of houses out there a lot and would increase the impervious surface from the street. We also even looked at, future extension into Timberwood. Those are large lots there. At some future date...probably subdivide as well into smaller lots. So part of our job is to look at future street extensions where feasible or possible. We know the impacts the Timberwood Estates residents have had - with the Stone Creek development, the Hans Hagen development that's developing and proposed east of the Timberwood Estates. There was some consideration there also to provide some stub street to Timberwood for some future extension. However, due to the size of this small parcel and how we envision it developing, you have the creek on the south side. You really can't develop any further to the south. You have Timberwood to the north and to the east there is an opportunity to stub a future street connection that way but I don't think the residents would appreciate it. We do have other streets in the city that are somewhat...we're looking at 17 homes on here which is going to generate a large volume of traffic for a dead end street. Public safety has looked at it and didn't seemed to be too concerned about the cul-de-sac. Ledvina: Okay. Well I can see, certainly see your point as it relates to the scale of the development. Looping those together, you'd have essentially maybe 6 houses, at the most, inside that loop and that's a lot of street. It wouldn't seem that efficient for all that much pavement so. Conrad: What does our cul-de-sac ordinance, what does it say? Ledvina: Can you address that? What happened? Did that die at the City Council? Aanenson: ...we've been shooting for 600, 700, 800 minimums...what we'd be doing is taking out more trees and...impervious surface, which is one of the reasons why we 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 recommended private drives. Ledvina: Right. So are you recommending a private drive for the, that would be the, let's see, the west cul-de-sac? Hempel: Temporary common drive at this time to serve the...The intent however is to dedicate a full right-of-way with the future intent of upgrading that road when the Dempsey parcel develops and subdivides to a full urban street section. The problem we have with - those homes that will be platted that way on Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. Those will be responsible... Ledvina: Okay. Well I would favor the use of techniques that could save as many trees as possible along the drive and I even to the extent of supporting a reduced right-of-way. I think that could possibly be employed along that north boundary for tree preservation. I think I would also support staff's recommendations to pull the easterly cul-de-sac further away from the Timberwood lot lines there. I think that would provide a little more buffering capacity in that area. Also the reduced setbacks are an applicable alternate in this instance. I think that can also help. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I would agree with staff's recommendations and Matt's comments. We're going to be getting this back. I guess I personally would like to get out to the site and get a closer feel to the issues that have been expressed. Just to understand visually a bit more of what we're looking at and after that, maybe a better condition when we get this plan back to kind of... some of those issues. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'll make sure I get out to the site and walk it. I would like, when it comes back, I would like staff to give me some guidance on the A-2 district. I'm not convinced I need to rezone it. Unless there's some really, unless I feel there's some capability here. But I also want to see how it fits you know and Timberwood sort of set a precedence in terms large lots out there and whether I was for it or against it, it's the matter it's there and we zoned it this A-2 because we felt it made sense. Now so when I said, I'm looking for some vision. I guess I'm looking for some realism. Is there a demand for A-2? Do we see that as something that a property owner could reasonably get, sell today you know and again, I don't know what you do staff but I need that kind of insight. If A-2 is, if these large lots are not going to sell and they're a detriment, then I think we owe it to rezoning. But I'm not convinced yet. I need that insight. I also respect the Timberwood residents in terms of what 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 they moved out here for and what they bought. So therefore, I'll be real interested in how the developer adapts to their neighbors and there's a lot, it looks like a lot of tree loss here and if you want to stop the tree loss, you keep it at A-2 folks. That's an easy one. That doesn't take a lot of insight so, yet I think we have to be, so whoever brought up the fact that something can be rezoned. Yeah, something can always be rezoned but we did guide this for large lots. So before we rezone it, I think we've got to take a look at not only this but we've got to be kind of, as I said, I prefaced, I said hey if this goes, well then we don't have a A-2 district out there. We have Timberwood and so I think we've got to be pretty confident that A-2 is something that's. Aanenson: Let me make a clarification. It is guided for 15,000 square foot lots. Conrad: Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Okay. Scott: RSF. Aanenson: ...I just want to make that clear. We can get a legal opinion on that issue but... Conrad: Thanks for those comments because I was not sure of that Kate. Anyway, that sort of deletes about my last 3 minutes of conversation. I think, I'm real concerned with tree loss here. I'm concerned with what the residents have to say. There's some big trees here and I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it and wait for more information. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything else to add. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table the development, Case #93-25, Subdivision 94-1 and that the additional conditions in the staff report be addressed by the applicant, as well as the commission's comments this evening. Scott: Good, can I have a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we support the staff recommendation with additional comments. Is there any discussion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Preliminary Plat #93-25 and Rezoning #94-1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be revised to meet staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: Name Address Steve Johnston Loucks and Associates B. Fuller 1075 Red Cedar Cove Terry & Bonnie Labatt 2981 Stratford Ridge Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Cuddihy 3900 Stratford Ridge Lowell & Janet Carlson 4100 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Susan Morgan 4031 Kings Road Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Larry Wenzel 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Ridge Harold Taylor 3861 Stratford Ridge Allin Karels 3920 Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant tonight. They were unable to attend because...We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and...recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 the grading...grading contract out just so you don't get the wrong impression of what we're trying to do...The difficulty that we've had and the situation...is that we had a trade off. We could either save the majority of the trees in Lots 22, 23, and 24 by setting the grades at an elevation to best serve those lots. Or we could lower the street down and save more trees on the end of the cul-de-sac. The decision was made that we'd keep the cul-de-sac up, saving the trees on those lots. With staff's suggestion to go to a private drive for those last 4 lots, I think we can do both. We can do the cul-de-sac up higher and we can drop the grade off then and lower some of these down hopefully preserving more of the trees. The requirement for 130 trees be planted on the site...is acceptable to the applicant and we will provide a plan to replace those trees on the site. A clarification that we'd like though to get, it appears that we would be allowed to place those trees within our site and not necessarily out along Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway... Aanenson: Correct. That's what we're saying. You come back with a specific plan. Our ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. What we're saying is instead of just doing 1...put them in one lot or put them in where you can cluster them. I think that's an advantage to go back and get another canopy instead of just doing... Steve Johnston: We'll take a look at that and bring those options. The other question I have had to do with the, it's unclear from the staff report regarding the utilities on Kings Road. = Specifically to get the utilities at the park property. Is the park department participating in the cost of the utilities?... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Margie Borris: My name is Margie Borris. I'm that little thing by the driveway on Kings Road. That little thing is 2 1/2 acres. Okay. We looked for lots from Maple Grove to Shakopee to find the rural area that we could relax in. Have our privacy, among other things. It's a safe area. People come and walk down our little road. I noticed that in her little tree plan that she forgot to mention I have a stand of 10 red cedar trees on the other side of Kings Road, which we own. Not just the road area. We own 5, every one of those are 5 feet from the other side of the road. Okay. And from what I understand you can only take the area that is being currently used as a road. Okay. And also that stand of trees shoots up on a bank that's about 8 feet high. It has been a wind break for all these years. It's a privacy barrier, and I'm sorry but the creed of the 80's has just spilled all over Chanhassen in 1994. It is almost disgusting. We had a rural area. It's been...lf I have to become a hog farmer and put my pans in that front yard, I will. I'm just about up to here. Now you're going to tell me that we're going to spend $20,000.00 to hook up to your utilities. To tear up my yard. Tear up my basement, and who's going to pay for it? I've got 12 months? This is your guiding. This is the guided area that you were talking about. You just changed your mind 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 on what the areas are like? The City of Eden Prairie has just got some press about these kind of plannings. The over development of a community. Granted this is a better plan that what we've seen before but you don't have to live on it. We do. We moved out there for a reason. We spent our money out there for a reason. We don't live in slums out there. These are not old, I mean the Scott's and I, which are the ones that you're talking about adding these new things to, those are new homes. I mean and you're talking about all these extra things you're looking for. How very wonderful. We've heard some prices about what this land was sold for. Or what the asking price is and I also know what they sold the lots for in that Stratford area. $45,000.00 was the minimum so there's a lot of money trading hands and what's happening is the existing people just take it in the shorts, which is a very nice way of putting that. The drainage thing, I'm glad you took a look at it this time because it was by- passed several times. But I will not, I don't know if you'll build a house over to that one side because my house is in the center of that lot which is going to put that new road right in front of my house. Take down my wind break. That little area there that was originally, that was supposed to be moved to the park. Those row of houses that are on the east. I can't read the name of the road. Country Oaks Road. That was going to be part of park development. Now...but that is the only sliding hill in that area. It's the only sliding hill on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. And you know, you talked about this...you don't come down the road and see the trees that arch over. I mean grant you they're not maybe oaks or anything but red cedars are not common. And when did they rezone this area? Nobody told us anything. Nobody sent us a letter that said we're going to guide this or whatever you call that thing. I'm serious about becoming a hog farmer. We can have animals on our property because of existing grandfathering, and I will do it. We need something, some consideration for us. Not just the developers. Not just for people that are selling their property. That's going to be developed, yes. But think about it. 1 want to know who's paying for my hook- up. Does anybody have an answer? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. She can certainly appeal the commission and the staff report to the City Council has the ultimate decision. They may look at waiving that until your septic system fails...first do an inspection of your existing system and make sure it's functioning properly. That's ultimately up to the City Council. It is an ordinance so it does take action by the City Council to amend. As far as the cost associated with that, for sewer and water hook-up, the connection charge, you're probably looking in the ballpark of about $5,000.00 to $5,500.00. Margie Borris: Does that include breaking up of my foundation? Hempel: Well. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: No. That's the hook-up to it. Hempel: That's the hook-up charge. Margie Borris: That doesn't include what you're going to dig through the yard to put in the site. And who's going to fix my lawn? Hempel: That would be part of the property owner's responsibility. Margie Borris: Oh yeah. Hempel: As far as the connection charges, they could be assessed against the property. Margie Borris: My husband's in construction and he tells me it's close to $20,000.00. For the entire hook-up. To repair all the stuff. That's not pocks: change. That is not pocket change. We recently got assessed for all the work that was done on Minnewashta Parkway and they were telling us, because we had the larger lots, we had to pay more, which we did. We didn't get the benefits of these new retaining walls or any of that stuff. I don't care. And yet you sit there and you tell us, okay well we're going to charge you more because you have the bigger lots. You can drive a driveway, I suppose we could put a driveway over my drainfield and build a house down at the lower level, which is below the high water mark, but nobody gets back to me on that either. I paid my assessment, by the way. Scott: Excuse me ma'am. Specifically the points that you would like us to consider are, I've heard a lot of things and I'm personally kind of losing track but if you can specific zero in on the most significant ones, that would help me understand. Margie Borris: My trees. My red cedar trees that are sitting on 5 feet across the other side of the road for my privacy. But one of them, the main reason we took this area was the privacy and the safety and now you're going to be adding, probably 2 cars per household. I would assume that's the average these days. Some have more. And there's 38 lots. Or 37 lots as it sits right now. So there's going to be 60 some more cars and they're going to be splitting now between that Stratford and Kings Road. If you want to Bink around with this stupid road, put the road on the property that's being developed or where the park is being developed...Kings Road that we have right now. Then we can keep our trees and whatever is out there but I'd really, I'm not happy about this hook-up thing. There's the Ziegler's, they have their money. They're gone. They're in Colorado. They could care less what you do with their property. They just want the dollars and let's go. Scott: Okay. Do you have any. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: The idea of, I mean we got a lot of grief about trying to build a house on 2 1/2 acres when we built in 1986. A lot of grief and now, and you're saying that now you've got 20 some thousand square feet. How does that compare to an acre? Like the other people before us were all talking about, you're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. Where's the planning in this? What if you make those 1 acre lots? Somebody will buy those if they want that peace and quiet. I went from a corporation to a small business to get rid of that hassle and rat race. My home is a safe, quiet place. There are now so many deer being pushed towards us because we have the last of the big land. Every day you can take a walk and you'll run into a deer near dusk. We've got Lake St. Joe behind us. It's supposed to be a protected wetland. They're already planning to develop on the other side of that. There's nothing left. Scott: So your specific concerns have to do with the roadway and the impact that that's going to have on the trees. Number two is because of the proximity of the proposed roadway to your house, the hook-up requirement to the utilities. Traffic on the road. Margie Borris: Among other things, yeah. Scott: Okay. We just want to make sure that we can specifically understand the points that you have so. We appreciate you for taking your time to come down and we encourage that because that's why we have public hearings. Margie Borris: I know. I've been to several of them. Scott: Keep coming. Thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is this property right there. There are several concerns that I have about the way the road is going to be moved. It was my assumption, is it Kate? That the road is going to be moving closer to us rather than going this way? Aanenson: It's moving to the north. Sue Morgan: It's moving to the north? So we have existing like 8 or 9-90 year old cedar trees that are here so they would stay where they're at? They wouldn't be encroached upon? Hempel: It depends on where they are. The utility installation, the trench... Sue Morgan: Okay. When we purchased this land...we had the DNR come out and evaluate the trees on our property to help us decide which ones we should keep, the value of them and 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 to help us plan where the house was going to go because we wanted to maintain that type of treed area here. As I mentioned they're like 90 year old red cedar trees that we will keep. I don't know what that means to you but we will keep them. And then also on this part of the property, we have 8 acres here. There is a ravine that drops about 25 feet, 30 feet from the road and there is water that runs from over in this pasture area, under the road and through our property into Lake St. Joe, which is down in here. We had some concerns last year because this is a natural environment lake and we were concerned because of development. These people using Chemlawn. Using whatever they need to use on their lawns. That water's going to carry stuff into Lake St. Joe. Is that ravine going to be rerouted or is that going to be closed off or what happens with that if they put a pond in the ground? Hempel: That's correct. That location there is proposed for a storm water quality pond for treatment of storm water runoff generated from the additional development. It will pick up surface drainage from streets and lawns and pond it into the pond for treatment and then will overflow to the storm sewer system down Kings Road and towards Lake St. Joe is an outlot. Sue Morgan: This way? Hempel: Right in that area...down to St. Joe after being treated. Sue Morgan: Okay. So it's not going to flow through our property any longer, is that what you're saying? Hempel: That's correct. It will be rerouted. Sue Morgan: Do you know how that's going to affect Lake St. Joe by shutting this off? I don't know if this supports Lake St. Joe with aquatic life. With wildlife. Hempel: It will have to be rerouted...it will end up in Lake St. Joe approximately 300-400 feet east. Sue Morgan: Okay. What happens to this existing culvert that's there now? Does it just get blocked off? Hempel: That would most likely be removed for the utility installation to be installed. Sue Morgan: Okay. Also when we purchased this land more than 4 years ago, we were forced by the City of Chanhassen to put in a mound system. I don't know if you're all familiar with a mound system but because this land was natural environment lake, we weren't 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 able to put in a regular septic system. That mound system cost us over $7,900.00 whereas we could have put in a regular septic system for $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. We will not hook up to water and sewer until that mound system fails. I don't know what that means to you people but we're not going to go into hock just because you want to force us into city water and sewer. You already forced us into $7,900.00 we didn't have to spend. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Again, if you'd like to appeal to the City Council...way to proceed. City water is not required unless the well goes bad...but the septic system is a requirement per the ordinance. It is in an effort to help from an environmental standpoint... Sue Morgan: So what...? Hempel: So you can appeal the decision or the condition that we stated to the City Council as it proceeds to the next level. Requesting that they give you a variance from that condition... Scott: What's the precedent because I know that we run into this quite a bit. How, and I'm not going to ask you for percentages, but does that, are variances like that granted in instances such as, recent purchase of that particular, inspection of that particular system. Is that a criteria that carries a lot of weight with the City Council? Or is it all over the board? Hempel: It's pretty well all over the board. It really depends on the condition of that homeowner's septic system. Somebody will go out, a qualified person will go out and evaluate the system and see that it's functioning properly... Scott: Okay. And that's what I'm trying to do here. If anybody else here has got that concern, is to at least start thinking. If this development does go in and you are faced with the issue of connecting to city services, that'd be something that you'd all want to consider and make sure that you know what's corning. Dollar and cents wise but I would think that would make sense to me that the City Council would look at that because it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have someone who's just invested the money within a couple of years and we won't go into the life of systems and so forth but what other issues do you have? Sue Morgan: The other is the trees. If the trees need to be taken out, how are they going to be replaced. I guess they will be replaced. You said...We have 9 red cedar trees. You had mentioned earlier that... Steve Johnston: I'm not sure Mr. Chairman if you want me to address that.. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Well I know that the comment was made that for trees that are taken out of the development, that we're encouraging with our new tree ordinance to have them clustered so we'd have perhaps 2 in each lot. But what we're talking about here are trees that are going to be removed due to utilities and roads. And let me just ask you a question. If the road is moving north, the reason why these trees are going out is, is it utilities? Because I'm thinking if these utilities are being brought in to serve the development, why aren't we running the utilities on the other side of the road? Hempel: Well it's a combination of utility installation and you're also grading for the road. The road will be actually north of the existing Kings Road. The City Attorney has reviewed the city's rights with regards to Kings Road. We're able to show maintenance of that road within the last, over the last 10 years and we were granted a reservation, or an easement essentially for use of that roadway system and where a portion of the ditch has been plowed or drainage standpoint maintained I guess. They do have a valid point. Maybe working with the applicant or the park department in trying to provide a landscape plan in this area if these trees were, or most likely going to be removed as a part of this development. Be replaced. Scott: So the tree removal, since we don't really have the benefit of seeing that on our plans, I mean I'm just going from what I remember of going through the site. But the trees that are going to be, are proposed to be lost on the south side of Kings Road are being lost because of either (a) the road itself, (b) the utilities or (a) and (b)? Hempel: I would say a combination of the two. Scott: The utilities are running south of the road? Hempel: It would be running down the center of the 50 foot right-of-way that's being dedicated with this new plat. Scott: Okay, so these utilities are going under the road? Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay. And I won't ask you about why we can't do that on the previous issue because we're not talking about that now. Okay. Sue Morgan: Also, how will this development or the hook-up to the water and utilities, whatever, affect the other...subdivisions on property? We're what, allotted 3? We only live on one but there's two others. So if we hook up to the septic and water, how does that affect us as far as...? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: If you subdivide your property you would have to pay connection charges for those additional lots as well. It's probably going to be actually cheaper than having to drill your own well or do your own septic or mound system. Sue Morgan: And do you know what is proposed for a holding or...that little outlot? What it's going to look like... Hempel: Maybe the applicant...could address that. I believe you refer to it as the outlot, as Outlot A...on that site so the rest of it is... Sue Morgan: But if there's runoff from the north side of the road under the road to the south side, there's got to be some opening for that runoff to go into. Hempel: That's true. There would be a storm sewer extended south of Kings Road through that parcel and discharged... Sue Morgan: And the city would run it through... Hempel: The City would maintain it... Sue Morgan: That's all I have. Thank you. Scott: Good. Yes sir. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, Kings Road. I don't understand the road here. Not only on my property but everybody else's. Let's start from the property up on, where the property begins and the road...There will be nothing taken off of me or them because that's the way we've got it set up. Instead of furnishing part of our property to develop this property, what are we saying? Hempel: Well it's a change in constructing this road. The right-of-way, most of it is being dedicated with this new subdivision of Harstad's. 50 feet of right-of-way's being proposed. It includes up to the south end of the gravel road out there right now. The roadway would be set within that 50 foot right-of-way. In the future when you come and subdivide at that time, the city's going to ask that you dedicate an additional 10 feet of road right-of-way. Lowell Carlson: Has anybody ever seen my plot of the road or the property line that we own in here where the property stakes are? Are we furnishing part of this property to help this development develop? So when we develop our's, we'll be short? ...my property see goes way down here by...and it's way on the north side of the road. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: They went out and staked the existing, the southerly right-of-way of that road. Lowell Carlson: Okay, so it will start on the north side of that stake, on my property stake, and go north, right? Hempel: There will be no road constructed west of that intersection that you see right here. Lowell Carlson: Well right here, right where my property starts right here, we're back in the first tract. We're the last tract to the north. My property stake is out in the road right there. Hempel: The plan that you have before you shows the south property line of that subdivision. That will be your north property line. Lowell Carlson: Just south of the road? Aanenson: Yes. Lowell Carlson: So my 6 acres, you're going to start, so when you develop your property you guys come and say hey, you ain't got enough to develop your land because now you're short. You ain't got 6 acres no more. We had to take some for this road over here because this guys needs it for there and you ain't got enough down there. You took some of the curb there and that curb, my property stake starts right there and cuts this up. That corner right there is a deluxe piece of property...squaring this corner off the way it's supposed to be or. Hempel: At the time that you come and develop, that corner would be discussed. Lowell Carlson: Well I hear you that right now if that road is going to be, as far as I don't know what we're going to spend doing this. But we're at least going to gain our own property. That survey has read for years and years that our survey of our property. You're not stealing no more from me. And we're done someplace, they want, pretty soon you're going to have 3 acres left. But when the Minnewashta Parkway come in they said I've got 8 units in there. Who surveyed it and told me I got room enough to put 8 units and be big enough to qualify for 8 houses on that piece of property? Has anybody? Hempel: What they did to determine that...they figured out how much acreage you had. 8 acres or whatever it was. Or 6 acres and they used the factor of 1.7 units per acre. They figure you should be able to develop on your parcel. That was over the whole Minnewashta Parkway area. That was the factor that was used to determine how many units you would be able to develop. You'll maybe only develop one. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: Now they stole a piece off of here. This road is on the south edge, no way. According to the stake. You can go by the property stake. You move that road on that property to develop it so we end up with our right acreage. Hempel: What the plat is dedicating Mr. Carlson is 30 feet of their property for future right- of-way. The gravel road actually lies south of their 30 feet. So when you come and further subdivide your parcel, you're going to be asked to dedicate the other 30 feet for a total of 60 feet. Lowell Carlson: It will be right on my doorstep, like...up on Minnewashta Parkway. Hempel: I'm not familiar with the location I guess of your house in there but the road would be centered in that 60 foot strip. Scott: I guess what I'd recommend is having a. Lowell Carlson: ...for years and years. All it was was a horse trail and they said well, Chanhassen's maintained that road all these years. For 7 years. Carlson and Chanhassen have maintained that road for all these years. So...whoever develops this land, my neighbors, whatever, they're stealing part of the property...as far as I'm concerned because...lot is. He can't be...sell the land or the property. They've got a lot stake on every piece of property around here. Can you walk over and take a chunk off of this one and chunk off of that one and say hey, good enough or what can you do? Scott: Mr. Carlson, I guess what my suggestion would be, is if you do have some plans, which it sounds like you do, to subdivide your property at some future date, would be to meet with city staff and then they'll be in a better position to talk specifically about, and maybe it's going to require a trip out to your property, but I think that's probably a better way to do that. They'd have the specific information at their finger tips to help you understand precisely what's going on because we're talking about red or orange lines on an overhead and I know, I'd have difficulty understanding what I'd be getting into if I were in your situation based upon that. Lowell Carlson: Well we've been in court for about 10 years. Over a building. And we've got it settled that we're off the property line and...set back from the building we're going to build now finally. It's on it's way. So we're set back from a property stake. Where my property stake is 25 and 50 back to the road, and that's where we're going to be. They say that the road is going to come back here and go in that building too? Scott: I can't answer that question. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: It's so loused up that...development, how far is the sewer and water going to run? Come into our property. Where is it going? At least have some kind of. Hempel: Mr. Chairman let me address that. It is proposed to eventually extend sewer and water all the way down to, is it the curve. Lowell Carlson: Down to this here? Hempel: And dead end it there. Lowell Carlson: Are they putting a lift station to pump it up on top of this hill and go back down or what are they planning on doing? Hempel: The sewer will be...intersection of Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It will be serviced through gravity. That westerly edge of the curb and street. From there on it may... Lowell Carlson: If the thing will get that close to my house, I want to put a deeper foundation if they're going that deep to that lift station. Hempel: We have to go over the plans sometime in the office to make sure we're adequately going to be able serve your parcel. Scott: Yeah, that's alright. Are there some other people who would like to speak at the public hearing, if I may? Margie Borris: ...Mr. Carlson about losing his property? Scott: Yeah, excuse me. Mr. Carlson, okay. Yes ma'am. Margie Borris: We're getting taxed at so many square feet in our...and if you lose the square footage of the road and the 5 feet on the north side of the road, which belongs to each one of us as we go along down Kings Road. So you're going to take the road plus the part that would be all the across the width of the property. So we're all going to lose several hundreds to thousands of feet of our property. Are we also going to get property, like he said, resurveyed? That we now go to a smaller lot and pay less taxes? Scott: Those are issues that we don't address here. I think there seems to be a lot of concern = as to what's going to happen. Perhaps, would you mind drawing a drawing up there so that everybody that's concerned about right-of-ways, you can say if your property line is here, the road goes here. Right-of-way is here. If you decide to subdivide 30 feet here, etc, etc. I 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 think that's a lot of the property owners have that question. I think we can deal with all of them fairly surgically, if you would. Hempel: Okay. Right now Kings Road is a gravel road that kind of meanders down to the south property line. But based on the drawings I was looking at, something like that and then meanders even further south. What this subdivision is doing is dedicating 50 feet of right-of- way, actually on the north side of Kings Road. The road will then be built basically centered within this 50 foot right-of-way. Resident: Excuse me, you just drew a line both north and south... Scott: It looks a dimensional arrow for the 50 feet. Hempel: Right. That heavy black line is actually the north property line, all the way along there. The gravel road actually lies south of that. The right-of-way that is being dedicated is north of that. The new street will be centered within that 50 foot right-of-way. The gravel. Ledvina: Excuse me Dave. What's the width of the street? Hempel: The new street will be 31 feet back to back. Curb to curb. That's a standard urban section. Scott: So basically that 30 feet is going to be in, and the street is going to go within the 50 feet and as of right now the property owners have not lost anything. They have not gained anything. That's going to impact, because of the utilities and the street construction, that's going to impact trees. I mean that's an issue that they should be concerned with but as far as any change to their boundaries. Any change to their property size acreage, zero impact. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay, does everybody understand that? Sue Morgan: No. See the only problem is, there's some legalities and I think that that's the issue. Not so much property. The actual where the road is. But there's legalities because I don't know if our deed says anything about ownership of the road or how we get into the road but Margie's and Carlson's does. There's some ownership of that property because Kings Road was originally just put in there by plow horses just to get back to the fields. So the road was never really a city road. So these people own some of that land. So what he's saying is, there's still some legalities that haven't been figured on all the lot lines as to...from the gravel and whatever but still there's some legalities that have to be resolved. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Yeah, and that's I guess what we're doing here is we're collecting feedback on these issues and there are going to be some other avenues to discuss that. That's not something that we're going to recommend but what I'm thinking here, since this seems to be the bone of contention and I think it's important that everybody understand what's happening and if it has to do with taxation, I mean this is not the forum. Future development. That's not the forum. I mean you need to talk to city staff about that but if you could continue, because I think it's important for people to know what's going on here. Hempel: Sure. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, the gravel road that's out there will eventually be abandoned with a new road built. And driveways would then be connected to the new street. Scott: Now when that happens then, so if, would that be a vacation of part of Kings Road that would revert to the property owner? Hempel: There would be no vacation involved because there's nothing in writing that the city has an easement over it. We've acquired the rights to use it with adverse possession of maintaining it for all these years. Scott: Okay. So when you're talking about the, so the road ownership, actually there's no change. The people own it. It was an easement to the city. Okay. Hempel: Eventually if you further subdivide your property at some time, then the city would request an additional 10 feet of right-of-way to dedicate the total of 60 feet. The road won't change. The road will still be there where it's going to be built, or proposed to be. Scott: Okay. Are we all tracking with this? Lowell Carlson: Not really. This stuff you dedicated as right-of-way, who's dedicating it? Hempel: The Harstad's development. The applicants of this development. Lowell Carlson: Because where's he dedicating it from? Is he dedicating it from the north side of the road and he's going to go in 50 feet into that property? Hempel: He's going from your north property line. From your property line or his south property line... Lowell Carlson: 50 feet deep. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: It's all contained in their property. It does not affect you. Lowell Carlson: So when this thing moves over, let's see that would be, well let's say that's their property. Where are we? Their property line. Hempel: This is the 50 feet area here. Then as you go beyond this property and get in front of here, the right-of-way is being reduced down to 30 feet because we're not constructing the road beyond this point. So it would remain a gravel road. — Lowell Carlson: And you're going along with sewer and water at this particular time down there? — Hempel: I don't believe we are going any further at this time...Those homes are a future phase. It's shown on this as a preliminary plat. The final plat will not plat those at this time. - They'll be remaining as an outlot. Cannot be built on until they are platted. Margie Borris: But they don't have to hook up and we do? You can't build on them? — Scott: Yeah. They will. Margie Borris: There will be at some time. Hempel: There will be at some time and at that time the road will have to be upgraded so — sewer and water also can be extended in front of those parcels...so it's going to remain a vacant piece of property. These parcels right here will remain as an open space. They will be replatted... Lowell Carlson: Is this sewer and water coming up...in there or where is it going? — Hempel: That's correct. Sewer and water will be brought from Minnewashta Parkway, up the new road, up to the intersection and then brought into the subdivision. — Lowell Carlson: Okay what about, is there going to be curb and gutter, blacktop and storm sewer and the whole works going up to the point then also at this particular time? Hempel: That's correct. Up to this point. Lowell Carlson: And it gets assessed back to, what portion of it will probably be paid by the people that live on this side, on the south side? 38 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: There will be no assessments for the street or storm sewer. There will be future assessments, what we call a connection charge when you want to hook up, or need to hook up to the sewer and water lines. But at this time there will be no assessments to those property owners to the south. Lowell Carlson: For instance if I owned this property right here and it was coming by at this particular time and I wanted to subdivide this out, could I have a stub running to that one at no extra charge? Hempel: They would put in stubs at this time but with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by the City. When the city collects a connection charge from those properties for hooking up. Lowell Carlson: Okay, that's... Margie Borris: When they're building this road, how are we going to get to work? That's the only exit we have to Minnewashta Parkway. Hempel: That's correct. That will take some coordination. It's not uncommon for a lot of construction...similar to the downtown businesses. We kept the downtown businesses going while we reconstructed downtown. Margie Borris: Are you going to put us all in a hotel? Scott: Probably not. Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Carlson. I'm just saying, if you have a, if you've got some plans to subdivide your property, it'd probably be a real good use of your time and the city staff's time to speak specifically about your parcel and talk about stubs and reimbursements and potential future assessments. It sounds like it's a project you're quite interested. Lowell Carlson: Well my Metropolitan Sewer friend, my brother lives down here. At that time the send box for the Metropolitan Sewer, now it's $800.00 or whatever... Scott: Build now. Develop now. Beat the rush. Okay, good. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing? Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and one of the things that kind of struck me when I sat down tonight and I heard this plan, I mean we just got the drawing in the mail like last Thursday and it's the first I had heard that anything was even going forward since the last time we were here when it got, we thought it got denied. And I looked at it 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 and I thought, well this looks like a much better plan. It seems to deal with things better that were concerns at the time. And then I was sitting here and I heard these things about the, when the road comes through, that we are likely to lose these trees and I don't know if any of you have been, drive out Kings Road but our house is very close to the road and right now we have a buffer that is a very sharp drop off to the road. It's about 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall. And right on the edge of that are all these huge old cedar trees. And if those go, the hill goes, suddenly we're totally exposed to the road. I moved out here with a natural environment lake in my back yard, protected from the road and I'm not naive thinking that development won't come but that whole property is vacant, or will be. And I don't see any reason why it can't be done so that it doesn't disturb anything that when people who already live there have and have tended and part of the reasons that we bought the property is that we bought you know, he's saying the road won't affect it but if, I mean these trees are right on the edge of the road. Anything past the edge of the gravel is going to kill those trees and they're not replaceable in my lifetime or any that's here's lifetime. And so it concerns me a great deal and I think about what happened on Minnewashta Parkway and these crumby old huge maple trees, which are beautiful in the fall but they're not beautiful the rest of the year, were saved to make it difficult for all these boat owners to get their boats down the ramp because Minnewashta Parkway got diverted by that. I just see some inconsistencies that really bother me. And when I hear about the concern for the trees that are existing on the property that's being developed, and I don't think there's one tree out there that's nearly as old as any cedar trees that we have. I do also have some concerns about the sewer business but that's been fairly clarified that that will happen sometime in the future and approach the City Council, did you say on that? But I think all of us, you know like people who's property is being developed or don't live there yet. They don't even know what it looks like. They don't know what they'll be losing if all of the right-of-way is on the north side of the road and not infringing on our property or taking trees. And make that a legal battle if it comes to it. I think it's unfortunate that these things just keep getting sort of popped on us. We come here and here about all these plans that affect us and no one will ever come directly to us and talk to us about it and explain how the road's going to work. We see these little stakes out there and it's like control point. I wonder what a control point is and I see little stakes staking out the edge of the wetland and stuff but it's almost like a big secret or something. I don't know how to get more involved. I know before I had spoken to you in person. I have spoken to one of the city engineers in person. But when I saw this plan it looked, where the pond was, so it didn't concern me too much until I got here tonight and...my stomach dropped out when I heard I might lose those trees because they're very beautiful. Another aspect, Sue mentioned where we have drainage that now goes through our property. Where the road is, it's a really steep drop off and I'm not sure what the plans are there. I would really like to know specifically how this plan will affect my property because it's my property and any changes to it impacts me and how I think about it and how I feel about it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you very much. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one point. In some projects like this which you know really impact neighborhoods and that, it's not uncommon to hold a neighborhood meeting between the applicant and the neighbors out there. Scott: Has that happened? Hempel: I believe that...from the applicant's engineer, that that would be a doable process here and maybe could shed some more light on the residents. What action will take place out there. Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak at the public hearing with new information? Larry Wenzel: Yeah, I'm Larry Wenzel, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Would you put up that little drawing? The only thing that I, I have a concern where they penned in the cul-de- sac going from the west to the east and the balance of our property, the most feasible way to develop the rest of that land if it were to be developed and I'd just like to state that there might be other options other than that...I'm not sure. That leaves 2 houses to gain 5 lots which might not make an awful lot of economic sense. The City has to assess 6 lots on the front as far as the street on Minnewashta Parkway is concerned. I don't think they could fit in there anyway but I just think that alternate concept certainly should be looked at. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Kevin Cuddihy: I'm Kevin Cuddihy, 3900 Stratford. I'm just curious as to what's going to be submitted to the City Council. Is this plan here going to be redrawn as we see it here? Future development as compared to the one that's been up most of the evening. Primarily these three lots being pushed back. Aanenson: This is what the applicant is proposing. Part of our job is to look at the surrounding properties. As Mr. Wenzel has indicated...via a private drive. Mr. Headla who has indicated that he wants to subdivide his property in the future. We certainly recognize that someday the Hallgren property will also be subdivided. It was always intended for Stratford to go through and as it turns out now, the way it was, the easement is given to the homeowners association. In looking at this portion of the Hallgren property being a cul-de- sac possibly...We're recommending that the option, the other option with the cul-de-sac serving the Wenzel property...probably be most desirable. We're just putting that forward as the staff's recommendation and having the option if it should develop. Whether or not the Planning Commission supports that or the City Council. Again, it depends on too, as far as 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 what the Park Commission is recommending. We're just showing that there's a possibility that they can...more lots. You know whether that happens. Certainly this is what they understand...But right now we feel that this proposal is probably the best way to do it. This would be our, the staff's first choice. Certainly there are other options. To have this road go through. I mean you have...that's an option. That's not our desire to have a private drive. Certainly that's obviously an option or have Headla get access off of Stratford Lane and have the street be cut down instead of showing, that certainly is another option too. That wouldn't be our first choice. This would be our first choice as far as access and future development. That's what we'd be looking for this plat. Scott: Okay. Kevin Cuddihy: I'd just like to do something a little bit different and say, I think this... recommend is my first choice as well. Just speaking for 3900 Stratford. That this would be a first choice as well. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Dave Headla: Dave Headla, 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I'd like to address the two ladies and their concern about red cedars. We lost a tremendous amount in that area. We had an awful lot of them at one time. And what I'd like to see you do is just save the big cedars. They don't go. They are not going to be touched. Find another way to solve the problem. I think there's, I'm not sure of the size of some of these. I know conifers can be moved a lot easier than the cedars. I think we ought to see if we can't move the other red cedars someplace for these ladies if they so choose or be convenient for them. But I sure hate to see us lose any more trees, the red cedars. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Bill Munig: Bill Munig, 6850 Stratford. I'd just like to encourage you to vote for this little amendment that they got up there to access the, I know that Mr. Headla would like to have future access to subdivide his land there and I understand it's restricted coming off of Minnewashta Parkway. Like he said, by putting that up there you're going to greatly reduce the number of triple fronted lots that would be in Stratford and over in the Hallgren property. And since I do live in one of those triple fronted lots, I'd like to vigorously encourage you to go with this plan allowing the extra cul-de-sac and moving those other 3 lots further to the north. If you vote for that, you'd be greatly enhancing my quality of life. Thank you. Scott: Okay, would any residents like to, yes sir. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Stratford Ridge. I think this plan is far superior to the last couple that we saw. I think most of our concerns was the traffic and the trees. I don't know anything about red cedars but if it takes 100 years to get one, it seems like it ought to be worth something. Do whatever is necessary. I guess I do have a question as far as the parks...as far as they like this plan or don't like this plan. What happens to the outlot as far as the beach area? What type of uses... Aanenson: That's going to all be discussed at the park meeting on May 24th. I think what they looked at...is that would just be maybe an area to dock boats or anything like that, just a beach area... Harold Taylor: Does the developer have a plan or has he submitted a plan? Aanenson: No, the city will take it as a park lot. So it will be in the city's. Harold Taylor: Okay. And at that time the city will decide what type of park facilities it will have? Aanenson: Correct. The Park Commission makes that decision. Harold Taylor: Okay, thank you very much. Allin Karels: My name is Allin Karels, 3920 Stratford. The plan that's up there, my concern would be increased traffic going down Stratford. But the plan that's there now would not feed all of the traffic through Stratford, is that my understanding? Aanenson: Right. Right now the only access still that would go down would be Mrs. Hallgren who still has a 33 feet right-of-way. When that property's developed, then it would touch these lots. So you'd have lots that... Allin Karels: So it wouldn't feed all 50 cars down that, from the development? Aanenson: That's not the intent, no. The intent is to go back onto Kings Way. Eventually when these streets tie up, Country Oaks Drive is going to be open to the north towards Highway 7. Allin Karels: I obviously would prefer this just to keep the traffic, the speed of traffic, which is our, which is my concern also, on Stratford. So I'd certainly be supportive of staff's suggestion. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you. Keith Bedford: Keith Bedford. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. The second...reflects back to what people refer to as Stratford Lane proposed. I, in visiting with Mr. Headla, understand his need for the extra 30 feet...to have them to cul-de-sac him and to have this issue settled at this time. I would be very much against any increased traffic on Stratford Lane. I think it would have a devastating affect on the marketability of those properties because they are close to Stratford Lane now. It's been reported in the City of Shorewood that each new house generates approximately 7...traffics a day. So if we have 50 lots times 7, and Stratford Lane did go through, that would be the main feeder onto Minnewashta Parkway and because of the decrease in value of those properties, I would be very much against it. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Excuse me. Lowell Carlson: Is that, who ends up with the beach part of it on that particular? Is that part of Chanhassen? Aanenson: The City of Chanhassen. Scott: Yep, the City of Chanhassen. Yes ma'am. Janet Carlson: I'm Janet Carlson. I live at 4131 Kings Road. How many openings we were wondering into the park will there be out onto Kings Road? Aanenson: That's something for the Park Commission to decide... Janet Carlson: Okay, and those...make a comment on, as far as the upkeep on the road. We should keep track of how many times the city blades that road and how many times Lowell Carlson blades that road. You'd be amazed. We've done it 7 times this year and the city's done it once. It's a mess. Scott: Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I want to talk about trees. I understand the value of the trees and I don't know, is there a possibility that those trees can be moved? I mean if you're talking about a 100 year old tree, I would imagine so. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: We tried to get some moved and if the truck is over 6 inches, they said it couldn't be done and they're all over 6 inches. Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: ...trees on the survey, it's hard to speculate on a lot of things. I think what Dave - suggested is that the engineer meet on site and we certainly...tree ordinance. We try to meet on site and work out this. I think at this point, they didn't show up on the tree survey because they weren't on their property but the trench will obviously impact that. I think that's something we'll have to meet out in the field to try to see if there's a solution. Ledvina: Do you have a recommendation on that then? Aanenson: Well that they work with the applicant's engineer to go out on the field and see what we can do. See what the options are. Ledvina: As it relates to what we have in front of us? Aanenson: Yes. I think the condition would be that we work to save the trees. Ledvina: Dave, is that possible given the grade that we're looking at? I mean the grade, the street grade that we have is fairly straight forward in terms of. Hempel: The...pretty good street grade through there too. I would say it's 5 or 10...to match the contours out there. Match the existing properties. It would be helpful to see the placement of the trees...They are north of the gravel driveway and the gravel driveway is all being disturbed as part of the new. Ledvina: So let me understand this. The trees that are going to be lost now, are they on the developer's property? Hempel: That's a question that probably should be addressed by the applicant. That can be shown on surveys. On a sunLy... Ledvina: Okay. I guess I see that as a very significant thing and I don't know exactly if that precludes our acting on it tonight. I can't speak for the other commissioners but...Let me take a look at some of the other things and I'll just set that aside...The Outlot A...is there a residence on Outlot A? Or what are those? Are there buildings there? Resident: Those are...barns. Or sheds. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: So there's no development that occurs whatsoever on Outlot A? Aanenson: ...engineer to save the wetland and basically we've determined that to meet...some kind of wetland setback and natural environment. Previously they had to...two lots but we always felt they were questionable... Ledvina: Okay. Well yeah, I want to say initially here that I feel the plan is much better than what we previously saw and I think the developer has tried to work with the parcel quite a bit. I understand that the residents concern with the trees and those are some things that I'm sure he is dealing with probably for the first time tonight. So but overall I like the street layout. I'd support the staff recommendation as it relates to the connection or the streets or connections with other parcels. The surface water ponding area now, this is property that's going to be owned by the developer? Is that correct? Aanenson: Well we asked that it be put in an outlot. Are you talking about on the park property? Ledvina: Right, right. Aanenson: Yeah. We'd be taking... Hempel: That's correct. Originally it was proposed as parkland. What we're saying it should be dedicated as an outlot. Ledvina: Okay. Well, the reason I ask is, this is, this looks to be a very large ponding area and I'm certainly all for having a pond that's going to work and do the job but I don't know what the total area here is that this pond will serve but it appears overly large and if that's subtracts from usable park property, I wouldn't want to see that. Because I don't know what's going to go in here but if we can make sure that what's laid out there in it's final form is reasonable and not necessarily oversized. We need it functional, yes but not oversized such that we're essentially wasting park space. Dave on condition number 16. You say that the city has allowed up to 10% street grades, etc. Consideration should be given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impacts to the properties to the south. What are you thinking there? Are you talking about modifying the grade of Kings Road there? Hempel: Yes. That's the intent is that we would allow them to increase the street grade, if that would help reduce the impact to the properties to the south, then we would be in full support of that. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments Mr. Chair. Scott: Okay, Ladd. = Conrad: It's a far better plan than we've seen. I live it. I think the neighbors have brought up some valid points. There should be a neighborhood meeting. Without a doubt. The comments, the surprise. We hear that all the time and I think, the way to solve that is a neighborhood meeting. Hard to feel like you re fighting a developer with the money that they have or stand to gain and hopefully we can bridge that little gap with a developer talking to you a little bit more. I do nee.. a tree survey on Kings Road. Absolutely, positively. Can't review this without seeing it. It's a big deal. Hook-up costs and those other things. You've got to follow those through. We don't do that here. Thank goodness but you can, you're going to need a variance. There's a reason for hooking up. It's a protection yet they're also, we do know that septics, that mound systems and septic systems can function very validly so, without polluting so, but the ordinance says you hook up. So you'll have to follow that through. Don't consider you telling us that tonight solves the problem. It doesn't. That's it. I think staff did a good job again and I think the developer has done some nice things. I think it's starting to fit a little bit better. But I guess I need it back. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the tree issue is very significant and I want to know what's actually coming out as a result of the road development. I want to know who owns the trees and how, if this things goes through, they'll be compensated for that if they can so. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I'll echo those comments. Trees are a significant issue. Short of just putting it as part of condition 16, minimize disruption...not removing the trees. I think there's probably some issues that I've heard about who owns them so let's get it back with that. I didn't see the original plan. I wasn't here but I'll take the comments of the other commissioners and that it is an improvement over the past. I didn't have too much. I don't have a whole lot of other comments at this time. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything to add. The other commissioners have touched upon what I'm concerned with. I would like to thank the residents for coming in, as well as the applicant. That's an important part of the process and I think that a lot of people feel that the city kind of does what they do and never tells anybody and if perhaps some of you feel that that's the case, that's certainly not the intent. But it is important that you're here and as 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we said, we make recommendations to the City Council. They make the final decisions. Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an — impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, except for one as I — recall, but you can get those from City Hall. There's nothing wrong with calling and lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this again. The directions are quite clear from the other commissioners so I'd like to ask for a — motion please. Steve Johnston: Could I address the commission please? — Scott: No. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table preliminary plat, Case # 93-11. Conrad: I second that. — Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93-11 for Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this as soon as possible so it looks like June 1st. Okay, thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: _ CITY CODE SECTION 18-57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (0.) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4, R8, R12, AND R16 AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. — Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item and stated that because of a change, the public hearing would have to be re-published. — Scott: That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinances. I think if we're talking about an R-12 or an R-16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just — don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know, — 48 — Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 dueling ordinances so. We need to see how that's going to play. Maybe we have to do something with, you know if it has to do with a public safety issue, obviously we have to take that into strong consideration but then if it impacts the ability of someone building an R- _ 16, that may preclude someone's ability to do that so, just as long as we don't, I personally don't want to have to deal with that when we're considering a large development, which is probably what we're going to be getting when we're looking at this kind of zoning. So anyway. Al-Jaff: I might add, for instance the development you were looking at before this one. Kings Road was going to be 31 feet curb to curb. So in most cases it will be below the 36 that is recommended or that is requested by the Fire Department. But again I have been looking at the ordinance before and I asked for their input and that's what they requested. — And that's what their reasoning is behind it. Scott: Okay. So you're just looking for comments. Al-Jaff: Input and comments. Scott: And then we'll have another public hearing. Ledvina: This is the, you know the forest through the trees. I mean talk about all these things creep up and when you look at a multi-family and all of a sudden you're going to require a minimum of 24 feet. You've started to build a barrier to affordable housing again. I mean these are little things and maybe I'm off base but I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at the overall goals and see what's happening here. I don't know that that makes any difference but I don't know. I think it's kind of a creep process. Al-Jaff: So you would rather see the private driveways narrower? Ledvina: Narrower, I don't know. And getting back to Joe's issue with impervious surface. I mean that's going to work into it too. I mean you get these things fighting against each other. You're trying to get the densities up to make things affordable. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out. I don't know how it all fits together but just a thought. Al-Jaff: Well... Ledvina: Than having a full street, yeah. Right. Nutting: Is this guidance or confusion? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: I think you get some of both from us. More of the later than the former sometimes. Ledvina: This is a public hearing though, right? Scott: Not yet. It wasn't properly noticed so we'll have to continue it. To be continued. — Conrad: Just philosophically, I'm sort of not listening so bear with me. Philosophically the standards for a private street, why are they different than a public street? — Al-Jaff: We would not be maintaining a private street. It would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Whoever owns that strip. It will be dedicated to... — Conrad: So in terms of construction requirements, it would still be the same for a public versus private? You've changed some tonnage requirements. — Al-Jaff: Correct. What's required. We still want to have emergency vehicles to be able to access the roads but we won't be maintaining them. — Conrad: So this is a, there's some environmental impact here. We can allow a private street that may not, they can come in at a smaller size with a private street so that's one thing this — does. What else? Al-Jaff: It reduces hard surface coverage. In comparison to a full fledged city street, which requires 60 feet typically. Aanenson: We see them a lot when we've done condominium or apartment projects and you see them...Again what it goes back to, as Sharmin indicated, the impervious surface. What we're doing right now is trying to legitimize what we've been doing. As the attorney _ indicated we're promoting private driveways for whatever reason but certainly not, there's really more streets when you're serving more than one person. And we're going to...and we usually talking about land functions and things to do that in and it does address...wetland _ plan. Our tree canopy, which I think is really on the cutting edge of tree preservation. And now with this private drive. Again, it's tools to preserve landforms. Conrad: Yeah, I sure like some of the tools that are in place or real close. It sure makes some decision making a lot easier than willy nilly. You know it's nifty stuff. Ledvina: Does that mean that sewer lines don't go as far and you have longer laterals and things like that? 50 _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: Not necessarily. Ledvina: I mean because your city improvement is less. I mean it's not going all the way kind of thing. Al-Jaff: It would be than the private street's. Ledvina: Well I mean just for example White Oak Lane. The one that we had today. This evening where you're actually truncating the street 100 feet or something like that. Well, that means 100 feet less sewer and are those laterals coming in longer or does the? Aanenson: Actually it came to a Y and they all separated. Under that circumstances it would come just like a big cul-de-sac and they all have their connections off that. I think you have to look at it on an individual basis depending on where the driveway is split off and... Ledvina: But that means longer laterals right? Aanenson: Again, it depends on how the lots lay out. I mean it may have a continuous... Ledvina: I don't know that that's necessarily bad but. Aanenson: That's a legitimate concern but I think it would depend on the length of the common driveway. It's just like if we looked at townhouse project...and this one I don't think so. When we were looking at the Oaks on Minnewashta, I think the laterals... Conrad: So do we recommend private streets? Are we recommending or is the developer requesting? It can be either? Aanenson: On this one he. Conrad: Well, in our ordinance. In the ordinance is it staff saying, we don't want to maintain that or build that. Al-Jaff: Well if he's going to meet our standards, therefore we don't want to maintain them. Aanenson: Are you asking who's asks for them? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Normally that's the only way to subdivide the property, we would recommend 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 — that. Or if for environmental reasons it makes more sense. That would be two options. This engineer wasn't even aware that was an option so we showed him and he said well hey, that makes sense. Great, I'll...can save more trees. — Ledvina: Are we compromising our infrastruction though for people to gain access to their _ houses? By doing this. Aanenson: As far as, do they have an association to maintain that segment? _ Ledvina: Right. Aanenson: Well that's a trade off. It's a trade off. Ledvina: I understand you know but. _ Conrad: I think it's a nice tool. It gives us some liberty to do some things. Ledvina: Sometimes it's going to work really well. Sometimes if it's misapplied, it's not going to work. Aanenson: I think we've got...where we apply it and certainly for the right reasons. Not just because well, the developer wants to do it. There's got to be a specific reason. Scott: And then what happens? Let's say you've got some sort of a homeowners association or something that has, I'm thinking about like a R-16 and then for some reason the association does not take care of it or something like that. Is the city going to end up with — the responsibility? It's just like henceforth and whatever. If your association doesn't handle it, get your shovel out. I just don't want to see stuff coming back where the city's going to have to then maintain something that's not easy to maintain. — Al-Jaff: The intention is also to have all those agreements with that association recorded with the County. And Kate, I don't know how much weight that carries. — Aanenson: No, but that's what we do right now when we get those agreements... Scott: Okay. Do you guys have any questions or comments? Ledvina: No. Aanenson: I guess we wanted to have this...because the next 2 weeks agenda is...hopefully _ 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we flushed out a lot of issues tonight, we though we tabled quite a few of them... Al-Jaff: So the two issues that you definitely want us to look at is, impact on affordable housing as hard surface coverage? Ledvina: Well, just some thoughts. I mean I don't need a science project or whatever, or a research study but what I'm thinking about is, and kind of working off of your comment is that, we've got things that we're trying to accomplish goals and are we putting hurdles in the way of ourselves without even knowing it I guess. You know a lot of times we look at _. things. We work hard to do it right but we don't see it in light of the big picture and that's, I don't know. Scott: Do we need to do anything? I mean do we have to vote to continue? Okay, it's continued. APPROVAL OF MINUrITES: Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: ...Just a reminder that I need somebody from the Planning Commission to attend the charette on the 26th. I think Nancy was going to try to. Ledvina: What charette? — Aanenson: That's on the Bluff Creek. Ledvina: What's the? Aanenson: It's from 9:00 to noon. Possibly 12:30 down in the senior center with Bill Morrish and we're going to try to... Ledvina: Those day meetings are really tough. I'd really like to go but I just can't sneak away. Aanenson: Well after we. Nutting: Didn't Nancy say something about a charette? 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: ...we'd like at least one Planning Commissioner. We're trying to keep that... Ledvina: If I can make it I will but. Aanenson: What we're going to do with this...LCMR grant and then you'll see. Other than that I just wanted to let you know that...and focusing on the three intersections. Kind of the old TH 101 and. Scott: Not Dell Road and Highway 5. Aanenson: No. And the other one is the Target site. Powers and TH 5... Scott: TH 101 and TH 5, Market and TH 5. Aanenson: ...and just a reminder that it will be a lengthy agenda...so hopefully you did flush out a lot of the issues even though these were tabled... Ledvina: I've got a question now. When I looked at the items today, on Minnewashta, I thought to myself, well you're recommending us to table it. And I said, well this one here and the last one that we did. Aanenson: I didn't recommend tabling. There was actually one... Ledvina: Oh, oh, oh, the one before. I'm sorry. Well that one. And I looked at it and I said, well why are we doing it? We're not going to act on it essentially. But I guess after I heard the residents speak I felt wow, that was a good way of understanding the issues and not really putting yourself under the pressure to have to make a decision on it and I like that. But is that going to be something that we're going to see more and more recommendations to table? Aanenson: Well I think when we feel comfortable with it. Ledvina: I mean first of all, is the developer requesting that we, that you bring it to us with a recommendation to table? Aanenson: No. Ledvina: Okay. I wouldn't think so. So how does he react to that? Aanenson: Well normally when we get to the point where we realize there's too many issues, then we begin dialogue to say, you know there's some issues here. Right when we start 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 working on it we say gee, we're missing this and we're missing that and sometimes staff misses stuff and that's your job to tell us. We don't have enough information. But we try to do is have a dialogue that we need additional information in order to make a recommendation on this and if we agree that we can't get the information in time or a substantial change from, and they can't get it to you. You've had it...once or twice. What we don't like...we certainly feel like we're capable of following through with a specific, I mean... Ledvina: I don't want to belabor it. I just wanted. Scott: That's one of the things that's interesting about the chair person is you want to move things along but you don't want to be what you really are. Anyway. REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE. Aanenson: I just put that into the packet because I think the next packet...is going to be pretty lengthy. I thought this would give you some additional time to read through it. As I indicated, we've got some slides showing the wall signs, I think will be very helpful. To give you an idea where we're going with that. And also we're going to have slides of each of the different definitions so I think that will be helpful. And I'm sure there will be quite a few people here to hear that. But we're hoping ter this discussion, trying to finalize it and then come back with just the ordinance itself and then have the public hearing and pass it on. But I envision this next meeting...to be a work session again. Not a public hearing...for you to understand and then have the public hearing on it. Conrad: So June 1st is a work session? Aanenson: I think we want to... Nutting: So we're talking 5:30? Aanenson: The other thing is we're trying to get on the shoreland regs. Scott: The who? Aanenson: The shoreland regulations. We had an extended deadline from the DNR to get that adopted. Fortunately they haven't worked on it and we're pressing up against that time window and the other things we want to do is we've got some big comprehensive planning issues and that's the storm water management plan which we've been actually...on these projects but we haven't officially adopted...And that's another meeting that, I think if we can put maybe just the shoreland regs and the storm water management just as a separate 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 meeting. That might be appropriate. Ledvina: A full meeting. Aanenson: A full meeting just to talk about those issues because I think Diane needs to be — there and then we can just handle that and try not to take anything else. I think that will take up pretty much of our time. Conrad: Storm water's a big deal. Aanenson: It is very...give me some direction. — Scott: I think we just need to have them earlier at 5:30 and then those who can make it, you know come and the other folks just get there when they can. — Aanenson: I think you need to have a work session before you have a public hearing... Conrad: And then we're going to let the Chamber folks, the chamber's doing some stuff, right? Scott: Yeah, they're. Conrad: And they'll be invited to the public hearing? Aanenson: Yeah, they can certainly come to the work session. I think at this point you have — a better understanding what we're doing before we, just like we did with the comp plan... Conrad: But do they know that yet? — Aanenson: I sent... Scott: Yeah, I appreciate the work that you've been doing with the Chamber of Commerce. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the — motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson — Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 56 CITY OF ClIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director 1. -�� DATE: May 26, 1994 SUBJ: Report from the Director - On Monday, May 23, 1994 the city council took action on the following items: 1. Oak Ponds Second Addition, Dean Johnson Construction: The council approved the final plat. 2. Heritage Development: Concept approval was given for the Heritage development. — This was the planned unit development to rezone 39 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD for 56 single family lots located south of Highway 5 and east of Timberwood Estates. 3. Lutheran Church of the Living Christ: The site plan for a 7,560 sq. ft. addition to the Lutheran Church was approved by the council. Next meeting: As a side note, the next Planning Commission agenda (June 15) will be another large one with approximately five items on it that will probably be fairly detailed. I would also like to schedule the shoreland regulations. I know it is difficult to meet earlier, but if we can at least tackle the shoreland regulations in a work session, we could then schedule it for action at a meeting in July. Hopefully we can keep the July meetings to the regular schedule. I know that the summer is a difficult time for everyone. I appreciate your willingness to spend some additional time during May and June.