PC 2009 05 05
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 5, 2009
Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark
Undestad, and Denny Laufenburger
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD: REQUEST FOR A ZONING APPEAL OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ON A
SINGLE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF)
LOCATED AT 7470 CHANHASSEN ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER: JOHN
COLFORD, PLANNING CASE 09-05.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Colford 11256 Jersey Avenue No, Champlin
Gary Connell 6201 Murray Hill Road
Tracey Rust 7500 Chanhassen Road
Dave Miller 7596 Debbie Lane, Eden Prairie
Patty Fitzsimmons 7480 Chanhassen Road
Tim McHugh 7450 Chanhassen Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Kevin.
Dillon: How did it, well and maybe I’m asking the question of the wrong person but how did the
determination come about by removing kitchen appliances you kind of sort of remove the
building?
Generous: Well that’s his, the applicant under our ordinance it says that the dwelling unit has
separate eating, sleeping, sanitary facilities so he thought that if he removed one of those
elements he wouldn’t have a second dwelling unit on the property.
Dillon: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Generous: And staff says well you still have a second dwelling unit. That’s not sufficient.
Dillon: I see. Okay. And then one of your earlier drawings showed the zoning setbacks. Now
how did the property first exceed the zoning setbacks like way back in the day? Was that
before?
Generous: In 1954 the City didn’t, wasn’t the regulating agency. It was a village.
Dillon: Okay. Those are the two questions I had.
Laufenburger: Mr. Generous, was there any discussion with the applicant about why the garage
is intended to stay? Building C.
Generous: We didn’t have any really discussion on that. It was always, our discussions were
around the two dwelling units on the one parcel.
Laufenburger: Okay. And do I understand correctly what you’re saying is if the square footage
of Building A, if that building is torn down and they were to build within the building setback,
within the blue, if they built a new building no larger than that same size, then they’d be able to
do that, is that correct?
Generous: That’s correct. Under our non-conforming ordinance you may replace what you
have. You just can’t expand it so if it’s a two story building, they would be able to come in with
that same two story.
Laufenburger: So that would fall, that would fall in the category of replacement or
improvement?
Generous: Right.
Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. One other question. Under the discussion in the materials that
you prepared for us, there was discussion about hard surface coverage. Could you explain the
table on the bottom of our page 4 of 7 Bob.
Generous: The table just shows that as part of their new proposal they would eliminate one of
the non-conformities on their property with either option by eliminated some of the driveway
space.
Laufenburger: I guess what I’m trying to understand is, if the combined A, B and C, existing
square footage is 28.7% of the hard surface coverage, how can a larger number of Building A be,
add up to a smaller percentage of hard surface coverage?
Generous: It’s primary through the elimination of hard, driveway space on the lot.
Laufenburger: Oh, that makes sense. Okay.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Aanenson: If I can add something else to that Commissioner Laufenburger. I think on the
garage, the C, there are non-conforming structures on there. If you don’t do anything to a non-
conforming it can remain.
Laufenburger: It stays.
Aanenson: And the fact that there’s two dwelling units, so that’s what puts A and B in play. Is
the fact that they’re dwelling units. If both were accessory structures, as long as it didn’t exceed
the, you know we also have a cap on that, then it would be that same issue. It’s the fact that
there are two dwelling units on one lot.
Laufenburger: Okay. So I think I understand you correctly that their desire to build the new
structure or the new proposed home, they could do that leaving C alone and essentially doing
whatever is necessary for Building B to make it non dwelling.
Generous: Non-dwelling.
Laufenburger: Okay. That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Larson: So, you mentioned the word gutting Building B. Does that mean all interior walls, all
everything so it’s basically like a.
Laufenburger: So it’s a storage building.
Larson: So a storage building. That would be the, what would the, the City would accept.
Generous: Add a new, yes.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Thomas: I think actually all my questions have been asked of Bob so thanks.
Undestad: Just one Bob. The reports say you go back to 1992 was as far back as you could find
a single lot.
Generous: Well we were trying to determine whether or not anyone had established the two part
lots as a zoning lot. With a zoning lot you can eliminate the interior lot line setback
requirements. We don’t have any records before that showed that that actually happened. And
that actually when they come in for a building permit, whatever way they go we would make a
zoning lot out of this so it’s clear from this point forward that it’s all one parcel.
Undestad: Okay.
Papke: I just have one. I think I know the answer to this question but just for clarity for the
Planning Commission and the public. What, could city staff comment on what is the rationale
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
for stipulating one and only one principle residence on a lot. I mean obviously you want, it
makes sense but why does the City…
Aanenson: Sure. This came into play when we recently did a variance for someone that wanted
to do on a garage and put a dwelling into a garage. I think for those that are separate to do
secondary units, separate utilities. In this circumstance, because there was the two homes in
place and they both had been rented, I think there’s some desire to see that there’s permanent
residency which is a good thing to kind of manage that. With the existing home too, with the
new home it forces that home to the north, instead of centering on the lot, you can see the
difference here. Because the existing home is sitting there, in order to make the other lot work, it
forces the design of one. And there’s also 101 for, if you had two fully living units there, which
there was before, it’s not the best, desirable place to make turn movements. You know we try to
not go onto a collector street so those are some of the rationale. And if you look at, it’s an
undersized lot for 2 homes, especially a home of that size.
Papke: Okay, good. Thank you.
Dillon: I have one more question.
Papke: Sure, go ahead.
Dillon: So if under the proposed scenario up there, if Building B were totally eliminated, would
then everything else be in compliance? Except for the non-conforming garage.
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Correct. They would come in and comply with the RSF district regulations for
setbacks, site coverage and everything like that.
Dillon: So have you discussed that solution with the applicant?
Generous: Yeah, and he’d like to preserve that second dwelling unit on the property. As we say.
Dillon: But it’s not a dwelling unit because it doesn’t have kitchen appliances right?
Generous: Well that’s part of his interpretation of it. Our, we’re saying that removing the
kitchen appliances doesn’t, does not make it not a dwelling unit. If you understand. Someone
could still use that as a separate independent living area.
Aanenson: It still has plumbing. It still has a furnace so it’s been used as a rental property so I
guess that was our position on it. So herein’s the interpretation whether or not it was the two
dwellings or not.
Laufenburger: But to a certain degree there are those who would find that garage a very proper
dwelling unit. Not necessarily in Chanhassen but.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? If not, if the applicant is here, would you please
step to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
John Colford: My name is John Colford and I live at 11256 Jersey Avenue North in Champlin,
just south of Anoka and thanks for letting me speak here tonight but. We had, I had gotten a job
in the south of the cities after completing training, my medical training and I joined a group that
covers Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and now I’ve got a painful commute from just
south of Anoka to Edina and Burnsville and last summer we you know started looking for houses
down here and found this nice place and you know we talked to some banks and asked you know
will we be able to do this with something like 10% down, because I just finished my training and
didn’t have a whole lot of money and they were like wow, you can do it for 5% down because
you know everything’s so great and since then we’ve had a complete meltdown in our banking
industry. My attempted construction financing for this property was about $200,000 short of the
cost of construction, which means that now that the banks are saying you need anywhere
between 20 and 40 percent down. That’s of the assessed value and then you have to come up
with everything that they don’t believe your project is worth. So in addition to say for instance
at TCF they want 40% down, and I have to come up with the extra $200,000 so I’m looking at
over 50% of my project here so I need to maintain value on this property to try and offset what
the banks are doing in terms of you know appraisals. And that’s a, you know that’s coming up
with over 50% of your project is amazingly difficult for a bank that’s accepted TARP funds. All
of our tax money but so at any rate, you know I’ve gone with a less expensive builder. A less
you know prestigious builder and I’ve eliminated things inside the property to try and bring the
cost down. I assume the appraisal is largely based on the square footage. You know I’m trying
to do that but I think I need to maintain value on my property as much as possible to try to
account for that and I guess some arguments I have, the crux of the staff’s interpretation is that
expanding the square footage of the primary residence, moving it and expanding the square
footage of the primary residence is, defines expansion of the non-conformity. Certainly the
square footage will be expanded. Expanding the non-conformity, there’s really no inherent
property of the new proposed primary structure that’s non-conforming. It’s conforming for
setbacks. Nowhere in the code describes any conformity requirements in square footage. The
non-conformity is in the second principle building which you know clearly the south structure,
the smaller secondary structure, even in the existing confirmation and changing the primary
structure which is non-conforming for the setbacks to the north to a conforming structure strikes
me as odd that that would increase the non-conformity when nothing about the primary structure
could be described as non-conforming so the ascertation that increasing the square footage of the
primary structure, one of the two living structures on the property, that that is defining expansion
of the non-conformity, and clearly this describes any non-conformity cannot be expanded or
intensified. They’re describing a non-conformity. They’re not describing you know square
footage. They’re not describing anything in particular specifically. So that’s one argument I
guess I would put forth. Multiple buildings on the same lot. That doesn’t describe square
footage at all. That describes the number of buildings so expanding that would be putting a third
principle structure on the property not, you know that would expand the number of principle
structures and the number of principle structures is the same. You know the hard cover will be
improved mostly by removing, or largely by removing the hard cover driveway so that the hard
cover will be improved in that it will be conforming. The primary structure will be conforming
for the setbacks. The two existing structures, the garage up by the road and the existing south
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
house will change, you know theoretically could change in no way whatsoever and it would be a
continuation of a non-conformity. Now if you know everyone agrees that, except me that
increasing the square footage of a conforming primary structure would be increasing the overall
non-conformity, you know perhaps that’s balanced by you know making the setback of the
primary structure conforming and improving, or making the total hard cover non-conforming as
well. Maybe in balance the overall non-conformity could be considered improved. I don’t
know. I’ve been trying for 6 months to find someone who you know wouldn’t, is willing to do
construction financing. I mean Citibank will not do construction financing. TCF will not do
construction financing. TCF, or I’m sorry, yes it’s TCF that will not. Wells Fargo will do it for
40% down. There are a few banks around that will do it for 25% down, and then it’s all if you
appraise, you know if I appraise a couple hundred thousand dollars short then I’m looking at a
huge barrier. I’m looking at, and this is going to be stuck, I’m going to have to rent it to try and
support the mortgage payment you know and it’s going to be years. You know years in the
future and all this deficit spending it’s going to drive up long term rates and you know if I’ve got
stagflation, long term mortgage rates in the teens again, I can’t afford to build this house. You
know it’s been a perfect storm no doubt that I’ve been caught in but I guess you know if one
could look at the primary structure as a bigger conforming structure than the two other structures,
the south structure and the garage as the non-conformities, those are not changing and the
conformity in terms of the position, in terms of setbacks of the primary structure would be
improved and the overall square footage would be improved so, I mean that’s what I’m hoping
for.
Undestad: Yeah, just a couple of quick questions. When did you buy the lot?
John Colford: Huh?
Undestad: When did you purchase the lot?
th
John Colford: Well it was, made the purchase agreement in September. I think September 20
th
and we ended up buying it November 14.
Undestad: Just 2008.
John Colford: Yeah. Or 2007, I’m sorry.
Undestad: And you know you kind of talk about the non-conformities but I think one of the
issues that the City’s dealing with is the dwelling units more so than the non-conforming
structures on there. As Bob said if you got the, turned it into a garage or a storage garage or
something there’s not an issue. Do you think that you need to, or do you want to rent that? Can
you keep this house to rent it or?
John Colford: Oh I would be happy to, I would be happy to sign something that said I would
give all of my worldly possessions to Chanhassen if I rented out that structure. I mean being a
slum lord is a complete.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Undestad: So what do you think the value, have you talked to your lender on what the value of
the interior improvements are to that structure?
John Colford: Well I mean if it becomes a storage shed the square footage value will be a
fraction of the value of a heated, plumbed structure. You know and, I mean taking out the
kitchen is going to be a hit. That’s going to be a hit no doubt but yeah, turning it into a barn is
not going to be worth it.
Undestad: So they haven’t really given you a value of that structure as it sits right now in your
appraisal process?
John Colford: Well I mean it would be, I mean there’s the construction loan on the front end and
then there’s an end loan and it’s probably going to be more important to the end loan because the
end loan’s going to look at all the structures on the property and you know I’m going to get, in
terms of appraised value, you know I could get $75 a square foot for that. $75 to $100 a square
foot for that as a heated, plumbed, you know even as it’s existing. It’s not in great shape. It’s no
huge asset to me.
Undestad: It’s what, 970 square foot?
John Colford: Yeah, it’s 1,000 square feet. Yeah. 929, 930. Yeah. I mean that’s 100 grand.
Undestad: The percentage of that for your value on it.
John Colford: Yeah, yeah. I mean that’s, I mean that’s sort of make or break for this project. I
mean because to try and balance what the banks are doing by totally protecting themselves.
Undestad: Yeah, timing is everything isn’t it.
John Colford: Yeah.
Undestad: I have nothing else.
Thomas: No, I don’t have any questions for you.
Larson: Well I’m kind on the same lines as what Mark was asking. So you’re kind of relying on
your appraised value to include, would it be included as just an extra building or would you be
including that as a rental unit to be showing income out of that?
John Colford: Oh um, no I don’t. I wouldn’t look at it as rent. I mean any rental income. I
mean my monthly income, I’m golden. I’m golden. It’s all about the down payment and it’s all
about the value so I don’t need it for rental income. You know I qualify on my credit score. I
qualify on my monthly income. All that’s great. It’s, the barriers are the down payment and the
appraised value which will you know turn the down payment into you know something else so I
would not describe it as a rental unit and you know you have to apply for a permit every year. I
have no desire whatsoever, whatsoever to rent.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Larson: So to follow up on that then, if, if for some reason the City allows you to remove the
kitchen appliances, is the mortgage company still going to give you that kind of value that you’re
looking for out of this in order to help bump up your you know vested value of the property?
John Colford: Yeah, it would be an incremental loss of value to lose the kitchen but it wouldn’t
be as much as you know completely gutting it and un-heating it and taking out the plumbing so
you know that would be a hit. I do want to go forward with the project. I would try with, you
know I would at least try with you know, as it is now with the kitchen removed, I mean ideally
you know I can keep it in it’s more valuable form but.
Larson: So, so if you were to remove the kitchen, everything out of the kitchen, is there a way
the City that would look at this, I mean if they only, and I don’t know maybe this is a question
for you guys. If he were to remove everything that, you know like gas fixtures and other things
that would pertain to a kitchen and have it be more like a bunk house or something, I mean what
would that?
Aanenson: It wasn’t our idea to split hairs on what appliances go in or out. It’s either a dwelling
unit or it’s not because as long as it’s got a furnace and it’s got plumbing in it, it’s a dwelling unit
and someone else could put that in. I wouldn’t want to pick that. I think the point that we’re
trying to make is, if it’s your interpretation that you’re okay with two houses on there, because
once this house is approved, the time to get rid of a non-conforming use is when there’s a change
in use because once a change is in use, and this applicant aside, whoever moves there, their
lifestyle changes, that house will be there in perpetuity because once we’ve looked at that,
someone can remodel a non-conforming structure so it’s going to be there. So the question is, is
this the appropriate time when there’s a change in use, that’s the non-conformity. It’s not about
his new houses. It’s a lovely home. It’s increasing what’s up there today. That’s all great. It’s
the fact that that house, if you choose to do it, and I wouldn’t say take out the stove. That was
the applicant’s recommendation. If it’s going to be a dwelling unit, then it’s going to be, or
whether he rents it or not and someone’s living in there, it’s that’s what it is. It’s do you feel
comfortable in saying someone can use that as a second structure. That’s really the crux of the
question. If that makes sense.
Larson: Well I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to somehow gain value out of that
property for the purposes of what he’s trying to do.
Aanenson: Right, he’s, yeah. His request to us was, if I took it out would you be comfortable?
That wasn’t our’s. Our recommendation is to say really, it’s the time.
John Colford: And that certainly wasn’t the ideal situation.
Aanenson: Right.
Larson: Right, no and I understand…
John Colford: That was trying to come up with something you know.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Larson: …to see how you could.
Aanenson: Yeah. I think that’d be kind of, if you can leave it as a unit, then I would leave the
kitchen in. If you’re comfortable with that. So that’s really the decision.
Larson: Alright, thank you. That’s all I have. Denny?
Laufenburger: Two questions. I think it was in here Bob but everything about the application
for the new construction, the new home, all of that falls within city guidelines in terms of
structure.
Generous: Yeah, it appears so. We don’t have the building plan but yes, it meets setback and
the calculation from a zoning standpoint would comply.
John Colford: And in fact we’re putting in geothermal heating and cooling…technology. I’m
sure the carbon and energy and resource footprint of the new primary structure will be smaller
than that existing, not insulated 1950’s house. I guarantee you that.
Laufenburger: Mr. Colford, can you tell us a little bit about your family.
John Colford: Well.
Laufenburger: I mean who’s going to occupy this new dwelling?
John Colford: Well me and my wife, Jane. We’ve got two, we’ve twin 4 year old, or 4 month
old babies. Boy and a girl, and then I’ve got a 5 year old girl so, and that’s why we sort of, you
know it’s a two story with all the bedrooms on the same, upper level so we have so many small
children that we sort of, we could have made a smaller house and put a bedroom in the basement
but you know with so many small children, we wanted them all sort of on our same level and
once you put 4 bedrooms up there, you’ve got sort of a minimum footprint and to get at house
that’s a reasonable size for a lake lot, you know is hard to squeeze it into the existing square
footage of 2,400 square feet so.
Laufenburger: Do you have pets?
John Colford: No. No.
Laufenburger: No wild animals or anything like that?
John Colford: No, my daughter and my wife are allergic to nearly everything so. Yeah.
Laufenburger: That’s all I had Mr. Colford, thank you.
Dillon: Are either one of the houses there now livable?
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
John Colford: Well I mean, well the south structure I mean it’s, it’s not in great shape.
Unfortunately the previous renters were all animal people. There was some like people with cats
before people with dogs so it’s not, I mean it wouldn’t be, my wife and my daughter wouldn’t be
able to live there just because of that. The house to the north, the basement’s essentially
unfinished and the, I mean the upper floor was subdivided for the purpose of renting so they’re
all sort of subdivided. There’s 3 subdivided bedrooms. One master bedroom. A shared kitchen
and then 2 other bedrooms and there’s a spiral staircase that wouldn’t be any good for small kids
so.
Dillon: So prior to you know the economic conditions going south and the terms changing and
all of that, what were you contemplating for this lot before all that happened?
John Colford: I mean the financing that we sought did not, and really even include the garage or
the south house in discussion. That, I had actually called the building department beforehand
and I apparently should have talked to the planning commission because the building department
told me that all this would be grandfathered in and you can build a new house closer to the lot
and there’s no problem with anything so I didn’t know it was an issue even up until it was too
late. So you know we hadn’t thought a whole lot about those 2 structures because we had looked
at it as a tear down regardless so.
Dillon: So it’s possible if conditions were to change again, improve, I mean you could be back
to that scenario in hopefully the not too distant future. I mean I don’t know but, none of us does
but.
John Colford: Yeah I mean, I mean I understand, I mean I think it’d be very optimistic for banks
to stop protecting themselves that quickly and I really think the deficit spending is going to start
driving up those long term interest rates. I don’t see how that long term interest rates can avoid
that sort of inflationary pressures that all the deficit spending that we’re doing is going to have
on it and, you know this gets up to 9-10 percent, you know I can’t do this.
Dillon: Those are all the questions I had.
Papke: Okay, I have no questions but just a comment for you. Just FYI, the Planning
Commission quite regularly has to debate these fine issues of what constitutes that condition that
exacerbates the existing non-conforming structure, be it the distance into the setback or the
number of lineal feet and the number of square feet so just, I’m sure you’re probably aware of
that but I just wanted to make sure we were all clear that you know this is something we handle
quite frequently so.
Undestad: Chairman Papke, I have one more question.
Papke: Sure.
Undestad: Just to this is kind of based on financial hardships and things here. What is your
project, the appraisal, how is it set up? What is the value of your project of putting that house in?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
John Colford: Well I mean the property was acquired for $460 and the new structure, depending
on the builder. You know the first builder that we talked to, you know it was going to be just shy
of a million dollars into the house and we’ve eliminated several things to get that down to, and
shopped around and gone to a little less, a little less expensive builder and we’re getting into the
mid to low 800’s. You know it’s going to be.
Undestad: I’m sorry you say the lot was 460?
John Colford: 460 yeah. Well I mean the lot and the houses and you know the purchase of the
property was for 460. So and we’re dropping and dropping it and we’ve, but you know you drop
it, drop it, drop it, say I drop it to you know say I build a $400,000 house. I’ve got 460 into it so
I’m still at 860 and they’re going to expect 20% down and then they’re going to appraise it at
600 so, or 700 and so I’ve got to do 20% down plus this extra, you know so still I’m looking at a
number. You know the total amount, you know it helps some but it’s always this percentage
that they expect of the appraised value and then you’ve got to make up the gap in the appraisal
and that’s, you know that’s been, you know that’s what’s going to delay this for you know I
don’t know how long it’s going to take me to save up a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Undestad: But that second house, house B that you’re saying that’s worth $75 to $100 a foot so
$75,000 to $100,000 based on your overall package of say a million two.
John Colford: Right. See I can come up with 20% down by the end of the summer, but if they
appraise it at you know $100,000 or $200,000 shy, then I’m a year or two in the future and you
know I can build this house at the current interest rate. You know if the interest rates go up then
you know, I don’t know what I can.
Papke: Okay, very good. Thank you. Anything else? Thanks very much Mr. Colford. At this
point we’d like to open up the public hearing for the general public. If someone would like to
step up to the podium and provide any comments on the matter, we’d like to hear it.
Gary Connell: My name’s Gary Connell, 6201 Murray Hill Road. I don’t know John Colford
but I knew of his proposal. I have a similar situation that I’ve been working with for several
months now, but haven’t brought this to the you know, to you guys. Or if you’ll raise an, but
you know some of the comments I guess. One is you know, which you’re being asked for the
motion is to affirm the city. The planner’s you know recommendation to disallow this based on
the non-conforming. I think I want, the financial hardship is compelling but really I think what’s
important here is that, we need a clear understanding of what is the expansion here. I would
think the expansion would be from 2 dwellings to 3. As John mentioned the square footage isn’t
really clearly, it’s kind of in a gray area as far as the ordinance goes and I’m hoping that maybe
you guys can, you know there can be some discussion down that line as to just how do we split
these hairs. You know what is, what is the expansion really? Is it the square footage? I mean in
it’s, would it qualify as it being an expansion? I’m thinking that John, no it’s really if you
wanted to go to a third unit it would be. Or if you have a new lot with nothing on it and you
want to build 2 dwelling units. Well you can’t do that but here you have some of these older
properties, of which I have two. My house was built in 1935 and I’ve got a principle house and
then a carriage house up at the garage which we bought and intended to use it as an in-law
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
apartment. Not a rental unit. I mean we’re in a single family neighborhood and we want to keep
it that way and enjoy it that way. But we can’t, I can’t add a bedroom or a family room to the
main house. I can’t improve my property so in a way I’m looking at a hardship too. I mean I
can’t, I have a piece of property that I made an investment into but I can’t improve it. Whether I
have a need to do so for my family or I want to do so for a financial reason. I can’t. That’s the
interpretation that is you know by the code. So down that line what is the ordinance, what are
our ordinances really here to do? You know I mentioned earlier that you know the City would
like to take advantage of, or take the opportunity when somebody comes in and wants to make a
change like this, to bring it back down to within the ordinance. Well that property had value
with those 2 units on it and you know probably changed hands several times and everybody
participated in buying that and selling that you know, did so according to what was there. And is
the ordinance more for development, new expansion and development or are we going to say, in
a way is it there to penalize or you know folks who are trying to just you know make better what
they’ve got. Not to try to you know change the flavor of the neighborhood or anything like that.
We obviously don’t want to do that but you know when we’re talking about you know changing
square footage, is that going maybe just a little bit too far with respect to pushing the expansion
you know proposition so. So I guess what I’m coming up here to do is I guess try to, I wanted to
see you guys and you know to see if I should even bother to try to pursue my.
Papke: We appreciate that.
Gary Connell: But so, I guess those are yeah the kind of…
Papke: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Just a comment on that, and city staff please
correct my understanding if I misstate this but, one thing the last speaker brought up that I want
to make sure we’re all clear on that when the city prevents a resident from intensifying a non-
conformance, that in itself is not a hardship on the resident. Okay what you have to show is that
you are prevented from enjoying using your property as others do without being allowed to
intensify that non-conformance. So in your case adding on a new room or so on that, the fact
that the city you know prevents you from doing that is not a, is not considered a hardship on you.
The hardship is if your house is unusable in it’s current state so you can’t enjoy your property.
Did I misstate that or?
Aanenson: Yeah, if you can go back to the, on the interpretation. Correct. Again, the goal is,
because these were two smaller lakeshore lots, as Mr. Generous indicated. Very narrow lots
built under different standards so to try to bring them in conformance with the new ones, the
appropriate time is when there’s an application in front of you to try to do that and that’s what’s
informed. So the staff’s opinion was is there were 2 homes on the lot.
Papke: Yes.
Aanenson: Square footage aside, that if you’re going to expand another one, beyond the,
whatever that square footage is, beyond the footprint. The original footprint. Then the other
home should be removed.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: And that’s defining the nature of what it means to intensify the non-conformance but I
was trying to get to I think there was some misunderstanding of what is a hardship.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: I wanted to make sure we were…
Aanenson: Correct and so what you’re deciding then today is, is the staff’s appeal, opinion of
the two lots.
Papke: Correct.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Okay, other residents like to get up and speak up and test the waters
for their own possibilities.
Laufenburger: Or just meet us.
Papke: We’re friendly.
Tracey Rust: Tracey Rust, 7500 Chanhassen Road. As much as, excited to see a single family
come onto this property, I have to say that my biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental
property so I understand the hardship as far as cost for this property but wondering if everything
has been looked at with this new house. Just looking at, I guess if you could go to, one more.
Let’s do that one. Just looking at the grading of the property, does that increase the cost for the
loan because it’s pushed so much further to the lake. Is there going to be more grading involved
at that area? That type of thing. Can the house be pushed forward, you know further up to the
road to reduce the cost? Those types of things so again I understand, I understand the whole
hardship with loans and things right now. It’s unfortunate and wish we were not in that situation.
However, again the biggest fear is that that continues to be a rental property.
Papke: I have a question for you along those lines.
Tracey Rust: Sure.
Papke: Did you experience problems in the neighborhood or any nuisances or anything as a
result of that use of that as a rental property?
Tracey Rust: You know I think it’s the fact that it can constantly change hands and you never
know necessarily who’s going to be there so it’s just, you know it’s a single family area. That’s
what the lots are intended to be and you know it wasn’t, understand that it was existing that way.
There was nothing we could do about it until now so you know again really excited to see a
single family move in there. I just don’t want to see a rental property there anymore so. Again
has everything been looked to get the costs down to where it needs to be so that we don’t have to
have that dwelling there anymore. And then the other I guess if the city decides yes, this is
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
something that you can agree to, the other thing is that you’re going to have this nice, big
beautiful home and then these two existing buildings. Would anything be done to the exteriors
to match the proposed building and that type of thing? Otherwise kind of have two eyesores
right in front of a nice, brand new house. I’m assuming that it’s going to be pretty attractive and
just would think that the owner wouldn’t want that either. Two eyesores right in front of the
house so. Again my biggest fear is that it just, it stays a rental property and I’d like to see it a
single family lot.
Papke: Thank you very much. We appreciate you standing up and giving us your perspective.
John Colford: So you know when my construction financing, I had no intention to ever be a
renter, or a rental unit and when my construction financing that seemed to be going well fell
apart at the appraisal, you know the renters asked to stay and I was of course told that they were
fabulous people, which was a lie but you know, and so a week into renting it I started
encouraging them to leave and there’s only 2 people left in the main house. The south house has
st
been empty since March 1. No intention of re-renting it. I really don’t want to be a slum lord at
all and I immediately regretted it but you know then again my payment is $2,000 a month for an
interest only loan that I had to get at the last second when my construction financing fell through,
and that’s actually a variable rate, interest only loan to acquire this and that can go anywhere and
so I may be forced to move back to renting it but I don’t want to, and you know, and I totally
understand why somebody doesn’t want a rental property. My current house I had a rental
property right next to me and I don’t like it and I would not want one there, and you know my
intention, you know I’m with, I’ve got a, I’m on a partnership track in a physician group at
Fairview Southdale and Fairview Ridges and I intend to live there for 50 years. I swear to God
so that’s, I foresee myself being there for 50 years and not renting it ever but. And yeah, of
course we, we’re you know hoping to do stone and hardy board and a standing seam metal roof
on the, in the main house and of course I would match the garage and whatever existing
properties, we would certainly match the exterior to like you said not have two eyesores and one
nice structure so.
Papke: Just one comment on good intentions. Unfortunately the Planning Commission has to
make our decisions on the basis, assuming that potentially the, you know houses do change
hands and the people that buy the house may not have the same intentions as the person that’s
before us asking for a variance or whatever the situation may be so we do have to take the long
term perspective on these things. Okay, any other members of the public? Please.
Dave Miller: Hi. My name’s Dave Miller. Actually you could probably ignore me. I’m on the
Eden Prairie side of this property and got the notice and I came down here with every intention
of keeping, I heard multi unit dwelling coming up into a single family neighborhood and that
made me nervous is why I came down here and my background is, well we’ve lived here for 8
years. Again on the Eden Prairie side. We’re on the cul-de-sac that backs up to 101 right on the
other side of this property, and I also own personally 5 rental properties of single family homes
so I can speak to the rental side of things as well as my family living next to a multi-dwelling
property and so. If someone, I guess if you want to think of having what’s there now and let’s
say he takes this property and let’s say he wants to rent that house out or it sells out and he wants
to rent that house out. You think of it long term. There is no investment person that is going to
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
come by a million two brand new home and then try to rent it out. I mean it’s just not financially
feasible and if you look at having 6 renters on what’s there now, if he has to sell this property
and it stays as is, you’re looking at a much, much de-valued property than what it will be, even if
you put a $800,000 home plus a, and it ends up being a rental unit, which doesn’t sound like he’s
having that as his intention. It is still a quality improvement to that piece of land I mean, and I
don’t know if that’s helpful in that but again being a real estate investor, along with owning a
personal residence in the area, I just don’t see that that’s going to ever be a factor. It’s still better
than what’s there now to the lady in the back. I’ve known some of the people in and out of that
property and it’s rented usually to single people that are looking for a quick place to live. Not
very stable people and I’m not implying anything specifically about them but when you have
people kind of coming in and out and that’s just not really what I want to see in the
neighborhood and I came down here specifically to try to say I do not want anything multi-unit
dwelling on there but once I actually see the proposal and all that, it’s a definite improvement for
the whole area, as well as on the lake so.
Dillon: So if you know a lot about real estate and properties and stuff, if you own them, it
sounds like you know a little bit anyway. How would, I mean so you’ve got this extra dwelling
on the property but you really can’t rent it out because it doesn’t have a kitchen, or at least that’s
what we’re being, I mean how does that help you?
Dave Miller: Well since I own the properties I’m not a mortgage broker, I guess to comment on
that. Every little bit helps on the property but it could get a little shady if you have a mortgage
broker that shoos things through that says look, this, and are we going to say to the mortgage
company I have a rental unit. I don’t have it leased out but it has potential income, you can get a
bigger loan because of that, and I don’t know if you presented to the bank and say hey, this and
that generates income and when I pull other loans in, if I have something I can show I can
generate income, I can bigger loans on that property. Not just the square footage on the property,
but potential income on the property but again I’m not a mortgage broker and I’m not an
appraiser either. Along those lines but that’s about all. And then I guess one comment would
also be, looking into alternative financing. I mean I don’t know if you’ve looked into just bridge
loans. There’s alternative financing to get things going until you get.
Papke: Perhaps you could have that conversation...
Dave Miller: Yeah, I mean so I mean there’s other, just as far as the, I’m looking for any
business. It is a tough financial time.
Papke: Appreciate that perspective.
Patty Fitzsimmons: Hello. I’m Patty Fitzsimmons and I live at 7480 Chanhassen Road. We’re
the next door neighbors on the south side to John… We’re super excited to have new neighbors
in that are not, no longer a rental property so again with what Tracey said, and I’m starting to
kind of get this whole board thing. Like I’m starting to just understand it that what he does today
you guys have to make the decision for the future and I really get that and I appreciate that. I
don’t want a rental property next to me because my intention is to stay in the neighborhood for
50 years as well. One of the things that I am most concerned about when we found out about our
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
new neighbors, that we’re very excited about, was that they’re going to be building closer to the
lakeshore, within the variance. We understand that. They’re going to block our view. Or our
partial view, and everybody on 101, we’re all closer to the highway and not closer to the lake.
So now this house is going to come along and be up closer to the lake and that concerns our
family because when we purchased our dream home that we would love to live at for 50 years,
we had a view and now with John coming in, we understand he’s building his dream house but
we’re no longer going to be able to see the full view, so that is my main concern and why I came
to the council meeting tonight because I wanted to be able to voice my opinion and also to be
heard for you know our children and our neighbors and the community. But again John we’re
super excited to have you in our neighborhood and also to just get rid of that rental property all
together. Thank you.
Papke: Thank you very much for your comments. Much appreciated.
John Colford: So if you noticed on the proposed thing we moved the house as far north as we
could because we sort of suspected that we would be doing that, so it’s as far north as we can
possibly move it to try and save that view.
Tim McHugh: That’s bring up a good point. My name is Tim McHugh.
Papke: If you could state your name and address please.
Tim McHugh: Yeah, my name’s Tim McHugh. I live at 7450 Chanhassen Road which is the
property to the north. John just mentioned they moved their, he moved the house as far north as
he could to help their view, however it does the direct opposite to me okay. You know that’s the
way things are I guess but if you go back to the other picture where the 3 dwellings are.
Generous: The proposed one.
Tim McHugh: Yeah, this one. Okay. If you look, and I understand he’s going 75 feet back and
that’s code and evidently there’s no restrictions doing that. Okay. That being said, if the little
house wasn’t there, which I believe they call B, that could at least be centered or come back
farther, like Mrs. Fitzsimmons said, and it helps everybody. All the houses, my house is, oh it’s
somewhere around 175, maybe 180 feet back from the setback and if you look at the north side
of his property, that blue line is the 10 foot setback and if there’s like 7 cedar trees or evergreens
there, once those footings to in those 7 trees are gone and I’m all for increasing the value of
property but it’s not doing a lot for me. There’s been a lot of talk about rental property and I
don’t think anybody’s put up with more there than I have. I’ve been there since ’87 and I’m not
going to spend a lot of time on it because it’s unbelievable how good it is now, but there was a
time where you would actually see the sheriff more often than the postman, it was that bad, but
it’s not that way anymore but it’s always been zoned residential single family and I presented to
the City Council 4 times and they could have, we were told they can have 7 unrelated people on
the property, and it’s just, it was always hard to accept that and nobody wants to see it being not
rented anymore than I do. But you know that’s the problem I have basically is where it’s set and
I’d just like to see some compromises. Like I said, if you can get rid of the little house I know
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
then there’s room. There isn’t room to move it at all based on the driveway and everything, the
way it’s currently pictured so if you’ve got any questions.
Papke: Thank you very much for your perspective. I think the point you raise kind of comes
back to what Kate said before in response to my question about the reason for having just one
principle structure on there. That gives you the most flexibility and in this case that second
structure constrains where the new residence has to end up. Okay, anyone else?
John Colford: I mean the allegedly my builder says that we can save all the trees to the north,
even with that position. Another thing was that, we had actually originally drew it in the center
and you know all we have to do is shrink the turn around and my architect said that that, you
know having it farther to the north, you know one of the reasons of moving it to the north was
that you had more of a yard to the south so it’s not a particular, it’s not really that constrained as
it is, I mean we’ve got room to center it where it is now but. The other thing, the way the grade
is, where the house is not there’s a natural hill down. Because this is a walkout, if we move it
back we’re in a much flatter part of the lot and can’t really do a walkout. We can’t really do the
house as designed in the center of the lot because the lot is, there’s a hill toward the lake and then
there’s a pretty flat part and then there’s another hill up towards the road so we’re, if you look at
the lot lines they really start to spread, well it’s not, maybe on the other one all of the lot lines are
maintained but you can see the contour lines are closer together towards the lake and then they
start to expand where the walkout would be so it’s sort of in the least expensive place in terms of
re-grading.
Papke: Thank you very much. Anyone else want to voice their opinion on this? Okay, seeing
none I close the public hearing and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Kevin we’ll start
with you. Your perspective.
Dillon: So well, I mean it just doesn’t make sense to me, now of course I don’t have to pay the
interest loan for the time being, to keep the Building B around. I mean it’s, you can’t rent it out
if it’s, if you do want the person says here like removing kitchen appliances. I mean from a
practical point of view it’s not really worth anything at that point, I wouldn’t think. And you
know if you’ve got this extra structure, this thing on your property that no one can really, you
know really again practically dwell in, I mean I don’t see why a lending institution would really
think that that adds much to the overall value of the property. I mean probably some but I mean
it certainly diminishes it significantly. Then, I mean if you’re going to have a nice house like
this and I mean why do you want this extra like appendage on your yard? I mean just get rid of it
is what I would say, so I am tending to support the staff’s interpretation that you take Building B
down completely and that way it would minimize the eyesore and you know everybody, I think it
works best that way. From my view.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Denny.
Laufenburger: We’re the Planning Commission of Chanhassen. We’re not the Financing
Commission of Chanhassen so while I’m certainly sensitive to Mr. Colford’s financial plight as a
result of this, our recent economy, the real question for us is, do we accept the staff’s
interpretation of the ordinances. That’s really the decision we have to make on it. I think Ms.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Aanenson made a real good point that this is an opportunity for us to enforce the ordinances
based on the desire. I am especially pleased by seeing so many neighbors here. I think this is a
real, this is a real testimony to what this community is about to hear what the neighbors are
saying and their view of what this is. I think it’s important for the neighbors to also understand
that though their preference for a greater view or don’t build so close, you know not in my
backyard, the ordinances make it possible for Mr. Colford to build a house exactly the way he
wants it right there and you know grading aside, etc. So I’m pleased with this process and it just
leads me to affirm the staff’s interpretation. That’s my inclination Mr. Chairman.
Larson: I’m going to echo both of these guys. As much as I would like to figure out a way that
he could get financing for this that’s cheaper, that isn’t our place. I also agree that somehow I
think the existing house B should go away. A’s going to go away. B should go away unless
there’s some use for it. I unfortunately feel like our hands our tied and this is a chance for the
city to kind of clean up some of these properties that you know through whatever reason were
built as rental properties and dual properties on one. It’s time for the change and I tend to
support what the city is saying.
Papke: Thank you.
Thomas: Yeah. Well I do support what they want, what we are trying to do with the city. It
makes sense. We try to clean up. I still struggle with how the lot was, just the way it is. I mean
you’re dealing with a property that was platted back in what, 1952. You know something that
has been the way it is for so long, and it’s the way the owner buys the property. It just, I can
understand that it’s a clean-up issue and I understand pretty much our hands are tied that it is
what we need to do is say that Lot B, the House B needs to go away. I just still struggle with the
aspect that it’s, not how it was but just, I can see what he’s trying to do and I understand that
why would you want to have the second home on the property, but it is how it was when you
purchased the lot. You’re making the change with the house but I kind of look at it as, it’s kind
of how it was and how it was platted so I kind of struggle with it but that’s my thoughts.
Undestad: Yeah I don’t really have a lot to add. I mean you summed it all up but I will point out
though that I think the last couple people that came up kind of show why we have these rules and
regulations and ordinances, things like that. You know don’t build your house to the south side.
Don’t build to the north side. If you stay inside your lines and build it where you want to build
it, you can put it anywhere you want inside the lines. The same where from the city standpoint
that if it’s time to fix something that’s you know, doesn’t fit in there then that’s when we have
the opportunity to do that too.
Papke: Okay, thanks for your comments Mark. Those are good. I guess the crux of the issue for
me is, it seems as if the bank, the dilemma here is the bank seems to agree with city staff. That if
that structure B has value from a mortgage perspective equal to a home, a principle home, then
it’s a principle home okay and that’s in fact what the city code is disallowing so I think the bank
is in agreement with city staff on that perspective so. Okay, very good. With that, if someone
would like to make a motion one way or the other.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Dillon: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff
interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View
Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires
the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit.
Papke: Is there a second?
Laufenburger: Second.
Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms
the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7,
Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single
family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a
larger dwelling unit. All voted in favor, except Thomas who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair just for the record.
Papke: Yes.
Aanenson: Because this is a decision of, acting as a zoning appeal, anybody aggrieved of this
decision, including the applicant has the right to appeal that decision and so they should do so
within 10 days.
Papke: Okay, thank you very much. The next item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
POWERS CROSSING PROFESSIONAL CENTER: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK
CORRIDOR; SUBDIVISION INTO ONE LOT, OUTLOTS AND DEDICATION OF
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO
OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL (OI), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR
A TWO-PHASE, THREE STORY, 160,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL CENTER,
UP TO A 731 STAFF, FIVE LEVEL PARKING RAMP AND SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, BUTTERNUT RIDGE (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 312). APPLICANT: UNITED PROPERTIES
LLC/TIMOTHY & DAWNE ERHART, PLANNING CASE 09-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bill Katter, United Properties 3500 American Blvd W, Minneapolis 55431
Dan Parks Westwood Professional Services
Paul Holmes Pope Associates
Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flintlock Trail
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Johnnie Meyering 1050 Homestead Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Debbie, we’ll start with you. Put you on the spot.
Larson: Thanks. I’m kind of overwhelmed so I don’t have anything.
Papke: Okay, Denny.
Laufenburger: Bear with me as I go through my notes Mr. Chairman. Bob, could you just re-
state, did you say that the parking on the north side of the property would be initially a 3 story
parking lot?
Generous: As part of Phase II.
Laufenburger: Phase II.
Generous: So once they do the expansion they would put in the parking ramp.
Laufenburger: Okay so the first building would be the southern most building is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. Then when they put in the second building, then that parking ramp goes
in.
Generous: That’s when the ramp goes in, yes.
Laufenburger: Alright. Can you speak to the soil stability, and the reason I ask the question is
that I know that there was a time that a segment of Powers Boulevard, I think to the south and
west of this proposed property, there was substantial work that had to be done to support, and
I’m not saying that in you know city public works jargon, I understand, but can you just talk, is
the city confident that the soil here is going to support this?
Generous: I don’t know if I’d be qualified. Alyson…
Fauske: Chair Papke if I may answer the question. Commissioner Laufenburger, in this
situation typically the applicant in this case would hire a soils engineer and they would do soils
consolidation through compaction techniques and they would have the soils company test to
make sure that they have adequate compaction. As you referred to there were some soils issues
on the south side of Powers Boulevard and that’s the very thing that they do. That they catch in
time to make sure that they have a solid foundation for any structure.
Laufenburger: So the assumption that I would make is that the city would be arm and arm with
the developer to insure that all of those things are appropriately.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Fauske: Correct. It’s with the building permit. They always get the soils testing.
Laufenburger: Bob I know that there was some discussion about, and I know there’s a table in
here about what would happen if there’s a 100 year flood or something like that. Just give me
confidence that we’re, oh excuse me. Alyson. Would you please give me confidence Alyson
that should that 100 year flood be followed by another 100 year flood within a few weeks, that
that replacement of the collection pond in Outlot A to Outlot B, that all of this, this whole thing
is not going to fall apart. I’m thinking specifically of that retaining wall in that primary zone.
Larson: And end up Eden Prairie.
Laufenburger: Yeah, and end up in Eden Prairie. Well if it’s goes to Chaska that’s okay but.
Excuse me. Sorry.
Fauske: That’s a very good point Commissioner Laufenburger. One of the things that we took a
look at with our analysis of this application was that in the 100 year event there is some
temporary ponding behind that wall, and since this is looking, since the applicant is here for
some preliminary approval, we look to resolve that issue by the time the final plan comes
through. Whether it be re-directing some of that water. It’s fairly clean water. We could look at
doing some sort of infiltration before it reaches that point. There’s certainly numerous options.
Whichever one works best for the applicant and directing the water, we certainly look forward to
working with them on that.
Laufenburger: Okay. I think just one more question Bob. Could you go back to the display, the
picture that would show where the road that would connect Powers Boulevard with, on the west
with 101 on the east. Can you just show us exactly where that proposed road would be.
Generous: Well we only know two ends of that. We have the touch down on Powers Boulevard,
and then approximate location across from Bandimere Park. It would be shifted to the north.
There’s two houses there south of Wilson’s Nursery.
Laufenburger: Yeah.
Generous: And it’d be somewhere in that location would be the other connection point.
Laufenburger: So what you don’t know is what the maze looks like from there to the other side.
Aanenson: That will be development driven. I just want to also add that Highway, the 101
corridor study looked at that touch down point so that’s already been approved by MnDOT and
the city staff so that’s officially mapped and as a part of the AUAR for the other side, that was
the other touch down point. So the rest of it, getting up the hill, making grades, the rest of it will
be development driven as that project comes forward both, we put along the city’s property that’s
shown in green shows the city owned park property. Or dark. The dark that’s labeled park.
There is some other preservation that we anticipate that we would do trade off’s as part of
extractions or you know density transfers or something on some of that other green property, so
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
however that lays out for development, the product type will lead where that road goes. Then as
Bob indicated, the other point is just to tie in other vacant properties. The one to the south. How
we get access to that. If we tie in other neighborhoods. We’ll look at that at a future date but at
this point none of the neighborhoods are being tied in at this point.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Aanenson: But we’ll look at that at a future date. That’s always our goal to see if we can make
better access points. I don’t know if you have anything else to add on that Alyson.
Fauske: Kate made a very good comment members of the Planning Commission when we look
at something like this where we have an opportunity with a large area developing to look at
th
neighborhood connections and one thing that we do take a look at is safety. 96 Street has a
very poor intersection with Highway 101 and making a turning movement onto northbound 101
th
from 96 Street is perilous at times, especially during high traffic so we certainly want to look at,
at the connections and at the point when these applications come in, we don’t know when that
will be, but we’ll certainly have an opportunity for the residents to have a conversation with the
developer and ask the questions why are you doing this and it, like Kate said, it’s good planning
to show how conceptually how those can be achieved.
Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Chairman. That’s all I had for right now.
Dillon: Yeah, where is the sign that’s going to be seeking the variance going to be located?
Generous: It would be down in the southwest corner of this site. Off of the new public street
and Powers Boulevard. And that would also be a condition of approval. Normally they would
be allowed monument signs on each street frontage and one of the conditions is that they get the
one sign.
Laufenburger: So we’re not giving approval to whether it’s an animated or an electronic sign.
We’re just, all we’re doing is the size.
Generous: The size.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Generous: And the display area that they can build.
Dillon: I’ve got other questions but I think they’re probably better answered by the applicant.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Kathleen.
Thomas: Sure. I think the proposal is laid out incredibly well. I think it looks, you know after
seeing the site and kind of being, take a look at like what’s going to happen and listening to
Alyson about the 100 year floods and you know just all the things that are being taken into
account by the city, I don’t have any questions.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Undestad: Just one to add Bob. The Bluff Creek, the overlay and moving the lines on there.
And I see the trade off and I like that. It’s good in there but who, what’s the process of swapping
Bluff Creek lines, primary corridor lines and things.
Generous: It’s up to the city to determine if it’s appropriate.
Undestad: So based on the trade off, that’s what we’re looking at is that.
Generous: Exactly.
Undestad: The developer’s giving up this and we’re going to give up that.
Generous: And then also, part of it is if you look at the line, how it goes in and out of the
property, it would be difficult to develop that site without some encroachment. Because it goes
down and then back up and really there have been additional impacts that didn’t show up on this
original line.
Undestad: Okay.
Papke: Kind of following on that same line. The Planning Commission has been very consistent
in defending the Bluff Creek overlay district. We’ve asked people to tear out patios and fire pits.
Obviously this development is going to have a much bigger impact than that, and I’m reading
here on page 17 of the staff report and there still seems to be some unresolved issues. We have
water flowing into the Highway 212 right-of-way in the current plan and apparently MnDOT has
indicated that that’s not acceptable to them so it sounds like this isn’t fully baked yet from a
storm water management perspective or am I incorrectly interpreting the staff report?
Fauske: Commissioner, Chair Papke. It’s more of a matter of amount of water. You cannot,
they cannot increase the peak discharge through the MnDOT right-of-way so it’s a matter of
redirecting that water elsewhere through the site.
Papke: But by definition doesn’t that mean then it goes into Bluff Creek? I mean there’s only so
many places for the water to go here.
Fauske: We would like to.
Papke: Perhaps the applicant can address that further. I see a head bobbing up and down.
Fauske: They certainly could.
Papke: Okay. But I just want to make sure, you know if I have one hot button on this whole
development proposal I think it’s fine, you know moving the overlay district lines, I think Mark
makes a good point. You know it makes sense where we’re putting it but I’m having difficulty
swallowing how we’re going to put in this big building with a big parking lot with a big parking
ramp and not end up dumping a lot more water into Bluff Creek at peak times. And I want to
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
make sure that we’re all comfortable with the strategy that’s being followed here because we are
making compromises here you know in moving back the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I want to
make sure that we’re doing the right thing for our surface water so. Okay, anything else from
staff? Questions? Okay. With that if the applicant would like to step up to the podium and state
your name and address for the record and tell us a little bit more about your proposal.
Bill Katter: Good evening. Bill Katter with United Properties…to be here with you all.
Appreciate staff’s thoroughness in preparing this. This is as Mr. Generous says a complicated
development proposal. A lot of sensitive issues out here and we’ll try to address those comments
and concerns here but we found staff to be good to work with on this proposal so with that just a
word about United Properties. We have been in business since 1917. We’re one of the oldest
developers in the Twin Cities and I would say the lion share of our development work has been
in the southwestern Twin Cities. Some of our more notable projects are, the two most recent
office towers at Normandale Lake Office Park in Bloomington and Centennial Lakes Office Park
in Edina. We have done some development mostly one and two story projects in Eden Prairie,
and this is our first significant project in the city of Chanhassen so we’re very excited. Some
background about how we arrived at this site and partnered up with Mr. Erhart. We had a very
good customer, Fairview Southdale Hospitals was initially interested in opening up a large clinic
and surgery center in this location and they came to us in 2007 and asked for a number of sites
and information on various sites that they could put this facility and really as kind of a testament
to the importance of this interchange with Powers Crossing chose this intersection principally for
the reason that Powers Boulevard is an extension through a number of communities and feeds
into this important new highway 212 corridor all the way from South Lake Minnetonka all the
way down into this new freeway and then for that matter feeds into Pioneer Trail which is a
major feeder through Chaska and Eden Prairie so it’s a very strategic, central site in the
southwestern communities. And as Mr. Generous described is I believe an important gateway to
your community so, because of the traffic and street infrastructure here I think it’s important just
generally for the city to try to concentrate density near freeways like this and so I think in the
scheme of things, the size and scope of this development is appropriate given the transportation
infrastructure in place there. Traffic really doesn’t ever enter residential areas to and from this
project. It stays on major collector roads and gets right to the project so I think this is a very
good use for this property. Let’s see, with that I think I’ll just talk generally about our site plan
and oh, I should say one other thing here. Fairview, because a question had come up whether
Fairview is still interested in this project and they have put us on hold because of the economic
climate and we’re finding that with a lot of our customers who hopefully will come back to the
table here in the next 6 to 9 months and work that out with us, but in the meantime as a developer
what we’d like to press forward with is getting this site shovel ready. We have plenty of other
customers we’d like to present this site to. As you probably all know there are very significant
corporate customers in the southwest market here that we would like to present the site to and in
our business it’s hard to present a site without entitlements to a customer. The first question we
get is is the site ready to build on? Can you actually build what you’re showing so that’s what
we’re here for is to go ahead and request your approval to be able to deliver what we’re
proposing here so. With that the team on this project, and they’re here and available for
technical questions is Pope Associates, Paul Holmes, a principle there. Of that firm. Dan Parks
of Westwood Professional Services and his firm did the engineering for this site. Again a very
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
complicated site and they are here to provide technical support to me. So let me just put a site
plan up here. So what we showed here is the, is it okay? Can you all hear me if I step over here?
Papke: Yeah.
Bill Katter: This is the Phase I site plan and as the staff indicated this is a 88,000 foot building.
Is really a 72,000 foot footprint for the office building and a connecting link, a two story
connecting link of 16,000 feet. The idea here was that if we ever build Phase II here, we have a
common lobby and stairwell system that we don’t have to duplicate in the Phase II building and
can link up with minimal interruption to the site and the building. We could literally build the
separate building and then open up that shared southern wall into the shared common lobby so
that was the genesis of this. Site, building placement out here is really a key issue that we
worked with staff on and granted if there weren’t a number of significant factors we would have
considered moving the building out onto Powers Boulevard. Let me just tell you what some of
those were. Most importantly the customer at the time, Fairview and a number of the other
physician practices we talked to wanted the relationship of the building into the natural setting
there. They felt that was a very good healing environment for their patients that visited the
building and they wanted to maintain a close relationship and view into those woods. Secondly,
in the health care business privacy is critical and as you know there’s an existing trail here on
Powers Boulevard and it would be very sensitive to have a trail immediately adjacent to a
professional medical building. Thirdly it’s inevitable in buildings of this size that we will need
loading facilities and you know they generate significant amounts of garbage and recycling and
in a building out here there’s really no way to shelter that from public view and so pushing the
building further into the site allowed us to screen those activities at the rear of the building where
they’re not visible really to anybody. And lastly there was some issues with respect to being able
to get two points of access into the site, which would have been difficult to accomplish if we had
pulled that building up here from a spacing standpoint so that’s how we arrived at the site plan
here. With that, with the Phase I building I think it was mentioned we would grade the entire site
that Mr. Erhart at present owns. We will, we have been attempting to obtain the turn back from
MnDOT. It’s not clear whether that will happen prior to Phase I or not. If it doesn’t, this what
we show here assumes it will not but certainly will be needed to support the expansion of
building, Phase II building. We would construct this road, this access road which would be a
future extension into 101 to the east and that we’ve worked with staff on the alignment of this
road. It does, I think a comment in the staff report is it could potentially infringe upon a wetland
up in this area and we will continue to work with staff to make sure that road is aligned so we
maintain the proper setbacks and buffers from that wetland area. It’s, I think we did that but
we’ll have to revisit that and make sure we have that right. Additionally we recognize the many
trees in this area of the site and the sensitive nature of grading in there and we introduced a fairly
long and expensive retaining wall to limit our grading activities back into the east of the
building. So we do plan to develop in that manner and to be as sensitive as possible about
removing trees or affecting tree roots in this area. And additionally staff recommended that we
reforest this as best as possible and the landowner, Mr. Erhart has been kind of harvesting and
maintaining white oaks, native trees to the site out there so that we can do just that and re-plant
that area. And then with respect to this pond outlot, we did the same thing. We introduced a
retaining wall here to minimize the grading impacts to the east, southeast of the pond and try to
limit our removal of trees in there. And then our, I don’t know that our landscaping plan fully
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
represents what we intend to do there but we are thinking we would reforest as much of the area
around that pond as possible again with the trees already on site. Or new trees and one of the
staff’s comments was that we don’t have enough trees on site so we’ll try to find a way to put
some more trees around that pond. One of the nice things about those trees too is they, the root
structure absorbs water and helps with pond drain down so. Another thing that we’re
accomplishing I think with this development is we are, the existing trail here, staff has asked that
we grant a trail, a permanent trail easement to connect this existing path up through the east of
the site and into the park area up here and we’ll agree to construct that with Phase I of the
project. Actually we may have to construct that contingent upon where, you know whether we
can get the turn back from MnDOT and then move the trail if we’re not able to get as much land
or any land from MnDOT. And then we are also agreeing to construct within this right-of-way
area a trail that would bring people off this trail up Powers Boulevard into the site and then
connect to this existing trail. That is currently in place so. The development helps finish a
number of connections I believe in the community there so. With respect to, and by the way I’ll
just mention here without getting into too much detail the floorplan of the building gives us a lot
of flexibility for both professional, medical and office in the event that just a typical office user
would elect to locate here so we tried to design it in a manner that’s very flexible. Then I’ll
move to what happens with Phase II. Again without getting too redundant, it shows a twin
building being added with this community wall that would be, we would build this and then we
would connect into the, and share the main reception area with the existing building in place and
then this ramp would be constructed with Phase II, depending on how big this ends up being. If
it’s constructed at the full 72,000 feet, we may need the flexibility to get up to 5 stalls but we
show, or 5 levels but we show, I believe we show 2 or 3. 3 existing? Yeah, 3 existing and 2
proof of parking. The height of the ramp, assuming we build all 5 levels is still below the height
of the building so it would not be a situation where the ramp height would exceed the building
height. And then this drive, this drive at the back of the Phase I building would be extended so
that cars could have a speedy exit into and out of this ramp without encumbering the front of the
site and creating pedestrian issues there. With that I think I’ll just show, it was not shown on the
screen. I think it’s just worth showing what the project looks like when both phases are built so
that’s what it would look like. It would be a 3 story Phase I building with a 2 story common
entry and then Phase II would be the really the mirror of that building so. Okay, with that there’s
just a few things in the staff report I thought I would touch on here and then I’ll try to address
any comments or questions for me. And these, I think we’ll be able to work all these out with
staff here between now and the council meeting, although I’d like to just make them of record so
that we know that, since there are many conditions in the staff report we’d have a chance to work
through all those. Minor comment. We’d prefer not have Butternut Ridge as the plat name. I
assume we can select the plat name. That sounds residential and we would like it to reflect a
more commercial name like Powers Crossing so we’ll work with staff on that. I think the report
does identify a number of the drainage issues, whether we’re putting more water into MnDOT’s
right-of-way and so forth. What we would simply do there is just direct the water flow into the
pipe system, into the NURP pond and go the other way with it if MnDOT continues to have an
objection there so it has to be treated, so it would have to be directed into that pond first. On
page 22 of the staff report it talks about the fees, the storm water fees. I believe there’s just an
omission there. Total of fees, I think it fails to give credit for the credit that would be eligible for
constructing the pond. We can confirm that but I think the $270,000 number should be reduced
by the available credit for building that pond. The staff report requests a blanket, there’s a storm
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
water interceptor pipe that has to be developed, or put in by the city in connection with
development here and for support of other areas of the city, and I think the staff report it just
mentions we need to figure out where that location is and an easement for it. It suggest a blanket
easement. We would need to get that tighten up. If we have a site plan that’s approved we
wouldn’t want for instance have that pipe located beneath the building so we’d want to work
with staff here and identify the location of that easement. And then with respect to traffic, really
just a couple of comments here. We were a little confused. The staff report talks about the need
for a second inbound left turn lane with this development and we went back and looked at the
County and MnDOT’s comments on traffic. The City’s traffic consultant or engineer, staff
engineer I think on that and I don’t think, I’m not sure it’s consistent. I don’t think he fully
recommended two inbound, left turn lanes. We don’t think those are needed so we’ll work with
staff to verify all of that. The other point on traffic was the traffic signal. It had us at just filing a
final plat, putting up cash for the cost of that traffic signal. We’d like to work with staff on the
timing of that. It isn’t needed until the Phase II project so I think tying it to a Phase II building
permit would probably be more appropriate than us depositing what’s probably a quarter million
dollars in cash right now for that. The second thing is, the mechanism, there are other properties
that are going to benefit from that light and/or trigger it which there’s the party to the west of this
that is slated for office and you could have the situation where we build Phase I. We don’t
trigger the stop light and then that parcel comes in with an application ahead of our Phase II
project and that triggers the light and yet we’re paying for the light to support their, so we need
to work that out. That wouldn’t be a fair or reasonable way to handle that. And then lastly on
landscaping, we recognize that we do not meet the ordinance with respect to the tree count and
we will work with staff to try to improve tree count. There’s, it’s a little, we’re a little cautious
about over treeing a site. We designed our boulevard trees for 50 feet on center. We could push
that back to 40 feet or 35 feet. We don’t like to go much tighter than that because the trees don’t
have a chance to develop a full canopy and you get a situation where tree roots can interfere with
each other. We will try to reforest the areas within the affected Bluff Creek overlay area or zone
as best we can. It’s also, we have to be cautious about digging in that area and planting new
trees because we’d be potentially digging up roots of healthy trees there, so we just need to work
through details on a plan for that. I guess that’s really the extent of my comments so.
Papke: Okay. Mark, start with questions.
Undestad: No, nothing here.
Thomas: I do not either. Thank you.
Papke: Kevin?
Dillon: My questions I had were addressed.
Papke: Okay. Denny.
Laufenburger: Nice job. I think this is going to be a great thing for us. Just, Bill right?
Bill Katter: Yeah.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Laufenburger: Is there, I realize that Fairview has you on hold right now in your thinking. If
you had to map a future, do you anticipate that this facility will be developed before the end of
2010? 2011? What’s your thoughts?
Bill Katter: Well, don’t know what the future holds. I would certainly hope that it would be by
the end of 2010 with Phase I would be up. Absolutely. So we’ll do our best on that.
Laufenburger: Cool. Thank you. That’s all Mr. Chairman.
Papke: Debbie?
Larson: I don’t have any questions.
Papke: I’m still a little unclear, if MnDOT doesn’t grant you the right to put the storm water into
the 212 right-of-way, and you need to dump that into Bluff Creek, does that change the design of
the NURP pond or can you comment on the storm water management?
Dan Parks: I can address that. Dan Parks with Westwood. This site drains about 20 acres
presently. The plan shows about 20 acres draining down to this pond here on Outlot B. There’s
about 2 acres that presently drain out to the highway. When they are designing and constructing
the highway they are providing a culvert to drain some of the existing area in this area.
Typically when I do a drainage plan we try to balance the site to allow the drainage that’s
allowed by MnDOT’s drainage and then take the rest of the water on the site. We presently have
a catch basin here and a catch basin here that drains out to the pipe in the highway. It, to give
some scope. I think the existing drain is like 1.2 cubic fee per second and our plan was calling
for like 1.7 cubic feet per second and that, it may be Greek to you but it’s not a very big pipe.
It’s an 8 inch pipe or something along that lines. Sometimes when you work with MnDOT they
do give us some of the availability and provisions for a little bit of a change in the numbers but
we don’t always know that until we get the final permit so we’ve done something we think is
consistent with their original design. If MnDOT comes back and says it’s too much water, for
example if they allow 1.2 and we are preparing, proposing 1.7, we will simply take this catch
basin lead and take it to the pond and perhaps leave this catch basin lead into the highway
department so in terms of the grand scale things, we’re talking probably changing maybe a half
to 1 acre of land from the highway department to take it to the pond. And the pond would then
be incrementally sized a little bit larger. The city staff and the city’s requirements and the
watershed’s requirements frankly are that the site not increase discharges after we’re done from
what happens now so even though we have more hard surface, the pond, the bathtub is being
designed in such a way that to slow that water down and discharge it at rates that are acceptable
and velocities that are acceptable at the outlet of the pond. So if MnDOT says no, you can’t do
that. It’s a fairly minor shift of the plan. It doesn’t change the parking lot. It doesn’t change the
site at all. It just changes one pipe that will no longer be coming probably about this big of an
area of the parking lot will now drain to this pond. Again this is probably half an acre, two-
thirds of an acre that would now go to the pond rather than out to the highway department so of
the 20 acre site project I think it’s pretty small of a detail.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: There was a question that came up before. This area is notorious for bad soils. I mean
all of southern Chanhassen drains to the bottom of Powers Boulevard down here, and are you,
have the calculations been done that really show that the NURP pond that’s being put in there
will indeed absorb the water that.
Bill Katter: Well the NURP ponds are typically, generally based upon the type of soils that we
find in the bottom, they may infiltrate out the bottom. The ponds are typically designed to
provide storage, debt storage so the water stays in there for a certain period of time. We’re
highly confident that the pond is going to work. There’s not going to be a problem with it. If
there is a problem with the soil stability we can either use materials to add or clay or do up
mixtures to make sure the pond is stable. We don’t expect any site sloping problems. The
pond’s going to be at a 3 to 1 or flatter slope. We don’t expect that to be a problem. There’s
also a question here about the retaining wall and the drainage, Commissioner Laufenburger
mentioned it. There’s about 6 or 7 acres up in this area that drain presently in kind of a shallow
swale drains to the property. We are providing provisions for a storm sewer pipe that would run
around the east side of the site and then dump that water back in the ditch, not running that
through this pond because it’s generally clean water. It’s not being corrupted by parking lot
drainage or drippings off of cars. There was a comment in the staff report about making sure
that we have the pipe adequately sized and perhaps have an overflow structure in case we have a
larger than anticipated storm event, so we’ll probably have in this area, we’ll have a normal pipe
that will take the water, and then we’ll have a stand pipe at some elevation that’s a little higher in
case the water is exceeding the design storm. We may also look too quite frankly at an
opportunity maybe to redirect some of that water into this wetland rather than having it all come
through, but again staff is very confident. You’ve got a very good engineering staff on board
that will help make those decisions and entirely confident the project will work from a drainage
perspective. There was a comment earlier about the retaining wall as well. You know we will
design a wall that will try to keep the moisture away from it. We always try to make sure there’s
no water pressures against the wall because that’s what’s going to collapse the wall. If there’s a
need for more of a structural integrity wall than a block wall, the materials have not yet been
decided yet but if we need to do something that’s more of a poured concrete wall or something
along that nature that also provides really unlimited ability to resist any tipping from any water
pressures or soil pressures that might be exerted. The comments on soils though, based upon the
results of the soil borings, the soil boring capacities, if soil is needed to be dug out, built you
know, compacted placed and new soils brought in, that will all be done as part of the structural
design for the foundation and based upon the type of soils, usually what happens is it just
changes the size of the spread footing so if there’s really good soils the footings might be this
big. If the soil’s a little worst, it might be this big but that’s all taken into account with the
building structural footing design.
Papke: One last question. Are we too early in the process to be worried about lighting and
impact of light pollution? This is an area of the city that historically has very dark skies.
Aanenson: No, I think this is the place where we do want to talk about that. That comes kind of
back to what we talk about the siting of the building. What was the best way to provide noise
attenuation. Lighting. This building in itself is going to provide a buffer to residential behind is
one of the reasons why we did support the larger, even with the parking ramp, that will also
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
provide noise attenuation for the ramp. But the parking lot lighting, because it’s going to be
commercial, or office excuse me across the street, so the parking lot should be shining that way.
There will be some over spill and we do have the light standards as far as looking at the
photometrics so we believe we should accomplish that by siting of this building, but that was one
of the reasons why we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is the best footprint to make it
compatible with the neighborhood. And we looked at the elevations, that was one of the reasons
I think walking out there helps too with the change in grade from the existing houses to make
sure we don’t get that spill so hopefully they’re looking over the top, but you’re right. It’s going
to change. It’s going to change with some spill in light.
Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? If not thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay
at this point we’d like to open up the public hearing for the public, if someone would like to step
up to the podium and ask their questions or make their comments, we’d love to hear them.
Kevin Ellsworth: Good evening Mr. Chair, commissioners. Kevin Ellsworth, 9601 Flintlock
Trail. We’re on the far right of Pioneer Hills. In that one triangle lot. Yep, right up there. And
we’ve owned that property since 1985 and built in ’91 and Mr. Erhart’s been an amazing
neighbor and has great stewardship of the land, and that’s clearly illustrated in this work that the
staff and the developer’s put together and so often folks come to these meetings in protest of the
development. I’m not here for that. I’m here to say that this looks like a really good plan and a
really good project. The neighbors may disagree with me, some of them but when that
development was proposed and put together, it didn’t take much study to know that 212 was
coming through nearby and knew that that infrastructure was there and that someday that would
be developed with some sort of commercial property. And indeed with that kind of an
infrastructure investment by the State, the City, the County, certainly putting something like that.
This proposed development’s a great idea and brings jobs to the neighborhood and brings good
tax base to the city and the county so. And again with the way the conservation easements are
laid out, it preserves much of that property that is just gorgeous back there. I think most of us
have been back there and connects it to the nice parkland that the city did acquire so again that’s,
I can only say good things about it and I really appreciate your concern about the runoff into the
creek too. That’s most excellent so thank you.
Papke: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?
I’m just another neighbor out there and I live at 1050 Homestead Lane. I live on the cul-de-sac
next one over.
Papke: And your name sir.
Johnnie Meyering: Johnnie Meyering, and it, I’ve been going through it with the neighbors and
everything and it is a nice development. But I have just a couple concerns that maybe you can
verify. I was listening to you and he said it went from a 2 story, it might go to a 5 story. Is there
anything down the line in the future that it will go higher?
Bill Katter: Let me address that. No.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Johnnie Meyering: No?
Bill Katter: We will, the approval if it’s granted will limit it to a maximum of 4 heights if it’s
one building or 3 heights if it’s two structures. Kate correct me if I’m wrong.
Aanenson: That’s correct and with the variances that would limit too. If it was to change from
that it would have to come back through a public hearing process to change that.
Johnnie Meyering: Okay. And then one other question is, since MnDOT put 212 in, I don’t
know Kurt lives out there and some other people out there but some of us out there since 212
come in, as soon as they started driving the pilings for the bridges, I don’t know what this one’s
going to have, if it’s going to have pilings or it’s just going to be on the ground, but I have been
having problems with the aquifer of everybody pounding and it’s stirring up the aquifer and I’ve
been having to put a new well in all the time. A new pump in. Not drill a new well but a new
pump in. Fixing it because it’s filling up and getting really bad water. We used to have really
good water, then it started getting worse and worse and I was just wondering if it was going to be
pilings again or if we cannot worry about that because I just fixed it and we’re starting to get,
starting to get better water again and we’re just worried about it. Wondering about that.
Bill Katter: The relatively short answer is, we haven’t done in-depth soil borings but based on
preliminary we don’t believe pilings is what we’ll end up doing. We’ll do some soil correction
but that will be dig out and replace it. It won’t be pilings.
Johnnie Meyering: Well that would really help.
Bill Katter: Just a rule of thumb in our business, whenever you have this many oak trees on a
site it typically means sandy soils. Oak trees hate clay. They can’t stand water constantly on
their roots so that’s a good indication for the soils on the site.
Johnnie Meyering: Okay. And it does look like a nice place for a building there and that’s the
only two questions I had. Thank you.
Papke: Thank you sir. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none. I close the public hearing and bring it
back to the Planning Commission for deliberation and we’ll start with Mark.
Undestad: You know what, I mean I really don’t have a lot to talk about. I think it was, I know
a lot of work has gone into it to this point and even a lot of the trips we’ve had out there to kind
of see how things were going along, so no. I think it’s a very well put together. Staff’s done an
excellent job at some of the negotiating and mitigating out there so I like it.
Papke: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I like it too. I think it’s really well put together. I think that it will be a good focal
point for Chanhassen. It’s just something, if it winds up being a medical building I think that
will be incredibly awesome and wonderful for the community so I think it’s a really great thing.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Larson: …issues regarding the water… I think it will be a great asset to the city.
Laufenburger: Acknowledge a lot of work has been done already but I think that I’m confident
about this because I think that our city staff is in a position to work with the developer to insure
that some of those things that are perhaps unclear right now because we can’t be sure about
them, that the environment will be protected. It will be built appropriately and I’m confident not
only in the builder and the applicant and the owner but I’m more confident in our city being able
to do the job to insure that they follow all the guidelines that are necessary. So I know that puts a
big burden on you Alyson and Bob and Kate but what better place for that burden to be so I
support it.
Dillon: Just to kind of reiterate what everyone said. It appears to have been a great collaboration
and partnership between the staff and the developer and they considered you know some
potential areas of watch out and contingencies there. They seem to have been thought through
quite well. I believe it will be good for our community. It was a very professional presentation
and so I’m in favor of the project moving ahead.
Papke: Okay, thank you Kevin. Yeah, kudos to both the developer and city staff. This is the
most complex development proposal we’ve had, even considering the down turn in the economy
for a number of years here and I’m impressed that given all the challenges here, particularly in
regards to the impact on the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the environmental sensitivity of the
site and the uncertainty with the tenant and so on, I think the developer and city staff have done a
commendable job in pulling this together. As we’ve gone through this we’ve come up with very
few gotch ya’s out of this whole thing and I think this one will, is extremely clean and hats off to
everyone for a process and I appreciate the public comments as well. I think those were very
good. Okay, with that I think we’re ready for a motion. If someone would like to take a stab a
this monumental motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Just a few pages in there. Alright, let’s make a motion that the
Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning of
st
Lot 1, Block 1 at this time Butternut Ridge 1 Addition from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to
Office and Industrial, OI. B. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with variances to encroach in the primary zone and
required buffer for the development in the Bluff Creek corridor, subject to conditions 1 through
10. C. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating one lot, two outlots and the dedication of public right-of-
way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services dated April 1, 2009, subject to
conditions 1 through 45. And D. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for building height and Bluff Creek primary zone
setbacks for Planning Case 08-16 for a two-phased, three story, 160,000 square footage
professional office building and up to a 731 stall, five level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of
the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc and Westwood Professional Services
Inc dated April 1, 2009, subject to conditions 1 through 28. And E. The Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends the City Council approve a sign size variance request to permit an
eight foot tall sign and up to 64 square feet of sign display area subject to conditions 1 through 5.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: Very good. Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second it.
Papke: Any friendly amendments? If not, let’s have a vote.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves the Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Butternut
Ridge First Addition, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional
District, OI. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit with Variances to
encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek
Corridor; subject to the following conditions:
1.The property line may be revised to incorporate the reconveyed property from MnDOT to the
developer.
2.The developer shall meet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a
minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (MSBG).
3.To mitigate for the effects of development within the primary corridor, the developer should
be required to meet green construction standards for the whole site.
4.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
5.Evaluate other site designs, stormwater management techniques and low-impact development
practices for their benefit in reducing impacts to the primary and secondary zones of the
Bluff Creek Overlay District.
6.Reforest those areas disturbed to grade the site but do not have structures on them. The
reforestation should be done with deciduous tree species representative of the existing
species composition. The forested areas are dominated by bur oak.
7.Maintain the natural drainage patterns.
8.The applicant must clearly illustrate how impacts to the primary zone are to be mitigated.
This mitigation must consider all benefits derived from the primary zone as described in
Article XXXI of the Chanhassen City Code.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
9.The area east of Lot 1 within Outlot A within the primary corridor of Bluff Creek shall be
covered by a conservation easement. This easement shall restrict activities within the area
and prohibit any development. The City shall have final approval of the easement
restrictions. Any wetland mitigation activities that are required within this area shall have
final approval by City staff. No additional activities shall be allowed within this area and
access to the mitigation site shall be the existing path.
10.The wooded areas of Lot 1 and Outlot B within the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be
covered by a conservation easement that restricts specific activities and prohibits any further
development within the area.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approvesthe Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating one
lot, two outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following conditions:
1.Revise the Plat name to Butternut Ridge First Addition.
2.The developer shall either dedicate/donate an Outlot or record a conservation easement
containing the Bluff Creek Primary zone north of the road right-of-way in Outlot A. A
conservation easement shall be recorded over the Bluff Creek Primary zone located within
Lot 1 and Outlot B. This easement shall restrict activities within the area and prohibit any
development. The City shall have final approval of the easement restrictions. The easement
shall be recorded with the first phase of the development.
3.Submit proposed names for street labeled “Access Road” on plans for approval.
4.The drainage report and plans must be revised to address comments from MnDOT.
5.The applicant must obtain a MnDOT drainage permit.
6.The drainage report and plans must be modified so that the peak discharge rate to the off-site
wetland does not increase under fully developed conditions.
7.The plans must be revised to provide either an overland emergency overflow or an additional
outlet control structure at a higher elevation.
8.The developer must submit a letter from an engineer stating that the retaining wall east of the
building can accommodate temporary ponding behind the wall.
9.The alignment of the bypass storm sewer pipe must be redesigned to eliminate excess cover
over the pipe.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
10.If MnDOT allows a connection to the Highway 212 storm pipe, then show the existing pipe
on the plan sheets.
11.Building permits are required for retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed
by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
12.A manhole must be installed at the terminus of the sanitary sewer.
13.All sanitary sewer and watermain within Lot 1, Block 1 shall be privately owned and
maintained.
14.The storm sewer that will convey runoff from the drainageway to the east of the property
shall also be privately owned and maintained, including those portions that lie within public
right-of-way and the City owned outlot.
15.The 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shown on the preliminary plat over this storm
sewer must be deleted.
16.Delete the 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement for the future watermain.
17.Provide a temporary blanket drainage and utility easement over the proposed forcemain
corridor.
18.A permanent 20-foot wide easement will be required over the final forcemain alignment.
19.Each new lot will be subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees will
be collected with the building permit, subject to the rates in effect at the time of building
permit, and shall be based on the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ SAC unit
determination.
20.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval.
21.All public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit
issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the
MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District.
22.Upon project completion as-built drawings must be submitted for the private utilities.
23.The double left turn lane on southbound Powers Boulevard must be constructed with Phase I
improvements.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
24.The developer must coordinate the construction of the double left turn lane with Carver
County and provide additional right-of-way, if needed.
25.The developer must pay a cash fee with the final plat to cover the cost of the traffic signal.
26.A temporary roadway, drainage and utility easement must be provided over the cul-de-sac at
the east end of the access road.
27.This property is subject to the Arterial Collector Fee which is $3,600 per developable acre.
The acreage used in this calculation shall include the right-of-way turnback from both
Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard. This fee shall be paid in cash with the final plat
28.The RIM and Flowage Easements need to be indicated on the plat. This should include the
document number 10-05-87-1.
29.The wetland mitigation area in Outlot A needs to be created. A Declaration of Restrictions
and Covenants needs to be executed and recorded with Carver County. This document
number needs to be included on the plat.
30.The remaining conditions of approval for WAP #2006-32 need to be met:
a.The plans shall be revised to show how M-1 will be accessed. The access route shall be
stable, shall avoid damage to significant trees (greater than 10” DBH) and shall avoid
impacts to natural drainageways and any jurisdictional wetlands that may exist on site
that were not delineated by Westwood Professional Services in August 2006.
b.A planting plan for M-1, including invasive vegetation management techniques, species
to be planted, proposed planting rates, and the approach to upland buffer restoration, shall
be submitted prior to final City Council approval.
c.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland
creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the
replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five
years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for
wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of
the wetland creation letter of credit.
d.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native
species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans
shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant
shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
31.The legal wetland boundary of the RIM wetland was not delineated in the Westwood
Wetland Delineation Report dated August of 2006. This boundary must be delineated and
wetland impacts avoided where possible.
32.Because of the perpetual RIM and flowage easements the plans must be provided to the
Natural Resources Conservation Service for review and comment. Any comments from the
NRCS must be made available to the City.
33.Drainage to the RIM wetland from the south flows through a defined swale. The conveyance
of this flow must be maintained under the proposed road extension.
34.Erosion Control plan needs to be updated per the July comments:
a.Show a 75-foot rock construction entrance.
b.Show rounding of corners for proposed grades.
c.Erosion control blanket shall be shown on all slopes east of the proposed building and
adjacent to the pond.
d.An NPDES permit must be obtained prior to any site grading and a SWPPP must be
provided to the City for review and comment.
e.Replace MnDOT 340 mix with a modified BWSR U7 seed mix.
35.Estimated SWMP fees due at the time of final plat are $271,506.20.
36.The development must comply with Carver Soil and Water Conservation District comments.
37.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
38.The following practices are required in order to insure the best chance of survival for the
highlighted oaks to be preserved along the east side of the development:
a.Understory trees near the oaks shall be preserved.
b.Roots at the grading limits shall be cut cleanly with a trencher or vibratory plow.
c.Tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to any grading.
d.Trees shall be thoroughly watered during dry periods.
39.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side
of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved.
40.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed.
41.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/06/08, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
42.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued.
43.The developer shall pay the full park dedication fee in force at the time of final plat approval
and prior to recording.
44.Construction of the 10-ft. wide bituminous access road trail and the North Trail. The North
Trail plans shall be modified dedicating a permanent 20-foot wide trail easement to allow for
appropriate separation from adjoining improvements and boulevard areas for winter plowing,
snow storage and aesthetics.
45.Dedication of a permanent triangular shaped trail easement at the South East corner of Lot 1,
Block 1. The triangle shall be 50’ in length on its South side and 200’ in length on its East
side.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approvesthe Site Plan with Variances for building
height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for Planning Case #08-16, for a two-phase,
three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office building, and up to a 731-stall, five-level
parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates,
Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The final plat for the development shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2.The full buildout is predicated upon a turnback to the land owner of MnDOT right-of-way.
In the event that this turnback does not occur, the applicant may build a four-story building
totaling 112,000 square feet subject to parking compliance with City Code.
3.The developer shall meet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a
minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, MSBG.
4.The developer shall continue the architectural detailing through the use of the three brick
colors as well as the use of stone and metal on the garage structure.
5.The developer shall provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage (within 200 yards of a
building entrance) for 5% or more of all building users (measured at peak periods), and
provide shower and changing facilities in the building. The developer should also provide
benches throughout the site as well as tables and chairs in the patio area.
6.The light fixtures shall be revised to high-pressure sodium lighting.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
7.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
8.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
9.Accessible routes must be provided between commercial building(s), parking facilities and
public transportation stops.
10.All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking.
11.The developer shall comply with the minimum parking setback requirement and install
appropriate berming and or landscaping to allow the 10 feet setback.
12.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
13.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
14.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side
of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved.
15.The applicant does not meet required landscape quantities for parking lot trees and
islands/peninsulas in both phases. The applicant must meet minimum requirements for
parking lot trees and landscape islands/peninsulas.
16.Phase I: The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for either of the bufferyard
areas. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements.
17.Phase II: The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard areas. The
applicant shall increase the plantings to meet minimum requirements.
18.The applicant must replace the Colorado spruce with other approved species in the plant
schedule.
19.All transplanted materials must be pre-approved by the City. Transplanted trees will not be
accepted if substituted without City approval. If approved for transplanting, the material
must be warranted for a minimum of one year. If transplanted materials die, they must be
replaced with nursery stock.
20.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
21.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 04/01/09, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
22.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued.
23.The North Trail plans or parking lot design shall be modified to allow for appropriate
boulevard areas for winter plowing, snow storage and aesthetics.
24.A 3-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, and nothing shall be placed in
front of the hydrant outlets, connections, fire protection control valves that would interfere
Section 508.5 MN. Fire Code and Sec.508.5.4.
with fire fighter operations.
25.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be
removed or chipped on site.
26.Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations of “No Parking Fire Lane” signage, and
MN Fire Code Sec. 503.3.
locations of curbing to be painted yellow.
27.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
MSFC
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
sec 501.4.
28.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
MSFC
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Sec. 503.2.3.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves a sign size Variance request to permit an eight
(8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Separate sign permits shall be required for each sign.
2.The development name in the monument sign shall be individual dimensioned letters with a
minimum ½-inch projection.
3.Only one monument sign shall be permitted for the Powers Crossing Professional Center site.
4.The sign height for the directional signs shall be reduced to five feet. The display area for
sign #2 shall be reduced to four square feet.
5.The sign location shall meet all setback and site triangle requirements.”
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21, 2009 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41