The URL can be used to link to this page

6 PUD - Advance FitnessCITYOF CHANHASSEN ~dmJnJslralJon Building Inspections Engineering F;x 952 227! 17'J Pn(,ne '~52 22X i S40 F~ ~2 227 l a1(' Park & Recreation Plr~ ~2 2271120 '~x ~52227~11 ~i0 rj, ;r,r BcuJe,'a d F,uu~ ~52227 14,30 ~ax ,~22, 140~ Plannin~ ~ ~a~ural 9~; (,7 ~11(' Public Works 59! q~rb R:,~,:~ F )r'e:?222; ~ xx 952 2271q1' Senior Center r!j?' [ MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director June 28, 2004 SUB J: Advance Fitness Conceptual PUD -Planning Case No. 04-14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Richard Bjork representing Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop approximately 22 acres to build a fitness club with a water park, 2 restaurants, a bank/office and a hotel. The site is zoned A-2 and guided for IOP. Some of the proposed uses are not permitted in the lOP district. Staff would support some limited commercial but wants to ensure that there is not strip commercial along Highway 5 as this site is intended to be office industrial. Since this item appeared before the Planning Commission in April, the applicant requested additional time to rework the site. Ultimately, the applicant has not made any changes and is going forward with the original request. Staff originally recommended approval of the commercial uses because they would be ancillary to the fitness center. We are concerned that the commercial uses may proceed without the fitness center and would recommend that the PUD tie the uses together with a fitness center. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a four-fifths majority vote of the entire City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 2004 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend conceptual approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the conceptual PUD as specified in the staff report dated April 20, 2004. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 20, 2004, updated June 22, 2004. 2. Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 20, 2004. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 2004. 4. Site Plan dated March 25, 2004. g:\planX2004 planning cascs\04-14 - advance fitness- 1891 arboretum blvd\executive summary.doc The City of Chanhassen o ~ r r, ,t, ;,;r'::' : :~, :::.t,'. t ,,,:,' j CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 4/20/04 CC DATE: 5/10/04 REVIEW DEADLINE: CASE #: 04-14 BY: Aanenson, K. 5/24/04 STAFF REPORT Z < PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Conceptual PUD of 21.7 acres of property for a health club, restaurant and hotel 1891 Arboretum Boulevard Richard A. Bjork Advance Fitness 3433 Broadway St. NE -Ste 255 Minneapolis MN 55413 612-378-0014 .< PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: 21.7 acres gross DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for Office Park LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Location Map 1891 Arboretum Blvd. City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-14 ', / Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND Richard Bjork representing Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop approximately 22 acres to build a fitness club with a water park, 2 restaurants, a bank/office and a hotel. The site is zoned A-2 and guided for IOP. Some of the proposed uses are not permitted in the IOP district. Staff would support some limited commercial but wants to ensure that there is not strip commercial along Highway 5 as this site is intended to be office industrial. The health club is located just north of Coulter Drive and west of the new north/south road that would connect between Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard. The Health Club comprises 6.2 acres of land and 268,000 square feet of building. In addition, the site proposes a 4.2 acre (182,000 square feet) water park. For comparison purposes the Lifetime Fitness in Savage is 60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. The Savage site includes an outdoor pool. Staff finds that this is a good location for the health club because of its size and parking requirements. The building will still be visible from Highway 5 but will not be imposing. The hotel is a permitted use in the IOP district but staff thinks it is an unlikely use. The proposed restaurants and bank are retail and are not permitted in the lOP district. While staff thinks a bank or a restaurant may be a acceptable, we would prefer to see them incorporate into a larger building. Staff is recommending approval of the conceptual PUD with conditions in the staff report. ANALYSIS Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the commission and council without incurring a lot of expense on the applicant's part. There is a greater level of detail required in the preliminary plat and PUD process and the conditions of approval in this report. Following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Sec. 20-517 General concept plan. Chanhassen City Code (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 3 (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions, as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire council. Actions required Subdivision The development proposes 5 lots that would be served by a public street. These actions would require a subdivision plat. Site Plan Review All proposed buildings would have to proceed through the site plan review consistent with the zoning district. Rezoning The applicant is requesting a PUD zoning. The lOP zoning would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The PUD request proposes uses that are not in the permitted in the IOP district but are commercial uses. Staff is recommending limiting the list of proposed commercial uses to not more than 25 percent of the PUD with the following limitations. The strikeout would be removed from the list of uses and the items in bold would be added as permitted commercial. Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 4 Permitted Uses in the IOP Offices Warehouses Light Manufacturing xfo~tio~a, Health Services Printers Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service Recording Studios Conference/Convention Center Antennas on buildings Parking Lots & Ramps Signs floor space is used for reta}! sales Day Care Center Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs Research Laboratories ............ s Yards Hotels & Motels Food Processing 1 freestanding restaurant not hst food (minimum square foot of building 7,500) Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000 square feet or greater Following are conceptual comments that the various city divisions have offered that need to be made for the next level of review. Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 5 Engineering The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60-feet of dedicated right-of- way for each. In addition, the east-west street will require a cul-de-sac turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the north-south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT approval. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Blvd. to the south. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will be subject to Mn/DOT and further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning movements and functionality of the proposed access will be required prior to the City allowing this access. · No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Blvd. will be allowed. · The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements. Environmental Issues The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP standards. · Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary. · Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. · Prior approval from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for grading and erosion & sediment control. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). · An erosion & sediment control plan is required. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 6 Forestry Required landscaping for the site will include buffer yard plantings along Hwy. 5 and Coulter Blvd., parking lot islands and peninsulas, foundation plantings, screening for blank walls, storage and garbage areas. Staff would also recommend a boulevard tree plan along all public or private roads within the site. Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved and that any trail installed would be field located so as to avoid tree removal. Preservation of vegetation would also enhance the views from the proposed restaurants if they were located closer to the creek than across parking lots as shown on the submitted concept plan. Additional plantings of native trees and shrubs would also be encouraged in that area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the concept PUD with the following conditions: 1. Permitted Uses in the lOP: Offices · Warehouses · Light Manufacturing · Health Services · Printers · Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service · Recording Studios · Conference/Convention Center · Antennas · Parking Lots & Ramps · Signs · Day Care Center · Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs · Research Laboratories · Hotels & Motels · Food Processing · I freestanding restaurant minimum square foot 7,500 square not fast food · Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000, square feet or greater The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east-west street will require a cul-de-sac turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the north-south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT approval. 3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south. Advance Fitness Concept PUD Planning Case No. 04-14 April 20, 2004 Page 7 The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed, will Ne funct'ona!it5 .r ,~ ........ ~ ......... :" ~ ~eq";~d ~-~ to the City 5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed. 6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP standards. 8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 10. Prior approval from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for grading and erosion & sediment control. 11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. An erosion & sediment control plan is required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Narrative dated March 25, 2004 3. Public hearing notice and property owners list 4. Concept Plan dated March 25, 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) .227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPL!CANT: Advance Fitness OWNER: &mervest Systems Corporation ADDRESS: 3433 Broadway Street NE, Suite 255 ADDRESS: 3433 Broadway Street NE, Suite 255 Minneapolis, ~ 55413 Minneapolis, ~N 55413 TELEPHONE (DayTime) (612) 378-i007 TELEPHONE: (612) 378-i007 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditionai Use Permit Use Permit Nc, r',-ccnfcrm;~-g Use Permit P:a,-,"ed Uni: Deve!cpment' S,g~ Perm;:s Sign Plan Re',!ew __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeai Zoning Ordinance Amendment 20-517 General Concept Plan Notification Site Plan Rev;,ew" X Escrow for Filing Fees/A~omey Cost" - $50 CUP/SPF~VAC/¥ARPNAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision' TOTAL FEES 500.00 Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box :~__.~. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenb/-six (26) full-size folded, copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y~" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. -Escro~v will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: Advance Fib;ness LOCATION: Highway #5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached TOTAL ACREAGE: 21.7 WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural NO REQUESTED ZONING: Commercial PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:. Agricultural . Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: The development of a Health Club, office, restaurant and hotel This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application, I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or pumhase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that it development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60-day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Sign~ur~ of Ap~icant [ '~ . __ ~ignaiur-o of ~e O~nor 3~" '~ ~e~ Appl~ation R~eived on ~ F~ Paid March 24, 2004 Date Date The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:~olan\forms~)evelopment Review Application. DOC DESCRIPTION Tha.~ pert of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 115 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as_follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the North~st Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 28 minutes 31 seconds East, assuming the south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 15 hos an cssumed bearing of North 89 degrees 30 minutes ¢4 seconds '~t, o dist<]nce of $15.3¢ feet. along t~e North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northe~s~ Quarter, to the actual point of beginning; thence South 02 degrees 29 minutes 16 seconds East o distnnce of 398.42 fee[; thence South 70 degrees 59 minutes 16 seconds E<3st a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 20 degrees 59 minutes 16 seconds East o distance of 510.00 feet; thence South 21 degrees O0 minutes 44 seconds West o distance of ,323.46 feet; thence ecsterty a distance of 386.57 feet along o non-t(3ngentiel curve, conccve to the north, hovin§ o rcdius of 1557.00 feet, o central angle of 15 degrees 51 minutes 23 seconds, and o chord of 585.~.7 feet which beers No~J~ 89 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds E~st; thence North 82 degrees 47 minutes 1,~ seconds East ~ die~3nce of 364.21 feet; thence ecsterly a distance of 100.88 f~et along o tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of 1637.00 feet, and a central angle of 3 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds, to the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;. thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence westerly, along the north line of the Northwest Quarzer of the Northeast Quarter, to t, he point of beginning. Advance FitneSs Health Club And Additional Commercial Developmem CITY OFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED 2004 CHANHASSEN PLAN~ The development, which is proposed, is located on twenty-one, point seven (21.7) acres located on highway # 5at 1891 Arboretum Blvd, west of Audubon Road. The site has ~ shOwn as having four different uses, with the major project being proposed as an athletic club. The total site is comprised of a gross size of 949,172 sq. IL,with net developed area of 312,000 sq,ft. The access has a approved right-hand turn into the property. There is a private road which provide a access plan for all users. The roadway continues to Coulter Boulevard. The staging and development time table will be established upon approval being granted. It would be our preference to be operational in the fall of 2005 for the health club. Some of the additional users would prefer to be developed in the spring,2005. ~alth Club The proposed health club would be located on ten acres of property. It would offer 480 parking spaces. It would be a two-story building with a total floor area of 120,000 sq. ft. It would offer a 24-hour facility private health club concept with a total range of services for individuals and families of all ages. Them would be day-care services, spa and caf6 food services. It would have a extensive cardiovascular, weight resistance and nmning track located on the second floor of the facility. Other activities are basketball, swimming and pre-teen supervised services. The group fitness and other studio classes would appeal both men and women. The membership would grow as the facility becomes accepted in the community. We anticipate having over 3,000 members by the second year. This concept would strive to take fitness to the next level of health features. We would like to promote a total wellness concept to include nutritional guidance, exercise routine and a fitness program designed with every member's personal plan in mind. There would be activities and classes on a year round basis for all members. Water Park We would like to explore a development of an open-air water park in connection with the health club. We have shown the location ora 4.2-acre, which would lend itself well to a public or private water park. It would be located along the creek and have its own enterance and parking facilities. Four commercial developments are planned along the Highway 5 fl'ontage. The buildings are sited near Highway' 5 with parking in the rear, Re~aurams¢) Two sit dovm restaurants are planned on the west fide of the site. For the purpose of this plan we have described one restaurant at I0,000 SF and one at 5,000 SF. It is intended that both restaurants would be planned in such a way as to use the existhag natural environraem of the creek bed to the west as a visual amenity. The estimated floor area ratio when the tmdevelopable creek bed area is include in the rite plan is .07. The floor area ratio for the 5,000 SF restaurant is .13. Office / Bank The Office / Bank would be located on the e~..st side of the site directly adjacent to the new Highway $ curbcut. It is anticipated that the building would be a one or two s*:n5' building of approximately 15,000 SF with a floor area ratio of. 19. Hotel A 70 to 80 unit hotel of 3 to 4 stories is located between the restaurants and the office. The facility would be planned to provide hotel guests with Convenient access to restaurants and other site amenities including the proposed water l~rk. The floor area ratio ortho hotelis approximately .69. Chanhassen Project 3/24/2004 Restaurant (10,000 SF) Floor Area 10,000 SF Site 136,000 SF Floor Area Ratio 0.07 Parking Demand Ratio 15 Parking Demand 150 SF/Space 325 Parking Area Required 48,750 SF Remaining SF 77,250 SF Summary Building Footprint 7% Parking 36% Other 57% Total 100% /1,000 SF Spaces Restraunt (10,000 SF) 7% Restaunt (5,000 SF) Floor Area 5,000 Site 40,000 Floor Area Ratio 0.13 Parking Demand Ratio 15 Parking Demand 75 SF/Space 325 Parking Area Required 24,375 Remaining SF 10,625 Summary Building Footprint 13% Parking 61% Other 27% Total 100% SF SF /1,000 SF Spaces SF SF 57%t 36% · Building Footprint · Parking [] Other Restraunt (5,000 SF) 13% 27% 60% · Building Footprint · Parking [] Other CITY OFCHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAR 2004 CHANHA$$EN PLA~ING~DEPT Chanhassen Project 3/24/2004 Hotel (80 Units / 5 Floors) No. of Units Footprint No. of Floors Floor Area Site Floor Area Ratio Parking Demand Ratio Parking Demand SF/Space Parking Area Required Remaining SF Sutnmary Building Footprint Parking Other Total Office / Retail Footprint No. of Floors Floor Area Site Floor Area Ratio Parking Demand Ratio Parking Demand SF/Space Parking Area Required Remaining SF 84 14,000 SF 3 42,000 SF 81,000 SF 0.52 1 /Unit 84 Spaces 325 27,300 SF 39,700 SF 17% 34% 49% 100% Hotel 17% 49% 34% · Building Footprint · Parking [] Other Summary Building Footprint Parking Other 15,000 1 15,000 80,000 0.19 4.5 68 325 21,938 43,063 19% 27% SF SF SF /1,000 SF Spaces SF SF Office I Retail 54%! 19% .~7% 54% 100% · Building Footprint · Parking [] Other Chanhassen Project 3/24/2004 Athletic Club Footprint 93,000 Floor Area 120,000 Site 268,000 Floor Area Ratio 0.45 Parking Demand Ratio 4 Parking Demand 480 SF/Space 325 Parking Area Required 156,000 Outdoor Recreation 0 Remaining SF 19,000 Summary Building Footprint 35% Parking 58% Other 7% Outdoor Recreation 0% 100% SF SF SF /1,000 SF Spaces SF SF Athletic Club 58% 0% 35% Water Park, City of Chanhassen Area (Acres) 4.2 Area (SF) 182,000 1 Building Footprint ~ Parking [] Other [] Outdoor Recreation CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on April 8, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel (Advance Fitness) - Planning Case No. 04-14 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. / i4r n J. pge i"a dt, n'4uty C erk Sub .~.ribed and sworn to before me this ~} ~t,, day of _~ ~.4 ~, ,2004. 4 · Notary Pubtl~ g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-14 - advance fitness-1891 arboretum blvdXaffidavit.doc lc, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Bo~levaW, P.O. Box Chanhassen, Minnesota 5531 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation ol records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map ara error free, and the City dces not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies ara found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclalmar is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) 1891 Arboretum Blvd. City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-14 Coulter Boulevard 'n Bouleva _St_a_te Hwy 5 Arbore TAMRA S ADAMS 1973 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 WILLIAM R B ANDERSON & KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON 1974 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 HARRY & JULIE BENJAMIN 1929 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS C/O LAND GROUP 123 NORTH 3RD ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1657 RICHARD & SUZANNE M BONIN 1943 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 SUSAN M BOYLAN 2010 WATERLEAF LN E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343 TIM P BRZEZINSKI & DON HERMANN 1956 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND GROUP INC 123 3RD ST N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1407 MONICA L DAVIES 1952 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 ERIC B & MELANIE S DOWNUM 1976 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 THEODORE J & CORINNE Z DUDINE 1947 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 DARCI L ECKERMANN 1938 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MICHAEL J GORRA 1680 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4503 MARK HANLEY PAINE LEWIS 1967 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8205 ANTHONY R MALLAWAARATCHY 1934 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT PO BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 RICHARD N & JANINE E MCLELLAN 1927 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 SHARI MUSOKE 1932 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL 1972 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 DOUGLAS J PETERSON 1971 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MARK & DAWN POLLMAN 1954 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 KATHY J ROBILLIARD 1978 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JANE SCHMITZ 1944 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 KATHY E SCHNEIDER 1946 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 STEVEN & KATHERINE SCHRAMM 1949 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MICHAEL S SMITH 1936 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 PRAMOD & SHILPA TANEJA 1969 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT PO BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE ASSN C/O PERSONAL TOUCH MGMT PO BOX 5233 HOPKINS MN 55343-2233 VICTOR J ULLRICH & JEAN C WILCOX 1931 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP 1801 E 79TH ST SUITE 21 BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230 MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT 1950 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE D & EMILY P WALDRON 2085 MAJESTIC WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9356 G:\PLAN~004 Planning Cases\04-14 - Advance Fitness-1891 Arboretum Blvd\04-14 PH Notice Labels.doc Planning Commission Summary - April 20, 2004 3. The Interim Use Permit would expire upon the site being served by municipal services. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR A HEALTH CLUB~ OFFICE~ RESTAURANT AND HOTEL ON 21.7 ACRES LOCATED AT 1891 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE~ GUIDED FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14. Public Present: OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, ADVANCE Name Address Liv Homeland Jim Lasher Barry Blomquist, Jr. Richard Bjork Karci Eckermann Brad Bohman Dawn Pollman Kathy Pensyl C.J. Pappas 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie LSA Design Amerrest Systems Amerrest Systems 1838 Andrew Court 1954 Andrew Court 1972 Andrew Court 54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for staff clarification on their recommendation for only one restaurant and traffic between this development and Lake Ann Park. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the public/private situation with the proposed water park/pool and traffic concerns. Commissioner Lillehaug had questions regarding zoning, roadways, and regional ponding requirements. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification regarding the proposed hotel. Commissioner Tjornhom stated she was struggling with the idea of a water park in an industrial area. Chairman Sacchet had questions relating to the proposed uses, i.e. hotel and bank, the percentage of uses, the water park and height of buildings. Richard Bjork provided background information on the applicant, Advance Fitness. Jim Lasher with LSA Design spoke on behalf of the team to outline the proposal. Commissioner Tjornhom asked the applicant to explain how the water park differs from a regular swimming pool. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the scale of restaurants being proposed. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the roadway connection with McGlynn Road. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Brent Griowski, 2221 Hunter Drive, spoke on behalf of General Mills at 8000 Audubon Road which is adjacent to the proposed development. He wanted to remind the commission that General Mills is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and asked if a hotel use the best use as a neighbor. Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court had questions 2 Planning Commission Summary - April 20, 2004 regarding the type of athletic health club, traffic circulation, density and parking on the site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the following motion was voted on. Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions: Permitted Uses in the IOP: · Offices · Warehouses · Light Manufacturing · Health Services · Printers · Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service · Recording Studios · Conference/Convention Center · Antennas · Parking Lots & Ramps · Signs · Day Care Center · Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs · Research Laboratories · Hotels & Motels · Food Processing · 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south. 4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed. o No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP standards. 3 Planning Commission Summary - April 20, 2004 o Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 10. Prior approval from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for grading and erosion & sediment control. 11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I! Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); REZONING FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN)~ 3 OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN)~ AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE~ ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6 ACRES IN CHANHASSEN)~ LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL~ THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS~ SETTLERS WEST~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-05. Public Present: Name Address Dan & Val Tester Eldon Beckland Allan Klugman Justin Larson Dan Herbst Marty & Jenny Clark 230 Flying Cloud Drive 10 Pioneer Trail Westwood Sathre-Berquist Pemtom 18956 DorenKemper Place, Eden Prairie Matt Saam and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on sharing road maintenance with Eden Prairie, roadway geometrics, bluff delineation behind Lots 29 through 37, and access off of Pioneer Trail. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR A HEALTH CLUB, OFFICE~ RESTAURANT AND HOTEL ON 21.7 ACRES LOCATED AT 1891 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE~ GUIDED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL~ ADVANCE FITNESS~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14. Public Present: Name Address Liv Homeland Jim Lasher Barry Blomquist, Jr. Richard Bjork Karci Eckermann Brad Bohlman Dawn Pollman Kathy Pensyl C.J. Pappas 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie LSA Design Amervest Systems Amervest Systems 1838 Andrew Court 1838 Andrew Court 1954 Andrew Court 1972 Andrew Court 54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff. Papke: I'll start. I assume the applicant is proposing two restaurants. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: In your recommendation you're saying one. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Okay. And the rationale for one I assume is that you're trying to keep the business center of downtown Chan, is that the rationale or what's the rationale behind the one? Aanenson: Well, the rationale is, there will be in this facility they're proposing some support, caf6 sort of thing in order to capture that. But the rationale is this is an industrial district. Restaurants aren't permitted in that district, in the retail district so if we're going to allow it we'd want to stay under that 25 percent. So with the two and the bank, so kind of pick and choose where you get that 25 percent. And the other concern we had with that scale, could it be, if you put the cap on there, that it not be a drive thru? Could that work if you still stayed under 25 for the two? Yes. So...just no drive thru I think that'd be. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Papke: Second question. The proximity of the water park will be right across Highway 5 from Lake Ann roughly. Aanenson: Let me show you on this map. Papke: Pretty close to right across from Lake Ann. Aanenson: Pretty close. Papke: Is there any concern with that where traffic might be generated between the two? Where you know, mom might drop off a couple kids at Lake Ann. The older kids at Lake Ann. The younger kids at the water park, because it's. Aanenson: I think with the right-in/right-out you can actually get over to, with a right, taking a right, getting onto Highway 5 and then getting onto to West 78th. I think that would be pretty easy. Saam: Yeah, and we actually have pretty good street access from the Lake Ann Park. You come down to the new West 78th Street. Take Audubon south and take a left on Coulter, so. Papke: So you don't think that would be an issue? Saam: No. No, those are all collector roads. Aanenson: Yeah, I think there's a signal at Audubon so even if you came this way on Audubon and got on Coulter, I think that would work. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions of staff? Rich. Slagle: I've got a couple. And I just want to confirm that the health club, this conceptual PUD is a private enterprise from the health club standpoint, is that correct? Aanenson: That's correct. Slagle: The water park in the gentleman's letter was sort of left open as perhaps private/public. Aanenson: Right, and they'll speak to that but it's my understanding they're exploring what amenities would be desirable for the community and if there's any participation and that really is a discussion for the City Council and that's kind of a concept. Whether it be an outdoor or water park or. Slagle: Okay. The other question I had was, and thank you for using a comparison of Lifetime in Savage. If my numbers are correct, the comparison of the Savage facility is Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. Savage site also includes an outdoor pool. And I'm assuming that is some more acres in addition to the 14.47 Do you know? Aanenson: I'm not sure on that. Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking is this. Is I'm seeing that the 60,000 club, excuse me, the club that we're looking at is 6 point something acres with the outdoor water park another 4. So you're in essence fitting that all on 10 acres, where a comparable club is on 14.4 and we're not sure if that includes a pool or not, so my only question is, do we feel that this is somewhat limiting in size from an acreage standpoint? Aanenson: Well I think obviously the parking's going to drive the footprint too because the two have to match together, and as we move through those discussions, and ! think they're still trying to get a read from the community as what elements or amenities are desirable so they match what our community standards are because I think every community has a little bit different desires, so they're working through those issues too, but certainly the footprint and the parking has been an issue. And I think that's what we looked at too is some of those, you know it's a 24 operations. Obviously it peaks, ebs and flows and looking at some of the cross over parking with some of the uses we had talked about that too. Slagle: Do you know, and I didn't see it, is there an outdoor pool or an indoor pool with the health club? Aanenson: There is an indoor pool proposed, yeah. Slagle: Okay. And last for I guess engineering is on that proposed right-of-way Matt, where the two roads will connect to what I will call the northeast of the health club. What would be your traffic thoughts there? Stop signs or. Saam: In the extension of McGlynn Drive from the east? Slagle: Exactly, yep. Aanenson: At this intersection. Slagle: Yeah, and then hitting that north/south road. Yeah, fight there. What would you, hard to say at this point? Saam: Yeah, what I would envision right now would be two way stop at McGlynn and a thru on the north/south. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Any other questions of staff? Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: I have some, yes. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: This is getting a little detailed but I think we just need to raise a few of these points right now. These buildings, the right-of-way line on the north portion. MnDot right-of-way. Would that be right up to where the colored portion is on their map? Because I think we need a 50 foot setback to these buildings, correct? So that lessens some parking area. So is that right-of-way right up to the colored portion or is it one of them other lines further north? I guess I would, I just want to make it clear that I think we need a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way there and it's clearly not that. Am I correct? Aanenson: They need to be 50 feet, correct. I'm not sure on that scale... Lillehaug: I just wanted to raise that point so that wasn't even a question was it? Zoning. Why would we want to allow a bank in this area? I mean what benefit does that give to the city by allowing a bank in this area that it's not zoned for? Aanenson: Well our recommendation was that it wouldn't be a free standing bank. That it be incorporated with something else so I guess we leave that back up to you. There's some banks that are still trying to land up some sites and obviously they're working with some of the users they know are out there, but I would leave that up to you. Our recommendation was that it be incorporated and so it would be a smaller building but a bigger building with some other uses with it. That'd be similar to what we just did on the bowling alley site. The bank has office over it. It's actually like a 30,000 square foot building. So it still have the drive thru but there's offices over the top and adjacent to it so it has a larger footprint and that would be our recommendation. Lillehaug: Why allow a bank at all though? Aanenson: Well I would leave it up to you. Lillehaug: I mean it's not guided for that but why would. Aanenson: And the same thing with a restaurant. It's kind of quasi office user. Sacchet: It falls into those 25 percent flexibility, right? Aanenson: Right. Lillehaug: Let's see. Roadways. Trunk Highway 5. I guess we would only be, the city plans on only allowing one access point off of Trunk Highway 5 for this entire undeveloped area. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Correct, and that's what MnDot had, when we did Coulter, right. They had one access. Originally it was shown on the other side. At that time we weren't sure exactly how the development was going to lay out so that was kind of held off in abeyance and it's my understanding that the developer has an agreement with MnDot to put it on the other side. But it would be right in, it was always was only planned right- in/right-out. Lillehaug: So there from Audubon to Galpin this will be the only right-in/right-out? I mean there will be no others? Aanenson: That's correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Does the city, this is a Trunk Highway 5 brand new section of roadway. Does the city anticipate requiring the applicant to provide a full length right turn lane with concrete pavement to match that new road that we got out there? I would hope so. Saam: Yeah, and I would think that would be a MnDot requirement also Commissioner Lillehaug. Aanenson: Right, we haven't got their comments back but certainly that would be some of their, in their jurisdiction too to comment on some of that. Lillehaug: Okay. Then let's go on the north/south connector street. Right into the proposed office bank building. Well, this isn't quite the same situation we had down on, was it Century? It's not quite the same situation but. Aanenson: Yeah, we struggled with that too. Just so you know again, we went through a lot of, and we didn't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it for conceptual but originally when it came in, I believe the restaurant was on the far side and we said you know it would be nicer to have the restaurant closer to the creek. A nicer amenity if you had outdoor patio. So when you worked out, went over there, that'd be nice. Is this the best place for a bank based on traffic? That's something we'll have to explore. I understand what you're saying with your concern there, and we're still looking at that. Lillehaug: Not even necessarily a bank. You know I want. Aanenson: But a cut, a curb cut right here. Lillehaug: Right. Aanenson: I agree. Lillehaug: It's conceptual. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, we .... that issue with them too and how that works and right. But I think it's something to flag and watch, yeah. Sacchet: Chances are it's not going to be a good idea. Lillehaug: Does engineering, is their opinion that, is it the city standard to have a 300 foot before you allow a curb cut so that would really in essence be down to the next roadway, is that standard? Saam: Yes. 300 is the standard. I just want to add that we did point that out. That access would require further study. A traffic study to make sure that the intersection will operate effectively. So we're not blanketedly saying that we're going to allow that. It needs to be looked at. Aanenson: It's on page 5 in one of the bullet points, yeah. Lillehaug: You know do we even give a false indication of that because I guess I'm of the opinion that we don't need, a traffic study's not going to tell us really anything. It's just a matter, it's policy and. Sacchet: But it's certainly within our discussion Steve. Make a firmer point if you want to firm that one up. Lillehaug: Okay. Let's see here. I apologize here. Let's see. Fast food. Fast food. Do we have, is fast food defined in our code? Aanenson: Yes it is. Lillehaug: It is? Okay. Regional ponding requirements. Does the city have any idea of what they're proposing for any regional ponding requirements? The staff report indicated that it need to fit in here somehow. Aanenson: They'll have to come back in the next iteration with that. Lillehaug: So on site regional ponding? Saam: Correct. Yeah, we haven't received any drainage calculations to speak of at this point so we have no idea the size that will be needed or. Lillehaug: Boy, that's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any questions Dan or Bethany? Keefe: I just have a couple. The proposed hotel, does the city have a number of units that they want to build out and this particular hotel sort of meets that guidance? Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Again it's conceptual. I think when we give them, they were showing some things that they thought may work. It may not be a hotel. That's the thing of putting the list together. Again what we're trying to show is some uses, that is a permitted use so if it went away and became another office or something else permitted, I think that'd be fine. I think the thing that we're looking at was the retail, introduction of the retail and that's why we're talking about the... Keefe: And then in regards to the hotel, does that include... Aanenson: Typically we don't address that if it's kind of the continental breakfast. We don't have a lot of those that have full service. Most of them have the continental. All of them do that are in town right now. The continental express breakfast so. Keefe: And did we consider maybe making one larger restaurant versus the two? Aanenson: Right. I guess that's where I was coming from. Having one larger one. You know again, just to give you comparison if you look at Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings, that's a 7,500 square foot building. Those are both sit down. Could something like that go in there? Or something bigger, that would be one larger footprint so again our concern was as long as it wasn't their drive thru, the quick in, we thought this would be an opportunity for a nicer experience. A sit down, sit outside, that kind of atmosphere. Keefe: So the proposed restaurant are really to support more the hotel and then some local traffic as well, right. Aanenson: Yeah, that they have tennis courts which is one of the things they talked about. Play tennis, go across the street, and again with the hotel that they were looking at a complimentary, but again some of those things may slide a little bit as we move through this. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: Is that it? Keefe: That's it. Sacchet: Questions Bethany? Tjornhom: I'm kind of struggling with the whole water park, the whole thing in that area. Is a water park really appropriate in an office industrial area or is it, you know I guess I just, I'm trying to envision taking my kids to the water park by all the offices and is it more of a neighborhood place? Aanenson: Well it's tied in with the fitness center so you'd have to come through the fitness center. It'd be part of that. Similar to some of the ones that other recreational facilities we do. So it'd slide into that, and I think the intent there is to screen that, I 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 mean is control the access of how you get in and out of it so it would be related specifically to this use. Tjomhom: And so then, once I think someone already asked this question but so would this be for private use then just for members only or would it just be. Aanenson: Members only, correct. Tjornhom: So it wouldn't just be for a city, anybody who wanted to. Aanenson: Right, it's tied to this project. That's correct. Tjornhom: Okay. Thank you. Sacchet: I actually have a few questions still too. Quite a number of them are addressed. On page 2 of the staff report Kate, there's this comment that I cannot, I kind of was wondering. It says that a hotel is permitted but it's an unlikely use. What does that mean unlikely? Aanenson: Well we just don't think there's a market, and that question was already raised. We're just not sure that there's a market right now for another hotel. Sacchet: Okay. So we're wondering whether we already have enough? But then bank is not unlikely? We certainly have more banks than hotels. Aanenson: All I can tell you is that I know there's two bank users looking so, and there's a lot of reasons for that but personally I think there's not a market for a hotel. Sacchet: Alright. Then. Aanenson: Again going back, we have approved the other Northcott one. It hasn't been built yet so there's already one... Sacchet: And also bank buildings yeah. All trees within the creek setback, what does this say? Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved. Are they or I mean we'll see that when it gets more detail? Aanenson: Right. At that level again there is the creek setback. The Watershed District regulations so again at this level they weren't, they're here to get a read before they go back and do that, the more detailed oriented plans, but if you're in the creek setback, there's no reason to be grading or anything like that so all of those trees should be preserved, and then we did talk about, if there was even an outdoor pool in this area, or whether it's a water park, how we were to preserve those. Those features. Sacchet: In terms of the restaurants and bank, when we say 25 percent, is it 25 percent of the building footprint or what exactly is it 25 percent of? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: You know we took some different evolutions of that to see if it made a difference and it can go either way, whether it's acreage or square footage of buildings. It comes pretty close. It's negligible. We ran it a couple different ways, correct. Sacchet: So it could potentially be two restaurants and no bank? Aanenson: Right, and I guess that was. Sacchet: Or we could say just 25 percent? Aanenson: Or a restaurant not to exceed, give a square footage. You know, or give yourself some flexibility because again this is giving them some direction as it comes back through, you know that you can tighten that up a little bit but I think that's where Steve was going, he wants to give some clear direction on some of his issues and that's what I guess we're asking for too. Sacchet: And based on the comment made about the water park, it does look like public water park is at this point... Aanenson: Well I think that's a discussion you may want to have with the city. Sacchet: And then my last question, in the applicant's write up they're talking about the hotel being 3 or 4 stories. What's, how high can they go? Aanenson: It can go that high. In the lOP district. Sacchet: No problem with that? Aanenson: Yeah, and that's how tall the Holiday Inn... Sacchet: Thank you very much Kate, that's all my questions. With that, if the applicant, yes. Sorry Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I'm sorry but I do want to get it out with staff before the applicant presents. And Kate I just want your thoughts, again conceptually, would there be merit to tying in what I will call either more sidewalks or such that would connect, obviously you have the sidewalks on Coulter. But going up that new road and then maybe even going east on McGlynn to the daycare. Aanenson: Yeah, definitely, I think so, and you know we had talked about too, all the places where you can possibly put a bridge across the creek to get, to tie into going across that way too and they're willing to explore all those. We've talked about that and I think that's certainly, it's exercise. If you want to go outside and do a walk, exactly. Slagle: Exactly, okay. Thank you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, with this I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If you have anything to add. We'd like to hear from you. You want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Bjork: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Bjork. I'm with Advance Fitness and I do live in Edina, Minnesota. I'd like to thank staff for their support on this project very much and we hope that this is something that the Planning Commission looks favorably upon. We realize that there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point in time but we're here to just kind of banter it back and forth a little bit. See what works, what doesn't work, things like that. We have developed a lot of different mixed use projects and we've done everything from residential to some golf courses. Some parking. Commercial. Things like that. We've assembled a team with some architectural background. With some legal background. Some financial background, and some health club background, so we've got a group together that should make this project work. The fund raising that we put together is going in the fight direction so we're comfortable that we can accomplish this project, and one of the major things, because the site is 22 acres, to put together a health club which is a primary use of the project, we really only need approximately 13 acres, so therefore you say to yourself, okay you have to come up with something to use the rest of the real estate to make the whole project work in a complimentary manner. And that's one of the reasons that we have put down the uses that we have. Also the fact that the water park is something that seems to be a growing trend in communities and something that is practical for the local residents. Savage as an example. They give their residents a discount when they come in, walk through the health club and then use the pool on a daily basis. They just pay per day for the use, something like that. So we have not really explored that in detail but it is something that we'd like to see as an ancillary service to the health club, and make the use of the land. So with that what I'd like to do is turn it over to our landscape architect that's on our team, Jim Lasher and have him walk you through the, unless you have some questions for me initially. Sacchet: Any questions so far? No? Thank you very much. Richard Bjork: Jim Lasher. Jim Lasher: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Lasher from LSA Design. I'm here representing the team. I can address any specific questions you have about the plan or I can back up a bit and go through a little bit more detail of the specific plan and then entertain questions at that point. Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you give us a little more idea first. It doesn't have to be lengthy but an overview would be great. Jim Lasher: I think what I would like to touch on a bit is the access issues that have been brought up and what we plan to do about those. We do have an easement agreement in place. It's being worked on from MnDot regarding access to this site. Received it today 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 from, signed by A1 Penn, Director of Land Development for MnDot. The basic idea is that we would agree to this body to put the entire road on our property, although I think it would be in our best interest to look at to try to split that right-of-way in essence to move this project forward the team has agreed that we would accept the full 60 foot right-of- way width on our property. That allows the project to move forward in our time frame, and it allows you to move forward without having to go through an eminent domain procedure for adjacent property so I think that is a great benefit of moving forward with this particular project. The second piece is we would certainly agree to that connection piece back over to McGlynn and look to make that a full connecting road all the way through. One thing it does do however is move the access point a little bit further south than we would actually prefer to be so we would request that you allow us to review that in terms of layout. What it may end up being is a bit of a curvature in the road. I believe the access comes in about down here so we may end up grinding that back and coming in this fashion because as we mentioned we're going to try to put the health club on the back portion of the site and re-use the front portion and the deeper it gets in the front portion the more square footage we're actually going to look to this body for approval for the ancillary development. I believe the 25 percent number is a good number and we can live within that number but I would ask for your support in terms of how we locate that specific road. The second piece is the shoreland setback and how we would handle storm water. At this point in time we're going through the general calculations for what our runoff calculation would be and our intention would be is to do storm water for this entire site on our particular site. So please rest assured that is the intention of the group. The shoreland setback we're showing now is approximately 100 feet, and we would look to either a path along that side and then make a connection to the other side or possibly combine the path on the other side with our's. If there's no need to be redundant, and we certainly don't want to be redundant with the path, wherever the best location would be for it, we would concur to go to that location. With regards to the specific uses, I think we can agree to not have access off of the primary north/south road. This is the location. It looks to all access off of this road in both directions. We would request however that there be a secondary access along for the health club here because it would be a fairly large parking facility and we'd like to have at least two accesses to that point. We're probably looking at somewhere between 400 to 450 parking stalls for this particular facility. Two access points would be preferred. And lastly I think what we would like to do is move forward a bit with the water park discussion but another alternative which has been done in other communities is to entertain discussions with the local school district about the idea of combining a public/private venture for this particular project. I'll cite an example in Plymouth where the city of Plymouth and the local health club got together and built in essence a school swimming pool and swimming facility that was used by the Wayzata School District. We'd request from this body the authority to at least move forward with those discussions in the likelihood of maybe bringing back, not an exterior water park but an expanded indoor pool facility that would be able to be used by the local school district as well. With that I'll answer any further questions, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Tjomhom: I have an easy one for you right away. Define to me what a water park, how this is different from just a regular swimming pool. Jim Lasher: At this point in time the water park industry is looking to kind of the bells and whistles world of what's more to something than just a swimming pool. The big, large slides. The outdoor play equipment. The pieces that generally provide that excitement at a water enthusiastic type park, rather than just a swimming pool. If you went to the communities like St. Louis Park or even the Plymouth facility or some other communities in Hastings that have built outdoor water parks, they have large slides, outdoor play equipment, so it's a little bit more of an entertainment type venue and not just a swimming pool. That would be one option. The second option as I mentioned would be more of an interior straight swimming pool facility that would maybe have an Olympic sized pool that would be suitable for sort of school activities and possibly a diving well that would be suitable for NCAA or high school sanctioned swimming events as well. We'll look at both of those but in essence the outdoor pool would just be a more kind of enthusiastic type facility with a lot more equipment. Tjornhom: But would it generate a lot more noise, do you think than a regular outdoor pool that you would find at an athletic club? Jim Lasher: I believe any outdoor swimming pool will clearly generate more noise than the inside would. I think our intention would be to go through that particular layout and work with you to see if that was too much of an impact for the adjacent properties and work with your preference there but clearly any flexibility you give us at this point in time we believe we can produce the best plan. Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt. Papke: Can you elaborate a little bit on the nature of the restaurants you're proposing there, so for instance the smaller restaurant immediately adjacent to the hotel, is this in the you know, a Denny's or is this, you what level of scale are you considering for your two restaurants? Jim Lasher: We had two primary thoughts on the restaurants, and as you understand in the development of this, what we're trying to do is service the highway user as well as the health club user. When you look at the number of people that come to a facility like this, it's an opportunity in an overall mixed use development to provide ancillary services. We looked at two types of restaurants. The first would be a sit down type restaurant, which would clearly provide seating space and parking space suitable in the 10 to 11,000 square foot range. The second was what we thought would be a fairly good place for a drive thru. Given the fact that fast food is something that people may want to pick up after a health club experience, they could do that quickly and leave the site. Understanding your conditions here about what you'd like to see on this site, we would agree to look at both of those ideas and see which one made the most sense. From our standpoint we would prefer to move forward with both restaurants but understand your position as well. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: I have a question as far as connecting McGlynn Road up. What is your involvement with that property to the east of you? Now you're showing the proposed roadway here east/west roadway where it is, but what involvement do you have with that property because I guess it'd be a good engineering standpoint that you don't want a staggered intersection, and I'm sure you'd agree with that but why couldn't we just put a curve in McGlynn and connect up there? Do you know something that we don't I guess. Jim Lasher: We do not know or have any involvement in that particular parcel. All we would ask is that we would try to do a pure 90 degree intersection at that point in time, but we may end up curving our road a bit to get it closer to Highway 5 than what is currently being shown on that connection and the parcel to the east of us. Aanenson: If I could elaborate on that a little bit more. The property owner to the east may or may not have as much development interest. It appears that right now there's some different parties involved that are advancing some changes on some of that property. Our position was that the two parties would have to work it out and I think as Mr. Lasher indicated, based on timing, it would hold it up to get both parties to agree. Certainly it's our job to make sure that the benefit of one is not to the detriment of another and we'll try to make those connections. Give the other party an opportunity to comment. You know they were notified of this project going forward so we'll try to work those through, but again sometimes it's a timing issue. If someone's, if we have to swing the road a little bit to still provide that opportunity for both connections to work, that makes. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing so if anybody likes to address this project, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Are there any individuals here that want to address this? If I see nobody, yes. There's somebody. Brent Griowski: Hello. My name is Brent Griowski. I'm at 2221 Hunter Drive in Chanhassen. And I'm actually representing General Mills which is off 8000 Audubon, adjacent to the area that we're talking about today. And I understand it's a conceptual drawing and was also been some discussion about whether or not a hotel would actually be considered for that area. North of the proposal. But just to remind the council, as you decide what we're going to put there, it is a 24/7 operation just on the other side of Coulter. And to remind the council that there is some noise that's generated from there. Is a hotel the best solution for that? That's all I have. Sacchet: Especially when you bang the trucks, right. Alright, is there anybody else? Please come forward. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Brad Bohlman: Hi, my name is Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court. I have some questions, not necessarily of the commission but possibly of the potential user of the site. I guess my initial question is what type of an athletic club, how would you characterize it? Would you characterize it as a Bally's? Would you characterize it as a Flagship? How would you look at it? Sacchet: Why don't you tell us all your story and then if you want to come back up, you certainly can do so. Brad Bohlman: Essentially also is there going to be any ingress or egress off of Coulter into the site? Aanenson: Yes. Brad Bohlman: There is.'? Sacchet: Yes, there is a connector. Aanenson: This street here .... if you're down on Andrew Court, you're right here. Brad Bohlman: Correct. Aanenson: Okay. So this street, there will be a street, Stone Creek comes onto Coulter. It will be offset. This street would be offset and then this street would come through...so this street would come through. Sacchet: Instead of the other one. Aanenson: Yes. Brad Bohlman: And that goes into the site itself? Aanenson: No, that's what we were just talking about. All has to do with the interior of this road. Brad Bohlman: So essentially the health club is set back so there's parking that would abut Coulter? Aanenson: That's correct. Brad Bohlman: Okay. Okay, and then I guess another question would be, is there going to be any type of landscaping or screening off of Coulter to separate the parking area. Sacchet: That is standard, isn't it Kate? Aanenson: Yes. And again this is concept. It doesn't have any... 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Brad Bohlman: Right, I understand it's a concept... Aanenson: ...complete landscaping plan will be another public hearing on those. Brad Bohlman: And I guess kind of piggy back in what Rich was saying, it seems like there might be a fair amount of density here based upon the amount of acreage that they're planning, at least in my opinion. That would just be something, and then just relative to proof of parking versus the density level also. Those are my questions. I don't know how you want to address them but those are just questions that I have. Sacchet: In terms that we have berming requirements for the city in terms of shielding parking areas, in terms of density and parking requirements, we have standard formulas that apply to that. We're not to that level of detail with this project obviously but those would all come into play when this project gets further refined. Brad Bohlman: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that? Aanenson: I was going to say that they do have an iteration of the internal if you wanted just for them to take a minute to go through kind of what they were thinking. That might be... Sacchet: Yeah, I would invite you to come back up if you want to address a little more of the detail in terms of what type of flavor health club you're actually envisioning. Jim Lasher: Commissioners, this is a very schematic layout just to get to our total square foot uses of what the type of things would be within the club, but if I had to characterize this club I would say certainly it's at the Lifetime, Northwest, possibly not to the level of finishes of a Flagship but it's certainly within that general concept of what we're trying to provide here. The uses are very similar in terms of indoor aerobic spaces, tennis courts, swimming pool, the general health club type layout requirements. I think conceptually what they're trying to do here within this new concept is to bring more of a holistic idea to a health club use and so we'll be developing that concept further as we move through this idea, but this does give you a general sense of the type of layout of the club, and it is very similar in terms of what you normally would expect in a health club setting. Sacchet: Do you want to just walk through this a little bit? Jim Lasher: Yes, I suppose we could. I'd ask someone else to take you through that. Sacchet: I mean it doesn't have to be very detailed since we're looking at high level concept, but personally I have some curiosity. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Adrian Haid: My name is Adrian Haid, a resident of Eden Prairie. Okay, it's facing north, or Highway 5 or west of here. West of town. The club will have basically a fairly large lobby with several waterfalls, and daycare center. And several aerobic studios. As you're looking at two indoor swimming pools basically for lap swimming and other activities, family activities, indoor pool. And we've got 4 basically racquetball is in right here. And we're looking at producing a group of...residents always left out of these kind of activities is basically the ages 6 and 14. They cannot go to their daycare. Mom wants to go work out. They don't know where to go. So Advance Fitness would be the first club in the United States to implement an area for youth. Children of 6 to 14. So that is a department that's in there, and also a 12 hoop basketball court. In addition to that we have the second floor of 32,000 square foot of workout that overlooks the lobby, and with all glass looking outside. Therefore the Advance Fitness is not a Bally's. It is not Northwest Athletic Club and it is not Flagship. By far better. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Richard Bjork: Could have said it better myself. Sacchet: Alright. If you want to move on, do you want to add anything else? Richard Bjork: I believe that's it, thank you. Sacchet: Okay, the public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address this. Is there any more comments you want to share with us? If not, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Want to start Rich? Slagle: I can start. I'd like to thank the applicant because this is something that is definitely needed in the city of Chanhassen and surrounding area. So I don't need to say much other than I think it really is exciting. I hope we work on the thought that this is sort of a community entity, not to mention that it is privately owned but he's open to the community. The one thing I do want to add, and I hope the applicant hears this, is in respect to the neighbors comment to the south. I can speak, and it's been a few years for some of you to hear this story but we lived in Woodbury across the street from an open lot, which was rezoned and a health club, very large one, 24 hour health club went in, and had lots of lights and was open, lots of glass. And I will say this, that that particular company was very open to working with the neighbors to the south where they actually helped purchase evergreens, increase the berming from the city's minimum heights and became really a partner with the neighbors to the south. So I just ask you guys to work. Adrian Haid: I can answer that question. You're talking about Woodbury, I'm assume you talk about Lifetime. If you look at the end of the building on Lifetime is about maybe 15 feet to the next house. But if you're looking at this house...right there, from this edge of this building to the next residence down here is far. Approximately, I don't know exactly so if you're looking at that comparison of Lifetime in Woodbury, that is basically the distance to you and I. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Slagle: Well I think you're probably referring to the homes that were to the east. We were across the street which would be 200-300 feet, and all I'm saying is, is when the night time came, the glare of that particular company was quite bright. But not to say that that's not good or bad. It's just that I think if anything you can do with the neighbors would be appreciated. Adrian Haid: Absolutely. We plan on putting an absolute landscaping in the trees, high bushes. That actually makes it very private. You won't even be able to see it from the south or either direction. Therefore we provide alt the amenities to protect. Slagle: And I'll remind you that you used the word private. Adrian Haid: Alright. Papke: The applicant is looking for feedback concerning a possible partnership with the schools. Having been a customer of the Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth, shared with the Wayzata school system, it was always been my dream that Chanhassen could build something like that so I would be extremely supportive of such a venture and I would very encourage it because there's a severe shortage of practice space for the high school swimming team here. However, I have one caveat on that, and this is more a heads up for staff. It was my experience that the diving facility, due to insurance reasons, was not made available to Plymouth to the residents or the users of Lifetime Fitness. So as we go through this, I suggest that we look very carefully at what is being permitted to the city residents versus what is being allowed when the school is using the facility and so on because I was disappointed as a customer that my daughter, who is on the Chaska High School diving team could not practice diving at that facility so I just raise that as an issue. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points. Lillehaug: Can I ask the applicant one more question? Sacchet: Certainly. Lillehaug: I don't think they've commented on it but staff has indicated that they would prefer to see only one restaurant. Do you have a comment on that being you are showing two? Jim Lasher: At this point in time we would prefer to try to move forward with as much flexibility that this body could give us, and if that did include two restaurants, we would come back at that point in time with a more detailed site plan and let you.., at that time. However, we would also agree that if you pushed those two together, we could in essence construct two restaurants in one single building and I think that's certainly a reasonable solution given what you did here with Chipotle and Wild Wings so that's a reasonable solution as well but we would like to continue looking and exploring the option of two restaurants. Thank you. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Thank you. Tjomhom: I guess I can throw my two cents in. I also actually think that it's badly needed in Chanhassen. A decent place to go work out. The water park concerns me a little bit only for the neighbors and the noise, and maybe they're too far away so it wouldn't be a problem. I don't know but I just would like someone to think about that, that at 8:00 at night maybe neighbors don't want to hear kids screaming down a slide or something. So just to take that into consideration when you are making your plans. Jim Lasher: We would propose to do a noise study if indeed that was part of the overall plan and engage someone to actually do a detailed analysis about the level of noise generated and how far it would travel. And if we did come up with a plan, that an outdoor park did make sense, we would provide some level of assurances through scientific analysis that the noise wasn't going to impact the neighbors. If it did, we would move on and do something else. Sacchet: Well I have a few comments too. First of all I think it's a great project. Really think we all welcome this type of thing to our city. I made some notes about some of the specific things that came up in our discussion. I think it's an excellent idea, this idea with working with school district for the water park or pool. And study the noise, if it's the water park outside. Maybe there could be some noise barriers in terms of berms, evergreens, what have you, in a nice way. I do believe that direct access to what's currently the bank building from the road, I agree with the comment that Commissioner Lillehaug made. I think it's a bad idea. May as well throw that out from the beginning rather than invest planning and then find out that it's not a good idea. Sidewalks I think are an essential thing. Really because it's connecting the trails. It's close to schools. Close to the park across Highway 5 so I think sidewalks pretty much across the whole thing are important. I would want to be very clear about the importance of preserving whatever trees there are in the creek area. It's an amenity to what you're building so I think it's as much in your interest as in the city's interest to preserve that. Be careful about that. The path, to find out where it goes. It's best to cross the creek and all that. I mean that's comes when we get in further detail. Some flexibility with the road alignment. I think that's common sense. ! don't see an issue with that. Really the sticky issue is this thing with the restaurants and the bank. And personally I think, I don't think it's within the city's purview, certainly not my purview to try to dictate what should go in there. Whether it's one bank and one restaurant or two restaurants and no bank, or a combined building with two restaurants and another bank. I mean we have tons of bank in this city but apparently there are more that want to come in. Restaurants, I think it's a good idea. I like to go eating out once in a while. Have some variety. And I would say that's going to be governed by the market forces. I mean if it's appropriate for business sense and that's for you as the developer and ultimately the people that run those businesses to decide. Not for us here. So I would like to suggest that we just hold you to the 25 percent. And maybe with the guidance ! could see well, maybe two restaurants and no bank could be more desirable. Or one restaurant and one bank, than necessarily the two restaurants and one bank, but if it fits within the 25 percent I think you'd be 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 fulfilling the requirement that we're trying to live by. That's my comments. Any additional ones? Slagle: I just had one last one, and that was, you touched upon the restaurants. Again just giving some guidance. I don't know if I would be supportive at all of seeing a drive thru. Sacchet: Yeah, good point. There is a, you'd encounter some resistance with drive thru. Lillehaug: Can I reiterate my questions and put them into comments then? Sacchet: Please. Lillehaug: As you know, you can see I'm concerned with access. Not concerned but my attention is to access so on trunk highway 5 I would like to see, like you have proposed, a single access inbetween Galpin and Audubon. A fully developed right turn lane and match that concrete pavement on that new trunk highway 5 out there. And one access off of Coulter, like staff indicated. The drawing showing two but one access off Coulter and then all, I think everything else is. Sacchet: Oh, you're referring to the access to water park area? Lillehaug: Right. Staff indicated, and I agree that we should only have one access off of Coulter, and I think that's probably amenable to this. Other than that it should be good to work with the adjacent land owner to get that intersection lined up so thank you. Sacchet: Now we don't usually take comments at this stage but since this is conceptual PUD, discussion is very important so if you apparently want to add something more, go ahead. Jim Lasher: I just want to let the group know that we're prepared to live with those recommendations and believe we can move a plan forward based on these recommendations. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, I believe we made our comments. Somebody want to make a motion, which should say recommend approval. Not approve, right? Aanenson: Recommend approval, that's correct. Just for anyone struggling with the motion, we have a pretty good listing of those comments so if you wanted to just say. Sacchet: As discussed. Aanenson: Yeah, as discussed. It would be hard to frame all those but I think we've been writing those down and certainly... 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: That will be an easy way to do it. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions 1 through 12. And I would like to modify number 4. That the easterly access would not be allowed. And then add to 5 that no direct access and I'll just paraphrasing here but just one access off of Coulter, so it'd be deleting the accesses as shown on the layout. And I think that is all I have. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Aanenson: Did you want to add with comments on, I don't know if that was mentioned or not. With comments as discussed. Lillehaug: Sure. Sacchet: With comments as discussed? Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Any of the comments that are burning enough that we want to mention them specifically? Not from your end. Yeah, in point one it says bank and we definitely want to say maximum of one bank. I mean probably be more than enough... Lillehaug: Do we want to modify the one free standing restaurant or? Sacchet: Yeah, well I think we should do something about that. My recommendation with that we would say 25 percent maximum as allowed within that district for the retail oriented business. Lillehaug: And not fast food as it indicates. Sacchet: Not fast food, and that we wouldn't necessarily hold it to one restaurant. That we would leave that maximum of two restaurants and one bank. Or two out of the three. I mean we have some options there. How specific do we need to be? Personally I would think the market forces dictate that more than our. Aanenson: Can I just frame what I heard you say is you're comfortable with the 25 percent. Sacchet: Right. Aanenson: Not necessarily fast food. Drive thru. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Slagle: I think it was clear. Sacchet: Pretty much definitely not. Aanenson: So again, so if they stay within that 25 percent, the menu's a little bit bigger but footprint, architectural, all those things come into play so, so you're comfortable with it. What we had talked about early on. Sacchet: So we would replace the two last bullets with 25 percent of retail oriented? Basically that could include restaurant and/or bank. Lillehaug: I think that sounds pretty good. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions: Permitted Uses in the IOP: · Offices · Warehouses · Light Manufacturing · Health Services · Printers · Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service · Recording Studios · Conference/Convention Center · Antennas · Parking Lots & Ramps · Signs · Day Care Center · Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs · Research Laboratories · Hotels & Motels · Food Processing · 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP standards. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 10. Prior approval from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for grading and erosion & sediment control. 11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); REZONING FROM A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN)~ 3 OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN)~ AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE~ ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6 ACRES IN CHANHASSEN)~ LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL~ THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS~ SETTLERS WEST~ PLANNING CASE NO. 04-05. Public Present: 25