2. Westwood ChurchCITYOF
CHANHASSEN
Administration
Building Inspections
Engineering
Finance
Park & Recreation
Planning &
Natural Resources
Public Works
Senior Center
[%' (q 2}7 '',
Web Site
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
July 12, 2004
SUB J:
Westwood Community Church, Planning Case #04-20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing the expansion of the parking lot by 166 spaces,
extension of a driveway to the proposed West 78th Street extension, construction of
the West 78th Street extension, and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill
wetlands on site for the West 78th Street extension. No additional buildings are
proposed as part of the current site plan.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a simple majority for the site plan and wetland
alteration approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 2004 to review the
proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve the
project (site plan and wetland alteration permit), adding the following conditions to
the site plan conditions of approval:
35.
The raised median on West 78th Street on the east side of TH 41,
which is proposed to be removed, shall be replaced in the correct
alignment with the westward extension of West 78th.
36.
A sidewalk shall be extended along the main driveway from the main
entrance of the church on the east side to the northern end of the
driveway where the new parking lot ends and two diagonal walkways
similar to the northwest parking lot.
37. Additional landscaping along the north side on Tanadoona Drive.
38. Require public safety officer to continue working the two
intersections as directed by public safety.
One Planning Commissioner felt that the West 78th Street extension project was
premature without the traffic study being completed and that the city should not
The City
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Westwood Community Church
July 12, 2004
Page 2
deviate backwards by not re-installing concrete median on West 78th Street east
of TH 41.
The summary and verbatim minutes are attached.
TRAFFIC
Since the June 15, 2004 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, a traffic study has
been completed for this development. While the project did receive approval
from the PC on June 15, 2004, them were concerns raised at the meeting over
traffic. The two major issues are outlined below:
Operational Impacts of TH 41/W. 78th Street Intersection
The traffic study analyzed the operational impacts of adding a fourth leg to the
existing TH 41/W. 78th Street intersection. The study looked at projected traffic
for both 2005 and 2010 during the AM and PM weekday rush times along with
the Sunday service times for the church. The study rated the level of service
(LOS) for each of the ten possible vehicular movements at the intersection.
LOS is a method used to grade the overall traffic flow and vehicle operation on
roadways. LOS grades range from a high grade of (A) to a low grade of (F).
(Unlike education grade scales, an (E) grade level of service does exist.)
Of the ten possible vehicular movements at the intersection, only the two left
tums from W. 78th Street to TH 41 are expected to operate at a poor LOS of E or
F. As the traffic study states, it is not uncommon for this type of intersection to
have poor LOS for left turn movements. Also, due to the very low traffic
volumes attempting to make the left turn movement, the poor LOS will impact
very few motorists. Conversely, the highest volume movements am all expected
to operate at acceptable levels of service.
The traffic study does concur with the PC recommendation to have a public
safety officer monitor the new intersection during peak travel periods on
Sundays. Staff would recommend that this condition remain in effect for a
minimum of six (6) months after the intersection is installed. The intersection
can then be re-evaluated at that time.
Signalization and Median Improvements at Intersection
The traffic study concurred with the previous MnDOT analysis which stated that
the traffic volume at the intersection did not warrant the installation of a traffic
signal.
At the June 15, 2004 PC meeting, the PC added a condition to reinstall the W.
78th Street concrete median on the east side of TH 41. Staff has again checked
with MnDOT on the need for a median in this area. As the attached email states,
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (952) 238-1667 / FAX (952) 238-1671
July 7, 2004
Refer to File: 04-42
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Matt Saaln, P.E., City of Chanhassen
FROM:
Edward F. Terhaar and David C. May
RE:
Results of Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Westwood Community
Church Access Modification and Future Expansion in Chanhassen, MN
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of our traffic impact study for
the proposed extension of West 78th Street to the west of Minnesota Trunk Highway 41
(TH 41) in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Of particular concern are the potential impacts to the
intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street by a proposed driveway access to the
Westwood Community Church (located northwest of the subject intersection). This
memorandum is intended to act as a supplement to the original traffic study for the
church dated July 6, 2001. A map of the study area is shown in Figure 1.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Westwood Community Church Characteristics
Westwood Colnmunity Church is currently accessed via Tanadoona Drive off of TH 41.
Tanadoona Drive intersects TH 41 approximately 1,300 feet north of West 78th Street,
and approximately 2,900 feet north of TH 5. Minnesota State Patrol officers provide
traffic control assistance during the Sunday morning peak hours at the intersection of TH
41 and Tanadoona Drive.
At the time of the original study, the church assumed that 1,000 people would attend the
9:30 AM service, and that 1,500 people would attend the 11:00 AM service. Current
information from the church reveals that both services have approximately 1,000
attendees. It should be noted that the attendance figures for the church include adults,
children, and teens. The original study also determined that the 2010 attendance would
be 1,700 people for the 9:30 service, and 2,300 people for the 11:00 service. For the
Mr. Matt Saam -2- July 7, 2004
purposes of this study, the 9:30 attendance figure is still deemed valid, however, both
services are now assumed to have equal attendance of 1,700 people.
Other Future Nearby Development
The City of Chanhassen has estimated that 40 new single-family residential homes could
be built west of TH 41 at 78th Street. In addition, 16 new residential townhouses are to be
built that will access West 78th Street on the east side of TH 41. ProJected volumes from
these two developments need to be included in any subsequent traffic analysis.
Existing Roadway Characteristics
TH 41 (Hazletine Boulevard) is a two-lane, north-south roadway, with paved shoulders
on both sides. It is classified as an A-minor arterial (expander) within the study area.
The posted speed limit on TH 41 is 55 mph. Field observations reveal that prevailing
vehicle speeds are at or near the posted speed limit, except in incidences where the
southbound queue for the TH 5 signalized intersection extend near the West 7gth Street
intersection. At the West 78th Street intersection, a dedicated right-turn lane exists for
northbound traffic and a dedicated left-turn lane exists for southbound traffic.
West 78th Street is a recently constructed residential street connecting TH 41 to Century
Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard (Carver County Road 117) to the east. The roadway is
divided approaching TH 41. The westbound approach is 28 feet wide (curb face to curb
face) and marked with dedicated right- and left-turn lanes at TH 41. The eastbound
departure from TH 41 is 20 feet wide (curb face to curb face).
Existing Traffic Volumes
In order to better understand the existing traffic conditions, traffic volume data was
collected on TH 41 at both West 78th Street and Tanadoona Drive. Data was collected
from Thursday, June 17, 2004 to Sunday, June 20, 2004. The collected data is presented
later in this report.
Observations at the intersection during the ~veekday AM & PM peak periods indicate that
the southbound TH 41 queue at the TH 5 signalized intersection extended back to West
78th Street on multiple occasions, even extending beyond West 78th Street at times. This
condition definitely hinders traffic operations at the TH 41/West 78th Street intersection.
Proposed W. 78t~, Street Geometrics
As described earlier, W. 78th Street will be extended west of T.H. 41. After the extension
is complete, both the eastbound and westbound approaches of W. 78th Street will consist
of an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The current plan does
not include a raised median on W. 78th Street. The northbound and southbound
approaches on T.H. 41 will consist of a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn
lane.
Mr. Matt Saam -3- July 7, 2004
CT.
N
t
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 2000'
Mr. Matt Saam -4- July 7, 2004
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Trip Generation
For purposes of this study, 2005 church traffic volumes were assumed to be the same as
the existing Sunday traffic volumes at the intersection of TH 41 and Tanadoona Drive.
Based on the projected future church service attendance in 2010 (1,700 attendees for each
of two services), the existing traffic volumes were multiplied by a factor of 1.7. Three
"peak" hours were determined for Sunday traffic volumes, in order to evaluate the
following scenarios:
Traffic entering the church lbr the early service
· Traffic leaving the church from the early service and traffic entering the church
fbr the later service
· Traffic leaving the church from the later service
For the proposed residential developments, trip generation was based on the expected
number of dwelling units tbr each development, based on guidelines established in the 7th
Edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The
total number of trips generated are shown in Table I below.
Table 1
Expected Trip Generation for West 78th Street Residential Developments
Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out In Out
40 Single-family houses
10 28 30 17
(West side of TH 41)
16 Townhouses
2 10 9 5
(East side of TH 41)
Sunday Sunday ] Sunday
Land Use 8:45 - 9:45 10:30 - 11:30 12:00 - 1:00
In Out In Out In Out
40 Single-family houses
12 11 22 20 23 21
(West side of TH 41)
16 Townhouses
(East side of TH 41) 2 2 4 4 4 4
Trip Distribution
Since it can be assumed that virtually all of the Sunday morning traffic turning at the
intersection of TH 41 and Tanadoona Drive is church traffic, church trip distribution was
based on the existing Sunday turning movements. In addition, after the new West 78th
Street access has been completed, it was estimated that 75% of vehicles approaching
from the north on TH 41 would continue to use the Tanadoona Drive access, while 75%
Mr. Matt Saam -5- July 7, 2004
of vehicles approaching from the other directions would use the new West 78th Street
access.
Residential trip distribution was based on existing travel patterns at the intersection of TH
41 and West 78th Street. The trip distributions used for the residential developments are
as follows:
5% to and from the west via the West 78th Street extension
· 15% to and from the south via TH 41
· 40% to and from the north via TH 41
· 40% to and from the east via either TH 41 and TH 5 (if traffic originated from the
west), or via West 78th Street (if traffic originated from West 78th Street)
Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes xvere developed for the intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street for the
following scenarios: 1) 2005 (estimated completion of the new residential developments)
and 2) 2010 (estimated completion of the church development). All of the forecasted
volumes are based on the existing counts recorded at the intersection. A growth factor of
5% per year was added to the existing weekday volumes to arrive at 2005 and 2010
baseline volumes. An additional adjustment factor of 0.84 was added to the weekday
volumes to correct for month and day-of-week factors. The expected post-development
traffic was then added to the baseline, resulting in 2005 and 2010 post-development
traffic volumes. The resultant volumes are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Mr. Matt Saam -6- July 7, 2004
2005 VOLUMES
11/7-
2/1
15/9 ~,
JJSL~ ,
w. 78TH SI
. 38/27
- 2/2
10/13
A.M. PEAK (7:15-8:15)
I F- RM. PEAK (4:45-5:45)
20'10 VOLUMES
N
t
NO/TO SCALE
14/9. ~'
2/2 >
20/12 ~
/
W. 78TH ST.
'I' 4a/38
<---- 1/3
,j, 14/16
Mr. Matt Saam -7- July 7, 2004
2005 VOLUMES
4/8/8 t
1/11/11 ---->
6~202~219 ~
W. 78TH ST.
18/15/16
< 15/9/2
~-- 7/17/13
SUNDAY 8:45-g:45 A.M.
[ I-sUNDAY10:30`11:30A'M'_
[~ SUNDAY 12 NOON-l:00 P.M.
20'10 VOLUMES
t
NOT 10 SCALE
W. 78TH ST.
'~ 9/10/17
5/10/11 ~ <----- 26/15/3
1/18/20 ), ~, 7/17/13
8/338/367 ~,
Mr. Matt Saam -8- July 7, 2004
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Level of Service
The intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street was analyzed to determine the impacts of
traffic generated by construction of the proposed developments. Capacity analyses were
performed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS) for all of the background traffic
levels. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which
range from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little
delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection
operation, with excessive delay.
The existing lane geometrics and intersection control at the intersection of TH 41 and
West 78th Street was used for the initial analysis, with modifications added to simulate
appropriate traffic conditions after West 78th Street is extended to the west. The lane
geometrics used for the analysis are as follows:
· Southbound approach on TH 41: one dedicated left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one dedicated right-turn lane.
· Northbound approach on TH 41: one dedicated left-turn lane, one through lane,
and one dedicated right-turn lane (free-right at the intersection).
· Westbound approach on West 78th Street: one dedicated left-turn lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane. The median is to be removed in order to realign
the approach with the proposed extension.
· Eastbound approach on West 78th Street: one dedicated left-turn lane and one
shared through/right-turn lane.
Table 5 on the following page presents the level of service analysis for the weekday AM
and PM peak hours, and three Sunday peak periods:
Mr. Matt Saam -9- July 7, 2004
Table 2
Intersection Level of Service Results at the Intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street
Westbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound
L I TR L I TR C I T I R L I T I R
Weekday AM Peak (7:15 - 8:15)
2005 C B D B A A A A A A
2010 E B E B A A A A A A
Weekday PM Peak (4:45 - 5:45)
2005 E B E B A A A A A A
2010 F C F C A A A A A A
Sunday 8:45 - 9:45
2005 F C E C A A A A A A
2010 F D E C A A A A A A
Sunday 10:30- 11:30
2005 F C E C A A A A A A
2010 F D E C A A A A A A
Sunday 12:00 - 1:00
2005 F B D C A A A A A A
2010 F 13 C C A A A A A A
As shown in Table 2, the westbound and eastbound left turns from West 78th Street
experience poor levels of service during multiple time periods. The poor LOS for these
movements at an unsignalized intersection is not desired, but it is also not uncommon.
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, these movements consist of very low volumes. Theretbre,
in this situation, the poor LOS impacts very few motorists. As also shown in Table 2, the
highest volume movements all operate at acceptable levels of service.
Traffic Signal Considerations
When determining the appropriate intersection control, it is accepted practice that only
weekday volumes are considered during traffic signal warrant analysis. The projected
traffic volumes during the weekday AM and PM peak hours reveal that the peak hour
volume warrant established under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) has not been met. This concurs xvith an April 2004 signal warrant analysis
performed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, which found that none of five
volume related warrants were met at this intersection. However, the projected Sunday
traffic volumes at the intersection reveal that the peak hour volume warrant would be
met. As noted earlier, only weekday volumes are used when determining if an
intersection meets the signal warrant requirements.
Mr. Matt Saam -10- July 7, 2004
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analyses presented in this report, we have developed the following
conclusions:
The westbound and eastbound left turns from West 78th Street onto T.H. 41 are
expected to experience poor levels of service during multiple time periods· The
poor LOS for these movements at an unsignalized intersection is not desired, but
it is also not uncommon. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, these movements consist
of very low volumes. Therefore, in this situation, the poor LOS impacts very few
motorists. The highest volume movements all operate at acceptable levels of
service.
The intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street should be closely monitored after
the new church access is opened. Ifa safety issue (i.e., high crash rate) arises at
the intersection, additional intersection control measures can then be considered.
Currently, a Minnesota State Patrol officer assists with the direction of traffic at
the intersection of TH 41 and Tanadoona Drive. With the relocation of church
traffic to the intersection of TH 41 and West 78th Street, it may be necessary to
employ another officer at this intersection during peak travel periods on Sundays.
The current plan for W. 78th Street does not include a raised median. Mn/DOT
staff have reviewed the plan and indicated they would not require a median.
· th ·
Based on the low volumes projected for W. 78 Street, we concur that a median is
not needed at this location.
Saam, Matt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lynn Clarkowski [Lynn.Clarkowski@dot.state.mn.us]
Thursday, July 01,2004 1:53 PM
Saam, Matt
Lars Impola
Re: TH 41/VV. 78th St. intersection
Hi Matt-
Lars from our traffic office here in Metro reviewed this issue again and also talked with
our head design engineer here in Metro and we do not feel there is a need for reinstalling
the median on W. 78th St, just east of TH 41.
As a check, we will contact the original designer to find out why it was installed
originally. I'll let you know what we find out.
Lynn Clarkowski, P.E.
Mn/DOT Metro South Area Engineer
651/634-2103
>>> "Saam, Matt" <MSaam¢ci.chanhassen.mn.us> 06/30/04 07:54AH >>>
Lynn,
The City recently had a Planning Commissien meeting that reek a look at the preposed
revisions te this intersection as it relates te the extension of W. 78th St. te the west.
One ef the planning commissieners was cencerned that Mn/DOT didn't see a need to put back
in the exist, median on the east side ef TH 41 at this intersectien. I just want to make
sure that Mn/DOT doesn't want to have a median back in at the intersectien ef TH 41/W.
78th St. Yeur review letter on the imprevements te Westweod church didn't say anything
about putting the median back in and when we met back in May, Lars didn't think we'd need
ene. I just want to make sure, though. Thanks,
Matt Saam, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer - Chanhassen, MN
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: June 15, 2004
CC DATE: July 12, 2004
REVIEW DEADLINE: July 13, 2004
CASE #: 04-20
BY: REG, LH, ML, JS, MS, ST
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for Site Plan Approval to expand the parking lot (143 166 spaces) and the
extension of West 78th Street, and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill
wetlands on site, Westwood Community Church.
3121 Westwood Drive
(west of TH 41 at Tanadoona Drive)
Dan Russ
c/o Welsh Development
7807 Creekridge Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55439-2609
(952) 897-7745
Westwood Community Church
3121 Westwood Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE: 58.61 acres
Office and Institutional District, OI
Public/Semi-Public
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing the expansion of the parking lot by
143 166 spaces, extension of a driveway to the proposed West 78th Street extension and construction
of the West 78th Street extension. No additional buildings are proposed as part of the current site
plan.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must
then approves the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The site was previously developed with the first phase of an ultimate project that will create a
campus for Westwood Community Church. The applicant is proposing the exgansion of the
parking lot by lq3 166 spaces, extension of a driveway to the proposed West 78 Street extension
and construction of the West 78th Street extension. No additional buildings are proposed as part of
the current site plan.
It should be noted that the extension of West 78th Street will be a public/private partnership.
Westwood Church is only required to build a 26-foot wide driveway with curb and gutter to serve
their development. Through negotiations with the City, Westwood has agreed to upgrade their
proposed access to a 31-foot public street with the City paying for the cost difference for oversizing
of the road.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan for the parking expansion, driveway connection and
West 78th Street extension and the wetland alteration permit.
BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following:
Land use amendment from Residential - Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on
the findings in the staff report and contingent upon Metropolitan Council review and
approval.
· Rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR, to Office and Institutional, OI
based on the findings in the staff report.
Site Plan #2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., dated July
6, 2001, with a one-story variance from the Office and Institutional district regulations
and a 2.5-foot variance from the 40-foot building height Highway Corridor District
regulations.
Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill 34,900 square feet (0.8 acres) of wetlands.
However, only part of the wetland alteration occurred for the extension of the sewer and
construction of the storm water pond.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetlands
Chapter 20, Article XXI, "OI" Office and Institutional District
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 3
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The applicant is proposing the expansion of the parking lot by ?.3 166 spaces, extension of a
driveway to the proposed West 78m Street extension and construction of the West 78th Street
extension. No additional buildings are proposed as part of the current site plan.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant is proposing parking lot landscaping consistent with the existing lots. The center
island landscaping uses crabapples in a mass, organized planting. Plantings along the entryway
drive are the same species as the existing lot creating a uniform view into the site.
Required
Vehicular use landscape area 5,952 sq. ft.
Trees/parking lot
24 overstory
12 islands/peninsulas
Proposed
>5,952 sq. ft.
12 overstory
60 understory
2 islands/peninsulas
Proposed landscaping meets minimum ordinance requirements. The applicant is consistent with
the parking lot landscaping previously approved for the existing lots. As before, the applicant is
installing trees that are smaller than ordinance requirements, but planting more than are required.
The smaller sizes are acceptable to staff because the applicant is meeting the minimum
requirements for caliper inches rather than quantities of materials. For example, there are 24
overstory trees required for the parking lot. At the required size of 2 Vz" diameter, a total of 60
inches is required. The applicant is proposing 72 trees measuring 1" - 1 IA" diameter for a total
of 85 diameter inches. Staff supports this approach for two reasons. Firstly, it has been
documented that planting smaller sized materials often results in healthier, less stressed plants
due to the reduction in root loss and transplant stress. Secondly, the site ultimately gets nearly
twice the number of plants as it would have had the applicant proposed the standard required size
of materials.
Ordinance requires boulevard trees along all collector roads. The extension of West 78th Street
will require an overstory tree every 30 feet.
WETLANDS
Existing Wetlands
There are two ag/urban wetlands present on-site. Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER)
delineated the wetlands in May 1997 and reexamined the site on May 9, 2001.
Wetland 1 is a Type 2 wetland located in the south central portion of the property, just south of
the existing building. The northern part of the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, while
the southern part of the wetland supports forest vegetation, such as box elder. The applicant is
proposing wetland fill for a road in order to provide circular vehicular movement around the
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 4
campus. This road is proposed to cross Wetland I just north of the southern property line. The
width and height of the road have been minimized in order to reduce the amount of wetland
impact required. The total proposed impact to Wetland 1 is 30,033 square feet (0.70 acres).
Wetland 2 is a Type I wetland located at the far west end of the parcel. It is dominated by
American elm and green ash with an understory of greater straw sedge. No wetland impact is
proposed for this basin.
Wetland Replacement
The applicant is proposing the construction of 31,650 square feet (0.73 acres) of new wetland
credit (NWC) adjacent to Wetland 1. The applicant has proposed employing storm water ponds
constructed with this phase (14,500 square feet) as public value credit (PVC) for a portion of the
required 2:1 replacement ratio.
The applicant has also proposed using 13,916 square feet of PVC that was created with the first
phase of this project. Minnesota Rule 8420.0740 Subp. 1 (F) states that "In cases where excess
wetland acreage is expected to result from a specific replacement plan .... the owner must
indicate on the replacement plan that the excess acreage is to be considered available for wetland
banking or lose the opportunity to use the excess credits for future projects." Since this was not
done with the initial wetland alteration permit, these public value credits are not available. The
applicant should develop an amendment to the wetland replacement plan to achieve the required
2:1 replacement (provide the additional required 13,916 square feet) without employing credits
constructed during the first phase.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant must receive the City's approval of a wetland
replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. The applicant should provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Wetland buffers proposed for PVC must maintain a
width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
GRADING~ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
The grading for this site can be broken into two separate operations: one is for the additional
parking lot on the north side of the site and the other is for the extension of West 78th Street at
the south end of the site. The additional parking area was previously rough graded with the
original Westwood Church project. The applicant is now proposing to finish grade the area for
paving. At the south end of the site, the entire south property line will be graded for the
extension of West 78th Street from Highway 41. In addition, two driveways will be graded to the
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 5
north of West 78th Street for access to the new road. The applicant will also be grading for the
construction of a new pond and wetland mitigation area.
To avoid significant grading into the Landscape Arboretum's property at the southeast comer of
the site, a retaining wall, ranging in height from 4' to 9', is proposed. A permit for the proposed
retaining wall is required to be obtained from the Building Department and the wall must be
designed by a registered structural engineer. Even with the wall, there is a small amount of
grading that is proposed on the northeast comer of the Arboretum's property. This off-site
grading will require a temporary easement or right-of-entry agreement from the Arboretum.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported
from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and
approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in
Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork
permit from the City. All areas disturbed as a result of construction-related activity must be
sodded and/or seeded and disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Drainage from the new parking lot will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing public pond
off the northeast comer of the site. This existing pond has been previously sized for the
additional impervious drainage so no further improvements are required. A new pond at the
south end of the site is proposed to treat a large majority of the drainage from the new public
street, private driveways and future parking lots on the church property. The pond will discharge
the treated stormwater to the existing wetland just east of the pond. This wetland then drains
south into the Arboretum's property. The outlet rate from this wetland is required to be the same
or less than the existing flow rate of stormwater onto the Arboretum's property. The eastern 300
feet of new West 78th Street is proposed to drain to the Highway 41 ditch at the northwest comer
of the intersection. This will require a MnDOT drainage permit. In addition, an NPDES permit
and Watershed district permit will be required for the project grading.
Drainage calculations for the existing and proposed conditions including the 10- and 100-year
runoff rates along with storm sewer sizing data has been submitted for staff review. Staff has
reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are needed. Drainage and
utility easements will be required over the wetland, pond, and the adjacent mitigation areas. An
easement for access purposes will also be required for future maintenance of the wetlands.
Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type II silt
fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to all existing wetlands and ponds. In
addition, erosion control blankets should be used on all slopes 3:1 or greater with heights of 6' or
more.
Storm Water Management
According to July 18, 2001 correspondence from Peter Olin with regard to the previous phase,
the Arboretum has reviewed the plans for the Westwood Church Development. The Arboretum
is concerned that the culverts under the West 78th Street extension will affect the volume and
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 6
rate of runoff from the site and that this, in turn, will affect the research plots on the Arboretum
property. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Staff will
review the storm water calculations to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the
proposed development. The applicant may want to work with the Arboretum to ensure their
concerns are addressed.
Easements
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
Erosion Control
Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed
soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to
the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
Surface Water Management Fees
Since the proposed project does not require the subdivision of property, it is not subject to water
quality and water quantity connection charges.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e~g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 7
UTILITIES
With no building expansion being proposed at this time, no utility improvements are proposed
except for a short watermain extension under new West 78th Street at the southeast corner of the
site. This watermain is meant for future development purposes.
STREETS/ACCESS
As a condition of approval for the development of the original Westwood Church project, a
second driveway access at the intersection of West 78th Street was required to be constructed
prior to any further development of the site. As such, Westwood Church is now proposing to
construct a secondary access to the site with the expansion of their parking area. To accomplish
this, Westwood Church has acquired the two properties at the southeast corner of their site. As
previously mentioned, City staff and Westwood have come to an agreement to upgrade the
proposed access from a 26-foot wide driveway to a 31-foot wide public street. The City is in
favor of having a public street for a few reasons: it will provide an alternate access for church
traffic to exit the site, it will provide a future access for the development of the property
(Carlson/Brandt) west of the church's site, and it will provide a secondary access for the
Dogwood Road residents in the future.
The extension of West 78th Street is proposed as a 31-foot wide public street with concrete curb
and gutter. The street has been shown within an 80-foot easement. A 10-foot wide bituminous
trail is also included to provide pedestrian/bike access from future development to the west. The
proposed trail will connect with the existing trail system on the east side of Highway 41. A
financial security will be required to guarantee installation of the public improvements.
In 2001, when staff was previously considering the extension of West 78th Street, the Landscape
Arboretum expressed no interest in the project or of having the road on their property. Because
of this, the entire length of the proposed West 78th Street extension has been shown on the
Church's property. This also necessitates the re-alignment of the existing West 78th
Street/Highway 41 intersection on the east side of the highway. The existing intersection does
not line up with the proposed extension of West 78th Street. All of the necessary intersection and
turn lane improvements will be completed with this project. The City has retained the services
of a traffic engineer to look at the proposed intersection layout and ensure that it will operate
effectively based on the ultimate development of the area. Staff hopes to have the results of this
traffic study in time for the June 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
As previously mentioned, Westwood Church is required to construct a 26-foot wide driveway
with concrete curb and gutter, per City Code. The proposed access driveway to the existing
church site from West 78th Street is labeled as a "Temporary Parking Drive" that is 24 feet wide
with no curb and gutter. It is staff's understanding that the church intends to expand within the
next five years but that there are no specific plans for future building locations and/or elevations.
As such, staff would recommend that bituminous curb and gutter be added to the temporary
driveway. Additionally, a condition should be included with this approval that prior to any
future building expansion to the west side of the existing church building, the temporary access
driveway from West 78th Street will be brought up to current standards in effect at the time.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the P ......... ~, ............... Chanhassen
City Council adopt the following motions (A & B):
~^~o~; .......... a ......... ' ~e Chanhassen City Council approves
A. "The Planning ...............................
Planning Case 04-20 Site Plan Review for a 143166-space parking lot expansion, extension of
temporary drive and extension of West 78th Street, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated
May 14, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
o
Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around all existing landscaping at the edge of
grading limits.
Any existing landscaping that is removed must be replaced when the parking lot
construction is completed.
4. The landscape islands shall be filled with wood chips.
5. Overstory trees are required along West 78th St.; one every 30 feet.
6. Three accessible parking spaces must be added to the existing accessible parking area.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland
replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around all existing and proposed wetlands (wetland buffers proposed for PVC
must maintain a width of 16.5 feet). Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the
City $20 per sign.
9. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10.
The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to staff to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the
proposed development. The applicant may work with the Arboretum to ensure their
concerns are addressed.
11. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 9
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb
and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval.
All final plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
Use the latest version (2004) of the City's Standard Detail Plates.
The twin storm sewer culverts under West 78th Street must be RCP Class 5.
The existing driveway from Highway 41 to the existing homes in the northwest comer of
the West 78th Street intersection must be removed and seeded or sodded.
Include concrete driveway aprons and pedestrian ramps for both proposed driveways off of
new West 78th Street.
The new painted median for the eastbound West 78th Street traffic on the east side of
Highway 41 must be a raised concrete median with pedestrian ramps.
Install a temporary turnaround with barricades and a sign stating "This street to be
extended" at the west end of new West 78th Street.
Provide a pedestrian ramp at the northeast comer of the new West 78th Street/Highway 41
intersection for connection to the future city trail.
23. Incorporate the conditions of the MnDOT review letter dated June 1, 2004 into the plans.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 10
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34
35.
36.
Show all of the proposed grades for the new driveway to the existing home in the southeast
comer of the site.
A permit for the proposed retaining wall is required to be obtained from the Building
Department and the wall must be designed by a registered structural engineer.
Off-site grading will require a temporary easement or right-of-entry agreement from the
Arboretum.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or
exported from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route
for review and approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to
another location in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties would be required to
obtain an earthwork permit from the City.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction-related activity must be sodded and/or seeded
and disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. In addition, an NPDES permit and Watershed
district permit will be required for the project grading.
Drainage and utility easements will be required over the wetland, pond, and the adjacent
mitigation areas. An easement for access purposes will also be required for future
maintenance of the wetlands.
Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to all existing wetlands
and ponds. In addition, erosion control blankets should be used on all slopes 3:1 or greater
with heights of 6' or more.
A financial security will be required to guarantee installation of the public improvements.
Bituminous curb and gutter must be added to the temporary driveway.
Prior to any future building expansion to the west side of the existing church building, the
temporary access driveway from West 78th Street must be brought up to current standards
in effect at the time.
A sidewalk shall be extended along the main driveway from the main entrance of the
church on the east side to the northern end of the driveway where the new parking
lot ends and two diagonal walkways similar to the northwest parking lot.
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 11
37. Additional landscaping along the north side on Tanadoona Drive.
38. Require public safety officer to continue working the two intersections as directed by
public safety."
B. "The Planning Commission recommends ap?ro;'al of Chanhassen City Council approves
Planning Case 04-20 Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill wetlands on site, plans prepared
by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 14, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall develop an amendment to the wetland replacement plan to achieve the
required 2:1 replacement without employing credits constructed during the first phase.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a wetland
replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. The applicant shall provide proof
of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Wetland buffers proposed for PVC
must maintain a width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the
City $20 per sign.
4. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to staff to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the
proposed development. The applicant may work with the Arboretum to ensure their
concerns are addressed.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
Planning Commission
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
June 15, 2004
Page 12
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb
and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reduced Copy Site Survey
4. Reduced Copy Site Plan
5. Reduced Copy Parking Lot Construction
6. Reduced Copy Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan G-1
7. Reduced Copy Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan G-2
8. Reduced Copy Landscape Plan
9. Letter from Juanita Voigt, MnDOT, to Kate Aanenson dated June 1, 2004
10. Public Hearing Notice & Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-20 - westwood community church spr & wap\staff report westwood.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Westwood Community Church for Site Plan Review and a Wetland
Alteration Permit.
On June 15, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
schedule meeting to consider the application of Westwood Community Church for a site
plan review to expand the parking lot, drive aisle and extension of West 78th Street for the
property located at 3121 Westwood Drive (west of TH 41 at Tanadoona Drive) with a
Wetland Alteration Permit for the extension of West 78th Street. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Office and Institutional District, OI.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Public/Semi-Public.
3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Exhibit A)
4. Section 20-110:
(i)
The proposed parking lot expansion is consistent with the elements and
objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive
plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The proposed parking lot expansion is consistent with the site plan review
requirements;
The proposed parking lot expansion is in a location previously impacted
by the development of the site. The extension of West 78th Street creates
an unavoidable wetland impact which necessitates a wetland alteration
permit.
The proposed parking lot expansion creates a harmonious relationship of
building and open space with natural site features and with existing and
future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
The proposed parking lot expansion creates a functional and harmonious
design for structures and site features, with special attention to the
following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior
drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the
public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking. Access to the site will be greatly enhanced with
the addition of West 78th Street.
The proposed parking lot expansion protects adjacent and neighboring
properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound
and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of
design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have
substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
o
The planning report #04-20 dated June 15, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et
al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
site plan and wetland alteration permit for Westwood Community Church.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of June, 2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
APR 3 0 2004
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP7
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Day Time)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
X Site Plan Review*
__ Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit 0'2.-7
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
,r/ o0
- $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/Metes & Bounds
- $400 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $
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 boxJ~
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/='' X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
**Escrow 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.
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .¢-¢¢ ,'¢~~ ,¢,~ .,~//~ ~
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
PRESENT ZONING:
YES NO
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON REQUEST:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
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 Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I fudher
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 if 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.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Fee Owner
Date
Date
Application Received on
Fee Paid
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:\plan\forms\Development Review Application. DOC
· ldeo lueuJdole^eO ~.l!um.uwoO
AdoO lel. o!l.JO
0
0
0
0
C
0
->
.]
avo~ X~V~OdR3~L
I
~Jll,lll
jlJljjjjl
l jlh:~ll
;ll
! I
/ /
/ ~
/ /
/ /
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
June 1, 2004
Ms. Kate Aaneson
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-1447
SUBJECT:
Westwood Community Church
Mn/DOT Review # S04-042
NW Quad of TH 41 & proposed 78"' Street
Chanhassen, Carver County'
Control Section: 2510
Dear Ms. Aaneson:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced site
plan. Before any further development, please address the following issues:
The plat does not adequately identify Trunk Highway 41 right of way. The final plat
should identify the right of way by reference to the appropriate plat(s) and in place
monuments. The distances from the center line of TH 41 to the edge of the plat should
also be identified. Please show the "Existing Mn/DOT R/W" with a three dash line
symbology. Also, Mn/DOT's access control needs to be shown along TH 41. Please
direct questions concerning these issues to John Isackson (651-582-1273) in Mn/DOT's
Right of Way section.
The driveway for the existing house will need to move its opening onto West 78th Street
at least 325 feet from TH 41, as measured from centerline of TH 41 to centerline of
access opening. Turning movement templates should be shown with the appropriate
design vehicle. Refer to Mn/DOT Road Design Manual - section 5-2.04.01. Please
direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Scarrow (651-582-1333) of
Mn/DOT's Design. Section.
The 12 foot width of the lanes on TH 41 is correct, however, the turn lanes must be
revised to 300 feet long with a 180 foot taper (15:1 taper). The TH 41 center median on
the south side of the intersection should be restriped as a Northbound Left Turn Lane
(NB LTL). The City should work with the developer in requiring the major
improvements that are needed at the TH41/78th Street intersection and new driveway
location, which are development driven. Any improvements will be the financial
responsibility of the City, developer, or both. If you have any questions regarding these
requirements please contact Lars Impola in our Traffic Studies section at (651) 634-2379.
A Mn/DOT Access Permit will be required. They need to apply for a new access permit.
With this permit they need to provide a signing plan (showing existing and proposed
signing, removals, new, etc) and the striping plan (showing existing, an~IJ~E
JUN 0 g 2_004
CffYOFCHANHASSEN
An equal opportunity ernpioyor
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Todd Gerhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that he is and was on June 3,
2004, the duly qualified and acting City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on
said date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Westwood
Community Church - Planning Case No. 04-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A",
by sending a notice addressed to such owner, and depositing the notices 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.
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this "7¢x day of ~_~'"ta ~x4_ ,2004.
Notary Pub~Siv,~
g:\planX2004 planning cases\04-20 - westwood community church spr & wap\04-20 affidavit.doc
Lake Minnewashla
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 of records, information and data located ie various city, county, state and federal offices and
other soumes regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reterence purposes only. The City does not
warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the
City does 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 are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer 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 adse out of the users access or use of data provided.
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Westwood Community Church
3121 Westwood Drive
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-20
Lake Minnewashta
I Subject Property
;,~,¢ -- Stat~::J.~y~ 5 Arboretum Boulevard State Hwy 5 Arboretum
ALAN H & KAREN L DIRKS
7431 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8013
ALAYNA N SAZENSKI
2992 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
ALLAN D FISCHER
7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON
7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
ALLEN K LARSON JR
ALLEN K LARSON SR
7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
ALLISON BALLOU
2972 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
AMY WATERS &
KEITH R & CYNTHIA B WATERS
2950 VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4427
ANTONIO T REYES
2966 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4427
BARBARA ANN MILLER
7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
BRANDON B WAGNER
7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
BRENDA C BROWN
7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
BRUCE A & YVONNE M GESKE
7325 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038
BYRON A & MARY M OLSON
7331 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038
CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES INC
2906 BUTTERNUT DR
CHASKA MN 55318-1111
CASSANDRA S CRNECKI
2971 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
CATHERINE A HOLTE
7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
CHARLES & JENNIFER NEWELL
7550 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8053
DANIEL J STARKS
TRUSTEE OF GIBSON TRUST
3301 TANADOONA DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8048
DAVID A & MARK D WILLIAMS
PEGGY BULLICK
2988 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
DAVID L BUSS &
ERIN KAY STEINKE
7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
DEBBRA C HILL
7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
DEREK J & JULIE M FRITZE
2967 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
GETSCH CORP
C/O DAVID GETSCH
10202 BERKSHIRE RD
BLOOMINGTON MN 55438-2265
GETSCH CORP
CIO JOHN GETSCH
5404 GLENGARRY PKY
EDINA MN 55436-2006
GETSCH CORP
C/O MARJORIE GETSCH
7530 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8053
GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS
7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN
INC
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117-1218
JANET M QUIST ETAL
7331 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8015
JANINE B PUNG
2985 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
JASON D GAASVIG &
TARA M DAILY
2962 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL
7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
JENNIFER A VONESCHEN
7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
JOHN & JOYCE FOLEY
C/O RICHARD J FOLEY
4804 DUNBERRY LN
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55435-1537
JOHN F ALTENBERND
7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
KARIN S MOORE
2991 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
KATE EBLOM
2963 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER
2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423
KATIE L JORGENSON
2964 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
KEVIN P THOMAS ETAL
2975 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
L MARTIN & DONNA R JONES
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
7321 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8015
LAURA A BRAHEE
2989 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
LAWRENCE B MARTINEZ
2969 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
MATTHEW J NARDO
7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
MATTHEW N STRAND
2961 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
MATTHEW VAVRICHEK &
STEVEN M & KAREN S VAVRICHEK
2955 VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4427
MICHAEL A KISOR
2982 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
MICHAEL B HERMAN
2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423
MICHAEL C BURROWS
2974 VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4428
MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST
7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN
7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
MINNESOTA ST HORTICULTURAL
RM 1 HORTICULTURE BLDG
ST PAUL MN 55108-
MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE
GIRLS
640 GRANT ST E
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404-1431
MPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE
GIRLS
2610 UNIVERSITY AVE W
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55114-2007
PATRICIA L HELEN
2986 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
PATRICK I VANSLYKE
2984 VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4429
PETER T & DEANNA O BRANDT
7570 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8053
PETERSON REVOCABLE TRUST
C/O GRETCHEN STARKS
3301 TANADOONA DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8048
PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA
CORP
815 NORTHWEST PKY
SUITE 140
EAGAN MN 55121-1580
REBECCA L POLKOW
2947 VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4427
REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA
C/O REAL ESTATE OFFICE
319 15TH AVE SE
424 DON HOWE BLDG
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug and
Bethany Tjornhom
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh and Kurt Papke
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner;
and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE PARKING LOT
(143 SPACES) FOR WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH WITH
SECONDARY ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 4L AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO ALTER AND FILL WETLANDS ON SITE ON PROPERTY ZONED
OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT~ OL LOCATED AT 3121
WESTWOOD DRIVE (WEST OF TH 41 AT TANADOONA DRIVE)-PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-20.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Russ
James Haugen
Mark Ekb
Maren Christopher
Bruce Carlson
Peter Brandt
51 Choctaw Circle
7800 Bavaria Road, Victoria
3360 Bavaria Road, Chaska
7311 Dogwood Road
1440 Bavaria Road
7570 Dogwood Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Any? You want to jump in Steve?
Start with Rich?
Slagle: No, no, Steve can go ahead.
Lillehaug: Bob, you indicated that this will possibly be extended to Dogwood Road in
the future, out to the west. Will it also be, will that be connected to Crimson Bay Road
and then onto Trunk Highway 5 or will that remain separate?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Generous: That would be staff's recommendation that we make that connection
eventually, as those properties develop.
Lillehaug: So then really in essence this frontage road in the future will most likely,
possibly connect back up with Trunk Highway 5?
Generous: Yes. That's what our comp plan would like to see is that connection.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'm not too sure where to begin here. We don't have current traffic
volumes proposed or anything from MnDot, was that correct Matt?
Saam: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: For West 78th Street.
Lillehaug: For the west leg, fight.
Saam: Yes.
Lillehaug: I posed a couple of these questions earlier to staff and I want to hit on one
that's most important I guess in my mind, and the question would be, is the median that
we're removing on West 78th Street. We just put that median, I mean that's a brand new
frontage road and we have medians, I mean they're brand new medians. I've got a huge
line of justification why we would need a median there. It appears that staff and the
developer plan on taking that median out. Why do we want to go to a lesser standard? In
this case. I mean it seems like we're going the wrong direction. We're not, to me it's not
the time we should be retrofitting an intersection in here. I mean this is a brand new
frontage road. It appears it's going to connect back all the way to the west to Trunk
Highway 5. ! mean there's possibly going to be through movements through that
intersection in the future that may have some higher levels than some of the other
intersections that have medians on it. I guess my concerns and questions is, are we sure
we want to get fid of that median in there? And I know MnDot's reviewed this but
maybe not the fight people at MnDot have reviewed this at this time. So can staff
comment on that?
Saam: Sure. Staff, as you said met with MnDot along with the developer's engineer.
We also sent this plan over to their review agency as we do with all developments that
are proposed along state highways. And both of them came back with basically the same
response that removal of the median is fine with them. They don't see issues with
delineation and channelization of traffic. Going east to west there. One thing I guess I'd
like to point out is when you go west of Highway 41, we as staff have always kind of
thought that's more a lower volume type road. You've got two residential cul-de-sacs
and the lake. It's not like traffic from Victoria's going to be coming through there. At
least in our mind, and if we would connect up with Crimson Bay, we've always
2
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
envisioned that the Highway 5, the existing Highway 5 access for Crimson Bay would be
a fight-in/right-out then. So it's not like we'll, in our eyes be getting the truck traffic
through this intersection. It will just be another way out for the Dogwood Crimson Bay
folks, and then of course Westwood Church on Sundays and whatever other days they
have activities. So we're sure willing to look at it again and push MnDot a little harder
on you know, do we see any need for a median with upgrades of 41 in the future or
anything like that, but at this point they said they don't see the need for it. We've
reviewed it at staff, both the City Engineer and I have and really the only condition that
we've come up with is what I've added in there is the free fight for the traffic going north
on 41 onto eastbound West 78th. They have a painted island. We'd like to see that raised
concrete island so.
Lillehaug: You hit on another question I guess I had is the reconstruction of 41. Have
we or are there plans that we can look at to coordinate this intersection? I mean because I
want to make a comment on it. I think this frontage road is maybe a couple years old.
We, taxpayers, city, state just paid to put a median in there. Now we're taking it back out
and we're not planning on replacing it. I want to try to help and make sure everyone's
aware that 41 is being reconstructed and hopefully we're looking at those plans and
coordinating this intersection with those plans.
Saam: I'll defer to Bob on the 41 improvements but it's been my understanding, maybe I
jumped the gun. Really that's not in the MnDot 20 year plan yet. There are you know
talk of future 41 upgrade and fiver crossing and all that but, I think Bob's on a committee
and it's 20 plus years out so.
Generous: It doesn't show up yet.
Lillehaug: Okay. Well that answers that. Now let me try to hurry along here. I think
that's all the questions I have for right now. Thanks. Oh, one more if I can. On page 7
of the staff report, you indicate the city has retained the services of a traffic engineer to
look at the proposed intersection and layout. We have a plan in front of us with the
proposed section. With the proposed intersection and layout. Are we saying we're
having a traffic engineer look at this after we already have the plans for this intersection?
Saam: Yep, we've hired the services of a traffic engineer to make sure that based on
future traffic and church anticipated traffic, that what we're doing at that intersection, as
you alluded to, is right and that that intersection's going to work and function with the
expected traffic.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Alright, you can ask more questions if you have more later. Anybody else want
to jump in?
Slagle: I've got a few.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Bob or Matt, the comments that were just brought up by Commissioner Lillehaug
on that median. Do you have a ballpark figure as to what it cost to build that median and
what it will cost to remove that median? Just ballpark.
Saam: No, but possibly the applicant. I know they're doing cost estimates on that. They
may have a figure on the removal of it. But I don't off the top of my head.
Sacchet: The applicant pays for the removal.
Saam: Yes. Yeah, and our reasoning there is that even, whether it's a driveway or a
public street, we want those accesses to line up so those intersection improvements would
need to be done. Regardless.
Slagle: Okay. Bob, this might be a question for you. Traffic flow of the additional
parking lot. One ways, both ways, do you know?
Generous: Both ways.
Slagle: Both ways, okay. And then question of sidewalks to what I will call the east and
now the proposed northeast or north parking lot. I don't see any sidewalks similar to the
one that is directly northwest of the church. Do we have any of those? I mean I'm just
trying to think if you're parking you know in that northern lot. Is there a sidewalk that
folks can walk along to get to the church? Do we know?
Generous: Not for any...length, no.
Slagle: Okay, so hypothetically if you're up on the northeast comer of that new parking
lot you are walking through a parking lot.
Generous: Through a parking lot.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's it for now. Thanks.
Keefe: I have a couple. Landscaping on the Tanadoona Drive side. What are we doing
in regards to that or what are we requiring?
Generous: There's very minimal landscaping on that Tanadoona Drive itself. The
primary landscaping are those island areas that they have in there, which is uniform with
the rest of the project. Jill reviewed this. She didn't have, bring up any issues on it.
Keefe: And how far from the, just from Tanadoona does that parking lot start? 60? 70?
Generous: Yeah, 65 feet.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Keefe: Alright. And at the entrance where 41 connects with West 78th, there's a fair
grade change from 41 to, up onto the West 78th and then there's a number of trees that
line that road, you know 41 along there. Is it proposed that a lot of those trees would
come out or I'm just curious.
Generous: Within the roadway I'm sure they'll come out.
Saam: Yes, and then even a few. They're proposing right now, we mentioned in the staff
report a few trees on the northeast comer of the Arboretum property would be required to
come out, and that's just for tying back in with the grading and the sloping, and to avoid
like a wall out in the right-of-way which I'm sure MnDot wouldn't allow.
Keefe: And then the proposed sign that goes in there. It's similar to the other one on
Tanadoona, is that right? The proposed signage for Westwood.
Generous: I don't know that.
Saam: Maybe the applicant, you can ask him.
Keefe: Alright, that's it.
Sacchet: Any questions Bethany?
Tjomhom: MnDot advised moving an existing driveway for this project. Does that
driveway, is that a private driveway or does that driveway belong to the church?
Generous: It's the houses that the church purchased for the access.
Tjomhom: Okay, so there's no other party involved in?
Generous: No.
Tjomhom: And then did they work out their easement they needed with the Arboretum?
Generous: I don't know that they have yet.
Saam: That's probably an applicant question.
Tjomhom: Okay.
Sacchet: I've got a few questions too. First of all, staff report page 4 talks about how the
wetland credits work, and it says the applicant cannot draw on what was done previously
because they didn't declare it as such. Is that accurate?
Generous: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Sacchet: So they basically have to do a little more wetland mitigation to the tune of
13,000-14,000 square feet. Do we know where they would do that? Would they just
make the one that they're doing a little bigger?
Generous: Yes, they'd make the ones on site larger.
Sacchet: And they're okay with that? Well I guess I can ask them themselves about that.
Trees. It was interesting. You brought up trees here. I don't see any tree inventory or
indication where there are trees. Are we not touching any of the existing trees? Are there
no trees in the way?
Generous: Not on the parking lot portion. As part of the West 78th Street I'm sure there
are trees.
Sacchet: Well yeah, there's a canopy part and we don't know how much gets cut there.
It doesn't seem to be very much, is that why it's not looked at?
Saam: I'm not sure why Jill didn't comment on that. I guess I never asked her really if
she had issue with the trees that were coming out on West 78th Street, so that's something
good we might follow up on.
Sacchet: Well it's hard to preserve a tree in the middle of the roadway but it'd still be
nice to know what we're actually cutting down. There's a very sizable retaining wall just
south of the new road towards 41. That's where it is, fight? Is that okay? I mean it says
up to 9 feet. It's pretty close to the roadway. Will there be a fence or?
Saam: You know it's on the side opposite the trail. I guess that's something we could
add in as a condition to add that fence.
Sacchet: Safety wise we wouldn't probably, I mean actually even more so if cars go over
that edge, it wouldn't be very funny.
Saam: Yeah, I know adjacent to trails they require that. I'm not sure as a standard the
building, it's governed by the building department. They permit it. I'm not sure if as a
standard they require a fence.
Sacchet: Okay. Well if the trail would be there it might be fenced but since it's next to a
road, it might be a guardrail.
Saam: No, yeah. A guardrail, something of that nature would be, yeah I agree.
Sacchet: Okay. So that's something we need to look at. Just temporary parking drive.
That's an interesting phenomena there. Temporary road. It's my understanding from the
staff report that staff thinks it should be done with curb and gutter. The applicant
proposes to do it without curb or gutter with their justification that it's temporary.
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
Saam: Yeah, technically if you follow the letter of the code, all driveways such as the
West 78th Street one, if it was a public, has to be curb and gutter. Pavement to this use.
But in talking with the developer, with the church, they plan on doing other parking
expansions. They're not sure if the exact alignment of the driveway is going to stay the
same so they'd like to not have to invest the money in concrete curb and gutter right now.
They have agreed to put in bituminous curb and gutter, which I know we've done in the
other certain areas as a temporary measure. And then we also said we'd add a condition,
if and when you develop west of the existing church, then at that point you'll have to
bring up that driveway to current standards, which would be the permanent.
Sacchet: And you're fine with the tar curb at this point.
Saam: I guess yeah. We felt that was.
Sacchet: That's a good balance yeah. You touched on the driveway for the house.
Another condition that MnDot brought into the picture is that the turning lanes on 41, the
right turn lanes I guess that is, must be longer and more tapered and all there's enough
space for all that?
Saam: Yes. In my mind there is. The developer might not be that happy to do it but
yeah there is. And I know they want to have discussions with MnDot on seeing if they
can do it...
Sacchet: And that is all the developer's financial responsibility?
Saam: Yes, and that's a standard MnDot the 300 feet with the taper.
Sacchet: In terms of the financial responsibility for this road, basically the developer
does everything except the city pays the difference from smaller roads to the bigger road.
Is that?
Saam: That's basically it, yeah. Oversizing from a 26.
Sacchet: The developer is taking care of ali the fixing of the intersection and all these
turn lanes and islands and what have you. Okay. I just want to be very clear about that.
That's all my questions.
Slagle: I've got just a couple more.
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead.
Slagle: I apologize for not asking about the trail. As I'm looking at the plans here I
guess Matt it runs on the north side of West 78th Street, on the west of 41. It will go all
the way to the new development to the west, correct? And probably connect to Crimson
Bay and Dogwood perhaps.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Saam: When we upgrade those, the plan is that sidewalk and/or trail at that time.
Slagle: Okay. And if we go back to the development across 41, Plowshares. If I'm not
mistaken we had a trail coming out of the development on the north end of West 78th to
41 and then going north on the east side of 41 connecting with Longacres and what not.
My question is, is how are people to connect to the trail on the other side of 417 Is it
going to be marked as a crossing? Because I don't think we have lights and I think stop
signs are only on West 78th. Right? So is it going to be sort of like a Powers Boulevard
where people look both ways and hope there's a gap and.
Saam: For the interim and, unless a light would be warranted in the future, yeah. That's
what it would have to be at this point.
Slagle: Okay. And then my last question raised by the Chair on the intersection and the
bearing of the cost. If I go back 2 years ago when there was discussions of potential
development to the west of this property. There was some discussion as to sharing of
costs and so forth. I guess my question is, are the future developers to the west, can I ask
why they're not incurring some costs for this.
Saam: We're, we as the city are looking at ways to share that cost. The city's portion.
To see who benefits basically from the extension of the public road. The property
immediately to the west, which is I think the one you're referring to, that's about the only
one that could benefit. So we're exploring those options. Right now but that's really not
this applicant's issue. It's you know city and Westwood are doing this and then it's kind
of on our shoulders as a city to see if, can we assess our cost then to other benefiting
properties.
Slagle: So I guess in hearing that, I'm going to make an assumption that ! trust will be
fair to all parties, that if there is some benefit realized or gained, that that will be
appropriated if you will or requested from them.
Saam: Yes, definitely and then we won't, I mean we're bound by the law you know we
can't.
Slagle: I understand.
Saam: Assess any more than we can show true benefit for so.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I've got one more. The west end of 78th Street. I don't see anywhere where
there's a turn around plan for that, i.e. temporary cul-de-sac or something like that. Do
we have something in the mix for that or am I just not seeing it?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Saam: I know it was mentioned. It may not, I'll look to see if it didn't make the
conditions. We intend to put that in with a sign. I could have swore we had that, with the
temporary barricade sign saying this street to be extended in the future.
Sacchet: ...turn around I believe.
Saam: It doesn't?
Sacchet: I'm not sure. I don't recall.
Generous: Condition 21. On page 9.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: So it is in there'?.
Saam: We miss a couple but not all of them.
Slagle: You do a great job.
Keefe: I've got one more question in relation to, on the bottom of page 5 and top of page
6 you talk about the runoff rates for the culverts, and apparently the Arboretum has a
concern about the culverts running. Can you clarify, it says in the last sentence that the
applicant may want to work with them. I'm not clear on what all that means.
Saam: Let me just give you a little background. These comments under storm water
management come from our Water Resource Coordinator. Her comments a lot of times
are similar to mine. Basically this applicant, like every developer is required to meet the
runoff rates for storm water leaving it's property to match the existing conditions for the
post development so they're required to meet the existing runoff rates, whether, I mean
they want to work with the Arboretum or not, we're going to make sure that they meet
what's going towards the Arboretum now.
Keefe: Right, so if the Arboretum has a concern, as long as they meet the same as they
currently are, then there's really no change correct?
Saam: Exactly. Exactly. And usually it gets better, meaning less water being dumped
on a neighbor so to speak.
Sacchet: Okay? Is that for questions from staff. Alright. With that I'd like to invite the
applicant to come forward to see if you have anything more to add. Give us a little
overview if you'd like. And if you want to state your name and address for the record
please.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: Sure. My name's Dan Russ. I'm on the construction and committee for the
Westwood, Westwood Community Church. I live at 51 Choctaw Circle in Chanhassen.
I'm a resident of Chan. I think there were a number of questions brought up that I think
Matt had addressed. I think there was three that we want to kind of help you out with.
First was on the landscaping on the, what would be the north end of the parking lot
between there and Tanadoona. There is existing landscaping that was required during the
first site plan so there is already a buffer of trees, shrubs that were required under the
original construction so we're not going to disturb any of that and we're adding
additional on the end of the parking lot. And then the landscaping is going to be
consistent with the existing landscaping that's in there with the grove of cherry trees that
are in the islands now so that will continue forward. The median cut that was talked
about. That's not driven by the church. You know we're paying for it but that's not
drive by us. I mean our preference would be to leave that intersection alone but city
staff's requiring us to make an alignment of that based on where our property lines are
and what we're dealing with with the Arboretum, we don't have any additional property
to the south to make that median and intersection line line up so we've got to turn the
other intersection. I think that's what's driving that cost. We'd love nothing better than
to leave that alone and not have to pay for that but I think the traffic people are telling us
what's the best for that intersection. We'll go by what they say. And the easement, I
believe there was a question of the easement with the Arboretum. We presently own the
two houses on the comer. The driveway easement is there so we control that easement
through the ownership of that property so we don't anticipate an easement issue with the
Arboretum other than potentially grading when we're doing some construction there in
the comer so there's a construction grading easement that is probably needed. Other than
that I don't have really much other to add then the church is growing. Oh, the turn
around. I'm sorry. There was a question on turn around. I think our proposal, or one of
our conversations earlier with the city staff was that we would merely terminate the road
at the driveway point so the turn around could be used as our driveway. There is no
reason for anybody to drive up that road. The church is looking into that as a safety issue
for parking at night or partying or whatever might happen on a dead end road. It would
be lit with, per city standards but we just as soon not have any traffic up there as well so
we'd just as soon have it terminate at our property. That would be the, our resolution to
that.
Sacchet: Does staff have a comment about that? Because I wonder, I mean when that
road needs to be further extended, how that would be handled.
Saam: And I think maybe we're not talking about the same thing. It sounds like Mr.
Russ is talking about a turn around up in the development. We're talking about a
temporary turn around at your property line. It's pretty standard for us.
Dan Russ: Like a hammer head or a cul-de-sac?
Saam: Yeah, temporary cul-de-sac, yep.
10
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: Whatever. I mean one of the proposals that we talked about at one point I
thought was, we would terminate the road...
Sacchet: I'm trying to ask whether that is from a city viewpoint whether that's a viable
option but you understand what he's saying?
Dan Russ: Yeah.
Sacchet: End the road where the driveway goes off. You have like a hammer head turn
around.
Saam: Yeah, for public accesses where you're going to be maintaining it, and I guess our
standard is to have a cul-de-sac type.
Sacchet: Have it all the way because then it becomes an issue when we need the
connection, how it gets built and how the costs get shared and all that.
Saam: And that would be part of the city's cost...
Sacchet: Cost to go past their driveway?
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay, but we would want to do it now? I mean if the city costs anyhow, it
could be questioned whether that's even smart.
Saam: Excuse me?
Sacchet: If the city pays for extending that road from their driveway to the end of the
property line, which basically goes nowhere, why would we want to do it now and not
wait until it actually goes somewhere?
Saam: You're saying basically wait until the development to the west comes in and then
build the public street.
Sacchet: Nobody's going to use that road at this point.
Saam: We could look at it, yeah. We could definitely look at that. It's something we
haven't thought of.
Sacchet: Because if it's city cost...but if it's city cost anyhow, then it would be for the
benefit of the adjoining property and when they need it, they would have an interest and
they'll pay you for it. And nobody's going to use it now, logically it would make more
sense that way. Then that would actually accommodate what you're saying.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: Correct. I mean our need is for the road, the church at this point. We had
looked at an earlier option where we would bring our driveway in on the eastern half of
the property to accommodate future buildings that are going to come up here and future
parking lots. This is the logical point for us to get to at some point and as long as we're
doing it, crossing the, doing the mitigation, all the things we're doing, we might as well
do it.
Sacchet: You're envisioning that the access would be pretty much in that, staying in that
place then.
Dan Russ: Within 10 or 15 feet of where we're at there based on our future sanctuary
and we have a parking lot, correct.
Sacchet: Anyhow, are there more questions of the applicant?
Slagle: I've got one.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Dan, if we can touch upon the, what I'll call the sidewalks. That parking lot
directly to the north of the main entrance, where you've got the diagonal cross overs if
you will for people to walk, I know the one to the east we don't have that but I know we
have the sidewalk coming from the side of the building but do you feel by adding that
northern parking lot and not having any type of what I'm going to call safe passage.
Dan Russ: Pedestrian walkway.
Slagle: Yeah. Is that a concern?
Dan Russ: You know we haven't thought about it in that light and we probably should.
If I remember right... You know the way those driveways, or the parking lots were
designed, there were collectors down at this point and the sidewalks either into the lower
level church or up to the upper level.
Slagle: If I can make a suggestion. Where that sidewalk terminates, the one that comes
out of the main entrance and goes northeast. If there was a way to carry that on along
that island if you will, or the east side of the driveway northward. Yep, going up there.
And that's where we typically have guards, and then you would carry it up again, and
then possibly have one or two, you know one in, centered of the islands. Yep, so people
can make their way, yep. I mean I just know with two little kids, it makes it easier when
you're on a sidewalk.
Dan Russ: Well we want to do what's right, that's safe so.
Slagle: So you guys would be open to that?
12
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: I think so. I think we should do that.
Slagle; Okay. Is staff okay with that?
Dan Russ: I would say we'd follow that lead. Good point.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Lillehaug: I do have a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I'm really having problems, not with anything that you're doing on your site.
It really has to do with this frontage road and intersection, so could you help me here and
explain why are we putting this road in. I think you hit on it a little bit that you need a,
you want a second outlet for safety reasons. Is it generating more because the, how do
you say it, the Tanadoona intersection is very inadequate? Can you comment a little on
that please.
Dan Russ: Sure. The original site plan that was approved in '02 I believe, allowed us to
have the amount of parking that we have in Phase I, for the first building with access on
Tanadoona with an upgrade on Tanadoona. The traffic study that we did indicated I think
at that point that if we built any more building or added more square footage, increased
people on there, we were going to need a secondary access. So the master site plan,
correct me if I'm wrong, was approved with one access point. Any additional buildings
would require a second access point. At this point we need additional parking to handle
what we've are going to find the increase in our worship services in worshippers during
the Sunday service so that's why we're adding another 140 spots to allow us to add
another service for the holidays. That's typically when it ramps up. And with that, we're
going to need that secondary street. It's certainly going to have to come when we come
back for our gymnasium, recreational building. That is next on our list. Hopefully we're
back here in the next 6 months to a year talking about that project, and that would drive
West 78th Street need as well, so we're looking for a multiple purpose here. One is to get
a little bit ahead of the curve. Two is to add a secondary access for the people that are
there, which will allow us easier flow in and out of there and we won't have to have the
county and the state, the highway patrol people on 41 in the rain, in the dark dodging
cars, trying to get people to turn in and out of there. Works fine in the daylight but our
evening services are getting difficult for public safety so we'd like to run them in a
different entrance that's a little more safe and little more controlled.
Lillehaug: Okay. One more question. Are you saying right now that your parking is
inadequate for just your services and building alone as it stands?
Dan Russ: I wouldn't use the word inadequate.
Lillehaug: Well use another term.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: We now operate some shuttle buses to and from, offer rural parking that
allows us to schedule our service times a little closer together to accommodate worship
and Sunday school classes as such. And with more parking it will ease that burden. It's
difficult to accommodate 2,500 to 3,000 people on a Sunday morning when you need
facilities and staff and teachers that come and park, and then their cars don't move for 3
hours when you have regular worshippers coming in and out so the parking gets tight.
During the week there isn't, you know we're grossly over parked during the week for our
normal church operations, but the Sunday services gets tight. So the additional parking is
a definitely will help us in our existing facility and will allow us to move forward into the
next phase.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Keefe: I've got kind of a follow on question to that. In regards to, I've been personal
witness to the traffic person out there and we're adding a second entrance to this now. At
least in your look at this intersection as proposed, I mean do you still think there's going
to be a need for some sort of traffic control on Sunday mornings even with the addition of
this?
Dan Russ: That I can't tell you. I'm not qualified to make that call, although I can tell
you that MnDot is requiring us to put a 300 some odd foot right hand decel turning lane
and 150 foot acceleration lane, which we don't have at Tanadoona now. So you're able
to slow down, pull over, take a right hand turn to come in.
Keefe: So that's someone coming down from the north, right.
Dan Russ: From the north on 41.
Keefe: Right.
Dan Russ: The width of the intersection I think allows for a turning lane in the center of
41, or not.
Saam: Yeah, left.
Dan Russ: A left hand turn land so coming north...
Keefe: So there's actually two lanes going north on 41. Is that correct, at the new.
Saam: There will be a dedicated left and then one lane for going.
Keefe: Bypass, okay.
Saam: Yeah.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: And with MnDot, you know MnDot's reviewed it. They said that based on
our traffic counts and the needs, it doesn't require a light at this point. There isn't enough
traffic on that intersection. On either intersection to require a light.
Keefe: I guess kind of a one point time, 9:00-10:00 or whenever.
Dan Russ: Yeah, from 9:300 to noon it gets a little tough and hopefully with two access
points it's going to cut it half. So I don't know the answer to that, whether or not we'll
need some assistance with state or county. Public safety.
Slagle: Can I just dovetail on that if I may. And Dan, I appreciate your honesty because
obviously none of us know for sure what the need will be from a safety standpoint, but
I'm thinking, and staff help me here. When we're looking at an intersection that's going
to have two stop lights, or excuse me, two stop signs, obviously the majority of the traffic
would be coming from the east trying to cross 41 to go to the service to the new entrance.
You have cars coming from the south on 41 taking a left going straight. You have them
coming from the north, you know going south and maybe some taking a right probably.
Although if they're coming from the north they might be doing the Tanadoona.
Dan Russ: That would be my guess. Is people from the north would stay in the
Tanadoona Drive because that's the first drive they get to, and people coming from the
south hearing north are going to go here because that's the first drive they get to.
Slagle: And so I raise just this thought for consideration and that is if it was a light you
wouldn't hear the question raised because to me that gives all directions 30 seconds to go
through. To think that at the peak times that people are going to want to try and shoot
across 41 with no police officers stopping traffic, you know for again those small amount
of times albeit a few hours on a Sunday I think is really asking for a potential situation, so
I'm going to throw out, it's a question but it's also a comment. That maybe we consider
having public safety and I'll ask staff to look into it, for some time. You know in other
words, let's try this for 2 months. See what happens. Get people's feedback and if they
don't think we need it, great. But I would hate to think that we're going to start without
elevating it to the safest level and then work our way down.
Dan Russ: I think it's the church's position that we would definitely want to control
safety. If there was an issue there, we would not hesitate to have...
Slagle: I understand.
Dan Russ: The last think we want is an accident there with injuries of any kind, whether
it's our church people or neighbors or anyone else moving on that road system.
Keefe: And believe it or not, I think at least when I drove by there on a Sunday morning,
I think the traffic volume was heavy enough, and I don't know for sure but it didn't, they
were waiting to get in this new entrance. Then they stack all the way back to 41 to 5.
There may be that many cars coming up that way. I just don't know for sure.
15
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Dan Russ: I don't know. ! mean our traffic people have told us that that's not the case.
Slagle: See this dovetails on the question earlier about the traffic study that we don't
have in front of us, and I understand that it's just not here. And I'm not suggesting this is
premature without that, but boy I'm hoping staff, you're going to shake your heads yes
that we'll just do everything we can to make sure these are safe and work our way down.
Dan Russ: Now MnDot looked at the intersection and they didn't, they didn't warrant a
traffic study, is that right?
Saam: Correct. Yeah, they took traffic counts out there and.
Dan Russ: They waived it, so I'm not sure what they were looking at or when. They
were looking at the roadways but.
Sacchet: Traffic study's expected to be in place before it goes to council.
Saam: Correct. Yeah.
Sacchet: Because that's very important. Okay. Any more questions of the applicant?
I've got a few questions too. In terms of the wetland mitigation, you guys are fine with
what the situation is? This is kind of a bummer that it wasn't declared when you had
some credits and now you're being told that you can't draw on them because you didn't
declare them. When ! read that I thought whoa.
Dan Russ: It's difficult but it is what it is and we're going to have to abide by it and we
appreciate the city's.
Sacchet: You just make the thing a little bigger. There's plenty of room and all?
Dan Russ: Well, we have land. We're losing more land than we anticipated which will
impact the church's ability to expand on that parcel. But we are where we are and we'll
have to do what...
Sacchet: Do you know where you're going to expand? Like you make what part you're
expanding out a little bit further to the west or something like that?
Dan Russ: Well the expansion as we anticipate our next phase would be our multi
purpose building what we'll call it.
Sacchet: I mean the wetland expansion.
Dan Russ: Oh, the wetland expansion. Yeah, we're okay with what's happening there...
It expanded into usable ground.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Sacchet: Just go around the edge a little further, is that the idea?
Dan Russ: Right. Just have to make it bigger.
Sacchet: Alright. And with the trees, there are not any significant trees that are coming
out because of the road or do you know?
Dan Russ: Well people have different opinions of trees and quality of trees. To me
they're in the lower wetland type trees. They're not as permanent, beautiful hardwoods
that we have along the comdor, along here and the church's position has always been
preservation of anything that we can and we've done our best to mitigate removal of trees
but there are some trees down there in that lower wetland area. Those beautiful
cottonwood that snow in July. There's some of those that down there that we're going to
lose but we'll get over that.
Sacchet: And you understand, you found a balance about the temporary road with
making it bituminous curb and gutter.
Dan Russ: Yes.
Sacchet: That's not an issue anymore. I think that's all my questions.
Dan Russ: And we're working with the city on the cost associated with it and I think
we're finding a nice balance there. We have met with the Carlson and the Brandt people
to the west of us. Bruce is here and he has involvement in our development is
instrumental. We're trying to facilitate him for future use of utilities, water and sewer
through the water and sewer that we have connected to the property. And the roadway I
think meets with his standards and what he wants and it will line up with his piece right
SO.
Sacchet: Is there water and sewer going through that roadway?
Saam: Not at this time but that is a possibility as the church and Mr. Carlson continue to
talk.
Sacchet: That it will go through that land.
Saam: Possibly. And it would come down the whole length, it'd probably come down
from the middle of the site. Maybe in the temporary road, something like that.
Dan Russ: We've got sewer service to our facility that will accommodate our three
buildings but we've got a system in which we can increase the capacity and as good
stewards of the community we'd let him hook onto our system if you will, which then
hooks on up in Tanadoona to service his future development so we're in agreement with
that.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much.
Dan Russ: You're welcome. Now this is a public hearing. Or are there more applicant
comments? I don't know, you had several applicant people fight?
Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing so anybody wants to come forward and
comment to this application, this project, this is your turn. Seeing nobody, yes. Please
come forward if you want to say something. State your name and address for the record
and let us hear what you have to say please.
Maren Christopher: My name is Maren Christopher and I live on 7311 Dogwood Road.
And so my concern is hearing that West 78th could possibly connect to Dogwood, and I
don't know if this is a premature concern because they're talking about a temporary
roadway now. We aren't talking about extending it but I did hear that tonight. And I
heard extending to Crimson Bay Road, which then I'm assuming Crimson Bay would
connect to Dogwood and have the 78 Street connection. So I wanted to voice my
concerns. I'm wondering where to go with this.
Sacchet: Well actually, I don't know whether all of us were here when this came before
and we heard very pronounced opposition from the residents to anything connecting in
that area. On the other hand it's my understanding that the comprehensive plan has
envisioned there being a connection all along, so we have kind of a clash of two visions
here. So is it premature? Well, in one hand it's probably too late you could say because
the comprehensive plan was done what, 10, 15 years ago when that was envisioned. On
the other hand, it isn't there and it seems like the residents don't want it. I don't know,
any comments from engineering viewpoint on that Matt please.
Saam: Sure. I guess before anything like that would happen, there'd be a public process
just for that. Again while this may set in motion something that could ultimately connect
them, this isn't connecting them. So again that would be a separate project and public
hearings and everything on it at some time in the future so I guess that's what I would
offer up. Just like any, the Carlson development, if that were to go. There'd be, he'd
come in. We'd see the sewer and water plans at that time so they are separate but
aligned.
Maren Christopher: At that time are you considering sewer and water for Dogwood?
Saam: We would, I mean we'd love to see that yeah because of the septic issues out
there but again at this time that's not on the table as of yet.
Maren Christopher: Okay, so just wait?
Saam: Yeah.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Slagle: If I can comment, just as a citizen. I wouldn't just wait. Get involved. You
know certainly contact some of your neighbors and voice your thoughts to whether it'd
be staff.
Maren Christopher: I would say we're probably mostly all in agreement. I don't know,
there's only 2 of us here and Peter is involved in, he's one of the developers of this
property. So I don't know if he has a conflict of interest. And I don't know why none of
our other neighbors are here. Usually we all turn out en masse so I'm just amazed.
Sacchet: Well this is not an aspect that's really connected, as was pointed out. I mean
we're not looking at connecting at this point. Does it make a connection that brings it a
little close? Yes, it's halfway there but.
Maren Christopher: I know. It's getting closer and ! don't want to not speak out.
Slagle: Stay involved.
Sacchet: Alright, well I appreciate, and it's important that you express that because we
all work together. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other comments? If not, I will close
the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments and discussion. Who
wants to start? Should we do the ladies first?
Tjornhom: You know I don't have a comment to lead.
Lillehaug: I'll start it if I can.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I guess I just want to get this out there. Commissioner Slagle said he didn't
want to throw out there that this is premature but I think it is. I have so many notes here.
Unanswered questions so I'm just going to start big picture items. I think this is being
built because of the inadequacies of Tanadoona. That's my first comment. It's definitely
important to have another connector though with that parking lot for safety. I definitely
agree with that. But do we put this road in now and build a full intersection? I mean we
don't have a traffic study done. I think we hugely have the cart before the horse here. I
think my opinion is I would rather see this road temporary all the way out to Trunk
Highway 41 right now. The only purpose of this road right now is to serve the parking
lot and possibly help preserve right-of-way in the future for a local road to connect up
with the west. I think it's premature. We were sitting up here trying to analyze the traffic
and MnDot doesn't have traffic numbers. City doesn't have traffic numbers. We don't
have any traffic numbers for this intersection and the geometrics are being set right in
front of us already. That's not, in my mind that's not how you build this intersection.
For that one reason it's premature. Where else do I go? And I hate talking negative
about this. I mean the developer's doing everything possible he can so somehow I want
to help this out but I don't think a permanent intersection in the roadway is the answer
right now. MnDot has reviewed this but they're not concerned with costs for the future.
19
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
They know the city is going to bury these costs when we go into this intersection again
and remove, add median, whatever we have to do there when this road connects up to the
west. They're not looking at the cost of what it will take the city to retrofit this
intersection again. I mean we just looked at it 2 years ago, whatever it was when we put,
when that intersection was made. We put a median in there. Now we're taking it out.
We're going to go back and forth here because we don't know what's going on to the
west yet and I think I could point out other areas in the city where we tried doing the
same thing, up Powers and over there in the Kerber development where this little area
was reserved right-of-way and 20 years later we had problems with it and we just dealt
with that. This probably wouldn't be that extensive of a case that we would have to deal
with but you know, cart before the horse. We saw that first hand. What else here? I
have to put my page back. The traffic study. It should just simply be done before we're
at this level here. I don't support moving forward without that. Removing that existing
median, no way. And then I want to.
Slagle: If I can just ask a question. Sorry to interrupt but to you and because of your
position outside of this commission, and then also direct to staff. I mean is there a reason
this wasn't done?
Saam: You mean the traffic study?
Slagle: Yeah.
Saam: Logistically we need the layouts before the traffic engineer can review it. And
then it's just the timing issue. And this was the first time and we were doing the new,
doing it the new way I'll call it where the city is getting in escrow from the, I mean all
that takes time to get the proposal. To get a consultant on board and get him going and so
I guess we as staff didn't want to hold up the developer at this point when they submit
because of that. When they're willing to fund it and get everything for us. Work with us
on the public street and everything like that so.
Sacchet: Is that all Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure, I'll try to shorten this up. Again I disagree with removing the median.
The median exists on this frontage road almost at every single intersection as it exists
right now except for Powers on the west side. You know if you look at this intersection,
the proper course of travel isn't immediately obvious without the help of channelization
by these medians. It's not easy to follow. I think continuity is in question when you go,
when you flow around that intersection and all the different turning movements due to the
approach alignments of 78th. 78th Street, there's a slight skew. There is non-symmetry of
that intersection and if you look at the radii coming up to that intersection, you know
they're not two tangent sections coming up to that intersection. And it will be a fairly
wide intersection and a safer design would be one with a median. Obviously if there's a
median there right now.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Sacchet: If I can jump in. Matt, there's no room for a median or I mean I understand it
needs to be lined up with the road on the other side so we have to take out the median
because it's aiming the wrong way but isn't there room to add a median back in?
Saam: I don't think that's the issue. I think we could put one in there if there was a need
for it.
Sacchet: From your analysis there isn't a need?
Saam: ...traffic numbers, there's some things that MnDot did take traffic counts at the
intersection.
Sacchet: So we're not totally without.
Saam: ...20 year ADT's for the intersection that was requested by Commissioner
Lillehaug. We have taken traffic counts at the existing intersection within the last 2
months so they know that the traffic that's going in there. They're not just saying oh, we
don't need a signal. It's based on data. We're also having the traffic study reviewed to
make sure A, do we not need a signal there? Is this going to work out? Everything like
that so if the study comes back by the time of council and says you know, it would be a
good idea to have a median, we'll put it in. I don't think it's.
Sacchet: So based on the information we have right now, it's not required.
Saam: Exactly. Based on the people that we've had look at it, MnDot's traffic engineers,
and they do have jurisdiction over this road right now. Even though West 78th Street will
be turned back to the city, they have jurisdiction over it right now.
Sacchet: Okay. Steve, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Lillehaug: No, that's fine. I guess we do have traffic numbers for it now. I don't know.
Sacchet: We don't have the study yet.
Lillehaug: No. I think a median's important for proper channelization and that's the
bottom line. I don't think we should be taking a step backwards on this brand new road.
You know no matter who's paying the bill. Even if it's part of my portion, I'm willing to
pay it. It's going to be a busier intersection. I see a flavor of this as a continuation of the
frontage road out to Trunk Highway 5 and connecting up with this. The frontage road's
not going to stop at 41. It's going to continue out in my mind and we need to do it right
now. Again, I don't want to seem shoe homed in here. If you go up and down that
frontage road, I mean I can already see some of it's ripped up already, and it's 2 years old
you know. Let me go on here. Sorry here.
Sacchet: That's alright. Take your time.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Lillehaug: The turn lanes on 41. We shouldn't deviate from the minimum required turn
lane lengths that MnDot requires regardless if we don't think that traffic major route is
going to be to the south and taking a fight. It's a standard 300 foot left turn lane and that
should be strictly adhered to. You've got 50 miles an hour out on 41 and that should be
strictly enforced. Well, if this does go through I think we need a fence on top of that
wall. There's a wall further down on the frontage road in front of.
Sacchet: Retaining wall you're talking about?
Lillehaug: Retaining wall. What did I say? But right to the east of Kwik Trip, it's a
significant fight on that retaining wall and there is a fence on top of that retaining wall.
Sacchet: Are you saying a guard rail or a fence?
Lillehaug: A fence.
Sacchet: Because it's next to the roadway. You could say it needs a guardrail, not a
fence.
Lillehaug: Which way does this wall go?
Sacchet: The wall is on the south side.
Lillehaug: Okay, I'm thinking of, I didn't look at that intersection out there in the field. I
looked at the plans so the grades are going down.
Dan Russ: The ground is higher than the roadway.
Lillehaug: Guardrail, there we go. Definitely a guardrail. Thank you. What else here?
You look at the frontage road again to the east. We've got trees up and down that
frontage road. We have, I realize there's existing trees out there but I think we should
have trees along that frontage road out there to continue the look of the frontage road.
It's a continuation of it. Again, a few trees on the north there. They're showing 3. I
think there's some existing out there but I think it's important that we maintain the
standards of screening and berming on the north of that parking lot from Tanadoona and I
don't see why we would deviate here.
Sacchet: Are we deviating?
Lillehaug: Deviating from the standards as far as berming. Enough screening to screen
the parking from Tanadoona. I think we're deviating from the standards...
Sacchet: Is it possible to berm? I mean what are the grades?
Lillehaug: There's 65 feet there. There's plenty of room, in my mind.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Keefe: ...for trees or vegetation. I mean there's grass out there.
Sacchet: So there's room for planting and possibly berming. Is there room?
Dan Russ: Well there certainly room to grade on Tanadoona and then...so half the
parking lot, the berm is material. The other half it would be...I would think you would
want a lower landscape berm...
Sacchet: Landscape berm.
Dan Russ: Pine trees versus dirt that doesn't do much.
Sacchet: Got it.
Lillehaug: So in summary I think this should be a temporary driveway connection all the
way out to Trunk Highway 41 at this time. That's what I support.
Sacchet: Okay. Thanks for your comments Steve. Any other comments? Discussion?
Slagle: I've got a few.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: If I can ask another question of staff. Comment on Commissioner Lillehaug's
last comment about the temporary call it street connecting to a temporary driveway. Why
wouldn't we do that?
Saam: In our mind now is the time to build it so we're going to have the developer go in
there. The church put in curb and gutter, 26 feet wide and we're talking about what
we're doing on the east side with ripping stuff out after a couple years. Now we're going
to come back within probably 3 to 4 years and tear it out. Or at least along the edges and
widen it. I mean to us at least it's a good point that Commissioner Sacchet made. Build
it up to where they're proposing their driveway and then we end it, and then when
Carlson or whoever comes in in the future, then put the public street on. I think that's a
great point but I just think we're missing an opportunity. It's a good use of funds now to
do it. We don't have to do it as a public project. The church is willing to take on the
lead. And then we just work out a payment agreement. There's some cost savings there.
You don't have to go through public bidding, that sort of thing so we just think right now
is a good time to do it with the driveway coming in.
Sacchet: In terms of safety, I mean is there a difference between the public or the
temporary road?
Saam: In terms of safety. Well if you talk about the intersection, as I said we're going to
make sure that is safe whether it's private or public, and I believe the same improvements
would have to be made. In terms of sight distance and that sort of thing. Lining up the
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
intersections. Whether we need the median or not. That will all have to be done now.
Along the cost savings lines, just let me add, there's things like ponding. Setting up
storm sewer. Wetland filling. The grading. I just think it makes total sense to do this
now with the private, with the driveway going in. Let's just make it a little wider. Get it
done now. Build it up to their entrance and end it.
Slagle: Okay. My comments are as follows. I think I support the project with some
conditions added. And I won't add those now. They'll be part of a motion but they
center around the median, sidewalk, and the sidewalk would be the crossing of 41 and
then the sidewalk issues in the parking lot. In response to Commissioner Lillehaug's
concern of premature, I'm almost them Steve but I'm just short of agreeing so that's
where I stand right now.
Sacchet: Okay. Bethany. Still no comments?
Tjornhom: You're going to make me comment. You know I understand the need for an
expansion of the parking lot for safety. I understand having a state patrolman out in the
dark directing traffic in the rain and the snow and the hazards that that can cause. I too
would like to not take away any of the turn lanes, having deviations from the turn lanes
on 41. And as far as a traffic study goes, in my mind we do a traffic study now for this
section. If you expand for another building, do we do another traffic study for that then?
Saam: We're having the traffic study take into account their ultimate development, along
with possible ultimate Crimson Bay and Dogwood lots accessing off this road so.
Tjornhom: So then they won't have to go back for, and wait for another traffic study.
Saam: Hopefully not.
Tjornhom: Okay. Now was there a traffic study done in the beginning?
Saam: Yes.
Tjornhom: And did that traffic study, was it adequate for what we're talking about now?
Saam: No, not what we're talking about now. It didn't look at the exact configuration of
the future, of these intersection improvements. Of the secondary access. It just basically
stated that with additional expansion due to traffic, the Tanadoona intersection isn't going
to work on it's own and that second one will have to be added.
Tjornhom: That's too bad because we wouldn't probably be having this discussion had
the first traffic study been adequate I guess. But I too generally support the project. You
have to take the good with the bad and unfortunately, or I mean fortunately or
unfortunately I think we have to take the parking lots.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Keefe: I've got a couple comments. Give me a sense on the cost savings. We're going
to, the city will be picking up what? The additional 5 feet, is that what my understanding
is?
Saam: Correct.
Keefe: And then the cost of the intersection as well.
Saam: No. No, the intersection as previously stated would be required. Those
improvements, whether it's private or public so that's why we're reasoning that that
portion needs to be paid by the church. So we have done the street costs, some minor
pond increasing for the additional street width. The storm water that's generated by the
additional widening of the street. That sort of thing. There's additional grading costs.
Those type of things.
Keefe: You know it seems like this is, at least right now obviously the benefit of the
church and public safety, if indeed traffic will be split somewhat between the Tanadoona
Drive and the West 78th Street. You know it's for a couple of hours on a Sunday. Boy,
you know so the city's going to be picking up some costs associated with really what's
going to benefit probably mostly the church and then people are going to be, there's
going to be some people who are going to be driving down 41 at that particular time who
hopefully it will be a safer situation because it's not stacking up as much on Tanadoona.
Saam: Yeah, I see where you're going but keep in mind, I mean we as a city staff and
planners, I'll include myself in that group, we all the time put in trunk or area wide type
improvements that maybe aren't utilized to their maximum the minute they go in, but
within 5 years they need to be there to further development along and I think that's what
we're doing here. We're setting ourselves up. It's in the comp plan...
Keefe: Let me ask a second piece to it. What is the timing on the future church
development? Do we have any plan in regards to that?
Saam: I think Mr. Russ just said to me, within 6 months they're going to be adding
another building. They'll be doing more. I mean they have an ultimate plan that was
looked at when this originally came in for what, 2-3 more buildings. More parking lots.
A chapel out in the, so. You know multi phased development. At least probably 2-3
more improvement expansions.
Keefe: 2 or 3 more over what? Any guess on timeframe? I mean you know, just what
drive it is. Yeah okay, it's availability of funds. Okay.
Dan Russ: ...if we had the funds today, we'd be in tomorrow and wanting to build a
4,500 seat sanctuary you know. Multi-purpose room, gathering room. Potentially a 300-
400 seat small chapel in the woods...
25
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Audience member: I think the other thing to consider is the developments to the west of
here. We're considering that more in the short term, in the next year or two versus a
longer term so. You know again, we can bring something in now but on a temporary
basis it's going to be really temporary for all the purposes that we're talking about.
Keefe: It's probably outside of the scope of this meeting but what is the timing? 2 years?
Audience member: Oh, as soon as we possibly can. We've got to get to agreement with
the church on sewer connections and water.
Sacchet: And you came in before, as I remember, to look at some of that stuff so they've
been here for a work session once to look at that stuff so it's not something new.
Keefe: Right, okay. The other thing I guess my other comment, what I would like to see
more landscaping on the north end on Tanadoona. I don't know, I would agree with
Dan's comment that I think that at least driving by, I think if you were to berm it, I don't
know that you'd get a lot of benefit from that but I definitely think it would increase in
the vegetation would help some on that particular piece.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Steve, you want to add something?
Lillehaug: Yeah, just a little more. I don't think I'd be having such a big problem with
this if the traffic study was done before everything was laid out. Traffic studies can be
twisted once things are laid out and I know they get twisted, regardless if it's an
independent consultant firm, developer driven, staff driven. That should have been done
before now in my mind, and that's the big problem because simple questions, I mean the
intersection is laid out and we don't have a clue and staff has indicated this to us. I mean
I specifically asked, do we have any existing numbers or proposed numbers and they said
there was none there. So how can you design an intersection without any traffic volumes,
so that is my biggest problem right now is ! can't support this without, what are we
approving? We're approving the unknown right here and that's the bottom line. Off site
from the developer so I'm done.
Sacchet: Alright. Is it my turn? My turn I guess. Well I wish traffic studies would
have...but unfortunately from our experience here, they're most the time more fluff than
substance I hate to say it but, in an ideal case it would have been nice to have it here but
we don't have it so we have to live with that. Is it premature because of that? Or is it
premature to make a public road? I mean the worst that can happen is that it's going to
need a light at that intersection. I mean if that intersection's not going to function well,
there's a very simple solution then. It's going to have to be signalized. I don't personally
think that the lack of the traffic study is a reason to hold this up. Yes, it would be highly
preferable and desirable to have it in front of us. I think it's mandatory that that will be in
place for council, and that's already being assured that it will be in place for that. But I
would be prepared to let this go to council with making that point very, very clear and
adding some of the other concerns and addressing them like one of them is definitely the
median. And I do agree with you Steve on that. The fact that currently we have a median
26
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
and we rip it out and we settle for something less. It doesn't sound quite right for me.
Yes, it's an additional cost that is not attractive from that angle. But why should we go
backward? Especially with an intersection that has some complexity to it with the
turning movements and everything, in terms of safety. Does it absolutely need one?
We're not the specialists on this but from what I'm seeing here, I think it would be a
good thing to have. Whether we want to make it a firm condition or not, I don't know. I
could go either way on that. It's certainly something that we would want to have looked
at very carefully further. Especially before it goes to council. The concern about this
becoming a frontage road, and we have at least one neighbor here that spoke up about
that. I mean we had very vehement comments last time anything in this context came up
that these people, they love their narrow, little road there, Dogwood. The reality is
probably that there will be some changes. I mean it's going to be developed, that
property west of the church. It's going to have to be accessed and I wonder where it
ultimately is going to be. I would expect it's actually going to be to the benefit of that
neighborhood to have another access. And it's not going to become a through road.
Even if it connects to Crimson Bay, which it may never but I mean that goes through so
many turns getting out onto 5, ! would not consider that a frontage road in the sense of
frontage road. I really would think it's going to remain an access road for the residents.
Maybe with the addition that the church goers are going to start going that way west
rather than come out on 41, but that's speculation. We don't need to delay for that
excessively at this point. Should the road follow the standards? I would very much
recommend that, but that's out of our hands. I mean that's a MnDot question and if
they're willing to negotiate, they're willing to negotiate. That's not in our scope but only
I think it's important that those standards be adhered to. Should it be a temporary road all
the way to 417 I really disagree. Very fundamentally disagree. I think this is the time to
make this a public road. This is the time to make this the full width. It goes across a
wetland. There is this grading involved and there's a lot involved. Be silly to make it
more narrow and then have to add it on. That does not compute and make it too where
the driveway is because we don't need to go further at this point and there's no need for
the city to bear the cost to go further to go nowhere. Do we need a guardrail above that
retaining wall? I think that's mandatory. I think we have an agreement on that. The
trees. I'm kind of a tree guy here on this little group, and it kind of irks me that there was
no quantification of the trees that are being cut so if maybe that can be looked at a little
bit before it goes to council, I think that would make sense. To make sure there is a
decent buffer of the parking lot to the north to where it's going to do, and I think that's a
very reasonable requirement to put in there in terms of integrating this as well as possible
into the existing neighborhood. Sidewalks I think are very important. And I think that it
was very well received by the developer to have something that goes across the islands.
Kind of up in...and at the same time adding a sidewalk all the way to the end of the
parking lot so that people in a safe way can easily get to church, the service. They can
push their strollers, what have you. Made sense and it looks like it received like that.
The other aspect of traffic is the crossing of 41. I don't know what to do about that. I
mean can we make, do we do striping so pedestrians go across? I mean is there a
solution?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Saam: Yes. I mean striping, signage, maybe even a push button thing. I doubt we'd get
that but.
Sacchet: Well once we get a light but we have no light at this point.
Saam: Yeah. That's about all we can hope for at this point. Striping and signage. As
Commissioner Slagle mentioned, as we have on Powers.
Sacchet: Well, that's all my comments. Sorry for being a little lengthy. And I would
like to have a motion, if somebody would want to venture a motion.
Slagle: I'll make a motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Hold on one second.
Sacchet: You know, while you're still scribbling. I'm actually glad this came through. I
mean it's an important comment to make. When this came in front of us at first, at least
some of us up here actually spoke up and said how's this going to work with just the
Tanadoona access, and everyone was talking about how this is going to be improved and
it's going to be at a 90 degree angle and it is going to be all these wonderful things, but I
haven't driven past it too many times when there was traffic but it's a real issue. I think it
really, really needs that second access. It needs it where there's a major intersection type
thing and I really welcome and want to commend you for bringing this in. Maybe a little
before it absolutely is necessary. Totally necessary. I think it's necessary now and it's a
good thing to do so I want to commend you for doing that. Are you ready Rich?
Slagle: I'm jotting down some conditions but I'm sure there will be a few more. I
recommend that the Planning Commission approve Planning Case number 04-20 Site
Plan Review for a 143 space parking lot expansion, extension of temporary drive and
extension of West 78th Street, , plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 14,
2004, subject to the following conditions. And I will right now we're at 34. And I'm
going to add a few and, well actually do I add them now? I do don't I?
Sacchet: Yes, you can add them with your motion.
Slagle: My number 35 is a guardrail to be placed on top of the retaining wall on the
southern end of the property. Number 36. The raised median on the east side of 41,
placed on West 78th currently to be removed and a new one placed in correct alignment
with the extension westward of West 78th. 37 would be a sidewalk to be extended along
the main driveway from the main entrance of the church on the east side of the main
driveway and I'll ask staff to help with the verbiage. But basically running to the
northern end of the driveway where the new parking lot ends. And then there would be
two diagonal walkways similar to the northwest parking lot, on that northern, across the
alleys or island if you will. And that's what I have so far so if anybody wants.
28
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Point of clarification. This, I think what the applicant told me is wrong. The
road is lower than the boulevard in this area.
Sacchet: That's what they're saying, yes.
Lillehaug: Then we don't need a guardrail.
Slagle: Yeah, then we don't need a guardrail.
Lillehaug: You don't need a guardrail. You need a fence above the retaining wall.
Dan Russ: Correct. Correct.
Sacchet: Now you confused me. We have the road and then the drop?
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: Oh, you have the road and then go up?
Dan Russ: Yes.
Sacchet: So then you don't need a guardrail.
Slagle: No. Okay, no guardrail. Fence.
Sacchet: Fence on top of the.
Lillehaug: Fence on top of the wall.
Keefe: If you have a retaining wall, why do you need a fence?
Lillehaug: You don't want anyone... Maybe the Arboretum has a chain link fence out
there already. Can staff comment on that?
Saam: They do have a fence.
Sacchet: If there's not people out there, they don't need a fence.
Lillehaug: Right. So if there's no people up there, the Arboretum already has a fence,
then we're probably okay with it I guess.
Slagle: Okay, I'll take it off.
29
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Sacchet: Good point. Thanks for clarifying that. I thought it was dropping, not raising.
Slagle: Then number 35 is off, okay.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. Is there a second.'?
Tjomhom: Second.
Sacchet: We have a second. Are there friendly amendments.'? More.
Saam: Mr. Chair.'?
Sacchet: Yes.
Saam: Did you add, just saw on my notes, buffering along Tanadoona. Did I hear that7
Sacchet: Not yet. Do you want to add that.'?
Keefe: Yeah, I would like to add.
Sacchet: So that would be, since we skipped 35.
Slagle: So it would be 37.
Sacchet: 37 would be the berming, or the buffering. Landscape buffer.
Slagle: Additional landscaping on northern side.
Sacchet: On the north side towards Tanadoona. That's this one, okay. We did the
median. We can't really require anything to cross 41. That's beyond this project, is it.'?
Slagle: No, we can request.
Saam: With the intersection improvements you can.
Sacchet: Yeah, because I think we should do something. If we can only do striping, let's
do striping. Did I actually mention that.'?
Slagle: Require striping and signage, is that okay Matt'?.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: Striping, yeah it needs signs otherwise it's useless.
Saam: For crosswalk.
30
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Sacchet: For crosswalk, yes. That's important. So that would be 38.
Keefe: How about entrance signage? I notice on the plan they've got, are planning on
putting in an entrance sign. Do we require anything to be consistent with their other one?
Or to be consistent with, is there anything we would amend or do we kind of just let
them. Do they have to come back for approval on that anyway?
Sacchet: Well signage needs a permit. So they have to come back with their sign so we
can let that be at this point. Did we discuss temporary road? Well the conditions require
the public road all the way to where the temporary road, driveway comes in. How about,
I remember we had some situation in the past where we made a stipulation that should a
light be required, a signalized intersection, that there would be some sharing of costs or
something to that effect. I don't know how we worded it in the past. I don't know
whether we need to go as far as having an escrow or how we would handle that.
Saam: Yeah, we've gotten letter of credit or financial security. I think we mentioned
financial security will be required to guarantee installation of public improvements. I
might offer up that when we get the traffic study by the time of council, if we find we do
need a signal at that time we could require it.
Sacchet: I think it was Lake Street. Somewhere in the Village of the Ponds we had a
situation where we put something in like at Lake Drive, yeah.
Saam: Pulte too across the street. We had them escrow funds but again there we had a
development contract and everything and at that time we did believe there was going to
need to be a signal there. This is before West 78th Street.
Sacchet: So we don't need to make that condition, but we can make it comments for
council to consider.
Keefe: Do we put an amendment in on, for a condition in regards to the traffic study. Do
we need to add something along...
Sacchet: The traffic, we can make that a comment too. That the traffic study needs to be
ready to do to council, and then the same with the light. We can make that comments
rather than conditions because it's not something that's probably going to be conditional
yet. Okay?
Slagle: I don't think I can offer conditions at this point. Right? Is that correct?
Sacchet: Yes you can. You can amend.
Slagle: If I made the motion?
Sacchet: You can friendly amend yourself.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Slagle: Okay, friendly amend myself.
Sacchet: But you also have to accept them.
Slagle: Yeah. That'd be interesting if you offer one and don't accept it. But I want to
have something about the public safety officer. And again I'm thinking for some time
frame, and again I'd leave that up to the applicant and staff to work out but I don't think
we can just start and then see what happens, and I know the applicant is, so I'm going to
put condition number 39. Require public safety officer to continue working both
Tanadoona and West 78th for 8 weeks. 4 weeks?
Sacchet: I wouldn't quantify it Rich.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: I would trust the operation, but that to state that they have to continue. ! think
that' s fair.
Slagle: Continue, okay.
Keefe: Just continue for a period of time until they deem it's not necessary.
Sacchet: I mean if that's a concern of your's...
Slagle: It is. It is.
Dan Russ: I would just kind of restate it that public safety. They're the ones that are on
top of what needs to happen. We don't know if it's safe or not. We need public safety to
tell us, we don't need somebody here or we need somebody here at this time and that
time.
Slagle: Does that go through you Matt?
Saam: I can sure coordinate it. We can work with them because we do the traffic counts
and what not so I would.
Slagle: Okay, so require public safety officer to continue working intersections as
directed by public safety. Okay. Perfect. Because there was no reference to it in here.
Sacchet: Okay. Did you accept that amendment?
Slagle: I accept that.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have friendly
amendments.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Slagle moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case 04-20 Site Plan Review for a 143-space parking lot
expansion, extension of temporary drive and extension of West 78th Street, plans
prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 14, 2004, subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around all existing landscaping at the
edge of grading limits.
Any existing landscaping that is removed must be replaced when the parking lot
construction is completed.
4. The landscape islands shall be filled with wood chips.
5. Overstory trees are required along West 78th St.; one every 30 feet.
Three accessible parking spaces must be added to the existing accessible parking
area.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's
approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around all existing and proposed wetlands (wetland buffers proposed
for PVC must maintain a width of 16.5 feet). Wetland buffer areas shall be
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
9. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10.
The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water
calculations shall be submitted to staff to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a
result of the proposed development. The applicant may work with the Arboretum
to ensure their concerns are addressed.
11. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
12.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such
as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping
and street sweeping as-needed.
14.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army
Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
15. All final plans must be signed by a registered civil engineer.
16. Use the latest version (2004) of the City's Standard Detail Plates.
17. The twin storm sewer culverts under West 78th Street must be RCP Class 5.
18. The existing driveway from Highway 41 to the existing homes in the northwest
corner of the West 78th Street intersection must be removed and seeded or sodded.
19. Include concrete driveway aprons and pedestrian ramps for both proposed
driveways off of new West 78th Street.
20. The new painted median for the eastbound West 78th Street traffic on the east side
of Highway 41 must be a raised concrete median with pedestrian ramps.
21. Install a temporary turnaround with barricades and a sign stating "This street to be
extended" at the west end of new West 78th Street.
22. Provide a pedestrian ramp at the northeast corner of the new West 78th
Street/Highway 41 intersection for connection to the future city trail.
23. Incorporate the conditions of the MnDOT review letter dated June 1, 2004 into the
plans.
34
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
24. Show all of the proposed grades for the new driveway to the existing home in the
southeast comer of the site.
25.
A permit for the proposed retaining wall is required to be obtained from the
Building Department and the wall must be designed by a registered structural
engineer.
26. Off-site grading will require a temporary easement or right-of-entry agreement
from the Arboretum.
27.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported
or exported from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed
haul route for review and approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to
be exported to another location in Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties
would be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City.
28. All areas disturbed as a result of construction-related activity must be sodded and/or
seeded and disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
29. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. In addition, an NPDES permit and
Watershed district permit will be required for the project grading.
30.
Drainage and utility easements will be required over the wetland, pond, and the
adjacent mitigation areas. An easement for access purposes will also be required
for future maintenance of the wetlands.
31.
Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that
the City's Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to all
existing wetlands and ponds. In addition, erosion control blankets should be used
on all slopes 3:1 or greater with heights of 6' or more.
32. A financial security will be required to guarantee installation of the public
improvements.
33. Bituminous curb and gutter must be added to the temporary driveway.
34.
Prior to any future building expansion to the west side of the existing church
building, the temporary access driveway from West 78th Street must be brought up
to current standards in effect at the time."
35.
The raised median on the east side of 41, placed on West 78th currently to be
removed and a new one placed in correct alignment with the extension
westward of West 78th.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 2004
36. A sidewalk be extended along the main driveway from the main entrance of
the church on the east side to the northern end of the driveway where the new
parking lot ends and two diagonal walkways similar to the northwest parking
lot.
37. Additional landscaping along the north side on Tanadoona Drive.
38. Require public safety officer to continue working the two intersections as
directed by public safety.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 1.
Sacchet: Steve, do you want to add, we already heard why you're opposing. Do you
want to add summary wise in the vote?
Lillehaug: Sure, and the council people want to see a summary because they don't, they
requested that so in a quick summary. I think this is premature without the traffic study
being completed. I don't think we should deviate backwards from not re-installing
concrete median.
Slagle: We are going to do that.
Sacchet: We asked that to happen.
Lillehaug: Good. I must have been asleep.
Sacchet: We did listen to you some.
Lillehaug: Well then I'm happy. No, no, no. I still feel it's premature.
Sacchet: So that would not have changed your vote?
Lillehaug: No.
Sacchet: And you made that very clear in your comments so.
Lillehaug: Even with median we need a traffic study. We just need it.
Sacchet: Okay. Well let me summarize for council a little bit and you guys help me out.
We all, I believe in some degrees welcome this secondary access.
Slagle: Want to do this one first?
Sacchet: Oh no, we do, well yeah. Let's do the second motion.
36
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Slagle: I would make a motion that we approve planning case 04-20 Wetland Alteration
Permit to alter and fill wetlands on site, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
May 14, 2004 subject to the following conditions, I through 9.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
Sacchet: Any comments? Additions? Friendly amendments? No?
Slagle moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Planning Case 04-20 Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill wetlands on site,
plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 14, 2004, subject to the
following conditions:
The applicant shall develop an amendment to the wetland replacement plan to
achieve the required 2:1 replacement without employing credits constructed during
the first phase.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's
approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. The
applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and
Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Wetland buffers proposed
for PVC must maintain a width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be
preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
4. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water
calculations shall be submitted to staff to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a
result of the proposed development. The applicant may work with the Arboretum
to ensure their concerns are addressed.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
37
Planning Commission Meeting- June 15, 2004
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such
as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping
and street sweeping as-needed.
o
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and Army
Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval."
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 1.
Sacchet: It's still 4 to I as before. I assume for the same reasons. And summary for
council. I believe we all welcome in some form the additional access capability there as
it is accessing the church as well as the somewhat landlocked land on the west side there,
which was brought in front of us before as a concern. We have concerns about the traffic
study not having been completed. We definitely would like to see that completed before
it goes to council. I think that's a requirement. We also have an issue about, what was
the other one we wanted the council? Whether it needs a light. That's it, the light. That
it needs to be looked at and it's connected to the traffic study. That there seems to be
high probability that at some point this intersection will have to signalized. And that we
wondered whether there might be stipulation in this that the applicant would have to help
bear some of the costs of a traffic light. We've had cases like that before where we put in
stipulations like that with developments, developers should that arise. I don't know
whether we would go as far as putting... Want to add something Rich?
Slagle: Directly on that subject, and I would just ask that the council, if that is discussed,
that it be in the broad sense of applicants plural. Future applicants. That that is shared
with all due respect.
Sacchet: It would have to be in the context between the different applicants definitely so.
There is the recumng comment that comes from the neighborhood to the west along the
lake that they really don't want more roads going in there, which is somewhat in conflict
with the comprehensive plan that was envisioning West 78th somewhat connecting into
that area. We don't think that this will ever become a really major frontage road. We
believe it's going to stay just a neighborhood access either way. We do think it's
38
Planning Commission Meeting -June 15, 2004
important for all the road alterations on 41 to follow the full standards of road
construction from MnDot and so forth with the turning lanes and everything. We looked
at safety and we had some concerns about crossing 41. We want to make sure there's
sufficient sidewalks on either side accessing the new parking lot area. I think that was
very well received with crosswalks across the islands and then walkway all the way to the
end of the parking lot. Additional landscape buffering towards Tanadoona to integrate it
more, and also a tree study was kind of absent from this in terms of what are we cutting
down. I would think that'd be an element that could be addressed to some extent when it
goes in front of council. I would encourage that. And I think that's about the comments.
Anything else?
Lillehaug: I had one rebuttal comment is, my opinion is that it will have a flavor of a
frontage road once this is connected with Crimson Bay.
Sacchet: Okay. If it gets connected. If.
Lillehaug: If, there we go. Yep.
Sacchet: Alright. And I think that's it for this one. Thank you very much. Wish you
luck with this project. Thanks for cooperating and everything.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH REQUESTS FOR PARKING AND SIGN
VARIANCES ON 1.9 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN
BOULEVARD, BEAR CREEK CAPITAL~ LLC AND CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT, LLC~ CVS/PHARMACY, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-21.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff.
Tjornhom: My question is regarding, and I don't know if I missed it in my reading
because I could have missed it but the drive thru stipulation. Was there a whole part that
showed the hours and you know noise, speakers, lighting, that kind of thing or wasn't
there?
Generous: There wasn't as part of the staff report, no.
Tjornhom: Okay. And I mean, is that something we should talk about or is it okay?
Generous: Well if it's a concern of your's, we can definitely request the applicant clarify
what their hours of operation are.
Tjornhom: We don't have any rules though about hours or anything like that?
39
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Westwood Community Church Case No. 04-20
July 12, 2004
Page 2
Condition 38 shall be amended: D..,.~,,,,~; ..... ~,-~,,*,~t'~;" safety ~..,~,"m-~ to ~.~,.,.~-~"*; .... warking
the two ;-* ..... *;~ as ~;~,~a b5 .... ~ ~*" The church shall continue to
use a public safety officer to monitor and direct traffic from the church for
three months following the completion of West 78th Street. After three
months of observations, traffic operations shall be re-evaluated and the use
of public safety officer shall be required as needed.
*The church requested that this condition not be as open ended as drafted.
It is in the church's best interest to have safe traffic operation. It was felt
that a three-month period would permit traffic operations to be observed,
get parishioners used to the new access opportunity to the site and allow
the church and the public safety officers to evaluate traffic. The three
months would include the holiday season, which is generally the busiest
time of the year for the church.
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-20 - westwood community church spr & wapXamcnd conditions for cc.doc