The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Amend/Villages on Ponds PUD CITY OF CIlANHASSEN 7700 Marl<et Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanlrassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Bundlng InspRllon' Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 951.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone:952.227.1140 . Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310CouherBOIJlevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resource, Phone: 952.m.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 PubUc Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fa< 952.227.1310 Set1iorCenter Phone: 952.227.1125 Fa< 952.227.1110 Web SUe _.cichanhassen.mn.us ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner SUBJ: Villages on the Ponds - St. Hubert's Expansion EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer is requesting an amendment to the Villages on the Ponds PUD to increase the maximum allowable institutional building area and site plan review for a 41,522 sq. ft. expansion to the existing building, St. Hubert Catholic Community. This expansion will bring the building to 133,574 square feet. Under the current PUD, the church could expand to 127,000 square feet without an amendment to the PUD. (The 27,000 square feet of institutional use equals 7,830 square feet of retail use.) The proposed expansion requires an additional 6,574 square feet of building area for institutional use. This equals 1,906 square feet of commercial space, which represents the net change in the development building areas. " Staffhas had meetings with the representatives from Villages on the Ponds to detennine if this proposed change will still pennit the type and quantity of development that was originally approved. Based on the analysis of the potential build out of the project, the reallocation to institutional uses would still allow the remainder of the development to proceed as originally envisioned. City Council action includes approval of two separate motions (highlighted at the end of the staff report starting on page 8): The City Council approves the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending section d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height. And, The City Council approves Site Plan #96-11 File 2 for a 41,522 sq. ft. expansion to the existing building, plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated 1/30/02, St. Hubert Catholic Community. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 5, 2002, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the PUD amendment and site plan subject to the The City of Chanhasaen . A growing community wilh clean lakes, qualily schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A Oleal place 10 live. work. am1 nl" Todd Gerhardt St. Hubert's Expansion April 8, 2002 Page 2 conditions of the staff report with the following modifications to the site plan conditions: Condition 11 add: The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site construction. Condition 12. Slope should be 2: 1 maximum with a fence at the top of the slope. And the addition of the following conditions: 24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all around the building. 25. The applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on trees below the southeast comer. 26. The applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off-site grading is necessary. g:\plan\bg\villages~t. Hubert's expansion & amenmnent ex~tive summary.doc - ~ ~ J ~ 1.. ~ , 1 :t "- ~ :í lJ --..... PC DATE: March 5, 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: April 8, 2002 REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/2/02 Extended to June 1, 2002 CASE #: SPR 96-11 File 2 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for an amendment to the Villages on the Ponds PUD to increase the maximum allowable institutional building area and site plan review for a 41,522 sq. ft. expansion to the existing building, St. Hubert Catholic Community. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 2, Villages on the Ponds, 8201 Main Street APPLICANT: Opus Northwest Construction Corp. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 (952) 656-4457 St. Hubert Catholic Community 8201 Main Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUD, Planned Unit Development 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use ACREAGE: 9.28 acres of land DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development to pennit up to 135,000 square feet of institutional uses within the Villages on the Ponds. The current design standards specify that the PUD must be amended if institutional uses exceed 127,000 square feet. This amendment would require the reallocation of 10,150 square feet of retail square footage to the institutional use. The applicant is also requesting site plan review for a 41,522 square foot expansion that would extend the school to the south as well create a fellowship hall and miscellaneous space on the north side of the church and gymnasium. - Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. - 1) ~ Q) .., 7' ~ ~ State Hw en c: ctI ~ St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 2 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION·MAKlNG: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an amendment to the PUD standards which require that the standards be amended if more than 127,000 square feet of institutional use is proposed within the development. The applicant is requesting a total of 135,000 square feet of institutional use, an increase of 8,000 square feet. Staff has had meetings with the representatives from Villages on the Ponds to detennine if this proposed change will still permit the type and quantity of development that was originally approved. Based on the analysis of the potential build out of the project, the reallocation to institutional uses would still allow the remainder of the development to proceed as originally envisioned. Staff has prepared an amendment to section d. 5. of the design standards incorporating these changes. The proposed institutional expansion will require the reallocation of 10,150 square feet of commercial square footage to institutional use. The Villages developer, AUSMAR, has requested that the reallocation to institutional be limited to the amount of the current site plan for St. Hubert's expansion, 133,574 square feet. This reduces the amount of square footage reallocated from commercial to 9,736 square feet. The Planning Commission questioned the reallocation of this amount of space to institutional uses. However, under the current PUD, 27,000 square feet of addition institutional space could be done without an amendment. This equals 7,930 square feet of commercial space. The additional square footage being requested for reallocation is 1,906 square feet of commercial, which represents only one percent of the original square footage originally designated for commercial uses. The applicant is also requesting site plan review for a 41, 522 square foot expansion that would extend the school to the south as well as create a fellowship hall and miscellaneous space on the north side of the church and gymnasium. The proposed expansion will bring the total building area to 133,574 square feet. The school expansion would be two stories, adding 18 additional classrooms. The exterior elevation would continue the use of reddish brown brick as the primary color with sandy brick accent bands, squares and window headers. The roof over the school would be flat with a parapet wall surrounding the edge. The top of the parapet would be covered with copper colored metal coping. Window frames would be grayish silver aluminum. The connection between the existing school and the new wing would be a glass curtain wall atrium area. Outside of the expansion to the east would be a small outdoor seating area. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 3 The church expansion extends the building to the north as one story with a wood shake roof. The expansion includes additional worship space, narthex, a small library, a fellowship halYdining room expansion, toilet facilities, and additional storage space. An aluminum-framed canopy is being extended over a car drop off area at the northerly entrance. The building material will use reddish brown brick as the primary color with sandy brick accents pattems and window and door headers. The roof will be sloped up to the existing gymnasium wall and a parapet extension to the entrance area. The top of the parapet would be covered with copper colored metal coping. Window frames would be grayish silver aluminum. Entrance accents will be provided at all building entrances through the use of dormer extensions above the doors. A chinmey will be located on the north end of the fellowship hall for the fireplace. The proposed expansion will provide significant architectural detailing. On the eastern elevation, a garage and receiving area is being extended out from the building. This expansion will have a flat roof with the reddish brown brick as the building material. Two overhead doors will be located on the east side and one overhead door on the north side. Staff recommends that these doors be similar in color to surrounding bricks. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan for the church and school expansion subject to the recommended conditions of approval. BACKGROUND On November 26,2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved an amendment to the Villages on the Ponds Design Standards, section d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height, 3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - four stories (residential with street level commercial or office/50 ft.), (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to three stories/40 ft.) except for the lot on the comer of Promenade Pond and Great Plains Boulevard shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, Sector IT - three stories/40 ft., Sector ill - three stories/40 ft., and Sector N - four stories/50 feet. Building height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, and other architectural and roof accents. And, 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial! Office/Service Institutional Dwelling TOTAL Retail (sa. ft.) (sa. ft.) (sa. ft.) Units sa. ft. Sector I 114,500 83,500 0 160 198,000 Sector IT 60,000 * 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector ill 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector N 0 º 0 162 º TOTAL 174,500 97,500 100,000 322 372,000 St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 4 * Includes 47,200 square foot, 106-unit motel. Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses: 1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 950 square feet of officelservice = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of addition institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD. 6. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority of the street frontage. On August 13, 2001, the City Council approved an amendment to PUD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, to permit a drive through window on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, as a conditional use. On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved PUD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; rezoning from lOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots and ten outlots and public right-of-way. On September 9, 1996, the City Council approved Site Plan 96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community on Lot I, Block 2, Villages on the Ponds. On August 12, 1996, the City Council granted preliminary approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from lOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 5 wetlands on site; vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental assessment Worksheet (EA W) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-106 through 20-122, Site Plan Review Villages on the Ponds Development Design Standards ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL BUILD OUT Project Commercial Office/Service Residential Institutional Date Bldg Sq Ft (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (units) (sq, ft,) Approved C/O/Ins. Permitted 174,500 97,500 322 100,000 Lake Susan Apartments 162 6/28/1999 Peddler Cyclery 5,018 6,077 6/28/1999 11,095 Foss Swim School 9,800 6/14/1999 9,800 Houlihan's 7,362 81 5/11/1998 7,443 Culvers 4,768 9/24/2001 4,768 Building 4 7,425 7,425 9/22/1997 14,850 Building 17 30,000 8/11/1997 30,000 Americlnn 44,013 1,492 2/24/1997 45,505 Americlnn (expansion) 6,870 6,870 St. Hubert 96,288 12/9/1996 96,288 Presbyterian Homes 4,500 4,500 69 11/26/2001 9,000 RetailE 24,980 50,914 75,894 RetailC 15,500 15,500 50 31,000 RetailC-1 24,000 520 24,520 Retail G 8,000 8,000 40 16,000 SI. Hubert Expansion 37,286 33,574 TOTALS 152,436 134,309 321 133,574 40,319 Balance 22,064 (36,809) 1 (33,574) Balance Eauivalents Conversion to Commercial 22,064 (11,043) 90 (9,736) square feet Balances after conversion and exchanges 1,285 sq. ft. 1 unit 0 The above table begins with the approved square footages for each type of use in the design standards. The table then goes through all the approved and potential development within the project, subtracting each building's square footage from the total square footage for that use. The bottom five building square footages are based on estimates of the potential development for each remaining site based on parking, market conditions and site area. The balance in each use is shown at the bottom of the table (negative numbers show that the initial square footage has been exceeded). We then convert all the uses to a common factor, in this case commercial. The converted office (11,043 sq. ft. of commercial) and institutional (9,736 sq. ft. of commercial) are subtracted from the commercial balance,leaving a balance of 1,285 square feet of commercial. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 6 Based on the analysis of the potential build out of the project, the reallocation to institutional uses would still allow the remainder of the development to proceed as originally envisioned (a mixed use project). Staff has prepared an amendment to section d. 5. of the design standards incorporating these changes. The proposed institutional expansion will require the reallocation of 9,736 square feet of commercial square footage to institutional use. The table will be amended to show this. However, we are recommending that no additional institutional square footage be pennitted without and amendment to the PUD. The overall goal is to maintain the trip generation rates under those that were originally approved as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the concept plan. The conversion factors adopted at the previous PUD amendment would maintain these ratios even though the projected total square footages may be larger. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCIDTECTURE The exterior elevation would continue the use of reddish brown brick as the primary color with sandy brick accent bands, squares, patterns and window headers. The roof over the school would be flat with a parapet wall surrounding the edge. The top of the parapet would be covered with copper colored metal coping. Window frames would be grayish silver aluminum. The roof over the church expansion would be sloped, with cedar shake shingles. Entrance accents will be provided at all building entrances through the use of dormer extensions above the doors. A chimney will be located on the north end of the fellowship hall for the fireplace. The proposed expansion will provide significant architectural detailing. The following setbacks shall apply: ~ Buildingfparking Proposed Market Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback 50',20' 525',300' Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback 0',0' 12',0' East Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to 50',50' 60',20' residential): Buffer yard & setback The proposed expansion meets or exceeds the requirement for architectural detailing required in both the Villages on the Ponds design standards as well as the city's overall design standards. LANDSCAPING The applicant meets required landscaping standards. Staff proposes that an additional overstory tree be added to the northerly landscape boulevard island. The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all transplanted material similar to the requirements for landscaping installation on other projects, e.g., for one year past date of acceptance of landscaping. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 7 GRADING DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Minimal grading will be required for this project to elevate the proposed building pad to 925. The proposed grading will include filling on the southeast comer. A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed where it is applicable or a retaining wall must be used. The applicant should be aware that any retaining walls over 4-feet need to be designed by a registered engineer. Retaining walls are not allowed in public easements. The extent of the grading will be the digging and filling of trenches for the sanitary sewer pipe. The plans do propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. Type ill silt fence must be used and extended around the excavated area to prevent any migration of the excavated material and an erosion control blanket should be installed within two weeks of completion on the sloped area. No drainage or storm sewer improvements are proposed with this project. The plan is not clear as to if the proposed building's roof drain will be connected to the existing roof drain then conveyed via the existing storm sewer system and finally discharge into the existing pond located in the southwest corner of the lot or how the roof will drain. Design calculations will need to be submitted for the additional site drainage. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. UTILITIES The plans propose to abandon a portion of an existing public sewer line and reroute it around the proposed building expansion area. A new sewer line will replace the existing line. The applicant is also proposing that the end of the watermain be realigned. The proposed water and sanitary sewer lines must be centered within a 20-foot wide utility easement. This easement will be required to be signed and submitted to the City prior to beginning construction. The applicant will also be required to provide the necessary financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public utilities. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. STREETS No major street improvements have been proposed with this project. Five parking spaces will be eliminated, however, due to the building expansion. LlGHTING/SIGNAGE While no lighting is proposed on the plans, any lighting would have to follow the following standards. Lighting for the interior of the villages should be consistent throughout the development. A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. The maximum height of light fixtures in the parking lot is 30 feet. All fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle of 90 degrees or less. Wall pack units, if used, shall be shielded and directed downward so that no direct glare is visible off site. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 8 No additional signage is proposed for the development. On-site traffic control signage may be required. MISCELLANEOUS Detailed occupancy requirements have been reviewed with the applicant but cannot be completed until complete plans are submitted. The owner and or their representative shall continue meeting with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and pennit procedures. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (I) Consistency 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) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of 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; (5) Creation of 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. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. 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 St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 9 circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of 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. Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the Villages on the Ponds Planned Unit Development and meets site plan findings 1 through 6 enumerated above. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council approves the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending section d. as follows: 1. Development Site Coverage and Building Height I. The following table shall govem the amount of building area for the different uses: Sector I Sector IT Sector ill Sector N TOTAL Commerciall Retail (sa. ft.) 104,764 60,000 o o 164,764 OfficelService (sa. ft.) 83,500 14,000 o º 97,500 Institutional (sa. ft.) o o 133,574 o 133,574 Dwelling Units 160 o o 162 322 TOTAL sa. ft. 188,264 74,000 133,574 o 395,838 Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses: I Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 10 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. In no instance shall additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD." 'The City Council approves Site Plan #96-11 File 2, plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated 1/30/02, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 20-foot wide utility easement over the proposed sewer line and watermain shall be prepared and submitted to the City prior to beginning construction. 2. The applicant will also be required to provide the necessary financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public utilities. 3. Provide the City with a copy of the MPCA sanitary sewer extension pennit and Department of Health watermain pennit. 4. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002,2101,2109,2202,2203,5300. 5. Show all existing utilities. 6. Show the proposed sewer pipe type, class, slope, invert and rim elevations. 7. Silt fence type ill must be used and removed when construction is completed. 8. Revise the north sign arrow to point in the correct direction. 9. Vacate existing utility easements. 10. Add a benchmark to the plans. 11. Type ill silt fence must be used and extended around the excavated area to prevent any migration of the excavated material and an erosion control blanket should be installed within two weeks of completion on the sloped area. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction. 12. Slope should be 2: 1 maximum with a fence on top of the slope. 13. Design calculations will need to be submitted for the additional site drainage. 14. Eliminate proposed manhole no. 101 and connect to existing manhole no. 6 as shown on the City's as-builts. 15. 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. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 11 16. The overhead doors shall be similar in color to the surrounding brick. 17. The standpipe connections in the existing school portion of the building must be extended into the new school addition. The standpipes were an accepted alternate means of protection in lieu of providing access roads around the building. 18. The additions are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 19. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 20. The proposed Fellowship Hall must be a minimum of Type II-I HR construction and must be separated from existing Buildings A & B by area separation walls. 21. The roof !canopy at the drop off area on the north side of the building must be constructed of noncombustible materials. 22. An addition overstory tree shall be added to the northerly landscape boulevard island. 23. The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all transplanted material for one year past the date of installation final acceptance of site landscaping. 24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all around the building. 25. The applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on the trees below the southeast corner. 26. The applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading is necessary." A IT ACHMENTS I. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Overall Site Plan - Villages on the Ponds 3. Development Review Applications 4. Letter from David F. Bangasser and Jeffrey L. Walker to Bob Generous dated 2/1/02 5. Reduced Copy of Site Plan 6. Reduced Copy of Floor Plans 7. Reduced Copy of Building Elevations 8. Memo from Greg Hayes to Robert Generous dated 2/11/02 9. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 10. Memo from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated 3/3/02 11. Letter from Gary A. Renneke to Kate Aanenson dated 3/5102 12. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2002 St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Opus and St. Hubert Catholic Community for Site Plan Review and an amendment to the development design standards for Villages on the Ponds. On March 5, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of St. Hubert Catholic Community for a site plan review for the property located at 8201 Main Street and an amendment to the design standards for Villages on the Ponds. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan and amendment 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 Planned Unit Development, POO. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 2, Villages on the Ponds 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 13 b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. Section 20-110: (1) 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) Is consistent with this division; (3) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) 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; (5) 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. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and St. Hubert Catholic Community March 5, 2002 Page 14 d. 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. (6) 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. 5. The planning report #96-1 I File 2 dated March 5, 2002, prepared by Robert Generous, et ai, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan review. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of March, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg\villages\st. hubert's expansion.doc ~ ~ ~ ~ , l~""'" I , ,. !../il· , . ~, I . i'i .1 Jjj ji: :.:-:'~- =:_:~t¡ _.) ~ t " ' r'-~! I) 'r-'-"¡'" ~ -. ;¡ I i " ' -::=..-jil: ',.' :,. <{30 00 0 ~ o'ò S A\fMHÐIH o 0 SO ~"'" "l o O~ ,I o 00 o i " oJ Ow· ~~" ~m ~ m. In~ ~"it .~~. .~.. ~!~~ . . ( ~ ~ :I 5 ~ !f GI ~ . II '" ... o · 6 ~ 00 I DD~ o a§¡ Sii -:1 i~!iI' ~ '0' fi i!1' !. 0." . --, ¥jll. z' ! ~ ~ ~, i5: ~ ;¡; ~ ., ð ~ .. É i " .. .. .. 2 c 2 C) " '. I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 caUL TER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937·1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATlON . APP1.1CANT: ol'\J~ \'I:,;z.,...~vJ",>·r c:.o.J·,~~L-r,c>~ CL.zR. OWNER: -:or. IWð"'Z.j' C....""".L l"."M"",-r'( ADDRESS: IO~Sc ~"". ,«>"'~ ""G">'{ ADDRESS: ~I:z.:,ì M\\,"'¡ S1í~'" 'M.\,.¡t.J¡;í~N(~ M....:i . (;S~43 G"ÞOo.N·r\~~;)eN M,..,.j 5S3\ì ìELEPHONE (Daytime) cIS;!. (.,,><-, ~~Sl c~ 'is'/.. t<S<O 4$24 TELEPHONE: ",S2. <;3'-1 <;\1:<., _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit , - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWn:asemenæ - Jnterim Use Permit - Variance _ lIIon-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit , -L. Planned Unit Development" \\\\\I._;l.. ÞO.t.V\p.J;)w~~ _ Zoning Appeal "\o\~,'L. _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review .::h.. Notifica~n Sign'#. '5t> .- Site Plan Review" -2L Escrow for Ring Fees/Attorney Cost- ($50 CUPISPANAClVAAlWAPlMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) n, - Subcfivisjon' TOTAL FEE $ 3<XY- A DsI of an property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the appll....tlO'1. . BuDdIng material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 4'fwenty-s1x fun size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'12" X 11" reduced copy of ir- _ . L each plan sheet. - é.w".. wiD be required for other applications through the development contract K1JE -When multiple apprlCations are processed, the appropriate fee shd be charged for each application. , --I PROJEC1'NAME 1.OCA1'JaI ~.....T:' li\i~~"1..7 C.r-..."Þ\c&-lC- CD~V\\J"-J,-M '¡\'~\)\'ílð""" ß"2.c.\ "",,-,oJ <~-r\L.';1!!fT 1.EGA1..DESCRIP11ON ~""'''' 2. "",1"' I ~ ~u...I\.L.Þ-,; t'"!,,~ "'7Wr ~"'~.:>"5 ~t;u:.""~ TOTAlACREAGE WE11ANDSPHESENT 1"~2ONJNG BEOlJES1EI) ZONING t't1C:SI:flTlAND USE DESIGNATION C¡.2~ ....~s YES )<. NO ~ lAND USE DESIGNATION 11EASOI\1FORlHISREQUEST 1èae",..'·(.....c Þo".J l"cac"~c1Õ r... '"'''''''-Iv''' ~~,,~ ,~·..·(j.,...;1'H::rJ~ Þ.SZ£~ \...,)Lo,.I,J~~ ,J'.,) "Woe 7.....:..;>. fV.... ît'tr(,o ....,.u....."-.:....;. cw '"1i:4t" <(,;N;>S ~N'~ This appflCation must be completed in full and be typewritten or cleàrly printed and must be accompanied by an Information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this appßcation, you should confer with the Planning DepaJtment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements app6cable to your application. . . A determinallon of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of appUcatlon submittal. A Written notice Df <oppn".¡oliofJ deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. ThiS is to ceT1ify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with 1111 City requirements with regard to this requesL This apprlCa1ion should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this app6cation. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's DuprlCate Certificate of· Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make j¡js :o,ppn,...tìnr and the fee owner has also signed this apprlCation. 1 YÌil1œep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further unde,,,1dnd 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 knai"- V- The dIy 11ereby notiIies the app6cant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing TBqUirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day exlension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review e~are approved by the applicant. S' ...nun.__.__.,. un ..._----+_......-. .....-...-.__....-.- _ -..--.-.-.......----.---.----- -.. . ......------.---.-.--- - c~~ ~þ~ Date ~V\""L~;~ ¡1~k ,,[(lo'V Date AfpT....t1nn Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. '7he1lpp1lcan! sbould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which wUl be available on Friday prior to the meeting. Jf not _rot..... a copy of the report wIll be mailed to the applicant's address. 'q CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATlON .APP1JCANT: oí:b ol.Z."'uksr QN';(oZuL "l\c"-' (",l.~ ADDRESS: 'o~'5D 9;¡'tt.).,). k.a..f~ '-'.:........ 7 OWNER: so. \\v'h:)Z.'(" c...Þ-."f~t:J..4L ( .-w.'lltJJ..i,1'-i ADDRESS: AZc\ \~\'--\ ~1'i'2n" Lw...'-Ir\þ.,,~(:-....I ¡,¡",,¡ s-,'31l TELEPHONE: '/S'l CQ,~'¡ 91(;(", \~\!'..h..1.r-r~",(¡\ \v,,1\J (".:f.·~43 ìEl.EPHONE (Daytime) c¡S'l <""k ~Wil c,~ '1S'z, <..~ .¡sz..¡ _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit , - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWlEasements Jnterim Use Permit Variance . - - _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit' . , _ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning' Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review ~ Notification Sign 'i. '5b -L Site Plan Review" ." ", I ~ (,.,) -2L Escrow for Filing FeeslAttomey Cosr' Z->c' - ... ,,4)1)..c '~/fO,:{J~r- ¡o.. t:''' ..., , (:'l.-o~ ($50 CUPISPFWAClVARlWAPlMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) - SubdivisIon· TOTAL FEE $ 8(~() (J.~ - A ßst of aD property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the app''''''''''''- BuDdIng material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 4'fwenty-s1x fun size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'!a" X 11" reduced copy of t- J . h. each plan sheet. - E!.w.... wDl be required for other appncatlons through the development contract 1'IDlE - When mu1lip1e appfacations are processed, the appropriate fee shaD be charged for each application. .. . . . '-I - P.ROJEC'TNAME l.OC.UJat '.>í. ",ù":&"r.f'l,.1" <..p.¡,í"~l.~<"" c.-..c\V\tIu'-J.'1-1 i~'\)Q\7i~ ",,--\ .¡~ ,"'-þ-.,o.J <..-TI1c' ~-, '~alDESCRIPTION ~...(.. '2. Uo-r \ ~\"'~.t.....<.:.~ od -M-c ~...IÕ>.s 't)~{\.(:.?''..(i"t-JT 'TOTAlACREAGE WE1lANDS PRESENT JoRéSl:JllTZONING 'j.¡~ r>,.<i'-'C:, YES ý, NO HE~u:l.IZONING I"tit:::il:ÑTLAND USE DESIGNATION ~1JESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION HEASON FOR THIS REOUEST ~Q.\~~·r,¡.J~ ~N·CuJ p." ~\ïc· ?v't..J ""-1~ ~(_,,,-rI;"I":) ~<\)J.\<N"('''} ç;..~ ?\1.\,,~)-:':) ~~\)I1io~» 'To::. .j"',o\'( t.,.'s-Tí~ ~"'<-\1..-t"1 ibis app1ication must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearfy printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fiUng this appration, you should confer with the Planning Depattment to délennine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A de!enninalion of completeness of the appUcation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of appfication deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. ibiSis to certify that I am making application for the descnbed action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with 811 City requirements with regard to this request. This applica!iDn should be processed in my name and I am the party whom 1he Cilyshouicl contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's DuprlCate Certificate of· Trtle, Abstract of Trtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make ~is :oppl;",mnr and the fee owner has also signed this apprlCation. 1 wil1<eep myself informed of the deadUnes for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that add'rtional 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. ïhe c1ly 11IIIeby notifies the appI'lC3I1t that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day t!XIension for devefopment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review exIensions are approved by the applicant _._.. _...._n_nn._._......__ _._.._--~-----..- ........ .....-.-.--...--....-----------.. -.. .. .. .__u_____h~..~.n_" ~1¡t~~fu¡1Jt~~,~~~ v[t{ðr:: 5pwæ~Owner J Date JI¡p1'..-..finr Received on ~ 111/ 2. Fee Paid ~ , ~ Receipt No. ïhnpp1lcant sbould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeUng. If not contlcted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the appRcant's address. CHE OPUS GROUP OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone 952-656-4444 Fax 952-656-4529 o OPUSN \RCHITECTS :ONTRACTORS www.opuscorp.com JEVELOPERS February 1,2002 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PROPOSED EXPANSION ST. HUBERT CATHOLIC COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOL Dear Bob: On behalf of St. Hubert Catholic Community, we are pleased to submit the following applications pertaining to the proposed additions to the existing St. Hubert Catholic Community facility: · Site Plan Review application, including a check in the amount of $860 and all associated plans and renderings, for the proposed additions to the existing facility. · Vacation of Easement Application, including a check in the amount of $300 for the proposed re-alignment of an existing sanitary sewer line on the south side of the existing facility. · Planned Unit Development Amendment application, including a check in the amount of $300 for the proposed change to the maximum allowable institutional area included in the P.U.D. for the Villages on the Ponds development. We request the City of Chanhassen review these applications in order for consideration by the Planning Commission at the public hearing on March 5, 2002 and by the City Council at the council meeting on March 25, 2002. St. Hubert Catholic Community has continued to grow since the existing facility was completed in 1997. The Parish leadership has determined that construction of a fellowship hall addition and the construction of additional classrooms is necessary to continue to meet the needs of the parish. The Parish is currently in the process of raising funds for the planned construction. It may be decided to phase construction with up to eight class rooms being built at a later date. The length of the classroom addition will be approximately 60 feet shorter than what is shown on the attached site plan if the eight class rooms were delayed. The Parish leadership anticipates resolving this issue prior to the March 5, 2002 Planning Commission hearing. A!1cntown . Atlanta. Austin. Chicago· Columbus· Dallas' Denver' Fort Lauderdale' Houston' Indianapolis' Kansas City' Los Angeles' Miami' Milwaukee' Minneapolis OrJnQt' CmJ/lt\'. Orlando' Pensacola' Philadelphia' Phocnix' Portland' Sacramento' San Francisco' San Jose' Seattle' St. Louis' Tampa' Washin~ton.D.c. G OPUS. Mr. Bob Generous February 1,2002 Page 2 of2 The fellowship hall and classroom additions shown on the attached site plan will increase the size of the St. Hubert Catholic Community facility to approximately 133,000 square feet of floor area. The previous agreement between St. Hubert Catholic Community and AUSMAR allowed for a minimum expansion of 108,000 square feet of floor area. The Parish leadership has reached a verbal agreement with Lotus Realty to allow up to a maximum of 135,000 square feet of floor area. We understand that the maximum allowable institutional area included in the P.U.D. for the Villages on the Ponds development is 127,000 square feet of floor area. We are requesting an amendment to the P.U.D., increasing the allowable institutional area for the development to include 135,000 square feet of floor area for St. Hubert Catholic Community. Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this project. If you have any questions or require any additional infonnation, please call either Dave Bangasser at 952-656-4457 or Jeff Walker at 952-656-4524 Sincerely, OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ~cl_! David F. Bangasser Senior Project Manager ·/L'; \1l ,,; [L;j .4. w.~ Jeffrey L. Walker Project Manager attachments JWID~ /--yf./' . ~~</\~_. - ~:~~--_$--; ..ç,-- //" _-- - _::_ -:_--- - ./ -; I .,.,'S»/ .- / It d, r \, "..~0 ~,', ,~-- !I' , . n ............. ~ "'\ i: .i)' '$], . . i r -:" ® :' Illi ~ I. I r~~l I I I r. I I \, I L__J ~¡ / II ,. ; ~ ! ¡ : ¡ @' i r \@. .@_; "--;"h"" III . , .~ II II (----..o.. , , ¡:ijl'!'rl it - 00-: I.;, fiil:l I J . IJ I lñ !!,; "1'11' ~~i!1I Ii I ct I I ~'iI' I, I II WI ~ o! III JI!ï.i. !1I¡m~!I:. ,J IIII , I ~ It . I! I , 'r. S~ ! iJ~ I' ¡ii' 1 I'¡:IÜ ,1II~n \ -;T\....... \ .... \ ". \ . \ .. --u .\ .' \-. - n.... ¡ro. -. \ //.. ...... " '" ,- ,/,,);< . ,'j/ ~ /\ /1/;;/ \ // ,/ /; \ : I ,i! .~ -./ ~ (' : # :Ii ;'/ ; ~n .U .- a~na~1 _ ! iü: ii:: ;;i¡ ;;i¡ I~ ¡;¡::;' L ii" _,I' -I' III' g I! Iii II', 1,1 11,1 II n i1~1 II. u:. IIII Ihl 1,IUllnl II I' ~ Ij Î § , ;1 . I. . 0 I . II I \ Ii Ii . I I·· SilO. .... ;\;i I;;) ;;n, ¡ ..... 11111 IIIII //~ m.: 1111: " ; II I' IlIiil 1III bllll 101 f iiI 1m I' IR! I HI iii! "' !.... .'! m ~n~~ II ~ . , .J r Iii k I ':"wI!il - ~ It')· ft·I' ¡Iäk ,nU ! t .¡~ I.' . "01 ~'II ,I II' ;1 . . ~'ij I I, ;1 . I !III:.!~ ill,: . , I I I . ,..1. I , .. . -- I I i ~ B ! o J I I I I i I I I c...···: ,.m ...............-.......... \ ....]/ '.. I ¡~'...m.m ---j- r¡, 1- ¡ ID Q OI'1~ 0 J ~ ..............mmm........m..m.......m.. B ...J Iii ~ . I / , g , ~ -¡ ¡. a! .. ~ i ~ ~ g ~ ~ N!1 . !I' i .~ ~~ ~ nl u~ h§ ~. i ~ ~ ~ N!I !Ii i~ I I . .1 I T'I'!~ it - ~ 1t11-f.I"' I J il ~ !/!;I , :1' :1,. jj Fdi liii II I' kU' I, I 111111 ~ II. .bh.i. !1I¡,llia!.:. lIi.1 ; ¡ II II ~ .. !I i ~ ~ i ~ 100 100 100 10 ¡ I II II .. 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 10 o o ¡ I II II .. g i ~ ;i ill!III I .!1 ~~ I [8 II , " .. -' 100 100 100 10 I ~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 CiHJnhllSWl, Minnmld 55317 Phone 952.937.1900 Gelleral Fax 952.937.5739 Engineering Department Fax 952937.9152 Building Department Fax 952.934.2524 \fíb Site www.ci.chtInhlWen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Greg Hayes, Fire InspectorlTraining Coordinator DATE: February II, 2002 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to Villages on the Ponds PUD to increase the maximum allowable institutional building area and site plan review for a 41,522 square foot expansion to the existing building on 9.2 acres of land zoned PUD, located on Lot 1, Block 2, Villages on the Ponds, 820 I Main Street, OPUS Northwest Construction Corp, St. Hubert's Catholic Community Church Planning Case: 96-11 Site Plan - File 2 (60 day review 4/3/02) I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available infonnation submitted at this time. Ifadditiopal plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items wi II be addressed. . I. The standpipe connections in the existing school portion of the building must be extended into the new school addition. The standpipes were an accepted alternate means of protection in lieu of providing access roads around the building. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a.call. GH/be g:\safetylghlplrev96-11 The City ofC/umhassen. A ;rowinK community with clean lakes. quality schooh, a charminy downtown. thriviny busin",es, and beauriM parks. A f'tat place to live, work, and pI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD LOCATION: 8201 Main Street ~ROPOSAL: Expansion to S1. Hubert Catholic APPLICANT: Opus Northwest Construction Corp. Community NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Opus Northwest Construction Corp., is requesting an amendment to the Villages on the Ponds PUD to increase the maximum allowable institutional building area and site plan review for a 41,522 sq. ft. expansion to the existing 'building on 9.28 acres of land zoned PUD, located on Lot 1, Block 2, Villages on the Ponds, 8201 Main Street, St. Hubert Catholic Community. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 21, 2002. S1EVEN J KOKESH. 8201 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALBERT & JEAN SlNNEN 8150 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & LINDA G ANDERSON 8210GRANDVIEWRD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN V SKAU..MAN & JOYCE L BISH 8155 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY D & MARY A LARSEN 8151 GRANDVIEWRD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN E SEMKE & DEBORAH C DEUTSCH 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN 8103 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL M & PRUDENCE L BUSCH 8113 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HAROLD A & BEVERLY STOFFERAHN 8123 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD 8080 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD R & KELLY G WALKER 8090 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARTIN J & TIMAREE FAJDETICH 8100 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPH J LESER & COLLEEN A CANNON 8110 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & KARLI D WANDLING 8120 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL F & RITA A KLAUDA 8130 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LANCE T & MARGARET MAZUR CHAN' 8140 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE D & CYNTHIA J MARENGO 8150 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN P & JULIE K LUNDEEN 8160 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY P & DEBRA A DISCH 8170 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC D JOHNSON & MOLLY C SURBROOK 320 SINNEN CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDAL J & JILL M MEYER 330 SlNNEN CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E HAMBLIN JR & PATRICIA A HAMBLIN 340 SlNNEN CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & JANELLE R PETRUSA 341 SlNNEN CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHAD R & ROBIN E POINTER 331 SlNNENCIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT V LANGLEY & LAURIE B SOPER 8134DAKOTALN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GOP AL & NlRALI SHAH 8136DAKOTALN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN T RIPPLE 8138DAKOTALN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER S YOUNG & LESLIE C HAILE 8140 DAKOTA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JASON W WHITE 8139DAKOTALN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DH'O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAKE SUSAN APARTMENT HOMES LLC 11455 VIKING DR ¡;:DEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 'wARM WATER POOLS LLC 5121 BAKER RD #104 MINNETONKA MN 55345 , ,AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 2/0 LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 '::HANHASSEN MN 55317 · AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY · PO BOX 235 :HANHASSEN MN 55317 · -\USMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC '::/0 LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 '"::HANHASSEN MN 55317 >CHURCH OF ST HUBERT \201 MAIN ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .. AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC '"::/0 LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 · AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC .c¡0 LOTUS REALTY 10 PO BOX 235 :HANHASSEN MN 55317 · lUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 MN 55317 .. :HANHASSEN L...'_-'-__ AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC C/O LOTUS REALTY PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 nar u"'t ut:: 11:"'t"ta LOT.US t<eal't.~ ~:::'ë ~;:r4 b4"/2 p.l vlotmd March 3,2002 TO: Bob GeDerous BY FAX 227·1931 FROM: Vemelle Clayton OD behalf of Ausmar DevelopmeDt CompaDY, LLC and VOP I, LLC RE: St. Hubert Church CommuDity request for AmeDdmeot to the Villages 00 the Ponds PUD Having reviewed the staff report for the above request by St. Hubert Church, we find that their request is for a total building size of 133,574 squrae feet, not 135,000 square feet as we bad been led to believe. Therefore, we respectfully request that you amend your report to allocate only 9,736 square feet of commercial use, not the 10,150 square feet as would have been required to achieve 135,000 square feet of institutional use. This reduction will not be of any disadvantage to St. Hubert's plans but will permit the balance of the project a bit more flexibility should there be some variation in plans fi:om those which we currently anticipate. Although our negotiations are not yet completed, we anticipate that we will be in a position to submit a letter confirming that Ausmar and VOP I both support the amendment of the POO. That letter, should it be forthcoming, will be conditioned upon the staff report contRining a capacity transference which reflects the 9,736 number. · Mar 04 02 11:44a Lotus Realt!: 852 834 5472 p.2 1 rY2I07/02 REVISED TO REFLECT FIRST PREUMINARY NORTHCOTT DESIGN Modified to reflect 50-50 splft on 'Multi-tenant reIaIl-oriented first floor spaces", including Retail 4 (Silo) and to reflect breakdown used on approval for Americlnn, Houlihan's, including Americlnn future expansion area. Undeveloped parcels' capacity is based on current marketing plan, 50-50 splft not used on retail (less hotel lobby) on 1st floor of future hotel Offiœf CmnmJf¡;jaJ S!!IJliœ 174500 97500 p234 · · St. H. · Americlnn Am.lm Fut. Expansion Bldg. 17 Bldg. 4 Houlihan's , Foss Swim Peddler · Lake Susan Apts. Culve~s · Pres. Homes · Balance C Balance C-1 · Balance G "" 1st A. Multi+HoteI Lobby Hotel (Guest +Mtg.Rooms) GBA 2nd & 3rd Total Used Use Remaining CoT1llelt Retail to Office CoT1llelt Retail to Insl Balance Total St Huberts · · Applicable Conversion Factors: Retail to OffICe: · 44013 6870 7425 7362 5018 4768 4500 15500 24000 8000 UN!! 152436 22065 -11054 :.9136. 1274 300 sf. Retail = 1 sf. Retail = · Retail to Institutional 290 sf. Retail = 1 sf. Retail = · 1492 30000 7425 81 9800 6077 4500 15500 520 8000 3150 ~ 134309 -36809 ~ Bes... ~ 322 100000 96288 162 69 50 40 321 1 o 1000 s.f. Office 3.33 sJ. Office 1000 s.f. Institutional 3.448 sJ. Institutional Lotus Realty Services 96288 3712 33574 1 133574 Iota¡ 96288 45505 6870 30000 14849 7443 9800 11095 4768 9000 31000 24520 18000 75894 V123LW.WK4 ..R08ERtL HDI'RMN .......H."""'"- EDWNID~. DAl800LL .IOHND. FWJ.ER """",- ~.""""" ~J.DIE1ZEN .....H....... 'T'HCNMP.8101,,:",""" .........0.......... ............. .....-- 'OQMSJ. FL'I'MN ..w.E8P.CIUNI TCCD I. FREØMN ....... L EO< JONrrI&L.lItC)QUISI" n\~HOI..AH. JOHN A. COTTER· .................. Ko\Ttt..EEN ... PICOTTE NEWtMN OAEOORY'E.IC)R8''AI) GNf'( A. VANCLeIE· TUmIV ~.IŒANE MICWéL W" 8CH.EV ........,........ -..- CIHFUSfOPHER~.+WIII8'nW.. KÐCIEL J. CINJÐ3BE IAUCE J" DOUGt.M WI..l.IMI C. 0AFFmf, JR. ......~..... PE1ÐIJ. CO'/\.E I.ARRVD. t.WmN -........ JOHNJ.~ t.IICHÆl~.8t.I1ti NØleNF.PERRIN fREDERlCKW.NE£I'.H' LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (952) e35-3800 FAA (952) 896-3333 WUlNr.40.'THOfWf1'ON DOUCIIL.ASM. rw.LER LYNrIM.STARKCVICH ...................... ...."OEWR SÆPHEN J. KAMlNIKI THOtoIMF"AI..EXN.ÐER DAHlEL T. kADL£C ÞDNI. a. tLHTA· .w.EI M. aJUQ. IWllIELJ. MWH1INE ÆmOEY~ ....... IEANO"I<EU..Y JOIEPH J. FlTTAN'IE, JR. ~J.OfIPOLD" .IONA.THAHJ.~ C'I'N'IH1AM.1CI.AUII IrMRKD"CHRII1'OPHER9OH lEAL J.1UNCtETT TMMAAO'NEUMORELA/Cl JAMESA. MOI3AEEV'f, II TttCIMA.8A.OUMP" TODD A. TAYLOR otRI8TOPI£R J. DEIKE _"EO< -..." IN>( """""""""'" .......o.lITIEA _0._ QoIRI....HEfFElJICM/ER "'........ ./MEa P. tNVON" JACKF.DALY D. IŒHNETH UNOGAEH " ALSOAOMITTEOINWIICONSIN .. ONLYADMT1mINONA March 5, 2002 URGENT Ms. Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Via Facsimile (952) 227-1110 & U. S. Mail Re: Villages on the Ponds Dear Ms. Aanenson: Please make this letter a part of the Planning Commission record. We represent Ausmar Development Company, LLC ("Ausmar"), which was the initial developer of the Villages on the Ponds development in Chanhassen, and which continues to own the developable property within Villages on the Ponds. As you may be aware, the VOP I, LLC and Ausmar entered into an option agreement by which VOP I would have the option to acquire most (but not all) of the remaining developable property within Villages on the Ponds. It is my understanding that this evening's Planning Commission agenda includes a proposal to add 33,500 square feet of institutional development capacity to the St. Hubert's property. Adding that capacity to the St. Hubert's site will diminish the remaining available capacity for the balance of the project. While it may be represented that the adverse impact on development capacity to the balance of the project is minimal, it may ultimately have a greater impact than currently contemplated. The exact ultimate effect is simply unknown at this time. This may adversely affect the property that Ausmar has retained that is not subject to the VOP I option agreement. This may also adversely affect Ausmar if VOP I does not exercise its option rights (and there are certainly no assurances that VOP I will exercise such option rights). RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2002 CITY OF CHANHASSEN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. · Ms. Kate Aanenson March 5, 2002 Page 2 · Having described the possible negative impact on Ausmar, Ausmar is nonetheless I!enerallv in favor of the St. Hubert's proposal. However. Ausmar would like assurances that the final approval will be conditioned upon (i) amending the existing POO to effectuate this change and (ii) expressly requiring Ausmar's signature on the POO amendment for it to be effective. In other words, Ausmar would like to see this happen; however, Ausmar, understandably, wants assurances that it will remain in the loop and involved in the process so that it can better analyze the possible impact. · In summary, Ausmar supports the St. Hubert's proposal, Drovided that the Planning Commission's approval includes an express condition that the change be implemented pursuant to an amendment to the · existing POO agreement, which amendment must be approved and signed by Ausmar. Without that express condition, Ausmar opposes the proposal because Ausmar has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to analyze the potential adverse impact concerning parking and capacity. Thank you for your attention to this. , Sincerely, LY~;i~ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. bkh · cc: Roger Knutson, Esq. (via facsimile 651-452-5550) · 74993?.I · · · · · · · Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building pennits will be issued. 11. Payment of full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication or construction. 12. Payment of full trail fees in lieu of construction of any section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. 13. Provide for a sidewalk connection from Hidden Creek Estates to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authorityfl'hree Rivers Park District Light Rail Transit route multi-use trail, including procurement/transfer of all applicable easements and pennits." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. Blackowiak: This item does go before City Council, as 1 said, on April 8th. Thank you everyone who came and spoke this evening. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PUD TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING AREA AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 41.522 SO. Fr. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON 9.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED PUD. LOCATED ON LOT 1. BLOCK 2. VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. 8201 MAIN STREET. OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CORP. ST. HUBERT'S CATHOLIC COMMUNITY. Public Present: Name Address Ron Slominski Dave Bangasser Randy Kling Jeff Walker Frank Sherwood 2280 Hunter Drive 8321 View Lane 8481 Cortland 4088 West 135th, Savage 18393 Tristram Way Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions? Slagle: Madam Chair. Bob, I'm trying to understand the whole numbers thing, as you might expect that was going to come from me. Conceptually with the church's request, I'm fine with that. I get these letters, or copies of these letters from a law firm asking for some, one might say additional say in what happens. And then I get a copy of a letter from Lotus claiming that the numbers are different. If you're 50 4 · Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 · tracking with me. I'mjust trying to paraphrase what I'm seeing here and help me out. I mean where are we on this? · '. Generous: Well Madam Chair. As a part of St. Hubert's submittal, they requested that the, an institutional square footages go up 135,000. Their site plan is less than that and as, or Lotus doesn't want to allocate that additional square footages if they don't have to. AUSMAR as the underlying owner wants to have the final authority to sign off on that. However, they do have that because any amendment to the PUD would be, first have to be approved by the City, and then secondly it would have to be executed by the property owners before we could record it and before it takes effect. So in essence they have thatauthority. If they decide not to sign it, then the expansion can only be up to 127,000 square feet. 4 · Slagle: Okay. So, in essence AUSMAR is certainly within their right to raise concems and request something. · Generous: Yes. · Slagle: Lotus, for whatever reason, don't know if it's great, good or indifferent, is requesting some limitation. My question to staff would be, we seem to have worked with Lotus on this development over the last, at least my tenure. is that safe to say that we've been working with them to sort of change and modify and what not? · Aanenson: Yes. · Slagle: Okay. Okay, thanks. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? · · Sidney: One question I guess, and I'll probably think of some more. The way I understand the basic concept...1 guess one concern I have is that, and I understand is we're reducing in essence the number of the square footage of commercial that will be available. How much are we actually losing in this process? Is it 1,5, 10 percent of commercial that we're. · Generous: Percentage? Well it's 1.900 square feet out of 174 so 1,900 square feet out of 174,000. Blackowiak: Like 1 Y, percent. · Sidney: Okay, so that is not a significant amount. · Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? · Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Mine dove tails off of Commissioner Sidney's. Conceptually I think it's a good plan and I support the church, all that, but I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want to keep the tax revenue we can get from the commercial site, and when I saw that we would be losing 10,000 square feet I kind of though oooh, let's figure out a way to do both. But now I'm hearing you say it's 1,900 really because. · Generous: That's the net number. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Kind: That's the net number because we would, the PUD agreement allows for 27,000 to be reallocated? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So that gives me a new way to think about it I guess. Because it's really only 1,900. Generous: And 6. Kind: And 6. I guess we're being precise aren't we. So that was my initial concern so that helps me. Thank you. Blackowiak: Any questions VIi? Sacchet: Yes I do. And just to expand on this topic we're on. I didn't catch it actually until it was brought to my attention. We're saying that the remainder of the development will proceed as originally planned. At first when I read this I was great, so it has no impact. Therefore it's no issue. But then I started wondering. I mean the remainder of the development hasn't necessarily been planned out. Aanenson: Let's talk about that for a second. When Lotus approached the city we spent a lot of time to go through these sectors and look at what's been allocated. Where they are on the plan because obviously we know that it's very important, and as Commissioner Kind has indicated, that one of the implications ofthe decision. Certainly there's a lot of synergy that's derived from the traffic flow that the church and the school, that's good. That's kind of the community base that we anticipated with this development but to go back and say what was our original intent and what are the implications of those decisions. And we went back and went through the entire PUD project. What's outstanding? What do we know that's still in the works or in the development and say are we still got ourselves in the position to make all those things happen and we're comfortable with that recommendation that we're still on track with the other buildings that are you know going to come forward. Sacchet: So we're not really limiting? We don't think this is going to become a limiting factor moving forward there? Generous: This can exceed that total but if they do, they'd have to go back and review the EA W. Sacchet: They have to come back... Generous: Because they'd exceed the overall threshold. Sacchet: Yeah, considering it's 1,900 square feet, that's really more digestible. Now there is a letter attached in the package that says that the church may possibly only go with 9 instead of 18 additional classrooms. Do we know where they're at with that at this point? Generous: You'd have to. Sacchet: Ask the applicant? Okay. And if they would want to go 9, we don't know where they would cut the building? That's an applicant question too? Alright. Then there's a little bit offill happening on the southeast corner. And do we have any idea whether or to what extent that affects the trees below there towards the trail? Actually the answer is no. I already talked to Jill. A rhetoric question just to be on the record. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 · B1ackowiak: Okay then let's not, that's a comment thing. Sacchet: Yeah, it's a comment. Alright. One thing that's a math question. I looked at this plan and it looked like the sewer stub was under the new fellowship hall. And that kind of just got, oh. · Saam: Oh, at the south end of the building? Sacchet: Yeah, at the north end. Where they're making the fellowship. It kind of startled me because there was a wording on it. Saam: Right here? Sacchet: No. no. On the fellowship hall. On the middle of the fellowship hall. It seems like, there is, it's on one of the blueprints that we got a copy of. And Ijust wondered whetherthat's a concern or not. I'd be happy to hear it's not a concern. Saam: This roof drain? Sacchet: No, it's not a roof drain. ;~ David Bangasser: Just a planned extension from the existing building... Aanenson: Did you hear that? It's a planned extension of that sewer line. · Sacchet: Yeah, I'd be happy to leave the details with you guys. It·s just something that kind of startled me. · Saam: Yeah, I don't see it as an issue. · Sacchet: Okay, thanks. In terms of, since they're losing 5 parking spaces, are they still meeting parking requirements? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And since they're increasing buildings. are they still within the impervious framework? · Generous: Yes. Sacchet: They're showing a retaining wall on the southeast corner. It says 42 inch so that would not need engineering, correct? Generous: Correct. · Sacchet: Just under that. Oh, this is kind of a silly question. Forgive me. What's a sand pipe connection? · Saam: I'm not too in tune with that but it's something with, this is a fire. It was Greg Hayes' conditions. · 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Aanenson: It's stand pipe, isn't it? Sacchet Oh stand pipe. Stand pipe. Saam: That's where the water goes through the building so they can connect to it I think with hoses inside the building. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I believe that's all my questions for right now, thank you. Blackowiak: I only have one question. Trip generation. We're okay with any changes in. Saam: I would assume so. This is planned, right Bob? Generous: We're still under the thresholds that were established with the last... Blackowiak: Okay. So institutional is less than retail? Generous: Yes, less in generation. Also as far as the use goes, the school doesn't use hardly any of their parking spaces. You know if you ever go down there, you can see most of the parking lot is empty. It's mostly the church use that needs the common space that will be provided with Presbyterian Homes and a future development to the north. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Feik: May I ask a question? Blackowiak: Sure. Feik: Dove tailing back to that. I agree the school itself doesn't need a lot of parking but if they cut back the number of classrooms, ând they utilize those rooms in a different fashion, what would be the impact on parking at that point? Have you looked at that at all? Parking's not... Aanenson: Are you talking about a change in use of the building? Feik: Well yeah. Aanenson: Then we'd have to go back and examine that. Right now it's being permitted just as what it is. As a school. Yep, they'd have to come back and we'd have to re-examine that. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm representing the St. Hubert's Building Committee. And we, I think you've had a long enough evening that we don't need to keep you with a presentation. I think the staff report and Bob's presentation probably is adequate but we do have other members of our building committee here. Frank Sherwood and Ron Slominski, as well as two representatives from Opus. Our Project Manager, Jeff Walker and our design architect Randy Kling, so we are here to answer any questions that you might have. I did just have a couple of very quick comments. One, your question on the number of classrooms. We do intend to build the 18 classrooms. At one point a couple months back 54 · · · , · · .. · · · · · · · · , Planning Comnússion Meeting - March 5, 2002 we were looking at the possibility of taking the middle school and doing something on a more regional basis. A decision has been made that."okay with AUSMAR's request to limit the PUD amendment to what we're actually building. Just go around. We were rounding it up a little bit just to give us a little bit of cushion and so we don't have a problem with that. We are in agreement with the staff's report and the staff conditions. Particularly the part recommending approval. Blackowiak: A little levity is good at this time of the evening. Dave Bangasser: I was also happy to see that the silt fence is going to be removed. I don't know if that was going to be a concern here. Sacchet: Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Seriously, I do only have one condition that I would like to ask the comnússion to consider waiving and that is, I think it's item number 12 relative to the 3 to I slope. I think that is in that area on the southeast corner of the property that you were referring to that some grading is taking place because of the sanitary sewer. We are extending that south. We always master planned this site for pretty much all of this development. Although there is a little bit more development and we are going a little bit further south than we had planned 5-6 years ago. As a result of that we need to relocate that sanitary sewer line and that's the reason for the grading on that slope. When we did bring our original development plans before the Planning Comnússion and City Council, we discussed 3 to 1 versus 2 to 1, and that slope was approved as a 2 to 1 slope. In fact that slope all the way along our south property line near the ballfield is all constructed at 2 to 1. And so we would like to request that we be allowed to rebuild that space once we disturb it for the sanitary sewer, that we be allowed to rebuild it in the present condition of2 to 1. We think that it's a very safe condition. We don't intend to mow it. 'That area was left to go natural. It's not something that gets a lot of drainage. In fact with our building addition there, with interior roof drains we really aren't going to have any storm water to speak of. It's running over that slope so, we would like to ask your consideration in allowing us to do the 2 to 1 slope. If we went 3 to 1, we'd have 1 of2 things. One, either we'd extend that slope further south which would eliminate some trees, which nobody wants to do. Or we'd have to add an expensive retaining wall which we really don't want to do. So again, it was something that was considered in our original site plan submittal and was approved at 2 to I and we'd like your consideration on that. Sidney: I guess one comment about that. It's included isn't it in this".that we have 3 to 1 max. Dave Bangasser: That's the condition that's on here now. What I'm asking for is. Sidney: 2 to I is okay? Dave Bangasser: No. Blackowiak: 2 to 1 is steeper. Sidney: Oh. Sacchet: Was that part of, do you recall? Generous: Yes, as part of the original development they did permit a 2 to 1 slope. We did have them put fencing at the top of it. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Dave Bangasser: We actually didn't put the fencing there immediately. We put it there afterwards because that area that was nice and flat for this building addition turned out to be a real nice playground area so the balls were going, were rolling down there and so we did come back and put a fence at the top to prevent that. Our building addition is going to remove that playground area and kind of shift that over, but that is something that we could do as well if need be. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, can you clarify or I guess I'm, I missed there. So will there be a fence? Right, will there be a fence there? You're saying that you're going to move some of the playground area. Will fence be put back there if you're at 2 to 1 still? Dave Bangasser: Our plan would not have put a fence there and the reason is because the playground will no longer be there and there's really no activity that will be at that end of the building. You know the building's going to come up pretty much to the top of the slope and there's not a lot ofarea there for kids to play in and so forth. So we hadn't contemplated reconstructing that fence. It certainly is something that we'd consider rather than the expensive retaining wall, if that was something we felt was important. Blackowiak: Okay. I don't know that it is but, if there's no playground, but there still may be kids. Sacchet: Are we on questions yet? Blackowiak: Pardon? Sacchet: I have a question. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: If you would do that 2 to I. would you then not need that retaining wall that's currently on the blueprint? Dave Bangasser: Correct. Sacchel: .. .at least on the landscaping version of it, you have that retaining wall in that corner showing. Dave Bangasser: Oh, I think we were referring to the grading plan. I think. Sacchet: Yeah, on the grading plan it's not on it. That's why I wanted to ask you about is it on or not? Dave Bangasser: Right. We had actually only intended, and I'm not sure if that was a miscommunication with our landscape architect that we talked about some retaining walls at that kind of outdoor classroom area and I don't know exactly what happened with the retaining wall being shown on the landscaping plan. But the grading plan is what we had intended, which is not to install a retaining wall in that area. It was basically to rebuild it in the present form. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant? 56 · · · · · · · · · · · .. · · · · Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet I have a few more. Blackowiak: Do you? Okay. Sacchet Yeah I do. In tenns of the building has these square accent bricks, or blocks between the two stories. I don't think the plan shows them to be on the south side. I think would they be carried around? And the same with the little sprinkle on top by the roof line, it has that accent stuff. Dave Bangasser: On the classroom addition? Sacchet: Yes. On the south side. Dave Bangasser: The intention would be to match what's on the existing... Sacchet: To carry it all around, okay. Just want to be real clear about that. And so your intent is to not impact the trees on that southeast corner? Dave Bangasser: That's correct. Sacchet: I believe that's all my questions for you, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Would anybody else from your group like to make a presentation? No? Okay. I will open this item up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak on this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please. Sacchet: Want me to start? Blackowiak: Go ahead. Sacchet: Alright. I'm glad to hear that we're not limiting what we don't know yet what it's going to be. That was a definite concern that threw me a little bit. I would like to ensure that we don't impact those trees on that southeast corner because that's relatively sensitive, because it's on the bottom of that really steep slope and it's buffering that trail. I think there are some significant trees down there. Not right at the slope but depending what happens, they could be get impacted. I would like to ask that these accent things get carried consistently all around the building. Because currently the south end does not have those accents and on the drawings, they're not necessarily there and I'm talking about the square blocks between the first and second story, as well as these sprinkle things on top by the roof. Is that clear? Kind: Sprinkle things? Sacchet: Sprinkle things. Yeah, you know like these couple of bricks that are lighter, okay. Sprinkle things. Let's see what else I have. Generally I think it's a good thing. I don't have a problem allowing them the 2 to 1 slope because apparently that's something that was approved previously and plus in addition we have a good reason because it's not going to impact the trees as much so I think it makes good sense to allow them that. And maybe then we would want to ask for no retaining wall. I don't know if we want to go that far and be specific about that. I would like to be consistently asking for the silt fence to be removed. One place it is, one place it isn't. Condition 22 needs an edit. It's an additional overstory, not an addition overstory tree. And I would like to put conditions in for these accents to go in 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 and to have them work with staff to minimize the impact on those trees below on the southeast comer. That's where I'm at. That's my comment. B1ackowiak: Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Kind: Madam Chair, I can go. I tlúnk this is a great plan. I think it's really exciting that the school's so successful that you need to add on. It's certainly a nice part of our community, and I know people who have been on that waiting list for a long time who will appreciate having more classroom space, so I think that's good. Initially I was concerned at the loss of tax revenue generating retail space when I thought it was 10,000 square feet. That was a big concern to me but now when I realize that it's more than 700. Or 700. 7,000 would have been allowed and it's more like 1,900, that's much more in keeping with what I could accept. Initially I was going to try and figure out a way to give both but I think the 1,900 is okay. So yeah. the site plan looks good. I really like, especially the appearance on the north side. Hiding the big box of the gym. Kind of softening that a bit. I think that's a nice improvement. I would like to see a fence at the top ofthat slope, even though the playground is going away. There's still lots of kids that just are going to be around because it's a school and there's going to be messing around going on so I think it probably is a good idea to put a fence at the top. but I'm okay with the 2 to I slope. That's all. Looks good. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments? Feik: I like the plan. I agree with Deb. I would like to see a fence at the top of the hill as well. I'm not too particular about the kind of fence. Personally I don't think it needs to be a chainlink or anything but I think something to keep the kids from pushing each other down the hill. Having small kids, it happens. Other than that, the project looks nice. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: I feel comfortable with the plan. The reallocation. I think this is going to cause minimal impact... I guess I would, that's what I was leading up to, tax base loss...but I think the enhancements to the St. Hubert's will be really, really great and will help that whole complex of buildings. I guess I'm fine with the 2 to I slope. I think it might... Blackowiak: It's late. You can't expect to do geometry at this hour. Sidney: So, and I guess the fence sounds like a very good idea because.. .small children. Other than that, the site plan looks really fabulous. It will only enhance that place. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, anything? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: That's fine. Slagle: I was going to throw out, you know as an attendee at Westwood, I was trying to think of something funny and in the spirit but I'll just leave it. Blackowiak: Okay. Probably a wise idea. And I really don't have much more to add. I think it looks like a good plan, and I too had a concern about allocation of retail to institutional but I guess I'm much 58 Planning Conunission Meeting - March 5, 2002 · more comfortable now after hearing the revised figures so that makes me feel a little bit better. With that I'll need two motions please. · , Sacchet Madam Chair. I move that the Planning Conunission recommends site approve, approval of site plan #96-11. File 2, plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers. Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject to the following conditions I through 23. Kind: Madam Chair, can I interrupt? Should we be doing the different motion first? , Blackowiak: I don't know that order makes a difference. · Sacchet: Oh Ijumped one. Blackowiak: That's okay. Why don't you just continue on and then Deb, we'll let you do the other one. · Sacchet: Oh I'm sorry... · Kind: We probably should because we can't. Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you do the other one. · · Kind: Okay. Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Conunission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development standards for Villages on the Ponds, amending Section D as follows. with Bob's new numbers. Specifically the Sector I, CommerciallRetail. Should be 104,764 and that Sector III should be, Institutional should be 133,574 and then new totals, which I don't know what they are. · Blackowiak: There's been a motion. I think the numbers are different. I think it's actually 105 on that first number. I re-added. Can you just double check? · Generous: 104.760. Or 764. Because it's 414 square feet is added back in.. Blackowiak: Okay, so why the difference between, if you're taking off 14. · Kind: Because we would have allowed 27,000 to be reallocated which is about 7,000. · Generous: 7320 I believe. Blackowiak: Okay you know what, I'mjust not going to quibble tonight. Let's just. o Kind: Bob's new numbers. o Slagle: Where's Vemelle when you need her. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second please? · Feik: I'll second. '0 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds, amending section (d) as follows: 1. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The following table shall govem the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial! Office/Service Institutional Dwelline TOTAL Retail (SQ ft) !m..ID !m..ID Units Square Feet Sector I 104,764 83,500 0 160 188.264 Sector IT 60,000 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector ill 0 0 133,574 0 133,574 Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0 TOTAL 164,764 97,500 133,574 322 395,838 Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director. with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses: 1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. I Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. In no instance shall additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the POD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. Blackowiak: Vii, why don't you jump right in. Sacchet: Alright, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-11, File 2, plans prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject to the following conditions. It surely goes faster when you say it the second time. And that's conditions I through 23 with the following fixes. 1 I. The silt fence will be removed after completion, as well as put there. Number 12. The slope will be a maximum of2 to 1 with a fence on the top. I guess that's specific enough. Number 22. An additional overstory tree. Number 24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all around. Is that clear enough? All around the additions. Feik: The school addition. 60 ,. Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 · · Sacchet: The school addition. Well it's actually on the north side too. All around. I think that's clear and that's the intent is certainly clear. And then 25. Applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on trees below the southeast comer. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? · Slagle: Second. · Kind: Madam Chair, I have one friendly amendment. Blackowiak: I'm trying to zip through that but I just. · · Kind: I know you are. This is something that was in the staff report that I thought should be a condition and that is, the applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading is necessary. Sacchet: 26. Okay. · Blackowiak: Okay, so that's accepted then? Sacchet: Yep. .. Blackowiak: Been a motion and a second. .. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approvaf of Site Plan #96-11, File 2, plans prepared hy Opus Architects and Engineers, Incorporated dated 1130/02 subject to the folIowing conditions: .. 1. A 20 foot wide utility easement over the proposed sewer line and watennain shall be prepared and submitted to the City prior to beginning construction. .. 2. The applicant will also be required to provide the necessary financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee instalIation of the public utilities. .. 3. Provide the City with a copy of the MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit and Department of Health watermain permit. .. 4. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002,2101,2109,2202,2203.5300. .. 5. Show all existing utilities. 6. Show the proposed sewer pipe type, class, slope, invert and rim elevations. .. 7. Silt fence Type ill must be used and removed when construction is completed. .. 8. Revise the north sign arrow to point in the correct direction. 9. Vacate existing utility easements. · 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 10. Add a benchmark to the plans. 11. Type III silt fence must be used and extended around the excavated area to prevent any ßÚgration of the excavated material and an erosion control blanket should be installed within two weeks of completion of the sloped area. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction. 12. Slope should be 2:1 maximum with a fence on top of the slope. 13. Design calculations will need to be subßÚtted for the additional site drainage. 14. ElißÚnate proposed manhole No. 101 and connect to existing manhole No.6 as shown on the City's as-builts. 15. 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. 16. The overhead doors shall be sißÚlar in color to the surrounding brick. 17. The standpipe connections in the existing school portion of the building must be extended into the new school addition. The standpipes were an accepted alternate means of protection in lieu of providing access roads around the building. 18. The additions are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 19. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 20. The proposed Fellowship Hall must be a ßÚnimum of Type II-I HR construction and must be separated from existing Buildings A & B by area separation walls. 21. The roof/canopy at the drop off area on the north side of the building must be constructed of non- combustible materials. 22. An additional overstory tree shall be added to the northerly landscape boulevard island. 23. The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all transplanted material for one year past the date of installation final acceptance of site landscaping. 24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all around. 25. Applicant will work with staff to minimize fIll impact on trees below the southeast corner. 26. The applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading is necessary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. 62 .. .... vlotmd .. ~/ .- .. April 3, 2002 .. TO: .. FROM: . RE: .. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director ~ , VOP I, LLC Request ÍÌ'om St. Huberts for Site Plan Approval of Certain Modifications to their Improvements and Amendment to the Villages on the Ponds POOlDevelopment Agreement .. We would appreciate your including this letter in your packet regarding the above-referenced requests. As you may know, VOP I has an option to purchase all but one of the remaining undeveloped parcels within the Villages on the Ponds project. As such optionee, we have the right to approve any changes in the POOlDevelopment Agreement. · · From the information we currently have, we believe that we are in general support of St. Huberts requests; however there remain some outstanding issues to be resolved between St. Huberts, Ausmar and VOP 1. We understand that any City approvals ofSt. Huberts' requests will be conditioned upon an amendment to the POOlDevelopment Contract and will not be effective uuIess and until any amendment to the POO is executed by both Ausmar and VOP I. · . Further, as to the Site Plan proposed, VOP I understands that, as was required under the POOlDevelopment Agreement, an architectural review committee has been established for the purpose of reviewing and approving all development and building plans, but that although this approval is usually sought prior to submission of plans for approval by the City, no plans have been presented to the Villages on the Ponds Landscape and Architectural Review Committee. Thus, VOP l's approval will in all likelihood not be forthcoming until the Architectural Review Committee has approved the landscaping and building modifications. · J ... .... ... ~~.~ £r.'oVARO J. ORSCOU. JOHND.F1JI.I.JÆR FfWrIKI.Ho\R\£V CtWU..ESs. MOOeU. CHRISTOPHERJ.DIETZEN LlNC,'tI.FlSI£R 'TtiOAWIP.STCI..TW.N M:CHA.ELC...IACIOoWII JOHNE.DIEHL .10ft S. SWERZEW8IQ "11-IOf.WaJ.FLYMI ./AIIESP.QUINN '1ODDtFftE£tMN GERALDL SEa( JOHN8.1JJtrÐQUISf ÐA.VlENOI..AN· JOHNA.COnER'" .pAUl 8. f'lUNŒ1T KATHLEEN M. PlOOTTE NEWMAN GMEGORYE..:oR$TAD GARY A. VAN ClEVE" 1'IIAOTtiVJ.KENE ....CHl\ELW.SCH...Ey TEfiRENCE E. BISHOP -~- OiRISTOPIiERJ.HARRlSTtW.. -KENDElJ.Ot1LROGGE 9RUŒJ. DOLGLAS WIL.1.IAMC.GRJA=n'H..IR. JOHN It NU. ÆT£RJ. CO'IU 1.ARRYD.MARTIN JANE E. SRElÆR XlHNJ.STEFfENHAGEH Mrcw.nJ. SMTH ANDÆWF.PERRIH FREDERICK W. NIESUKR; LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ... 1500 WELLS FARGO PlAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (952) e35-3800 FAJ< (952) e96-3333 .. .. '. RECEIVED APR 0 1 2002 GITY OF CHANHASSEN .. March 29, 2002 .. Ms. Kate Aanenson City ofChanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 WILUAM O. THORNTON COUOLAS M. RAM..ER LYNNM. STARI<lMCH KENtETH COREY.EOS'mOM ANN M. MEYER STEPl-tENJ.I(.O.MNSKI T1-IOt.U.8 F. ALEXANDER DAHlEL T.KADLéC AaUl8. HUHTA" JAMESM.8UIIAG" DANIEL J. BAWNTINE JEFFAEYD.~ SEAND.KEU.Y .IOSEPHJ.FmANTE,JR 1J.tOMUJ.0f'P0L0- JONA.THAHJ.FOOEl. CYNTHI" M. KLAU8 t.WU( D. aiRlSTOPHER8ON NEALJ.BI.ANCHETT TNMRA,O'NEIU.IoIOREL.NÐ JAMES A. MCGREEVY, .1 THOMMi A. GUMP . TOOOA.TA'I'l.OR OfRISTOPHER J. DEIKE GENEVlEVEA.BECI( w.ALA M. ZAQ( DIONNEM.8EH1ION JEREMY C. snER JOANI C. MOBERG a-tRlS M. HEFFEUIOWER OF COUNSEl JAMES P. I..ARKIN " JACKF.DALV D. KENNETH I.INOOR£N . AlSOADMITTEDINW!SCONSIN .. ONLYADMlTTEOINIONA Via Facsimile (952) 227-1110 &U.S.Mail .. .:. Re: Villages on the Ponds-St. Hubert's Proposal · Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is further to my March 5, 2002 letter to you. Please make this letter a part of the City Council record, along with our March 5, 2002 letter, a copy of which is enclosed. As stated in the March 5, 2002 letter, we represent Ausmar Development Company, LLC (UAusmar"). Although Ausmar generally supports St. Hubert's proposal to add 33,500 square feet of institutional development capacity to the St. Hubert's property, Ausmar continues to have some reservations regarding that proposal, pending further analysis by Ausmar and consultation with St. Hubert's and VOP I, LLC. Ausmar remains optimistic that the issues will be favorably worked-out among St. Hubert's, VOP I and Ausmar. , · · Therefore, Ausmar supports City Council approval of St. Hubert's proposal, provided that the City Council approval requires an amendment to the existing POO Agreement to effectuate the change and provided that the amendment to the POO Agreement requires Ausmar's signature to be effective. It is our understanding that this is, in fact, the proposal. · In summary, Ausmar opposes any such proposal that is not implemented pursuant to an amendment to the existing POO Agreement that requires execution by Ausmar. Ausmar supports City Council approval of St_ Hubert's proposal, provided that it is implemented pursuant to an amendment to the existing POO Agreement that requires Ausmar's signature to be effective. · , LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Ms. Kate Aanenson March 29, 2002 Page 2 . Thank you again for your attention to this. Sincerely, ~~£:?~ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Enclosure cc: Roger Knutson, Esq. (via facsimile 651-452-5550) William Milota, Esq. (via facsimile 612-928-0023) Vernelle Clayton (via facsimile 952-934-5472) John Ward, Esq. 755645.1 · .. · .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. · ., ..,. ROeERrL ~ Œ-.H.","","- UwiARDJ. DRISCOLL ~O.F'UU.IIER -,"""'" owuss._ -""""" '-H.""'" TttC*QP..$'ICLTWIM ,-,-,0._ .....a..... JONs.... '1HCIfMS.LR...... JMÐP.-=-- .,,,"',,- ...... L "'" .....a UNXUSf þ.'VLEMC:I.IIIN~ .IOHNA,CDT1'ER'" _a I'UNœ>T KATK.EEN M. PKXnTE NSMIM ~~E.:cmAD GM'fA.VMQ.J:iÆ· 'taOIHY ~.IENE YC:HMLW.SOI.E'/' """"",a"""", """'~- 0.........._ MaCIEL.r.~ MJœ.r.DOUGLAS WIJ.JoWc.GAfRnt"JR. .....a... f'E1ER.J.a:rru;; 1NfRtD.~ oWEe._ ....."- MaMEl.l.$WRt N«IAEWF.PB'IRIN FREŒRlCKW.NIEI!I.H'I. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW wu..&oWO. THONfTOH """"""~ -... LYN4M.STAFItGI:MOI >ŒMEn<a>oEY"""""," -~- ........"- 'THI:JIMS F. ALEXNŒR DMIEL T. KADU:C .-o.MI8.I'UftA· JMESM. auuo· .......u.u....... .lEFRlEYO.~ tEÞNo.lCEU..Y JOSEPH... FlTTNfTE, JR. "lHCllMSJ.O"POtD- ,I(INI,~J.FOOEL. ........ ~..... _D.""""""",, _a_En T~O'tEU.MCJAEL»I) .w.ES A.. WCGAEEVY. II niOMMA.OI.M"* 1'0004 TAYLCR CHRtSTOf'HERJ.OEDæ _~IIEO< ..... ~ "'" """""'~"""'" soeno...... _0."""'" oøs~""""""" 1500 WELlS FARGO PLAZA 7000 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMrNGTON, MINNESOTA 55431·1194 TElEPHONE (952) 835-3800 FAX (952) 896-<3333 ,,"""""- ..IMESP.I..MtQN· IN;KF.MLY D.KENNE'n11.1NDGREN . AlSO ADUT1EO INWISCONSIN - ON.. Y AOMTTED IN ION" March 5, 2002 URGENT Ms. Kate Aanenson City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Via Facsimile (952) 227-1110 & u. S. Mail Re: Villages on the Ponds Dear Ms. Aanenson: Please make this letter a part of the Planning Commission record. We represent Ausmar Development Company, LLC ("Ausmar"), which was the initial developer of the Villages on the Ponds development in Chanhassen, and which continues to own the developable property within Villages on the Ponds. As you may be aware, the VOP I, LLC and Ausmar entered into an option agreement by which VOP I would have the option to acquire most (but not all) of the remaining developable property within Villages on the Ponds. It is my understanding that this evening's Planning Commission agenda includes a proposal to add 33,500 square feet of institutional development capacity to the St. Hubert's property. Adding that capacity to the St. Hubert's site will diminish the remaining available capacity for the balance of the project Wbile it may be represented that the adverse impact on development capacity to the balance of the project is minimal, it may ultimately have a greater impact than currently contemplated. The exact ultimate effect is simply unknown at this time. This may adversely affect the property that Ausmar has retained that is not subject to the VOP I option agreement. This may also adversely affect Ausmar if VOP I does not exercise its option rights (and there are certainly no assurances that VOP I will exercise such option rights). · LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Lm. Ms. Kate Aanenson March 5, 2002 Page 2 ~ Having descn'bed the possible negative impact on Ausmar, Ausmar is nonetheless generallv in favor of the Sl Hubert's proposal. However. Ausmar would like assurances that the final approval will be conditioned upon (i) amending the existing PUD to effectuatc this change and (ii) expressly requiring A~;s signature on the POO amendment for it to be effective. In other words, Ausmar would like to see this happen; however, Ausmar, understandably, wants assurances that it will remain in the loop and involved in the process so that it can better analyze the possible impact. In summary, Ausmar supports the St. Hubert's proposal, provided that the Planning Commission's approval includes an express condition that the change be implemented pursuant to an amendment to the cxisting POO agreement, which amendment must be approved and signed by Ausmar. Without that express condition, Ausmar opposes the proposal because Ausmar has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to analyze the potential adverse impact concerning parking and capacity. Thank you for your attention to this. Sincerely, L2z~~ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. bkh cc: Roger Knutson, Esq. (via facsimile 651-452-5550) 749935.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. THIRD AMENDMENT TO VILLAGES ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTœUD AGREEMENT .. .. .. AGREEMENT dated April 8, 2002, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a .. Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (the "Developer"). · 1. BACKGROUND. The City of Chanhassen has previously entered into a · Development ContractIPoo Agreement for Villages on the Ponds dated September 23, 1996. The Development Contract/POO Agreement was recorded at 3:30 p.m. on December 31, 1996 as · Carver County Abstract Document No. 205417. The Development Contract/POO Agreement · was amended by Addendum "A" dated September 22,1997. Addendum A was recorded on June 11, 1999 at 10:30 a.m. as Carver County Abstract Document No. 251282. The Development ContractIPoo Agreement was amended by Addendum "B" dated May 11, 1998. Addendum B was recorded on August 13, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. as Carver County Abstract Document No. 233012. The Development Contract/POO Agreement was amended by Addendum "C" dated June 14, 1999. Addendum C was recorded on August 11, 1999 as Carver County Abstract Document No. 255115. The Development Contract/POO Agreement was amended by Addendum "D" dated I · June 14, 1999. Addendum D was recorded on October 15,1999 at 11:00 a.m. as Carver County Abstract Document No. 258780. The Development ContractIPoo Agreement was amended by the First Amendment to the Development ContractIPoo Agreement dated August 20,2001 permitting a drive though window on Lot I, Block I, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition. The Second Amendment to the Development ContractIPoo Agreement dated November 26,2001 amending the development design standards for the Development ContractIPoo Agreement to designate building height and incorporate a use conversion methodology. The developer is now amending the development design standards for the Development Contract/POO Agreement to transfer additional square footages to the institutional use category. 2, EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, The Development Contract/POO Agreement, Addendums A, B, C and D and the First and Second Amendments shall remain in full force and effect with the modification as listed in the amendment below. 3. AMENDMENT, In addition to the terms and conditions outlined in the Development Contract/POO Agreement, the following shall apply: Exhibit C of the development contract shall be modified as follows: d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Sector I Sector II Sector ill Sector IV TOTAL Commercial! Retail (sa. ft.) 104,764 60,000 o o 164,764 OfficelService (sa. ft.) 83,500 14,000 o º 97,500 Institutional (sq. ft.) o o 133,574 o 133,574 Dwelling Units 160 o o 162 322 TOTAL sq. ft. 188,264 74,000 133,574 o 395,838 Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The 2 - .~ , .- . following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses: r . 1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) units. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. .. 10 .~ In no instance shall additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the POO. .. CITY OF CHANHASSEN -- '" BY: Linda C. Jansen, Mayor (SEAL) .. AND Todd Gerhardt, City Manager , DEVELOPER: AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC .. BY: John H. Ward, Chief Manager , :?- STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2002, by Linda C. Jansen and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 3