6a Villages on the Ponds Dvlpmt, Outlot L
, u
690 COOt-TeR tlFUVE'., r;O: 80X 14'1,! ~C_A$SEN~MINNESOTA 55317
, (612)9$7..1'900. FAX{61Il937~573t- '
','(--,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and CityX=o,uncil
FROM:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE:
October 8~ 1997
SUBJ :
, '
2.2 Ac~ Parcel AdjaCent to St. Hubert's (OUtlot L)
BACKGROUND
St. Hubert's site plan and plat ~ presented tQ the Planning Cqmmissionm August 1'996.
During discussion, Planning C011lPlissio~ mem~sfelt thaUhe2.2 acre'Jcnoll south of St.
Hubert's should be p~ed N() discUssion occ~: ~ to~()n: The 'Park and
Recreation CommissiOn also reviewed the Ptanartd simu.tyfe1t that tlteknoll' $bould be '
preserved, but not at the etpense:of patk c~. ~ng citycouncn :revie-w,thecouneil acted to
approve the site plan and plat, lmt a$ked that St HubMfs .ttel)lpt'tomovethe~.'.' fiddtOthe
north of thecreekoSt. HUbert's reluftt.ed again, ,this time showing the soo.cer f1eldin the poSition
as requested by the'C()ufiCil. No mention WaS made'as to-h<>w.the',2.2 acrepareelwouldbe' .
;" # '
preserved or what form of ~pensation wouldoocur. S~ffW8S'shuplytnsttli<:.~ to \V()fk itout.
During this time frame, St. Hubert'$Ch~h'liadnegotiat<<1...~.apementWitb~ Wards
that would inclu~ tlle 2.2 ~tes.WheJi' it Pecame:knOwn that'Sf. Hube1t'SwOlila.!l9fneec.t1he "
2.2 acres, a decision was: madetoJeave the 2.2 acres in tbeOWJiemhip~_tbe"W.ms, witbthe ~ ,
total amount paid by the cburch rem#ng the tame. The modified\~atiOtlS bad theWar4s
reimbursing the church f<< anymOn1eS tile Witd's may recoive1ttun,. c'teditsor cash.
$90;000 was agreed betw.eentht W~and thechutchasr~I~'.~on. Thisitent
w~ then presented to the,URA where significant d.te~._ ne$A;s final action was
to table the item until it CC?Uld~ further dariftedas to tit'City' council's intent.
RECOMMENDATION
This office would reconunen4 'that ~'city -COUD(:i~either direct the ImAtoP'ifSuethe '
acquisition of the 2.2aores or for:tlHt cityeouucil to .directly a~- i~,acquilitiQn from the
, Hi.stmiQ~~:~- '
G:\rrigr\Sthubetts.doc
.~
'-r~-"
" ~.' -..
,....:!- .,
~&.
. '............
. ;-
.. .
~~. ~O' '"'~ ..t.,. _
,; -
ba,
~-1
........
690 COULTER DRIVE., p.o:80xi47 eetiANHASaeN, MIHSarA 55317
(61.2) 937..1900.fAX(612) 931..6739 '
~
I
I
1
I
I
Since manY ojtMitetns in this refHl1'ltlre fro. "'eitt,~ 1/1.. pJccei
tl#s repOrt in a CI1njlUntiiJ fllMfllt. ,
MEMORANDUM
SU8J:
Mayor and City Council
Don AShwort~ ,City Manager "
OctoberS, 1997
2.2 Acre Parcel Adjacertt to St. Fiubert's{~~()t Lt
CONFIDENTIAL
, ,- ~ - . -,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
BACKGROUND
St. Hubert's site plait and plat werepresentedtQ ~ P~g CQ~oninA~JU.st 1996.
During discussion, Planning Commission members felt that the 2.faca:e boil soutbof St.
Hubert's should be preserved. Nodi$cU8Si()noccurredas~to ~sa~Jon. The Park and
Recreation Commission also reviewed'tbepbmJ~simitarlyfelt that,d'let,m.)lI sh~lJUtbe
preserved,butnot at the ex~e of'parkctedits. During City ~~itev~, 'the c~U ~ to
approve the site plan and plat; but asked that St. Hubet;t*$~ ~move ~ soccerffeld to the
north of the creek. St. Hubert's ~ again, this tittle 'Showing the SOccer, tield,inthe pQsition
as requested by the council. No'meation was made as to how_ ~.2 acre ~l would be
preserved or what fonn of compensation woUld occur. StatiW$$ $itnplyi~ tQwork it 01lt
During this t~ trame, St. Hubert~sChurch had nego~ed apurelmse'agreetn~twiti'theWards
that would inclUde the 2;2itcres.'When if~~'that'St. Hllberti$wuutdnot need the
'. _, _ , _ . . _~ .~" 2 ~ - - ,- - < ., '
2.2 acres, a d~ision Wf$ m.teto leave the 2.2 acresmthe~hiP~tlf~ W~, witb'~
total amountpaidby ~ ch~hremaining ~ saine. Thel1'lOditie4~I,ti()n$b&dthe Wards
reimbursing the church for anymotlies the Watdi maY'teceivt from patk credits or cash.
$90,000 was ~agreed between tbeWards and the,church as ~ble~petl$ation. Tbisitern
was then presertted to theHRA where signincant debateooeurted:c The BRA's final attiOJi was
1 '_ .'
tQ table_ite$uutilcU~~.fitrtJlerc1a.J:i,fi~.~~;iri~,council's in~t. ,"" .
, ' '.i!~";,~,c ~""i'i:~_'-"~' ,~ -'~ - - ~- , ~
. t
" ,
,
f~-J, ,,;.,
,
, ,
> .,
, '.
I'
Mayor_.'" c:....
October': 1."
Page 2
'~>~:.
CURRENTSTAWS
.
Condition No.1 ,of tile staff~rt establishes a condition ofbavlng Lotus Realty ptace,a ,
conservation easement over the 2.2 acres. AlthQilp:this' oft1cehas recommended and perfected,
conservationeasetttents over numerous wet1~ sit4e'slope$; etC..l have never witnessed placing
a co~tiort easement over ptoperty whieh eould~~fOr other purposes a~d ~
especially with J1O;~ation. FalllKltes witJnsslDJa ~.~ea$elDent" as a means to
keep the 2.2 acre parcel opell space includcY. :,., .
, '
. A court would have to see this as an "after the fact" c()11(tition. None oCthe previous
, decisions regardingSt. Hubert's had included this' as aCOBdition of their site plan and plat;,
and
. Nearly one..half aithe 2;2 acre parcel will be needed when Market Boulevard is extend~ to
the south. Platjrtg,a cot1$er'V~tion eaSementovet~' p~,:weutg _\l1'ed1y be seen as a
means to acquire road right-of-way withoutm.akingpa~t for such; aDd '
, "
. . St.liu~~$proved that the property coWd~U$ec;)for sOme otherpl,UpOSe. The
compensation they ~ seeki.,.l~~-$9Q~~i~iap;' ,,;property were
used for its highest and 'beSfuSe. It is my bei!et'that .~:eoUkl ,.' look at this like
the McDonald's law suit, i.e. the indjvidual was i~tiaUy solely seeking her costs for medi~l
care' following droppin&cotIee into bet tap. WhePtlte court found out that her initial .
positi9n was a very reasonable on~ but that'MCDonald~sreiUsed to pay, the court threw the
book at McDotiald'switb a wtioppiQa $142 ~UOn'.\Vard; .net.
, .
, I ~' I
. The property.needed by:Lot118 Rea1f.YtQ,~"ViU"M,tbeP9tuJ$ d()eS.not include
Outlot L: HaVing them plate. CO~I)'_~ ~,propettY, ~ theY do 'not own is .
questionable. To the bestoftt1yknQW~;'$e WatdS'~e'to'Qwn th~2.2 acre parcel
The priiDW party that is likely to. ~.injured being.St lf~''S. a$:. tes1J1tofCondition No.
I of the s~t1 report. . " .
RECOMMENDATION,
This office wOl1ld rec()nun~'1bat the city councll.eithetdit$t the -aRA to Pllf;$ue the
acquisition 6ftbe2~2 acres or 'tbt the ~lty ~ td ~Y;'.J,llh~ its er;qulsiuQt1 ftomthe
HistOric tf'U,St Fund. . .' ,
. ,
\
G:\mgr\sthuberts.doc
.;; ..
\
","',
",-1,
~:,;~\ ~-f. '
"
;;'"i"~
9/11/97 09:27 To:DON ASHWORTH
From:Dave Pokorne
Page 2/4
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Don Ashworth, Verne]] Cla)'ton
DaFe Pokornt?)'. St Huberts Church Building Committee
September 10, 1997
Soccer Field Outlot
Recentl) I became aware that the City was considering requiring the \Vards to place a conserYation
easement aCTOSS Outlot L of the Villages on the Pond as a way to preserve the outlot as a public open
"pace. This outlot is the property that St. Hubert's Church had originally intended to acquire and
deyelop a soccer field on.
During the reyiew process for the original plat and site plan for the Church, the City asked the Church to
reconsider it:'o plan and preserve the area in its natural ellYironment. An agreement was reached at that
time which provided that the Church would modi~y its plans and assm11e additional expenses in order to
construct a field area to the north of Outlot L, with the understanding that the City would proYide future
parkland credits of up to $90,000 for "the taking" of this parcel. Attached is a copy of a letter to the Cit)
outlining these understandings. This agreement was discussed at the time that the final site plan ,,'a:'o
approyed by the City Council and the Church has relied on that understanding as ,,'e'ye proceeded with
our project.
The Church has appreciated the cooperation it has received fi'0111 both the City and Lotus Realty during
the deYe lopment of its ne,v facility and thus, our hope is to avoid a conflict oYer this particular issue.
Con:'oequently, I would suggest that we arrange a meeting in the near nlture to re5Oh-e the o"11ership of
Outlot L and to develop a strategy to implement our previous understanding.
I will be contacting you in the near future to arrange a meeting to resolve this matter. Thank yOU for
your continued cooperation.
City of CHASKA 'One City Hall Plaza Chaska. \['\ ;;318.1962' Phone (612)448-2851' Fax (612)4489300
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
substantive objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to, hearing requirements or any
claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
13. The applicant shall consider realigning the middle driveway access to avoid relocating the existing fire
hydrant on Lake Drive East."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I \
I
!~ 0;~ \ '
I i \
jv- -
LOTUS REALTY/ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH IS REOUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 96.288
SO. FT. CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY ON 8.03 ACRES AND A SOCCER FIELD ON 2.48 ACRES.
THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT WHICH
IS SOUTH OF HWY 5. PROPOSED LOTS 10 AND 11. VILLAGES ON THE POND. ST. HUBERT'S
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. I'll try to be brief. As stated, this is the first development
within the proposed Villages on the Pond development. It is located in the southeast comer of the site and it will
create a.. .or the basis for the rest of the development of the project. The site plan is pretty straight forward. There
are some minor revisions in the conditions of approval that staff would like to see to make the landscaping within the
parking lot area a little better. Including along the north property line and to add additional islands. One of the
questions the Planning Commission had was the impervious surface. This development has 58% impervious surface
for the church/school site and if you add the lower field in, it's down to 45% impervious surface so it's well below
what we approved as a part of the development. The only real issue that we have on this is the location of the soccer
field, which is currently as proposed, they're putting it on the southern part of the site. One of the issues with that is,
it is surrounded by wetlands on three sides and it's a low area. They have, one of the conditions of the Planning
Commission was that they provide the alternatives for the City Council review and look at what the pros and cons of
each issue were. The first.. .original package, the soccer field goes into the wetland area. This is really not an option
for the development because... wetland impacts and require the individual improvements... The second alternative
would leave it in the southern part of the site but shifting over and changing the grading of it. The negatives on that
options were that it removes some significant trees that were being proposed to save as part of their original
proposal. The third option would be to locate it up in the northern part. North of the trail but the southern part of the
site. Development in this area. What that does is, it would require the relocation of the storm water treatment pond
and bring the hill basically down to the trail with a large retaining wall. Staff is requesting that you provide some
direction for us and the applicant on which applicant we should have for that. Staff is recommending approval of the
site plan with the conditions in the staff report. We would recommend that condition number 36 be amended to
state, the applicant is required to use the Roman Pisa retaining wall systems, or equivalent. That would permit the
applicant to find something that was similar in appearance that might be available locally. With that I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, who's Roman Pisa? No, just kidding.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No questions. Good. Would the applicant, would you like to come forward and please give
your name and your address.
David Bangasser: Hi. I'm David Bangasser with the St. Hubert's Building Committee. Also with me this evening is
Father Steve Ulrick, our pastor. We have an hour and a halflong presentation but we'll shorten it up.
Mayor Chmiel: Because we stop at 11 :30.
David Bangasser: As Bob indicated, I'll be brief here. As Bob indicated, the ballfield I think is the.. .issue. We've
seen the recommendation through approval and are in agreement with those recommendations and the big issue was
a big issue for the church as well, was the location of the ballfield. And as we talked about the church and school up
here, the location we proposed is down south of the trail and south of the creek. I think the alternative that we're
43
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
looking at down here, we've got a couple of schemes that I think you folks have in your packet. One is shifted closer
to TH 101, which originally when we presented that scheme as a possibility we weren't as close to it as BRW was in
terms of wetlands. We didn't realize the wetlands wrapped around there in this direction. That not being an option
anymore so we're back to essentially what BRW's shown all along and I think already the tree canopy loss and the
tree replacement... which is where the ballfield on the east. The significant trees that we were hoping to be able to
save, it appears that we couldn't save them. The other location that the church has pursued, partly at staffs request
but also at, we wanted to pursue it as well, was the location of the ballfield up in this area. That scheme has a lot of
advantages for St. Hubert's. We'd love to see it up there. However we're not sure that we can accommodate that.
There's a lot of things that need to be worked out in terms of, as Bob mentioned, the NURP ponding needs to move
and part of the thought with this, if the ballfield was located here and the NURP ponding could take place down in
this area that is currently designated as buffer area and that buffer area is shifted to the other side of the creek. That
seems to work fme but there's some question that it needs to be engineered to see if we get enough capacity down
there. And we may not be able to do that. At this point in time, because we don't know if the ballfield can fit up on
the north of the trail, and until such time as we can figure that out and work something out with the landlords and the
developers, we're not in the position to say that's the way we want to go. On the other hand, it's very important to
St. Hubert's that this building be done about 11 months from now so that the start of the school year can be begun on
a smooth basis. So we really need to keep the process moving. I guess if it was an ideal world what we'd like to ask
is that your approval or some direction to pursue both of these schemes. See if we can work this out, but if we can't
work that out, that we have the ability to proceed with the ballfield south of the trail the way it's been proposed all
along here. I don't know ifthere's any other questions on the ballfield, while I've got that drawing up.
Mayor Chmiel: Does Council have any questions in regard to this?
Councilman Berquist: So we've got a choice oflosing trees or filling in wetlands?
David Bangasser: Well filling in wetlands is probably out so it's losing trees.
Bob Generous: Or preserving that area as a natural area. And moving the field up.
Vemelle Clayton: Losing the NURP pond.
Councilman Berquist: And moving the NURP pond, and it would appear to me, given the preliminary plat, that that
plan would be enormously more expensive.
Councilman Senn: Question for staff. What's the premise of the, I mean is that being initiated by the City as a park
requirement or anything like that? Okay, so it's basically...
David Bangasser: It's just recreation. Whether it's soccer. St. Hubert's has several soccer teams. Potentially you
know some baseball practice and that kind of thing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not recess?
David Bangasser: No. There is a playground right here that is intended to be primarily for recess. One of the big
advantages if.. . here it obviously gives us more flexibility than we have down here. One of the big issues that we're
trying to address is that we don't want to be in the same position 20 years from now that we are today that our crystal
ball was wrong. We've grown beyond what we ever would have imagined and we've got to move again. If the
ballfield was located up here, it provides us a little bit more flexibility than... If things change, we've got a little bit
more flexibility there. Makes it a little bit easier to set up...and those kind of things. However until we know if that
can work and work all those things out, it is important to us with the size of the parish and the number of youth, that
we have some green space.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else have any other questions? To make those transition and those changes would
not really hurt too much other than the fact as to what was proposed previously, right?
44
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Bob Generous: They would just have to re-engineer the NURP ponds, or stormwater pond.
Mayor Chmiel: And would that be acceptable to the City?
Bob Generous: Oh yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well I think some kind of direction, I think something like that could be worked out with
direction from staff directly with the applicant and developers of that particular site and I think that it possibly
working without any problems. I see a problem with keeping it where it's at because it's in the floodplain, or I should
say within the area that it is. And we don't want to cut into that and there's no other place that that can be replaced,
is there? By filling in the pond.
Bob Generous: Well they could always... The development has... because they believe they're going to lose parking
area and building area. However we believe that it will be accommodated on the site. There is.. .so to speak and
there is other areas that we can replace it. The storm water ponds.
Kate Aanenson: ...framework because we had to provide ponding and we had to provide wetland replacement.
Then you place the buildings in there. We keep getting back to.. .so there certainly flexibility.
Councilman Senn: So what are you looking for tonight?
Kate Aanenson: Well obviously.. .keep it a natural area. ..keep that natural. Now if...
Councilman Mason: Well yeah. I'd like to see it work on the northern half.
Councilman Senn: ...1' d like to see it work on the north.
Councilman Mason: Likewise.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a question, putting on my parishioner hat. I thought there was a little bit of acreage
that was going to be available to us for future expansion.
David Bangasser: We've got expansion planned here as well as here. And we do have the playground area in this
area as well.
Councilman Berquist: Otherwise, is there an option on the property directly to the east?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any more questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to see the schematic.
David Bangasser: The elevations?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
David Bangasser: Just real briefly. I think you're all familiar with Villages on the Ponds but we essentially have
three main parking areas. The area to the south, to the north and the west and so therefore we've got three entries
into the building. One of our key features is we're trying to foster the gathering of fellowship. Things that we
currently are not able to do in our current facility so we're trying to make three entrances feel like equal entrances.
And so from the south elevations, from the south parking lot looking at the building, we've got the church with this
west entrance off ofTH 5 and a feature or identifying with a trellis. That leads people into this western door,
directly into the narthax gathering space. You've got a couple of features that are critical to our design. One is the
cross, kmd of identifying what we're all about here. We've also got what we're calling a lantern kind of within the
cross structure. There's a lot of significance within the Bible, etc. on light and so that's a translucent glass that we're
45
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
going to have lighting behind it to create a glow or a lantern and we think it will be a landmark for the area. In
addition to that, we've got the bell tower. We're using...and even though we're located, so we've got the bell tower
here. Within that bell tower we've got a stairs to get people in from the south entry point right here so the people
from the south parking lot, there...essentially the walkout theme because of the topography...and then be in the
narthax gathering space. We've got the west elevation pretty much similar to the west entry. We've got a feature in
our school... through the tabernacle, the alter, the baptismal font, the bell tower, and circular feature which is the
library and our media center area. So kind of a school focal point, kind of drawing people's attention to the school
entry here. From the north entrance, we've got again the bell tower is pretty much on an.. .of our entries. We've got
a trellis here on the north entry but because this is hoped to be a future expansion area, the fellowship hall, we've
really just got the trellis entrance here. It's not going to go all the way back to the doors here. That's kind of a
Reader's Digest version.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions that anyone may have?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the site plan with the soccer field to the north. If that can't be
accomplished, have it return to the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Point of clarification?
Councilman Senn: We approve the site plan the way it's submitted with the soccer field to the north and if that can't
be worked out, revisit it with the Council.
David Bangasser: We're concerned about being able to start the grading, in order to have this building done in 11
months. And if we've got to come back to Council, I don't know if we'll.
Councilman Senn: You can start grading with this approval.
Vernelle Clayton: . ..not require the plans for NURP Pond and the.
Kate Aanenson: We're talking about a separate thing that goes with the fmal plat. Those are final plat issues which
we haven't even gotten to yet. We're doing the site plan. That's really final plat issues in two weeks. So those issues
will be addressed at that point.
Vernelle Clayton: ...we have to have all of our... We have to have everything in by Monday. The 16th.
Kate Aanenson: For fmal plat?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. And if we're changing all this, the engineering department can't take that.
Councilman Senn: Well Kate, let me ask you this. Effectively with our site plan approval, can't they go ahead and
do the grading and stuff and quickly analyze the impacted areas before they're going to reach a critical.. .on the
grading.
Kate Aanenson: Generally in order to do grading we do require some.. .and then generally based on approval of the
plat. ..
Vernelle Clayton: .. . approval.
46
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Kate Aanenson: That's what we're saying. Come back if it doesn't work.
Brad Johnson: If we're going to meet the deadline, then we should meet, we have to make a decision tomorrow
morning whether to have the ballfield to the south or the north, prior to meeting with the owners in order to achieve.
Councilman Senn: Put it on the north.
Brad Johnson: They haven't agreed.
Councilman Senn: Well then why are you here with us? You should be talking to the owners.
Brad Johnson: It's a timing issue. You're listening to a presentation from St. Hubert's. Not from the developers.
There's a plat that's been approved that's to the north. To the south.
Kate Aanenson: You haven't got fmal plat approval yet.
Brad Johnson: And we're going for final plat approval because we don't have any issue with it being north or south,
but it's a timing issue and we would like to be able to proceed with our planning to the south with you agreeing that
if it can be worked out, between the engineering department and the owners. There's another team in here. They
have not purchased that property, okay. And if it can be worked out with the, and this is the hang-up. If you say to
the north, we cannot proceed. If you say it's okay to go to the south, and you're okay with it on the north, if we can
work it out with the staff. And the owners.
Councilman Senn: Brad, I don't understand that because.. .get back to owners and work it out very quickly.
Brad Johnson: It's not going to be an easy subject.
Councilman Senn: Well but again, you're trying to put us in a comer and say we only have one choice.
Councilman Berquist: Everybody's in a comer here.
Vemelle Clayton: We have preliminary approval on our plat.. .with the south site.
Bob Generous: There was no site plan approval.
Brad Johnson: Well, you guys are at risk then. We are not sure if we can perform according to St. Hubert's. I mean
we'd like to but we cannot make it through it the city process with that kind of direction. We can make it through the
city process if you say it's okay if it's on the south, and then you try to work it out with the engineering department.
And then hopefully with the owners. The owners can't make a decision based on the information they have. They
have no idea at this time what the cost of moving this field to the north is to them... And that will delay the project
by at least another 2 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let me just ask another question. In keeping that location in the south, with that wetland being
situated there, isn't there any wetland mitigation that can be done with this. Not necessarily having to be on that
piece of property but some other location.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure of your question, and I think that might not be the issue.
Bob Generous: They can avoid the wetlands in the southern part. They just take down the knoll and remove all the
trees.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor.
47
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don.
Don Ashworth: I just do not see that it's going to be an issue. I mean I do not believe that engineering is the
problem for Brad. I don't know what the real problem is but the motion, as they made that, from the city standpoint I
think it works. But maybe there's some other agenda here that we're not seeing.
Councilman Senn: One question for Kate first. If timing's the issue here, is there a way that we can make up some
weeks in the process as we go along?
Kate Aanenson: This thing has been on the fast track since...We always have been trying to...
Councilman Senn: So there's really no flexibility.
Kate Aanenson: No, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure ifwe...I'm not sure what the agenda is. Certainly we're
going to, if they get plans into us, we're going to try to keep it on the agenda and review...
Bob Generous: They told me today that they could do it, based on the time frame of them having them in next
Tuesday into our office.
Brad Johnson: We're not sure we can do that, that's all.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess my direction from Council is, it's not going on the southern portion. I
mean that's my feeling. That's too much to ask in terms of that site and for natural resources and keeping an open
area. No, we have not approved...
Vemelle Clayton: . ..plat shows that. That's what we've got... The Planning Commission actually delayed their
decision for... After that Planning Commission approved it with the soccer field to the south. That's what we
brought to you in the preliminary package. We brought it back to you...engineering has been working...to bring
back to you for final approval.. . all the engineering based on the soccer field to the south. And there is a lot of
engineering involved in that. More than you realize because.. .and the grading along the south for example. Major
changes. .. Changing it at this time... Yesterday we brought up that perhaps this pond could just go down here. Or
here. Keep in mind this is now coming right up to the trail. 12 feet from the trail... but not all of these are currently
in. This, there's an area here. . . so we may have to change something here. That will require additional engineering,
and this is either going to be moved tomorrow morning that the church is going to.. . all the engineering done for
Dave to review. What we've reviewed to date, what's called the red lines, with the soccer field down here. We have
to get the... We can't tell them tomorrow morning because the owners have something to say about what goes onto
theIr site...
Brad Johnson: We have to provide.. .St. Hubert's. They have been negotiating with...
Vernelle Clayton: Is there some way, Charles, that we could without having all of this fmalized...for grading to
proceed... Currently the plan that we have now would have all of the...
Charles Folch: Both of those items seem kind of contradictory. On the one hand you're saying that depending on
whether the soccer field's on the north or the south end, you could have all these major changes in engineering and
all these things would have to be redesigned. In the other breath you're saying, well let's just get started anyway and
if there is a change, we'll worry about those major changes later.
Vemelle Clayton: Unless they get started...
Charles Folch: I guess it's the Council's choice with what they have a preferred recommendation where the field
goes. It can be in the area of the site that would not be changed, with either location, the Council would direct staff
to do so. We could take a look at that...
48
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Why don't we make a motion to...
Councilman Senn: The motion was to approve the site plan with the soccer field to the north. And if there's a
change in that, have it come back and I wouldn't have a problem adding to the motion that if it can be worked out, to
give them a preliminary start based on that assumption on other parts of the site, I don't have a problem with that to
work it out and get going.
Councilman Berquist: What's the problem with going the other way? Making the motion for the southern alignment
with the stipulation that the northern alignment be continued to be pursued.
Councilman Senn: Because there's no obligation to change it and I don't want it to the south, as the person making
the motion. I want it to the north. I want that to be the driving part of the decision.
Councilman Berquist: ...there's a concern of the knoll and the trees being lost.
Councilman Senn: The knoll and the trees and the natural area.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There is so much, yeah there is so much impervious surface on this entire site already
and granted, a soccer field is not impervious surface. It's still a clearing.
Councilman Berquist: True. I think frankly that the rest of the Council is splitting hairs over consideration of a,
holding up a project like this over a few thousand square feet of flatten area. I p1ean if you look at the entire.. .
Councilman Senn: Steve, I don't agree with you. We aren't holding it up. ., .let them go ahead. If they have owner
considerations, that's not something we get in the middle of. We're giving them every ability to move ahead...
Councilman Berquist: .. . approve the preliminary plat predicated on the southern alignment of the field?
Councilman Senn: No.
Councilman Berquist: Everything that I see has always indicated that that thing goes there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It has always been a point, from the beginning, it's always been.
Councilman Senn: Major issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's always been a major issue.
Brad Johnson: To me the issue is whether we were going to have a field or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's probably where we're at today.
Brad Johnson: .. . making a decision to prohibit St. Hubert's.
Councilman Mason: Hold on. Hold on. But Brad, you know how many times are we told you've got to make a
decision right now or everything's going to fall...
Brad Johnson: All we want is to meet the schedule.
Councilman Mason: And it seems to me with Mark's motion, that can happen.
Brad Johnson: If the owners agree.
49
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Councilman Senn: That's right. We can't speak for the owners. Brad, go talk to them. We've given you everything
in the motion to do that. And accomplish it. We're not going to approve the southern...
Vernelle Clayton: ...fmal based on the preliminary approval.
Brad Johnson: We've got it on the southern alignment. I mean we're just looking for some flexibility.
Councilman Senn: No, you're looking for approval on the southern field.
Brad Johnson: We had approval on the southern field.
Councilman Mason: Well there's some disagreement on that.
Brad Johnson: ...the preliminary plat had it on the south.
Roger Knutson: Plat application is you're platting the lots. It doesn't give you a right to build anything particular in
that lot. Or do anything with it other than cut it up into lots.
Councilman Berquist: .. .ifwe hold this thing up for a soccer field, north or south alignment, it's pretty short sighted.
And I would hope that you withdraw your motion.
Councilman Senn: Steve again, I don't think we're holding anything up. We gave them all the flexibility in the
world to start the grading and everything else...
Councilman Berquist: Well it appears to me if that were the case they wouldn't be arguing it vehemently as they are.
So one of you is wrong and insofar as you're not intimately involved in the negotiations, I would suspect it would be
you.
Councilman Mason: And I guess I wonder if some of us, considering what church we go to and this, that and the
other thing, need to really try and keep things separated out here. I mean I quite honestly think you're in a tough
position here.
Councilman Berquist: I am in a tough position.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: We all are.
Councilman Mason: Well I agree. I agree. We all are and I mean this is real close.
Mayor Chmiel: And I don't think we're looking at it from that standpoint either Mike...
Councilman Mason: No, I understand. I understand.
Councilman Senn: From my standpoint, that's always been a point of discussion. I guess I don't like the fact that
it's the eleventh hour and it's here to be made right now. But I'm not going to basically go ahead on the basis that
we're going to approve the southern alignment, that we don't want, in hopes that a northern will be worked out. I'm
sorry, I don't think a northern will get worked out. If there's other issues on the agenda, then somebody should put
those issues on the agenda and show us a case or reason why we should make a different decision. But based on the
information that we have before us, and the decision we're supposed to make based on that information, I think that's
the most responsible decision.
Councilman Berquist: So what I'm hearing is that in the event a northern alignment is unattainable, financially or
otherwise, the entire project would be put on hold?
50
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Councilman Senn: I'm not saying that. I didn't say that in my motion.
Councilman Berquist: That's exactly what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: No it's not. Not at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we're going to have to come up with a given conclusion. I, not because I go to the church but I
think the entirety of that project is very meaningful as I see it for the city. Plus the fact that there has to be some kind
of a solution that can be done in order to provide this to continually move, and I can understand the fast track that it's
been on. And it has been on for some time. When I brought up the fact of mitigation, taking out what is there in
wetland and moving it somewhere else, you're saying that can't be done at all?
Bob Generous: What it does, it trips the different permitting processes.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I see.
Bob Generous: .. . Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for issuing the permit.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: I totally agree with Councilman Senn's comment. This Council has demonstrated that it's willing to
take and work with all owners, and this is a major construction item. I would anticipate that this Council would be
willing to take and have a special session, special meeting date if that were required to take and re-Iook at this issue.
But I mean, I'm hearing Brad and Vernelle say, we already had it approved on the south side. It's going there and
we're not looking at anything else. And I don't think they're being flexible.
Brad Johnson: No, we're not saying that.
Vernelle Clayton: We're not having saying that. We've been doing everything we can to accommodate the Ward's.
But you have to understand there was just an enormous amount of work that went into the plan that way.
Don Ashworth: But this Council's willing to take and give you grading plans fot the north side, if that helps you out.
Vernelle Clayton: There's one element, the Wards, there's one of the Wards that's adamantly opposed to this and
two of them that are really questioning it.
Brad Johnson: To us.
Councilman Senn: Then you need to go talk to them and bring back the rationale and basis that...
Brad Johnson: ...engineering. We took with the idea that we were going to have a ballfield on the south and
charged ahead, okay. We now have to back off of that. All of that engineering is done. We're ready to go and I
guess what I'm finding out is that it's going to cost quite a bit of money to change it. We have to go to the Wards
and get the authorization to start the engineering. We can't start tomorrow morning with what we've got going. And
all we're saying is, it very well could end up on the north side. What you're doing is making a decision for the
owner. They presented a site plan on property they don't own or have an option. There's a lot of decisions that
somebody has to make.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well and Brad, this can't come as a surprise to you. I guess that's what I find the
frustrating part. I mean the.
51
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Brad Johnson: It is a surprise to us because they are presenting a site plan on property they don't own and have not
bought from the Wards...
Councilman Senn: Why are you yelling at us Brad?
Brad Johnson: Oh, I'm just frustrated because we'd like to see the church get started. Okay. And we don't have
control. Trust us. We don't have control over this. We're just here trying to figure out a solution. Now we were
told that if this came off tonight the way it is, we're pulling it from the agenda. We talked the Wards into bringing it
in... It's not as cut and dry... They have no idea what the cost ofa field on the north means to them. That's all, and
we don't have any numbers. It will take us about a week. We're just trying to figure out is there a way to start the
grading to do something.
Councilman Senn: We just gave it to you.
Brad Johnson: On the north.
Councilman Senn: .. .He has tons of grading to do before he even hits this spot.
Kate Aanenson: .. .red line, so to say there's significant changes, they still aren't done...
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I mean we're giving you the green light on what, 38% of what's going on here.
Councilman Senn: We've never done one like that before. I think we're all in the position where we want to see
this go, and go quickly and accommodate it anyway we can. But Brad I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable in giving you
approval on the south side tonight because everything you just rationalized the other way tells me you're not going to
be back here doing any work on the north side so.
Brad Johnson: I don't think it's that easy Mark. I don't know what to say. We, as I understand it, the timing is at
least, in the meeting schedule, 3 weeks.
Councilman Senn: Then we'll have a special meeting.
Councilman Mason: You just heard we'll call a special session. I don't have any trouble with that at all, if that's
what it takes.
Brad Johnson: What I hear you saying is, if the owners won't agree with this, it's coming back?
Councilman Senn: Well the only way if you're going to bring it back, I guess I'd like to see your rationale as to why
it doesn't work and why you want us to make a decision differently than what we feel is right.
Brad Johnson: ... the owners.. .you 're making the decision for them.
Councilman Mason: Well the decision that's being made, whether we say south side or north side Brad, don't pin
that on us.
Brad Johnson: Oh no. I mean we're just looking for... The owners are looking for information that we can't give
them tomorrow on cost and they know that... We were told that it looked like this field was going to have to be
smaller, this pond was going to have to bigger, we're going to lose some more parking up here, because of something
we made a decision on down here. That's how I'm looking at this. That was a surprise to us.
Councilman Mason: Well, I don't think we can expect everything to just fly through.
Brad Johnson: No, we can bring it back except they want to start grading on October 1 st. They wanted to start
construction on October 15th. We can meet that schedule if we go boom, boom, boom.
52
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
Councilman Senn: I think we just gave you the ability to do that.
Councilman Mason: Well, what I'm hearing is you can meet that schedule regardless of where the soccer field goes.
That's what I'm hearing right now.
Vemelle Clayton: I think that's true. I think the issue now is whether the Wards are going to feel comfortable with
the...
Councilman Senn: Well, that's not an issue...
Councilman Mason: Well, maybe they can come in too and we can talk with them about this, if that's what it takes.
Mayor Chmiel: So then you'd be willing to allow for the motion that we basically have on the floor.
Brad Johnson: Ifwe get...have a special meeting?
Councilman Mason: Absolutely. No problem at all. If! didn't second Mark's motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I did.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorfseconded to approve Site Plan #96-11 for a 96,288
square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community, plans prepared by OPUS Architects &
Engineers, Inc., dated 7/19/96, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter
landscaping in the north parking lots in order to meet city ordinance requirements.
2. The applicant must provide four more overs tory trees within the parking lot areas in order to meet city
requirements.
3. The seven Black Hills Spruce south of the school are to be relocated outside of the future expansion area.
4. If it is feasible to relocate the soccer field north of the trail, the wooded area south of Highway 101 shall be
placed under a conservation easement. If the soccer field is to be constructed in the proposed location, grading
shall be modified to avoid filling of any wetlands on the site.
5. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan south of the school site on the steep slope. This area shall be
revegetated with sumac, live willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast growing materials to improve soil
stability and reduce potential erosion.
6. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the installation of aeration piping.
7. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas, and boulevards, shall have an irrigation system
installed.
8. The applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west of the church.
9. A bicycle parking area and bicycle racks shall be provided on site.
10. A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be provided through
shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a
recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
53
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
11. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage.
12. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds receiving final plat
approval by the City ofChanhassen. Once the developer has supplied the City with an executed
PUD/development contract and fmancial escrow to guarantee site improvements, the site grading may
commence upon receipt of the appropriate permits from other governmental agencies.
13. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and will require a building permit from the
City's Building Department. All retaining walls in excess of six feet in height shall have safety fences installed
above them.
14. The grading plan shall be revised to take into account an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated to the
City for Grandview Road in the northeast corner of the site. The parking lot configuration shall be revised
accordingly. Parking lot grades in the easterly side of the building shall be modified to eliminate the isolated
storm sewer line south of the secondary access point. Landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the
parking aisles. The parking stall in front of the trail shall be striped and a pedestrian ramp installed.
15. Final grading and drainage plans shall be modified to be compatible with the overall comprehensive grading and
drainage plans from The Villages on the Ponds development.
16. A sanitary sewer line shall be extended around the southerly end of the building to the easterly property line for
future extension along Grandview Road.
17. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments.
The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval
18. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or
wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Slopes steeper than 3: 1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets.
19. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will
install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for la-year and lOa-year storm events and provide
ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed
and post developed stormwater calculations for lOa-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each
catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,
water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary fmancial security to
guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement.
22. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State
Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or
concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, Le. Carver County,
Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of
Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
54
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1996
24. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. A ten foot clear space must be
maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer
boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to
City Ordinance 9-1). An additional fire hydrant will be required -- the location to be on the southwest comer of
the property. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
25. Yellow painted curbing and No Parking Fire Lane Signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for exact
location of sign age and determination of curbing to be painted. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10-206 and Section 20-207a. and Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991.
26. A post indicator valve (PIV) will be required on the 8" water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location.
27. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division, Policy #01-1990, Fire Alarm Systems
(copy enclosed).
28. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division, Policy #04-1991 (notes to be included on
site plans) (copy enclosed).
29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division, Policy #07-1991, Pre-Fire Plan Policy
(copy enclosed).
30. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentJFire Prevention Division, Policy #29-1992, Premise Identification
(copy enclosed).
31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentJFire Prevention Division, Policy #36-1994, Water Line Sizing (copy
enclosed).
32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division, Policy #40-1995, Fire Sprinkler Systems.
33. Comply with Inspection Division, Policy #34-1993, Water Service Installation.
34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building. After
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior
wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet, fire apparatus access as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide
fue apparatus access to within 150 feet of all portions of the building or install Class I stand pipes within the
stairways of the school portion of the complex. This is taking into account the future expansion of the school.
35.
35. Submit turning radiuses of Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval."
36. The applicant is required to use the Roman Pisa retaining wall systems, or equivalent.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Cluniel: Thanks. Okay, we'll move on to item number 10.
Don Ashworth Because of the hour do you want to tackle that?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll just, does anyone want to, rather than close this evening and have an executive session
tomorrow at a given time? To discuss Halla's.
55
~.;
~
~ITY OF
CHANHASSEN
c;
.
.l ~ DATE: August 21,1996 -
CC DATE: September 9, 1996
CASE #: 96-] 1 SPR
B ; Generous:v
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Site plan approval for a 96,288 sq. ft. church and school facility on 8.03 acres and a
soccer tield on 2.48 acres. The property is included in the proposed Villages on the
Ponds project which is requesting a rezonmg to PUD, St. Hllben Carholic
Community.
LOCATION:
East of Great Plains Blvd. and south of Hwy. 5, proposed Lots 10 and I i ~ VWages
on the Pond
APPLICANT:
S1. Huben Catholic Cmnmunity
7707 Great Plains Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 553 '17
(612) 934-9]06
Dav.; Bangasser, Opus
700 Opus Center
9900 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, MN 55343
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Proposed PUD as part of Villages on the Ponds
ACREAGE:
8 03 acres and 2.48 acres
Action by City Mministr8tor
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
[nd8;S~(L V' 0uJ1]
N - lOP/RSF, Proposed PUD, Villages on the Ponds 1>I~jiriec_.___
S - RSF, P~oposed ~UD, Villages on the Ponds ~:::::=~~~2 h
E - RSF, smgle family homes Date S~bmitt€d to Ccmmi~sion
W - lOP, Proposed PUD, Villages on the Ponds
Date ~":''T;:'1cd to ~
9-9- 9.b
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
The site includes the highest point within the Villages on the Pond
project with an elevation of972 feet located along the eastern
property line. The site slopes to the west and south from this point
The site is heavily wooded except where the existing Great Plains
Boulevard bisects the property.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Low Density Residential, Proposed amendment to Mixed Use:
Office/Institutional as part of Villages on the Ponds
\\\\~'PARk-- ~~\ \..Lldl \Hll ';~^\~I IIIII ~~ l~~' 11.1;.;......J.::i:;..{~,~::tc....~~';'J.~:;,.-"i~:~~~
') ~ ~ n X ~~ f#lo\V~">< ~ ~;~""L'AkE ''1~
;; ,1JEAOOW (\ \,~ ~,.~V :i~'~~ ~\ j
/, GREEN PAR/(' ~ 3:r ;...7 ';;,rrl~" i -.. ~ 1'" ..~>. ','
f <i\ r ~ ~~ J-l.:;<.-..:J ~ I ~ "~ . : ' .~
'..... 7.. (. ~ ~' II~~' '. . ....../ II ' .! .~
~.: 1 -'7l.' ~ ~v f I ./aO\\'!"" :. / . ~ ~ .::>,
.,.... ),.-.'.$'! ..... \\ c ~J, I. .--=-' · /' ..~ ti.~ J GH :I.. .'
,:.J, ~\. ~'\ ",,;:~;r ~~I:'JJ.J /. 1.1" , ".-. "k\1.~. . ....,..
,: ,,"'.. .~..W~ I ~ \ ~ .., '-0 \.' \ ", · .7 '."
...J ----, ITf'~\:; i,~" ~C;~~ ~.~' \\~nMAt(nr ~~\.
_ ' ~ WJ- \. I ~ - ~ltB . ~. ~ I~~ ~
..-'~ ~ '\., ~ A '/ Y l!; 1: ~ ~ 1---' ~A~
o pCttJ ~ I \ ~ i..... 6 ~t~:m ..- . '- ffL
Q. NI~;~S !~::~I~:~:l~ ~~~ 5~ ~II;I' ~ ~ j1lg
l IIllllmmmm~ : <;\ill\: 1,j~:3 ~ ~ inl1v~ T. ; ~
I J '" gn-....., -. I11II 11 ~
j'-- ~ ~ I I II fJ1fi.w Cl. '15g Of- H V ~
/ ~ CUe: R. ~~ f- III V
I ~ '- - ~~'~. ~ ,7 V
~~~ ~ ,"""",,~ 7~ P: "1 - \ " Z/' 'k
e.-:;;:;;......}o ~ "'- ~ m \ ~ liS: ~ '\ \ 1~ 1~!J f;) f~J
-a. ~ _ ..... '" \~ '(" ~\ ~ ~o. ~ t
* 0)'//t:STt:~ \ .- ~.~ "CR'V~r4TE ~~~!~ ..J, ~~~
~ '~~. ,-J ~'''" ,,<< .1~~~1I;i !~~~!~
. .. _ ....... .. ...... ,:::j u_ I . l
~ . .~; 1f ' SUo ill&\'\'l ,g;J~ i lj" ~ l~ ~ v ~ '1;1
,p-- . ;'...11:-'... _ PARK I. L- ./;;i:!,;:/.{.... :.Yk T~ ' ....~JI
./ ~~ n I ,- .- ---:7~~~'r cu - . ...::....:.x>r. . ':'. '.' :;......
r(EI COtilT/~~' . f( I- ,":::":.::.;\:' ."'l:. '. .::::t::::....~q 1 ii.ll ~.
ESt'EvT U\. ~:;..r-. rrrt- ~r -~, ~ ::<..~)::/. '.r:::: :::t\:::j{{?\ \ lJ.'!I
,~:or L^,\ \ f' .......~~~:..:.:,::~.'"::.>:..:. .:::....:.. 'i/:~:".\:':'::;:::::::::::" ,A#' ~ ~
'L!::7~"~ ,.l.. ;.' ~~~~:---s::: ':: :::'''::':'' .: ..:.' ':::;:::;:;::;:;::,;:,,:;:::::,,: SINNEN
~ \ D~~C: 1!i::'. ~I ~ Jo r-.. J .- -.- l\t~ I [l.i'::rI C,RCl.E
t<^ ~':~l ~n~ Jli~~~ LAKE SUSAN 1~ H' ,~~~._._._._._..:~
~ y ..J " ~ \.E ~ \ ~fJ. DRIVE
1/ m " J~ -:l _ I ~:;-- 2-FRISCO w
,V~ . /'ObVE VI \\ __-~ ~ COURT ~ ~
~~ ~14t, ,$'ti~{)::;; E.~ .iF~~ ~ ~N "- I\:
~~~lffi $~.k\IIII~~~Y 'iW", ~ ~ i ~v
, ta~ ~ :: ~\JJT >Wi)' f~, ~- \ \~/ / fq#~~~ ~ ~
>:'V--..t: c"'- I- S It' 'S...{ ~ .- //./ ~tlIl.z:ttn~1 I~
? ~~ ~ ~/ /~ D f.-:} , \ \11\ ~ - ~'~F~e~ II1LtAf~~ILLANP .. ~[' M~IC~SN -
~~~ / ~~i "\V t~ Inkll.,J - rg '-\. .t't~TU:jJ '''-'l:"''- --.. s;-....... 1!f~T") --
D ~ 51 )if:::.r d!(]I~-~~p: ~ : ')'~\_- ~;;L .~~}~~~I~.-~;Et
~ 'lTTl /\)1 '" .ir....ii!l~)~ ~ t: / I ""VJi;- COURT "'" p\loll~.,~
~J If:-Jf[\ tr-~ ,~~E>- =- ....,..') ~-----" !~.
<( ~ ....--.-' ~~,
l\ t / j./ in ~.lV~B " fi~
~ "-J j I ~-<.:\\ ~"'0'~~~ _," II -/i' I '.':
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 96,288 sq. ft. church and school facility, St.
Hubert Catholic Community, on 8.03 acres and a soccer field on 2.48 acres. A 30,000 square foot
expansion is envisioned as part of the ultimate plan for the site. It should be noted that the potential
future expansion area encroaches into the required 50 foot building setback from the eastern
property line. The property is included in the proposed Villages on the Ponds project which is
requesting a rezoning to PUD.
Staff is still concerned about the location of the soccer field on Lot 11. As proposed, the soccer
field grading fills additional wetlands on site in addition to removing the tree canopy coverage
and wildlife habitat.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions in the staff report and subject to
the final PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development is included in the Villages on the Ponds project which received
conceptual PUD approval on December 11, 1995. Villages on the Ponds received preliminary
PUD approval on August 12, 1996.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The predominant building material will be brick. The main church structure will be a tan brick.
The school portion of the building will be constructed of a darker, rusty brown colored brick.
The two brick colors are used to differentiate between the Worship or parish areas of the building
and the educational or school areas of the building. Both colors of brick will be accented with
the other color to tie the complex together while still expressing the unique functions. If the
budget allows, a buff/pink Mankato stone will be used as an accent to the brick at the base of the
bell tower, the circular school library, and the entry columns at the trellises. The trellises, which
are located at the south and east entrance walkways, will be built of cedar with a brown stain.
The roof of the church, which represents approximately one-third of the roof area, is sloped,
while the roof of the school is flat surrounded by parapet walls. The roof of the church will be
wood shakes. Either copper or coated aluminum, depending on the budget, will be used at the
edge where the wood shake roof meet the brick wall. The same material will be used at the bell
tower and at the lantern on top of the wood shake roof. The areas of the lantern, lighted from
within, will be translucent fiberglass panels. The copper or coated aluminum metal will also be
used at all roof edges, including the projecting cornices at the Narthex and school library.
Windows and doors at significant entrance points will be aluminum anodized a light bronze
color.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 3
As part of the PUD, the applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west
of the church. This could be accomplished through the use of raised planter boxes, benches,
artwork, etc. In addition, bicycle racks should be provided within the project.
A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be
provided through shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of
parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
As part of the Villages on the Ponds Development, Design Standards have been established for
subsequent development of the individual properties.
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional,
office, and residential uses. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design
standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to
be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to uses as defined below or similar uses to
those as listed in the Standard Industrial Classification. If there is a question as to the whether or
not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. No single
retail user shall exceed 20,000 square feet on a single level of a building. A maximum of thirty-
three (33) percent of the square footage of the retail users within the development may be of a
"big box" category. The intent of this requirement is to provide a variety of users, including
small retail shops, service providers, coffee shops, cabarets, etc., for residents of the Villages as
well as the community as a whole, rather than typical suburban type large, individual users
dominating the development and detracting from the "village" character. Retail users should be
those that support and compliment the residential development located within the development,
providing goods and services which enhance residents of the village and the community.
Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity except for showroom type
display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20
percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
bank/credit union
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 4
finance, insurance and real estate
health services - except nursing homes and hospitals
engineering, accounting, research management and related services
legal services
Personal Services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the
care of a person or his or her personal goods or apparel.
dry cleaning
beauty or barbershop
shoe repair
photographic studio
tax return preparation
laundromat
health club
optical goods
computer services
day care center
copymg
mail stores
Institutional. Establishments that are public/semi-public in nature.
church
library
education services
day care
art gallery
dance studio
cultural facility
CommerciallRetail. Establishments engaged in commercial operations including retail sales
and services and hospitality industries.
Apparel and Accessory Stores
shoe stores
electronic and music store and musical instruments
restaurant - no drive through
restaurant - fast food only if integrated into a building
no freestanding fast food and no drive through
drug store/phannacy
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 5
book/stationary
jewelry store
hobby/toy game
gift novelty and souvenir
sewing, needlework and piece good
florist
camera and photographic supply
art and art supplies, gallery
sporting goods
video rental
food stores including bakery and confectionery
hardware store
computer store
hotel/motel
entertainment
liquor store
pets and pet supplies
home furnishings
Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the
commercial/office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50
percent of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units, the city has adopted
a goal of35 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. For
the ownership housing, the city has adopted the goal of 50 percent of the units meeting the
Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria.
Prohibited Uses:
auto related including auto sales, auto repair, gas stations
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
B 'ld'
P k'
U1 mg ar mg
Great Plains Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C,O' 0'
Market Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C,50' 20'
Hwy.5: Buffer yard & Setback B,50' 20'
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 6
Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback NA,O' 0'
East Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to D,50' 50'
residential): Buffer yard & setback
West Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to B,50 20
industrial): Buffer yard & setback
Buffer yards are as specified in the City of Chanhassen Landscaping and Tree Removal
Ordinance, Article XXV.
No fences shall be pennitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development.
Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70
percent..
2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot.
3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - three stories (with residentialloft)/50 ft.
(retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to two stories/30
feet), Sector II - three stories/40 ft., Sector III - three stories/40 ft., exclusive of steeples
and bell towers, and Sector IV - four stories/50 feet
4. The maximum building footprint for anyone building shall be limited to 20,000 square
feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g., pedestrian
passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings.
5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses:
Sector I
Sector II
Sector III
Sector IV
TOTAL
Commercial!
Retail (Sq. f1.)
114,500
60,000 *
o
o
174,500
Office/Service
( sq. ft.)
70,500 @
14,000
o
32,000 @
116,500
Institutional
(Sq, ft.)
o
o
100,000
o
100,000
Dwelling
Units
154
o
o
112 @
266
TOTAL Sq. ft.
185,000
74,000
100,000
32,000
391,000
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 7
@ As an alternative, the office/service could be increase by 13,000 square feet in Sector I if the
32,000 square foot office building is deleted in Sector IV and replaced with 56 additional
dwelling units.
* Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel.
Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors subject to approval by the Planning
Director. Building square footages may be reallocated between uses subject to approval of the
Planning Director. However, the reallocation of building square footages between uses shall
only be pern1itted to a less intensive use, i.e. from commercial to office or institutional, or from
office to 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.
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, "traditional"
village character consistent with the European heritage of the upper midwest and the
atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological tools of
modem times. The village elevations shown on the PUD drawings are to be used only as
a general guideline and the reflection of the overall village image including the north-
midwestern architectural vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in
design and facade treatment.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels,
decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential with support materials, or
approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be introduced through colored
block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are
prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for
accent purposes and shall not exceed 10 percent of a wall area.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement
("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except
as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HV AC screen, and may
not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 8
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with
material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned,
concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing,
such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual
relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the
wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will
incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall
be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory
structures.
9. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive
nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
10. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the
adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme
variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and
height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
11. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures: Sector I - minimum 70
percent of roof area shall be sloped, Sector II - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area
shall be sloped, Sector III - minimum of 30 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, and
Sector IV - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped. An exception to this
requirement are roof areas designed for human use such as decks, garden areas, patios,
etc., which will not be counted towards flat roof area.
12. The following design elements should be incorporated into individual structures:
Building Accents
Towers, silos, arches, columns, bosses, tiling, cloisters, colonnades, buttresses, loggias,
marquees, minarets, portals, reveals, quoins, clerestories, pilasters.
Roof Types
Barrow, dome, gable, hip, flat.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 9
Roof Accents
Cupolas, cornices, belfries, turrets, pinnacles, look-outs, gargoyles, parapets, lanterns.
Accent elements such as towers, turrets, spires, etc., shall be excluded from the sector
building height limitation.
Window Types
Bay, single paned, multi-paned, angular, square, rectangular, half-round, round, italianate.
Window Accents
Plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures,
arches, lunettes.
13. Street level windows shall be provided for a minimum of 50 percent of the ground level
wall area.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and
plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the
higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be
screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of
the site plan review process.
2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza area, shall be landscaped,
rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included
in pedestrian areas and plazas.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited.
4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 5' in height, south of Highway 5 and along Market
Boulevard shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction.
The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 10
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
g. Signage
1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at each end of Lake
Drive and at the south end of Main Street. Project identification sign(s) may also be
located at the entrances to the development(s) in Sector IV. Project identification signs
shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height.
One project identification sign, with a maximum height of20 feet, which may be
increased in height subject to city approval based on the design and scale of the sign,
designed as a gateway to the project shall be located at the north end of Main Street.
Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. Within Sector III, one
sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed on streetscape walls. The
top of the signs shall not extend more than eight feet above the ground and the total sign
area for the signs shall not exceed 64 square feet. Pylon signs are prohibited. The sign
treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height
throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's
entrance monument and will be used throughout.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business
district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the
"street" front and primary parking lot front of each building.
4. Projecting signs are pennitted along Main Street and Lake Drive and along pedestrian
passageways subject to the conditions below.
Signage Plan and Restrictions
Wall Signs
1. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands,
the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. In Sector II,
sign height may be increase based on the criteria that the signage is compatible with and
complementary to the building architecture and design. The letters and logos shall be
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 11
restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising
each sign shall be constmcted of wood, metal, or translucent facing.
2. If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign may be any
of the following:
a. Exposed neon/fiber optic,
b. Open channel with exposed neon,
c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing,
d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or
e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source.
3. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's
proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar
identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and
do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign.
4. Within Sector II, architecturally, building-integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be
permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the
building design and architecture.
5. Back lit awnings are prohibited.
Proiecting Signs
1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign area.
2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the
building's architecture.
3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper
name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of
establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are
pern1itted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting
sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area.
4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may not be self-illuminated but may be lighted by
surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 12
5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant on street frontage and pedestrian
passageway and my not exceed six square feet. Letters shall have a maximum height of
12 inches.
6. Projecting signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project
more than six feet from the building facade.
7. Plastic, plexi-glass, clear plex, or similar material projecting signs are prohibited unless
used in conjunction with other decorative materials.
8. Projecting signs may be painted, prefinished, or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed
metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non-
corrosive or ono-oxidizing materials.
Window Signs
1. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are
located.
2. Window signs shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper.
Menu Signs
I. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in
height.
2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood
framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No
paper construction or messages will be permitted.
3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet.
Festive Flags/Banners
1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building
facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting.
2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited.
3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 13
4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or
products.
5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet.
6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
7. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of
the city.
Building Directory
1. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory
sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
Pole Directory Sign
1. Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional
an"OWS may be located within the development.
2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk.
4. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole.
5. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide.
6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous
developments, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the
street system.
2. 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.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 14
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
5. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet.
i. Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected
by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2. A minimum of75 percent ofa building's parking shall be located to the "rear" of the
structure and in underground garages.
3. The development shall be treated as a integrated shopping center and provide a minimum
of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service
component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per
1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the
second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential uses
shall provide 1.5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visitor spaces provided as
part of the commercial/office uses. Within sector IV, visitor parking shall be provided at
a rate of 0.5 stalls per unit. Hotel/motels shall comply with city ordinance.
Churches/schools shall comply with city ordinance, however, a minimum of 50 percent of
the parking shall be shared.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate a diverse schedule of plant materials
and well-balanced design. According to city ordinance, applicant is consistent with buffer yard
and general landscaping requirements, but fails to meet basic parking lot landscaping
requirements. Landscape islands are needed in the parking lot directly south of the building.
Currently there are only two landscape islands in an expanse of pavement that is 28,750 sq. ft.
Four additional islands or peninsulas will be required in the southern lot. The applicant is also
required to provide at least 33 trees in the parking lots, plans note 29. The applicant will be
required to provide 4 more. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the
installation of aeration piping. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas,
and boulevards, shall have an irrigation system installed.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 15
On the southern end of the school, seven black hills spruce are scheduled to be installed within
an area of future expansion. Staff recommends these trees be relocated to areas outside of the
proposed expansion since there is adequate room in other locations nearby. Placing evergreens
on the south side of buildings is also poor design for energy conservation. The trees will
effectively block any passive solar heat gained during the winter months and fail to shade the
building in the summer. In addition, south of the future school expansion area is an area
proposed to be graded with steep slopes. This area should be revegetated with sumac, live
willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast growing materials to improve soil stability and reduce
potential erosion
The applicant has included plans for a soccer field located in an area with 100% canopy
coverage. Although the Planuing Commission and City Council have given preliminary approval
of the soccer field south of the creek, staff does not recommend approval of the field. Alternative
locations for the field do exist and have been proposed by city staff. Staff recommends a
conservation easement be placed over the wooded area south of the proposed development in
order to preserve the natural features for future generations.
\VETLANDS
There are three wetland areas identified on this site. The larger of these wetlands, Rice Marsh
Lake and Riley Creek, which feeds into the lake has been delineated by the applicant to the
satisfaction of the City. However there is an additional wetland area that appears on the soccer
field grading plan, that the City does not have delineation data on this wetland. If the proposed
soccer field impacts this unidentified wetland, it must be mitigated with replacement wetlands at
a ratio of 2: 1. These impacts must also be included with the wetland impacts of the whole site,
and may push the wetland impacts of this project above 3 acres. If the proposed wetland impacts
exceed 3 acres, an individual permit must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers. City
staff recommends relocating the soccer field to eliminate further wetland impacts.
The largest wetland is Rice Marsh Lake, located on the southern edge of this site, east of the
soccer field. This lake waters is identified as DNR protected waters and are connected by Riley
Creek which is also a DNR protected water. The areas adjoining these lakes are mostly
undisturbed trees and wetland vegetation. These trees and upland vegetation provide an
excellent natural buffer for these important natural waterways. City staff highly recommends
leaving this area as a natural buffer. The wetland alteration permit is a part of the PUD process.
GRADING
The majority of the site grading is anticipated to be completed by the developer of Villages on
the Ponds. Only finish grading and site restoration will be performed by the applicant. Site
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 16
grading is also proposed south of the church site to construct the soccer field. In order to prepare
the site for the soccer field, wetlands will need to be filled. The soccer field may be able to be
redesigned to fit the parcel to avoid filling the wetland. However, approximately six significant
trees will be lost as a part of the construction. In addition, the topographic characteristics of the
site will be lowered and leveled 7 to 11 feet overall. Staff still believes that this is an
inappropriate use of the property given the environmental feature and traffic constraints for
access. The developer (Villages on the Ponds) is already having difficulty finding sufficient
wetland mitigation on the site. Thus, filling the wetlands for the soccer field will only exacerbate
the problem.
Retaining walls are proposed along the south and east sides of the site. The south retaining wall
is proposed to be 12 to 20 feet high. Staff recommends that a safety fence should be required to
be installed along all retaining walls in excess of six feet in height. A series of retaining walls
are proposed along the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Grandview Road. They range from
6 to 10 feet high. Again, a safety fence should also be installed along the top of the wall. The
existing site grades range from elevation 890 at the south end of the project to 970 in the
northeast corner of the site. Proposed site grades range from an elevation of 890 to 942. The
difference in grade in necessary in order to develop the site. The difference in grade will be
negotiated by providing retaining walls and a walkout-type building to blend into the terrain.
The plans also propose fairly steep slopes south of the building (2: 1). Staff believes that these
slopes will be difficult to establish and maintain vegetation. At a minimum, slopes should be no
steeper than 2.5: 1. The applicant should revise the site grades not to exceed 2.5: 1 slope or
consider extending a retaining wall along the south side of the property.
The applicant and development are both requesting to commence grading operations as soon as
possible. One of the problem areas is existing Great Plains Boulevard. This street meanders
through the parcel and building footprint. Great Plains Boulevard is still under MnDOT's
jurisdiction; therefore, closure and/or vacation of the road will require MnDOT approval. Staff
anticipates MnDOT will formalize a turnback of Great Plains Boulevard some time this fall
(November). Given this timeline, staff is doubtful that much of the grading will be accomplished
this year. The final plat must first be recorded prior to the City granting a notice to proceed with
site grading. The developer is proposing to submit the final plat for City Council consideration at
the September 9, 1996 City Council meeting. An enormous amount of work is still required
(preparation of construction plans, wetland mitigation and other governmental agency permit
approvals) in order for the final plat to be recorded.
The grading plans will also need to be revised to accommodate future upgrading of Grandview
Road on the east side of the parcel. A 17-foot wide right-of-way will be dedicated along the
easterly property line in the northeast corner of the site. This will result in relocating the
proposed retaining walls westerly which, in turn, impacts the proposed parking lot. The
realignment of the parking lot will involve the loss of five parking stalls.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 17
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to the site in conjunction with The
Villages on the Ponds development. A sanitary sewer line will need to be extended along the
south end of the building to the easterly property limits for service to Grandview Road.
DRAINAGE
A comprehensive grading and drainage plan is in the process of being prepared for The Villages
on the Ponds. The site plan is in general conformance with those plans; however, the final
grading and drainage plans are still being drafted for review and approval by the City. The
applicant should be aware that site modifications to their grading and drainage plan may be
forthcoming after final review and approval of the drainage and ponding calculations. Detailed
storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event be submitted to the City for
review and approval. Pending staffs review of the storm sewer calculations, additional catch
basins may be required on the site. The plans propose a storm sewer line at the easterly driveway
access (southeast comer) which will convey runoff to a drainage swale on the east side of the
building down to Lake Riley. Staff recommends that the parking lot grades in this area be
revised to reroute the parking lot runoff northerly into another catch basin, thus eliminating the
need for the storm sewer. All storm sewer improvements on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the applicant.
EROSION CONTROL
A detailed erosion control plan will be required prior to building permit issuance. The plan shall
be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type ill
erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the southerly grading limits until
the site is fully revegetated and the parking lots paved. Storm sewer inlets should also be
protected with rock filter dikes or erosion control fence until the parking lots and drive aisles are
paved. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points.
Maintenance and upkeep of the erosion control system will be enforced.
STREETS
Proposed traffic and pedestrian circulation appears functional from an engineering standpoint.
The site is providing a secondary access for Grandview Road. Staff believes it will not be
necessary to keep the access open to Grandview Road at all times. Its purpose is for secondary
emergency access only. A breakaway gate or chain could be installed to prohibit traffic from
shortcutting through the school/church parking lot. Cross-access and maintenance agreements
will need to be recorded against the property for use of the secondary access road to the general
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 18
public. The parking lot layout should be revised to include landscaped islands at the ends of the
parking aisles and a striped area/pedestrian ramp where trail accesses parking lot.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant is proposing the use of 20 foot tall single and double lamp parking lot lighting.
Fifteen foot tall pedestrian lighting is provided around the north, west, and south of the building.
Wallpack lighting units are proposed along the eastern side of the building. For project
consistency, the Villages Architectural and Landscape Review Committee must review the plans.
Signage is proposed on walls west of the church. Primarily, the proposed signage complies with
the PUD ordinance. However, a separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage,
except for traffic control signage.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) 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;
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 19
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
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: The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan,. The
proposed development is consistent with the Villages on the Ponds design requirements,
the comprehensive plan, as amended as part of the Villages on the Ponds project, the
zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements. The site has few existing
natural amenities due to previous development in the area. The site design is compatible
with the surrounding development and enhances the open space and landscaping being
established as part of the development of Villages on the Ponds. The site design is
functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 1996 to review the proposed site
plan. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of site plan 96-11
with a modification to condition 1. and the addition of the following conditions:
. The applicant shall provide plans for City Council review for ultimate soccer field location
and effects on wetland mitigation and tree removal if the soccer field remains south of Riley
Creek. It should also provide the City Council with the effects of locating the soccer field
north of Riley Creek.
. The applicant shall meet with the architectural and landscape review committee to review the
additional architectural details of the building before the City Council meeting.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 20
. The applicant shall provide details of material and color renderings of the retaining walls on
the east and south side for City Council review.
. A comprehensive light plan for Villages on the Ponds shall be compiled.
The applicant has provided details regarding the options for the location of the soccer field. The
first alternative, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission and is in the development
plans submitted for review, impacts wetlands on the western side of the field, but preserves some
significant trees on the east side of the soccer field. This option would require additional wetland
mitigation within the Villages on the Ponds project.
The second option, Athletic field grading plan option five, relocates the soccer field on the north
side of the trail system. This option removes the preserved vegetation north of the trail,
eliminates a required stormwater pond that must be replaced on the site. However the storm
pond could be relocated south of the trail between the creek, and the upland buffer and tree be
preserved where the soccer field was proposed. However, the Villages on the Ponds developer
may then request that this area be used for locating tennis courts or some other recreation facility,
requiring the removal of trees. Staff supports the relocation of the soccer field north of the trail.
However, any development within this area would have to minimally impact the trees and
topography. It has always been staffs preference to leave the area south of the creek natural.
Nature is a component of a neotraditional development.
The third option, Atheletic Field Grading Plan Option 6, revising the location of the soccer field
within Lot 11. This option removes the significant trees that were to be preserved as part of the
submitted plan, but with some minor revisions to the grading plan, would preserve the wetlands.
The applicant has met with the Architectural/Landscape Review Committee for Villages on the
Ponds. This committee is satisfied with the additional detailing being proposed for the building
elevations.
The applicant has provided color brochures for Roma Pisa retaining wall systems for the
proposed retaining walls on the site. A rendering of the retaining walls as proposed has not been
submitted. However, staff believes that this retaining wall system and color will be an acceptable
system to be used within the development. Staff recommends that a condition be added requiring
the use of the Roman Pisa retaining wall system.
The applicant is required by their contract to purchase the property to comply with the Villages
on the Ponds Design Standards as well as the developers design standards. One element of these
standards will be the use of consistent lighting throughout the project. Staff believes that the
development will incorporate a high quality light standard for the development.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 21
Staff is recommending that the conditions added by the Planning Commission not be included as
part of the conditions of approval. However, staff requests that the Council provide direction as
to the final location for the soccer field.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan 96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for
St. Hubert Catholic Community, plans prepared by OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated
7/19/96, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and
add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lots in order to meet city ordinance
requirements.
2. The applicant must provide four more overstory trees within the parking lot areas in order to
meet city requirements.
3. The seven Black Hills Spruce south of the school are to be relocated outside of the future
expansion area.
4. If it is feasible to relocate the soccer field north of the trail, the wooded area south of
Highway 101 shall be placed under a conservation easement. If the soccer field is to be
constructed in the proposed location, grading shall be modified to avoid filling of any
wetlands on the site.
5. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan south of the school site on the steep slope.
This area shall be revegetated with sumac, live willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast
growing materials to improve soil stability and reduce potential erosion.
6. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the installation of aeration piping.
7. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas, and boulevards, shall have
an irrigation system installed.
8. The applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west of the church.
9. A bicycle parking area and bicycle racks shall be provided on site.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 22
10. A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be
provided through shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of
parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
11. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control
slgnage.
12. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds
receiving final plat approval by the City of Chanhassen. Once the developer has supplied the
City with an executed PUD/development contract and financial escrow to guarantee site
improvements, the site grading may commence upon receipt of the appropriate permits from
other governmental agencies.
13. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and will require a
building permit from the City's Building Department. All retaining walls in excess of six
feet in height shall have safety fences installed above them.
14. The grading plan shall be revised to take into account an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to
be dedicated to the City for Grandview Road in the northeast comer of the site. The parking
lot configuration shall be revised accordingly. Parking lot grades in the easterly side of the
building shall be modified to eliminate the isolated storm sewer line south of the secondary
access point. Landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the parking aisles. The
parking stall in front of the trail shall be striped and a pedestrian ramp installed.
15. Final grading and drainage plans shall be modified to be compatible with the overall
comprehensive grading and drainage plans from The Villages on the Ponds development.
16. A sanitary sewer line shall be extended around the southerly end of the building to the
easterly property line for future extension along Grandview Road.
17. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval
18. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Slopes steeper than 3: 1
shall be restored with erosion control blankets.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 23
19. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will
charge the applicant $20 per sign.
20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations
for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing
basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch
basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In
addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement.
22. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section
404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation
work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the
project.
23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply
with their conditions of approval.
24. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. A ten foot clear
space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP,
US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1). An additional
fire hydrant will be required -- the location to be on the southwest comer of the property.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
25. Yellow painted curbing and No Parking Fire Lane Signs will be required. Contact Fire
Marshal for exact location of signage and determination of curbing to be painted. Pursuant to
1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10-206 and Section 20-207a. and Chanhassen Fire
Department Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 24
26. A post indicator valve (PlY) will be required on the 8" water line coming into the building.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
27. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #01-1990, Fire
Alarm Systems (copy enclosed).
28. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #04-1991 (notes
to be included on site plans) (copy enclosed).
29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #07-1991, Pre-
Fire Plan Policy (copy enclosed).
30. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #29-1992,
Premise Identification (copy enclosed).
31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #36-1994, Water
Line Sizing (copy enclosed).
32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #40-1995, Fire
Sprinkler Systems.
33. Comply with Inspection Division, Policy #34-1993, Water Service Installation.
34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a
building. After constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than
150 feet, fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide fire apparatus access to
within 150 feet of all portions of the building or install Class I stand pipes within the
stairways of the school portion of the complex. This is taking into account the future
expansion of the school.
35. Submit turning radiuses of Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
36. The applicant is required to use the Roman Pisa retaining wall systems."
S1. Hubert Catholic Community
August 21, 1996
Page 25
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Letter from Fr. Steven Ulrick and David F. Bangasser to Kate Aanenson dated 7/19/96
3. Reduced Site Plan, Church/School
4. Reduced Building Elevation
5. Reduced Site Plan, Soccer Field
6. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 8/9/96
7. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
8. Planning Commission Minutes for August 21, 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
:lpLlCANT: St. Hubert Catholic Community
OWNER:
Same
)DRESS:
7707 Great Plains Boulevard
ADDRESS:
Chanhassen, MN
:LEPHONE (Day time)
934-9106
TELEPHONE:
~ttn: Dave Bangasser 936-4457
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
~ Sign Plan Review J2.l\. - _ Notification Sign $" -to It).
- Site Plan Review* ~ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** '5"0
($50 CUP/SPRlVACNARlWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision* TOTALFEE$~
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Yz" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
.. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
TE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME St. Hubert Catholic Community
LOCATION Villages on the Ponds
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 10 and 11, Block 1
TOTAL ACREAGE 10.3 Acres
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES
x
NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PUD (separate re
reviewed
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
Construct a new church and school
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informatio
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plannin
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A writte
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying wi
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party who
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownersr
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized persl
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furtr
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies. etc. with an estimate prior to a
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hear
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 c
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional revi
extensions are approved by the applicant.
l~f~
Signature of A plicant //7
/1 ;/ ~ ~ ~
.A f /' ~ ~ .-<--->
Signature of Fee Owner
~l1\4&
'7/ Date
1/7#6'
/ ,!Date
/I-=ZUX:
Receipt No. (p! J . L;
Application Received on
I lie )'A71 $1/ )/1 [:C
I 1'" 1..,/ Fee Paid '-1 '
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meel
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
St. Hubert Catholic Community
Parish Office: 7707 Great Plains Blvd. · Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 · (612) 934-9106
July 19, 1996
Ms. Kate Aanenson
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Proposed St. Hubert Catholic Community Church & School
Site Plan Review
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
St. Huberts Catholic Community is pleased to submit the attached development review application
requesting site plan review for St. Hubert's new church and school to be constructed on 10.3 acres of
land which St. Hubert's is proposing to purchase from the Ward family as part of the Villages On The
Ponds development. The Villages On The Ponds development is currently being reviewed by the
City of Chanhassen for final PUD approval. Accompanying this application please find a check in the
amount of$l,4l1 as well as 26 folded sets of the required plans. We request the City ofChanhassen
review this application in order for consideration by the Planning Commission at its August 21 st
Public Hearing and by the City Council on September 9.
St. Hubert Catholic Community has been in Chanhassen since 1865 and has experienced tremendous
growth in recent years due to development in the area. The Parish Council has determined that
expansion at our present location in order to accommodate this growth is not feasible and that a new
site should be acquired which would be suitable for constructing a 1500 seat church, education
center, gymnasium and associated support spaces. The long term master plan for the development
may approach up to 125,000 square feet, part of which is intended to be on a second floor.
After a thorough site selection process, St. Hubert's has agreed to purchase 2 lots totaling 10.3 acres
from the Ward family as part of their proposed Villages On The Ponds development. St. Hubert's is
very excited to be a key part of this planned unit development which will allow the church to remain a
part of downtown Chanhassen. A key benefit to all parties of the Villages On The Ponds
development is the use of shared parking. St. Hubert's intends to construct 297 parking stalls
dedicated to the Church's use. In addition, the Church will have access to an additional 435 parking
stalls shared with surrounding uses which will accommodate the Parish's peak parking on evenings
and weekends.
Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this project. If you have any questions or require any
additional information, please call Dave Bangasser at 936-4457.
S incerel y,
=h~
--
. ~ (
, \ \ i'l '-
j ."1 (., 'I 'r
\ \,'j~ '..! \. \
\
'-
J\li:'i'.,~<
, .
David F. Bangasser
Building Committee Member
-,
--
~~
I ~~l~\~ J""" ~ / ~
~ )' ,h,,'! \ C\~;f
II r=- T;. i
/ LJ""::",': -I \ ..~
\
\
I
I
I
I
1__-
.. [
U
o
~l~ i Ili qn ~ll'qjmj !
11 ~ I I r~ I f! ~! ; I',U:t! ~
J . Ill.;\.~i ;\.t, 11 I
! i I I
~ ,) I!) I! 1
Ii q I
H I
Him IflmmlttllllliilflnE~ ~ ;
III'~ -'IIUtUi 1'111 II ,u!h~ a ~
. II I I . Ii J g
~ I"ro' u I I ~
. ~ll;li ~ I -
I. ... : Ii f:. -I' ..-,
..Sfi .... ;., c".
ccc CR II
......... .
t ........ aI 11= II
c.
11111111111111
-+-
=r=
i
~ --r-
r~
\3=
I
-rEI
-;-- ,I
'" ,
;, , ,
I '
, \. j
\
,
,
,
,
,
,
\__....-
: I; /'
, ,
\ I
I ,
: I I
I; \
\ ,
I \
\ \
, \ \
"\ \' \ "
tI ''-/
1\
I /,
P\. \, I'
-~
...--- ~
~(~ mil
n~ :.r!;
i"~ Ill!
I we'i
I II',
. ~~l;
I III
6 I
1 h:
In~ ~
pl~ I
, ~ ~
;!
Ii;
CR
,
-
..
"\
n
\
)>,
~'
~'I'l~~! TI"nIH I
I ~; i"'h-" I
~ I ~m .
T II
\ I
I:, ,II I
I \ \1\ 'i
\1 \ \1
I II ill
. I \'11111'
: \ I'D,'i I (Iii
1111(i1 ~ Jft
1"1i i-;II ~ IU
f . '" r
I, . J II
. , I
~o
l~
~
l
~
ffi ffi
ffi ffi
ffi ffi
ffi ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi
1l
ill
I
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
..
il1
.,
I
I
I '
. I
.~ I
, :.c
-t; "
..
it
7
i
!
~
ffi
ffi,
I
"
.&;
;
1
~
~
\ 1 I
';r; ~ >'l
~ ...- ,..
ili I'm TITI~II I ' I I Iii': l'lI'ii l! }II ~C)
i-l'!,l SI I III I i I I; l:pl1z ;[u !!i
: '! 1 ~ I Ii; ,; I
' ',' "1 1 I
I "~, ,,' ~Jlf .
1 Ii' i I ,'. f II ! pil
,I l :':: ~ ! I it
i'I"
I "',,.. I
~ 'I
1~11
J~
1~.,~
gm~
.. II.,.
! 'ill
H ,
I
,
1.-':1_
--1]1
~ ! l pH lii 1
! ;h II ~
, I " I
~~
n;
1'!ll' III' 'lI!i 'I' I" In; " :11\; :n P-i Ii ~ I
1.lt\ "\ 1\11\1111 'Ill' "1111:1 ,"lli 'I
~mi I;;: I!! \11 I! 1M i 1i!~ N ,It Ii III
!lill i!lll!!! III Ii 1111 illl\b l!,~ Ill, ! ~
IIi'! i I" I l, . \ Ii. 1 · ~
!!, 1I'Ii \!\; 'I/rll" nur t!1' 111!i"I~'t~
lllll:II'II! IIII hhlu~ "utl,l,l, i~I' :111!1~111lJ~
I' '11111\11'1"\1 I' . 'It I
I' '!'II II I 'h 1I,"1! HII!! 'II!] I
II" · J\ '1'- III" II! 111'!i' .
I' Illl III il!) (lll:! \hl 111\il1' I
I I ,;'r 1'l 't ill ·
" I' 11'i" U'$lur 1m; 11' \tI'
II fa ' ~ "Htl r~~ l!it( !!11m
~ Ii !'mi lilli; .~ !ilj OJ 1
II, I~li 1ltllb~ ~~I ~I m
, !! i ~l!! i III ~llrl tI, ~
.- .-
1 ~ ~j-
, !, it
, 1.-.-, \
~ ~
i ~
!
"\
,
II
l,
I
, I I
i I! "!II
, ,1 I I I I
, .-.
. . .
. -
[' ~~! I: ~~~I ~IU I!I~II i a II I'll'ii ~n;
i' +~' ',' 1* "I I I lip',l
I ~gi l' r; I ![u
;r' ~~ l-J!t . ~ [
...~
!:-" ; e 1 . J :
'N' ' I
----
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4-.C{'l'\".
DATE: August 9, 1996
SUBJECT: 96-11 SPR (St. Hubert Catholic Community)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 23
1996 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project.
I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time.
g' saf.:t\ sa\.. 1lI(,1l10~ plJll',sthurtl
!l5'
lYDJe.cd-
ArfLO-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, August 21, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Developer:
St. Hubert Catholic Community
'1SAN
Lotus Realty/St. Hubert's Church
Project:
Location:
East of Great Plains Blvd and
South of Hwy. 5
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Lotus Realty/St. Hubert's Church, is requesting site plan approval for a
96,288 sq. ft. church and school facility on 8.03 acres and a soccer field on 2.48 acres. The
property is included in the proposed Villages on the Ponds project which is requesting a rezoning to
PUD and is located east of Great Plains Blvd. and south of Hwy. 5, proposed Lots 10 and 11,
Villages on the Pond, St. Hubert Catholic Community.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staffwill give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this poblic hearing has been published in the Chaahassen Villager on August 8, 19:6. -J d
-1~~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SITE PLAN REVIEW
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Wednesday, August 21, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application
of St. Hubert's Church for site plan approval for a 96,288 sq. ft. church and school facility on 8.03
acres and a soccer field on 2.48 acres. The property is included in the proposed Villages on the
Ponds project which is requesting a rezoning to PUD and is located east of Great Plains Blvd. and
south ofHwy. 5, proposed Lots 10 and 11, Villages on the Pond, St. Hubert Catholic Community.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions
with respect to this proposal.
Robert Generous, Planner IT
Phone: 937-1900, ext. 141
(Publish in the Chanhassen VIllager on August 8, 1995)
Steven Kokesh & Nancy Ecoff
8201 Grandview Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mary S. Bernier
8155 Grandview Road, Box 157
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Kathryn Jacoby
8410 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew Freseth &
Lynda Williamson
8411 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
George, Jr. & Margaret Shorba
304 Chan View
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert Dittrich
1827 Crestview Drive
New U1m, MN 56073
Chanhassen Inn
531 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Carol Udstuen
360 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Debra Prigge
390 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Randy & Kimbra Green
8103 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Albert & Jean Sinnen
8150 Grandview Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Greg & Mary Larsen
8151 Grandview Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
R. Lawrence & T. Harris
8408 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Milton Bathke
8404 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & Dorothy Gale
8402 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Holiday Station Stores
4567 80th Street West
Bloomington, MN 55437
B. C. Burdick
684 Excelsior Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Peter & Mary Staudohar Knoll
370 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew & Jeannine Cone
321 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Prudence Busch
8113 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Linda Anderson
8210 Grandview Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert W. Armstrong, Jr.
8400 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Lori Jesberg
8407 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Willis & Anita Klein
8405 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rosemount, Inc.
Attn: Controller
12001 Technology Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55317
Thaddeus Korzenowski
20645 Radisson Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9181
Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu
380 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Brian Semke & Deborah Ow
33 1 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Alexandra Lepage
8123 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
& Mary Stutelberg
I Marsh Drive
1hassen, MN 553 1 7
.in & Timaree Fajdetich
I Marsh Drive
lhassen, MN 55317
& Rita Klauda
Marsh Drive
hassen, MN 55317
'11 & Julie Lundeen
Marsh Drive
hassen, MN 55317
11 & J Meyer
innen Circle
lassen, MN 55317
as & Jill Hansen
innen Circle
lassen, MN 55317
Faulds & Karyn Knutson
)akota Lane
lassen, MN 55317
White
)akota Lane
ass en, MN 55317
& Jo Ann Mulligan
'igua Lane
assen, MN 55317
Ion Real Estate Holdings
dy Bird Lane
ille, MN 55337
Robert & Lois Savard
8080 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jay S. Anders
8090 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Yagui Wei & YuYi Lin
8110 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Karli Wandling
8120 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Walt & Pamela Chapman
8140 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce & Cynthia Marengo
8150 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gary & Debra Disch
8170 Marsh Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Eric Johnson & Molly Surbrook
320 Sinnen Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard, Jr. & Patricia Hamblin
340 Sinnen Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sharon Nicpon
341 Sinnen Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mike & Mary Regnier
321 Sinnen Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert Langley & Laurie Soper
8134 Dakota Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Rita Mohs
8138 Dakota Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Brenda Lund
8140 Dakota Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Blue Circle Investment
6125 Blue Circle Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Chanhassen NH Partnership
900 2nd Ave. S.
1100 International Ctr.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
David & Sharon Nickolay
8500 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Apple American Ltd. Partnership
4551 W. 100th Street, Suite 100
Overland Park, Kansas