CAS-14_ADVANCE FITNESS- p
s
v
-v-
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
FLr1NNING . ENGINEERING . SOgV FYIXG
i
". Allan S. n, PE, PTOE
Principal TransporanIP' rtation Engineer
EDEN PRAIRIE
Direct Dial: 952-906-7418
Email: allan.klugmanOWestwoodps.com
Designing the Future Today -since 1972
ALBERSMAN & ARMSTRONG LTD
David I. A bre
DALSERSMAN@-• OFFIC[ENTERS.COM
UNION PLAZA SUITE 41 1 333 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH
MINNEApOL15 MINNE5,,,.4 5,,
PHONE: 612-349-2778
FAX: 61 2-349-2779
.Y
ADRIAN HAID
ADVANCE FITNESS
7266 STEWART DR.
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55346
612-963-3281
ADRIAN HAID a A OL COM
RICHARD A. BJORK
E FITNESS
3433 Broadway St. NE - Ste 255
Minneapolis. MN 55413
Ph 612-378-0014 Fx 612-378-0392
_.—
Cell 612-730-3600
_—= richbjork@msn.tom
Advance Fitness
• o4+ H
City Council Summary �une 28, 2004
3. 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.
4. lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards
in the parking area Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights
and poles located in close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of 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. The development shall be treated as an 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.
1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSIDER CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCE
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Borsclair
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Liv Homeland
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Mike Johnson
Bridge Lending Group
Adrian Haid
7206 Stewart Drive
Sam Sabean
14298 Golf View Drive
Kate Aanenson provided background information and Planning Commission update.
Councilman Ayotte expressed concern with the safety regulations governing water parks
and asked staff and the applicant to go above and beyond minimum safety requirements.
Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on access to the property. Councilman Peterson
suggested that a traffic study be done. Mike Johnson with the Bridge Lending Group out
of Bloomington, Minnesota spoke on behalf of the applicant and presented their plans for
this property. He introduced Adrian Haid, founder of Advance Fitness and Sam Sabean
to provide more details. Chairman Sacchet from the Planning Commission pointed out
12
City Council Summary4lune 28, 2004 •
that the major discussion points held at the Planning Commission were access and use,
with the number of restaurants and banks, etc. After discussion by council the following
motion was made.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve the Concept PUD #04-14 for Advance Fitness with the following
conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 1 free standing restaurant minimum 7,500 square feet and not fast food
• Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000 square feet or greater
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
13
City Council Summary• ne 28, 2004
0
The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase 11 Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
13. The applicant is required to do a traffic study.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA:
B. CONSIDER AWARD OF BIDS, SCADA SYSTEM, PHASE I.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin Huson
16613 Imperial Court, Lakeville
Jim Pettit
9000 Common Street, Winsted
Todd Holtz
2490 Brinkhaus Street, Chaska
Randy Roseth
450 Mission Hill Court
Sheldon Sorensen
Kaeding and Associates
Councilman Lundquist stated he was comfortable moving forward with this, but wanted
to ensure that there's competitive bidding on the software piece and to put into the plans
and specs details about a procedure to follow up when the work is done in the existing
system to make sure that old components are removed and drawings updated.
Resolution #200445: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded
to approve the award of bids for Phase I of the SCADA System. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
14
City Council Meeting to 28, 2004
3. 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.
4. lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards
in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights
and poles located in close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of 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. The development shall be treated as an 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.
1. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Borsclair
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Liv Homeland
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Mike Johnson
Bridge Lending Group
Adrian Haid
7206 Stewart Drive
Sam Sabean
14298 Golf View Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to
develop approximately 22 acres to develop a health fitness club, restaurant, bank, office
and a hotel. The site is zoned A2 and is guided for industrial office park. Some of the
uses that are on this district is why they're asking for a PUD is that they would not be
consistent with the industrial office park. This is a rezoning request and it does require,
under the conceptual, we're doing a conceptual PUD. That does require a 4/5 vote.
Whereas tonight it would require all 4. The Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on this application on April 22nd and did recommend approval. Since it went to
23
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
the Planning Commission the applicant was pursuing maybe tightening up some things.
Reviewing kind of some of the direction, but ultimately the plan that was presented to the
Planning Commission is the plan that you'll be seeing tonight. Again access to this site
would be via Coulter Boulevard. There will be a road that ties back up to State Highway
5. On the other, there is a creek that's bounded on the west side of the subject site, and I
can put this up here. It might give a little bit better. Can you zoom out of that a little bit
Nann. Again, Galpin Boulevard here. Bluff Creek Elementary. This is the existing
church. This is the townhouse office buildings that you just recently approved, so this is
a 22 acre site. This property is held under one ownership, similarly combined with this
and that is also IOP. IOP so it's industrial all the way down the strip except for the
school use there. This is all industrial along that side. So when the application came in,
and looking at a fitness center, and looking at why the applicant would want to put some
other uses with it, and looking at a PUD because the applicant was looking at some
restaurant or some ancillary uses that may not be permitted in a regular zone. The staff
contemplated that with the health club, and you had such kind of a regional draw, maybe
there might be some support uses or ancillary uses that would feed into that and at that
time had recommended that that may make some sense. We did have some concerns
with the fast food restaurant. Again having a strip along the highway flies in the face of
the Highway 5 corridor study, and there is some pressure along Highway 5 to do some
other types of commercial uses which we're always keeping in mind, so we were trying
to tie it back to something in, and the fact that we didn't have a health club and maybe if
you could combine some trips, because that was more a regional draw, that may make
some sense. So conceptually the staff had recommended approval on that. So this would
be the proposed layout. As I indicated, this is called McGlynn's Road on this side which
ties all the way across. And this is Coulter and this road would come up and have access
onto Highway 5. One of the concerns that was addressed was limiting the access point
on Coulter, coming off of this road having access coming off of this proposed north/south
road. And then looking at the uses and how they orient towards the creek itself and the
setback and trip generation and that sort of thing. Again if this project was to proceed
under concept, there is no legal standing under concept but obviously the direction or the
goal here is to give clear direction of which way they should proceed. Again further
actions that would be required if this project was to proceed with a conceptual review,
they would have to come back and subdivide and as a part of subdivide they'd have to
provide all the storm water and roads. Dedication. All those things have to start for
development. It also requires site plan review for specific projects, again looking at the
architecture. Consistency with the Highway 5 and then formalizing the rezoning, again
so what we're doing today is trying to give some clear direction. Included in your packet,
starting on page 4 we listed all the uses that are permitted in conditional in the IOP
district so you kind of get a read of putting the PUD list together, the goal then is to kind
of give a short list of things. Giving up flexibility. That some things may or may not
happen but again give some things that seem palatable or work or ancillary that would
fall within that, so the things that are taken out would be things that again if this was to
advance and there's things that what they wanted, and there's maybe some things that the
City may think is less desirable so we kind of shortened that list and gave a
recommendation, and that's again what the Planning Commission reviewed and they
added some specific recommendations. For example if they had snack food service with
24
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
the health club itself. And then we spent some time with the Planning Commission
discussing the free standing restaurant and not fast food and the size of that should be,
what could be square footage again. Kind of looking at what we have at ChipotleBuffalo
Wild Wings or the one that was recently approved for the two restaurants that would be
across on Century. Kind of what would be an appropriate scale and the quality of what
would be for, wasn't fast food. So that's how that 7,000 came in. And then again the
bank, we know there's banks looking. Again, trying to, looking at scale that we wouldn't
have a small bank but similar to what we did on Market Street Station where we put the
bank integrated to office building so it had a bigger footprint pad. So that was the
recommendation there that it might be integrated into a bigger building, and again some
of the things that they're looking for direction on. So again the Planning Commission
and the staff did recommend approval. Again, the concern would be if the health club
were not to go forward, would these be the appropriate uses with a mix, again because the
goal there was because that was kind of the lead and these would be things that would be
compliment to that specific use, so I just wanted to mention that again. So with that, the
recommendation for approval would be starting on page 6. So I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, if you don't mind Mayor. On the water park area, I don't see
much reference to the water park area in the material.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, I think that's a good question. Again this is conceptual and at this
point the conceptual's really kind of just give an overall footprint, kind of tie down some
of the uses. The goal is not to spend a lot of money and time in tying down those sort of
things. Get a read from you what direction, what concerns you may have so.
Councilman Ayotte: The concerns that I have are the recent pieces of information
leaking out on the safety of these sorts of applications. There's been a number of
children that have drown because the precautionary measures at the front end were not
taken in the plans and specs. There are automatic shut offs that when a child's stuck into
the suction that the system shuts down. They're out on the market but they're not
required by many city ordinances and so forth. I'm just wondering that could be at the
front end looked at with a little bit a keen eye.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, so noted. If this was to advance and that was an element that they,
I think they put water park. It may or may not be an element but if it was to go forward,
certainly that would be noted as an issue.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Kate, access to the property. I'm looking at I think
the page that you have up there right now. The conditions, just for clarification. The
conditions are different than what we're looking at here.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
25
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
Mayor Furlong: And if I understand the eastern access off the proposed north/south road
into the bank, it's proposed not to be available.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The engineering department was recommending that we not
have access on, additional access onto Coulter, and then also because of the shorten
distance onto Highway 5, that that access be off of this street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I don't know if this is a question for the applicant. I assume
that one of these arrows would access the hotel property or would that access through?
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I think as a part of that, if this was to further evolve, we'd
like to do cross access agreements, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Across all.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and shared parking. We always try to look at those opportunities.
How that works.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: ...traffic study ... at times with intense use more in the evening.
Did we address that or is it too early to do that then?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that would be a recommendation that, engineering may
have put that in there, that we look at, I think the critical thing is peak hours for the, and
that's what we talked about with this site too. If you have peak evening hours for the
health club, would that offset some of the office use. Or if you have too many restaurants
there and that may be more evening. So I think what we look at as part of the next
evolution, certainly that's a good point would be peak, and just turn movements.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening?
Would you like to address the council.
Mike Johnson: Mayor and City Councilmen, thanks for taking time for us tonight. I'm
representing Advance Fitness, along with our development group. Tonight we are.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, if you could just state your name and address for the record.
Mike Johnson: Oh, Mike Johnson and I'm with the Bridge Lending Group out of
Bloomington, Minnesota.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Mike Johnson: In representing Advance Fitness tonight, we're looking to purchase 22
acres of land. Again on Arboretum Road, just down from Audubon. Or Arboretum
Boulevard from southwest of Audubon Road. The site itself will include about 13 acres
26
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
for the club. It's going to be geared towards a family oriented programs blended with, to
the community designs and trails. That's why this site is so unique that it has the creek
available for us to use. In addition to that, the club itself would be about 112,000 to
120,000 square feet. In the other 8 acres we are looking at to do an upscale restaurant or
office space, along with a bank. And as the Planning Director indicated, we're looking at
ancillary services and businesses that blend in with the community and with the fitness
club, because the fitness club is the reason we're here. Tonight I have Adrian Haid with
me who is the founder of Advance Fitness. He will explain basically what the club will
have. We also have Sam Sabean who's our marketing analysis and will explain the little
differences of why our club is so unique compared to what is now on the market. So at
this point I'd like to introduce Adrian.
Adrian Haid: Gentlemen, good evening. My name is Adrian Haid and I'm representing
Advance Fitness. We looked at this site to develop, as Mr. Johnson said, a 112,000 to
120,000 square foot of wellness and fitness center. It is not only fitness center that you
can come in and be building and we put a bunch of equipment in there. So basically you
come in and spend an hour. We try to develop a center that families basically can come
in and spend time. It becomes basically a mini country club for the families. The things
that we're trying to do in this Advance Fitness center is that the traditional clubs did not
consider is the areas that pre -teens have no place to go when it comes to fitness and
wellness and overall education of wellness. So we developed an area that ages 6 to 14
can come to the club, get educated. Entertain themselves and get familiar with the
wellness. That traditionally other clubs in Minnesota or other markets have ignored.
Figure if you have a child that is 6 years old and you want to go to a wellness center, and
this child doesn't want to go to daycare center. He's too old. And they can't go to a coed
department so we developed areas that they can come in and work out. The other areas
that we emphasize is for the people who are basically over weight. They want to look
good. They want to feel good but they don't want to go into the coed departments. They
don't feel like working with the people who are 140-150 pounds, so we develop another
department that is totally excluded from the coed departments that they can come and
become very comfortable to work out and go home and feel good. As a part of other
departments that we have is the areas, the swimming pool that we are trying to
accommodate. The school district, whether they have any uses or we can provide
facilities for either the swimming team, diving team or basketball because we do have
NBA size basketball court in this center, and I am in touch with Mr. Steve Pumper to
develop some programs for the school district to accommodate them in this center. So
overall we're trying to develop a center that is actually cutting edge. Is just basically the
best equipment, the best programs possible that traditionally has not been offered.
Cutting edge technology. There are many programs throughout the day, all week long.
24 hours, 7 days. So I think that the community of Chanhassen really deserves a center
that is basically first class and that is what we're trying to develop on this site. And I'd
be more than happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Sounds good. Thank you.
Adrian Haid: Thank you.
OVA
City Council Meeting — e 28, 2004 •
Sam Sabean: My name is Sam Sabean. I've been in the marketing business for just
about all of my life, and in the fitness business about all of my life. And my life hasn't
got too much more to go. When you get pushing 80 you'd better be in some kind of
shape to get there, and I remember in the locker room there was a guy that was below me
in the locker and he was struggling and I said can I help you. He said oh god, he said
when you get old and 65 he said it's hard. And I said you know how old I am? I said
man I'm in the upper 70's. He said boy wait til you get to 65. Even his hearing went but
I can attest that fitness to Adrian and I are walking testimonies that fitness for Mayor
Tom and Councilman Bob that it doesn't grow hair but anything below the hair roots it
helps. Our company, Adrian and I began talking about this a few years ago and although
we, and we belong to the same fitness club. That there had to be something more beyond
just hard bodies and beautiful people. There are a lot of people out there that are
intimidated when they come into an environment of hard bodies and equipment and those
kinds of things. We have to give them a reception that they aren't intimidated and where
they can increase their efficiency of life through fitness, health and wellness. From the
prenatal care to the young kids in grammar school to the high school students. I just
heard a statistic the other day that just made me shudder. 36 percent of the high school
kids have tried tobacco and are addicted. Those are the kinds of things that we have to
talk to people about, and we have to get the big people involved in it too. And we have to
do it in an environment that is attractive for them to come to, and there's no better
community than this gorgeous community to build a show place and to build a landmark.
I don't know if you folks have seen the drawings of it but it is just magnificent and that
can be, we don't want to refer to it as what Advance Fitness is to fitness as Mayo is to
medicine. But that's kind of in the back of our head. We'd like to have that be an
association. We'd like to bring people in and show them what it really takes to know
about nutrition and wellness and going forward. And just last week I was at a graduation
and one of the students got up and said something that really stuck with me, and he said it
isn't the road you travel to the road ahead, it's the road within and that's really the road
that we're working on in Advance Fitness. We want to change that road within. We
want to show them something that's really productive that they can use the rest of their
lives. And that's the difference. Our point of difference than any other health club is
health, and wellness and that's our difference and that's what we're up to and I thank
you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And it's follicly challenged I think is the technical term.
Commissioner Sacchet, anything from the Planning Commission again on this one that
you want to add that hasn't been addressed from staff?
Uh Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I'm with the Planning Commission. There isn't
really that much to be added. I don't think anything has changed since we reviewed it
with the Planning Commission. You addressed the issue with the access. That was a
major discussion and the other major point were two. The other one was the use. The
balance. Should there be two restaurants? One bank or, and we felt that was something
that is probably more an issue for the market forces than for us to get involved, but that's
basically all. Thank you.
M.
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. With that I'll bring it back to council for
discussion. Comments. Any thoughts? I'm just, because there's nobody here.
Councilman Peterson: Concept plan. I think that the difference in putting quotation
marks around concept, and the idea which was shared this evening about the concept of
total fitness and advanced fitness or however you want to characterize it, I think is a
tremendous, unique thing to have within the city. So now it's just a matter of how do we
integrate that into the site that we have in front of us and, so the concept on the surface of
health club aspect of it I think is wonderful. Now, how do we get it in here appropriate to
the rest of the areas around our city. And I think that we've, on the surface I like, I'm
glad that they're not asking for a fast food restaurant. It addresses the citizen's desire to
get more free standing restaurants here, particularly of the higher end side of it was
referenced. At some point in time I'm going to say no to another bank. I don't know
when that is. It may be this one but you know I don't get very many calls from residents
but the most of them I've gotten is why are we getting all these banks. Why can't we get
other stuff? And so I noted that there were a number of residents that feel that same way
I think some of us feel on the council is that there's got to be an end to the number of
banks. We're going to tum into a little Switzerland here pretty soon I think. And lastly,
my biggest concern is 112 to 120,000 square foot building. How do we get that looking
good, fitting in in that space. That is a huge building. And my only concern really with it
is can we do it? Can the architects rise to the occasion and make it so it doesn't look like
a big box? I think they can but I really want to set the stake in the ground to set it high
for them to reach it and really propose something that is really classy and high character,
as I'm sure that the owners and developers want. Boy, that's just a big building. But I
like it and I think we should move ahead with approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I just want to add to the comments Craig's made. All very, very
good credible points. I want to restate the concern I have about the water park area and
not to just look at minimal compliance but maybe take a step beyond minimal compliance
because there have been events, very sad events that have happened recently with water
parks because minimal compliance was met, and they didn't take a step beyond so I
endorse all the points that Craig's made and I'd like the one on safety. That's all I have
Mayor, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councihnan Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Along with what Councilman Peterson said, as a concept I'm
supportive but believe there's still a lot of work to do here so, but again something that
the community has asked for and I'm looking forward to seeing what the next stages and
the next steps are going to be to get it in there and meet the standards that we have in our
community. So a lot of work to be done but I'm anxious and excited to see it go forward.
29
0 0
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yeah the, when residents request amenities, fitness center health
club is certainly one of those that comes to the top and I think this is an opportunity for
that to be realized. I would agree with Councilman Peterson's comments, and would also
extend I think the need from the architectural quality to extend out to the other properties.
Other buildings as well on this site. They're right along Highway 5 and what we have
design standards there which I think are good. I look at this as an entire concept within
the area, not bits and pieces and so in terms of the ancillary uses, I think they do
compliment the health club, which is the primary purpose of this site. Somebody going
to a health club may want to do a couple other things at the same time and so there is
compliment there. I think it works for the site the way they're doing it but I think there is
going to be challenges to make sure that, as Councilman Peterson said with the size of the
building, that it looks good and it works on the site. There's a lot of detail. Storm water
will be an issue. Traffic will be an issue. And there's a lot of work and study that needs
to be done but I think overall from a concept standpoint, it's positive and it's one that
would be an attribute to the city so. Any other thoughts on that? If not is there a, I guess
a question I would ask of staff. The issue came up, sir. Was there something you wanted
to add or?
Adrian Haid: Yes. We have committed to this project to be absolutely beautiful. From
every aspect. You're talking about the building not to be a box and we have all the
intention to develop that something that is absolutely a landmark. We're working with
KKE Architects, who I think designed this building and Harvey McVoy, an architect out
of Denver. Perhaps known internationally, one of the best in this business. And we, from
every aspect, the front, the middle, the back, we're absolutely committed to develop a
landscape that once it is built and you're invited, you're basically going to look and say
wow. That is, we guarantee that.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Question for you. The issue was raised up by
Councilman Peterson regarding traffic studies. Is that something that would be
appropriate to bring in as an additional condition? I'm assuming by your comments, and
I think that was obviously an issue with the Planning Commission as well.
Kate Aanenson: On number 4, a traffic study will look at turning movements. That was
taken out of condition number 4. It was specifically tied to, I'm on page 7. It said the
easterly access to the proposed office/bank building will not be allowed, and then it says,
but then there was a caveat that said but based on MnDot and further review. But there
was the second sentence there says the traffic study which looks at turning movements
and functionality and proposed access, I think you can just make that a broader, for the
entire project and we can step back in.
Mayor Furlong: Because what I heard was, one was an access off there, which is a
separate issue than the traffic throughout the entire area, especially during the peak hours,
which I think if Councilman Peterson, I don't want to speak for you but.
0E
0 9
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
Councilman Peterson: I would like if the staff believes a traffic study is needed, then I
think we should do one. However, if staff looks at ... I don't want to put the developer
through a traffic study if staff doesn't believe we need one. So...
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think you know, we're both saying traffic study but the goal is
to get peak hours. If they're going to be open 24 hours, what's the overlap of uses.
Parking, shared parking. Similar to what we've done, so I think maybe leaving it as a
traffic study is probably, but the goal is to get information that's appropriate to this
specific project. If you want to take that strike out of that second.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I guess ultimately there are questions with regard to traffic as well
as other issues. Traffic is going to be a big one. So then the question is, what do we
include here or are our comments here tonight sufficient to do this, since we're at a
concept stage. How would you like to handle that?
Kate Aanenson: I think you should put in, if you want to make it a separate condition on
number 13. A traffic study looking at the entire circulation, peak movements. Thank
you.
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. I also would like to maybe suggest that we
also look into the level of service for that area. Two of the collector roads, and the local
roadways as well so.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's what I was going to say too. If we need a signal or some
other traffic control.
Paul Oehme: Or additional signal applications out there.
Kate Aanenson: So it's really pretty much a traffic study.
Mayor Furlong: We just write all that and say pretty much a traffic study. Very good.
Any other issues or discussions? Points of clarification.
Councilman Ayotte: One.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Councilman Ayotte: And I want to go, move forward on behalf of my fellow councilman
when Mayor didn't reiterate it but I have concern about the shape of the building, but I'm
worried about the safety of the children so we keep focusing on the aesthetics and you
jumped on that real quick, but I'm worried about the safety of children, and we have had
a lot in the new parks, because of the jet exhaust applications, the new parks. Not the old
parks but the new ones, 5 kids have died. So they've been publicizing it so I just want to
bring up that point. A lot of buildings are swell, kids are important. Thank you Mayor.
31
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other items? Discussion. Comments. If not, make a
motion. Recommend a motion begins on page 6. Would anybody like to propose a
motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that City Council approve the Concept PUD with
conditions I through 13 as amended. Published and 13 as amended this evening.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? If not,
hearing none we'll proceed to the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve the Concept PUD #04-14 for Advance Fitness with the following
conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 1 free standing restaurant minimum 7,500 square feet and not fast food
• Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000 square feet or greater
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac tum around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
32
City Council Meeting — June 28, 2004
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase U Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
13. The applicant is required to do a traffic study.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA:
B. CONSIDER AWARD OF BIDS, SCADA SYSTEM, PHASE I.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin Huson
Jim Pettit
Todd Holtz
Randy Roseth
Sheldon Sorensen
16613 imperial Court, Lakeville
9000 Common Street, Winsted
2490 Brinkhaus Street, Chaska
450 Mission Hill Court
Kaeding and Associates
33
No
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
C111 OF FROM: Kate Aanenson AlCP, Community Development Director o y _
CUMNSEN DATE: June 28, 2004 �a
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Boz 147
Chanhassen, MN 55311 — Planning SUBJ: Advance Fitness Conceptual PUD Plin Case No. 04-14
Administration
Phone: 27.11100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fax: s52.z2z1 r0
Building Inspections Richard Bjork representing Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 20, 2004, updated June 22, 2004.
2. Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 20, 2004.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 2004.
4. Site Plan dated March 25, 2004.
g:xplanx2004 planning casesk04-14 - advance fitness -1891 arboretum blvd\exmutive summary.cim
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
approximately 22 acres to build a fitness club with a water park, 2 restaurants, a
bank/office and a hotel. The site is zoned A-2 and guided for IOP. Some of the proposed
Engineering
uses are not permitted in the IOP district. Staff would support some limited commercial
60
but wants to ensure that there is not strip commercial along Highway 5 as this site is
intended to be office industrial.
Finance
Phone: 952227.1140
Since this item appeared before the Planning Commission in April, the applicant
Fax 952227.1110
requested additional time to rework the site. Ultimately, the applicant has not made any
Park & Recreation
changes and is going forward with the original request. Staff originally recommended
.oe 952.227.1120
approval of the commercial uses because they would be ancillary to the fitness center.
Fax:952.227.1110
We are concerned that the commercial uses may proceed without the fitness center and
Recreation center
would recommend that the PUD tie the uses together with a fitness center.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax 952.227 1404
ACTION REQUIRED
Planning &
Natural Resources
Cit Council approval requires a four-fifths majority vote of the entire City Council.
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax 952.227.1110
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
Public Worloi
1591 Park Road
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22, 2004 to review the proposed
Phone: 952.227.13W
development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend conceptual approval.
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
RECOMMENDATION
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the conceptual PUD as specified in
web SRO
the staff report dated April 20, 2004.
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 20, 2004, updated June 22, 2004.
2. Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 20, 2004.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 2004.
4. Site Plan dated March 25, 2004.
g:xplanx2004 planning casesk04-14 - advance fitness -1891 arboretum blvd\exmutive summary.cim
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
PC DA#:
4/20/04
CC DATE:
5/10/04
REVIEW DEADLINE:
CASE #: 04-14
BY: Aanenson, K.
5/24/04
PROPOSAL: Conceptual PUD of 21.7 acres of property for a health club, restaurant and hotel
LOCATION: 1891 Arboretum Boulevard
APPLICANT: Richard A. Bjork
Advance Fitness
3433 Broadway St. NE -Ste 255
Minneapolis MN 55413
612-378-0014
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 21.7 acres gross DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for
Office Park
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAIMG:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings because the City is
acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
0 0
Location Map
1891 Arboretum Blvd.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-14
State
Advance Fitness Concept ) •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Richard Bjork representing Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop
approximately 22 acres to build a fitness club with a water park, 2 restaurants, a bank/office and
a hotel. The site is zoned A-2 and guided for IOP. Some of the proposed uses are not permitted
in the IOP district. Staff would support some limited commercial but wants to ensure that there
is not strip commercial along Highway 5 as this site is intended to be office industrial.
The health club is located just north of Coulter Drive and west of the new north/south road that
would connect between Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard. The Health Club comprises 6.2 acres
of land and 268,000 square feet of building. In addition, the site proposes a 4.2 acre (182,000
square feet) water park. For comparison purposes the Lifetime Fitness in Savage is 60,000
square feet of building on 14.4 acres. The Savage site includes an outdoor pool.
Staff finds that this is a good location for the health club because of its size and parking
requirements. The building will still be visible from Highway 5 but will not be imposing. The
hotel is a permitted use in the IOP district but staff thinks it is an unlikely use. The proposed
restaurants and bank are retail and are not permitted in the IOP district. While staff thinks a bank
or a restaurant may be a acceptable, we would prefer to see them incorporate into a larger
building.
Staff is recommending approval of the conceptual PUD with conditions in the staff report.
ANALYSIS
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the commission and council without
incurring a lot of expense on the applicant's part. There is a greater level of detail required in the
preliminary plat and PUD process and the conditions of approval in this report. Following are
the requirements for conceptual PUD approval.
Sec. 20-517 General concept plan. Chanhassen City Code
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without
incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
Advance Fitness Concept 1 •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 3
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed
with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not
obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a
planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all
supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal
property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500)
feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission,
the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a
report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may
proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such
conditions, as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire
council.
Actions required
Subdivision
The development proposes 5 lots that would be served by a public street. These actions would
require a subdivision plat.
Site Plan Review
All proposed buildings would have to proceed through the site plan review consistent with the
zoning district.
Rezoning
The applicant is requesting a PUD zoning. The IOP zoning would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The PUD request proposes uses that are not in the permitted in the IOP
district but are commercial uses. Staff is recommending limiting the list of proposed commercial
uses to not more than 25 percent of the PUD with the following limitations. The strikeout
would be removed from the list of uses and the items in bold would be added as permitted
commercial.
Advance Fitness Concept ) •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 4
Permitted Uses in the IOP
Offices
Warehouses
Light Manufacturing
Veea6effal School
Health Services
Printers
Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
Body Sheps
u4ilit., ce. yiee„
vxn:i7-oorRccn
Recording Studios
Conference/Convention Center
Antennas on buildings
Parking Lots & Ramps
Signs
Retail sales of pmduets steFed or manufartumd an the site pfevided no fnefe than 20% of the
floof spaee is used fer retail sales
Day Care Center
Pablie Buildings
Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
Research Laboratories
Eentraeting-Yards
Lumber Yffds
Hotels & Motels
Food Processing
Day Gffe Gentef
4'ewees
1 freestanding restaurant not fast food (minimum square foot of building 7,500)
Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000 square feet or greater
Following are conceptual comments that the various city divisions have offered that need to be
made for the next level of review.
Advance Fitness Concept 1 •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 5
Engineering
• The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 -feet of dedicated right-of-
way for each. In addition, the east -west street will require a cul-de-sac turnaround per City
detail plate #5205. The connection of the north -south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT
approval.
• Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Blvd. to the south.
• The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will be subject to Mn/DOT and
further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning movements and functionality of
the proposed access will be required prior to the City allowing this access.
• No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Blvd. will be allowed.
• The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWAP requirements.
Environmental Issues
• The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible)
sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP
standards.
• Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent
to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
• Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording.
• Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for
grading and erosion & sediment control.
• The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA).
• An erosion & sediment control plan is required.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Advance Fitness Concept ) •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 6
Forestry
Required landscaping for the site will include buffer yard plantings along Hwy. 5 and Coulter
Blvd., parking lot islands and peninsulas, foundation plantings, screening for blank walls, storage
and garbage areas. Staff would also recommend a boulevard tree plan along all public or private
roads within the site.
Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved and that any trail installed
would be field located so as to avoid tree removal. Preservation of vegetation would also
enhance the views from the proposed restaurants if they were located closer to the creek than
across parking lots as shown on the submitted concept plan. Additional plantings of native trees
and shrubs would also be encouraged in that area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the concept PUD with the following
conditions:
1. Pemritted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 1 freestanding restaurant minimum square foot 7,500 square not fast food
• Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000, square feet or greater
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated
right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east -west street will require a cul-de-sac
turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the north -south street to TH 5
will require Mn/DOT approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south.
Advance Fitness Concept 1 •
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 7
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed. *4 11
o.,l.:eet to 11,f..mnT- and f4 fthe.. City feyiew. A treK:e study whieh looks ..t tufning
fneyements and funetion lity of the pf:e aced aesess will he ..aquired p fie.. to the Git..
allowing this e
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible)
sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to
NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for
grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA)-
12. An erosion & sediment control plan is required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Narrative dated March 25, 2004
3. Public hearing notice and property owners list
4. Concept Plan dated March 25, 2004
Corr.prehensPie Plan Amendment
Temporary Sates Permit
iCerditlonal Use Permit i
(N -I4
•
Variance i
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIV
P:a„ ed Uri: Deve!oprr.ent`
Zoning Appeal
I I
ReZcr.ing
Zoning Ordinance Amendment '
Sic-. Permis
I
i
20-517 General Concept Plan
Sion ?Ian Ra:iesr
MAR. 2o04
Site Plan Renew'
CfTy OF CHANHASSEN
Scedansior.'
TOTAL FEE S 500.00
I
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
Q(6V�/
""�
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
NINGDEPT
(952).227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT- Advance Fitness
OWNER:
Amervest
Systems Corporation
ADDRESS: 3433 Broadway Street NE,
Suite 255 ADDRESS:
3433 Broadway Street NE, Suite 255
Minneapolis, M1 55413
Minneapolis,
?LN 55413
TELEPHONE (Day Tine) (612) 378-1007
TELEPHONE: (612)
378-1007
Corr.prehensPie Plan Amendment
Temporary Sates Permit
iCerditlonal Use Permit i
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Interl.rn Use==_rmit i
Variance i
P;oc-e cicr-:rg Use Parmit
I
`,^/e"and Alteraticr• Permit
P:a„ ed Uri: Deve!oprr.ent`
Zoning Appeal
I I
ReZcr.ing
Zoning Ordinance Amendment '
Sic-. Permis
I
i
20-517 General Concept Plan
Sion ?Ian Ra:iesr
i Notification Sign
I �
Site Plan Renew'
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARPNAP/Metes & Bounds
- $400 Minor SUB
Scedansior.'
TOTAL FEE S 500.00
I
Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included
with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be
invoiced to the applicant.
If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81.±" X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION: Highway #5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached
F-1
L
TOTAL ACREAGE: z1.7
WETLANDS PRESENT: B YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural
REQUESTED ZONING: Commercial
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Commercial
The development of a Health Club, office, restaurant and hotel
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development
review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant.
Application Received on L O
March 24, 2004
Date
.14MC4 -4,1-4o4
Date
Fee Paid 1� Szl)bC�
Receipt No. 9 -1 4CA
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
G:\planVormsVevelopment Review Application.DOC
0
DESCRIPTION
0
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township
116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 28 minutes 31 seconds East, assuming the
south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 15 has an
assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 30 minutes 44 seconds cast, a distance
of 315.34 feet, along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, to the actual point of beginning; thence South 02 degrees 29 minutes
16 seconds East a distance of 398.42 feet; thence South 70 degrees 59 minutes
16 seconds East a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 20 degrees 59 minutes
15 seconds East a distance of 510.00 feet; thence South 21 degrees 00 minutes
44 seconds West o distance of 323.46 feet; thence ecstery a distance of 386.37
feet along a non—tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of
1637.00 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds, and a
chord of 385.47 feet which bears North 89 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds East;
thence North 82 degrees 47 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 364.21 feet;
thence easterly a distance of 100.88 feet along a tangential curve, concave to
the south having a radius of 1637.00 feet, and a central angle of 3 degrees 31
minutes 52 seconds, to the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence westerly, along the north line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, to the point of beginning.
Advance Fitness Health Club
NMI
Additional Commercial Development
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR '�4 20�00`4
,y` �
CHANHASSEN LANMMG DEPT
The development, which is proposed, is located on twenty-one, point seven
(21.7) acres located on highway # 5 at 1891 Arboretum Blvd, west of Audubon Road.
The site has been shown as having four different uses, with the major project being
proposed as an athletic club. The total site is comprised of a gross size of 949,172 sq.
ft„with net developed area of 312,000 sq.ft.
The access has a approved right-hand turn into the property. There is a private road
which provide a access plan for all users. The roadway continues to Coulter Boulevard.
The staging and development time table will be established upon approval being granted .
It would be our preference to be operational in the fall of 2005 for the health club. Some
of the additional users would prefer to be developed in the spring,2005.
Health Club The proposed health club would be located on ten acres of property. It
would offer 480 parking spaces. It would be a two-story building with a total floor area of
120,000 sq. ft. It would offer a 24-hour facility private health club concept with a total
range of services for individuals and families of all ages. There would be day-care
services, spa and cafe food services. It would have a extensive cardiovascular, weight
resistance and running track located on the second floor of the facility. Other activities
are basketball, swimming and pre -teen supervised services. The group fitness and other
studio classes would appeal both men and women.
The membership would grow as the facility becomes accepted in the community. We
anticipate having over 3,000 members by the second year. This concept would strive to
take fitness to the next level of health features. We would like to promote a total
wellness concept to include nutritional guidance, exercise routine and a fitness program
designed with every member's personal plan in mind. There would be activities and
classes on a year round basis for all members.
Water Park We would like to explore a development of an open-air water park in
connection with the health club. We have shown the location of a 4.2 -acre, which would
lend itself well to a public or private water park. It would be located along the creek and
have its own enterance and parking facilities.
•
0
Four commercial developments are planned along the Highway 5 frontage. The buildings
are sited near Highway 5 with parking in the rear.
Restaurants (2)
Two sit down restaurants are planned on the west side of the site. For the purpose of this
plan we have described one restaurant at 10,000 SF and one at 5,000 SF. It is intended
that bosh restaurants would be planned in such a way as to use the existing natural
environment of the creek bed to the west as a visual amenity. The estimated floor area
ratio when the undevelopable creek bed area is include in the site plan is .07. The floor
area ratio for the 5,000 SF restaurant is .13.
Office Ban's
The Office/ Bank would be located on the east side of the site directly adjacent to the
new Highway 5 curbcut. It is anticipated that the building would be a one or two story
building of approximately 15,000 SF with a floor area -alio of, 19.
Hotel
A 70 to 80 unit hotel of 3 to 4 stories is located between the restaurants and the office.
The Facility would be planned to provide hotel guests with convenient access to
restaurants and other site amenities including the proposed water park. The floor area
ratio of the hotel is approximately .69.
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Restaurant (10,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
Restaunt (5,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
0 0
10,000 SF
136,000 SF
0.07
15 /1,000 SF
150 Spaces
325
48,750 SF
77,250 SF
7%
36%
57%
100%
5,000 SF
40,000 SF
0.13
15 /1,000 SF
75 Spaces
325
24,375 SF
10,625 SF
13%
61%
27%
100%
Restraunt (10,000 SF)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR x if2004
CHANHASSEI�1N NG DEPT
■ Building Footprint ■ Parking O Other
Restraunt (5,000 SF)
13%
27%
60%
■Building Footprint ■Parking 0Other
0 0
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Hotel (80 Units / 5 Floors)
17% ■ Building Footprint ■ Parking O Other
No. of Units
84
Footprint
14,000 SF
No. of Floors
3
Floor Area
42,000 SF
Site
81,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
Hotel
0.52
Parking Demand Ratio
1 /Unit
Parking Demand
84 Spaces 17%
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
27,300 SF 49%
(134%
Remaining SF
39,700 SF
Summary
Building Footprint
17% ■ Building Footprint ■ Parking O Other
Parking
34%
Other
49%
Total
100%
Office / Retail
Footprint 15,000 SF
No. of Floors 1
Floor Area 15,000 SF
Site 80,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio 0.19
Parking Demand Ratio 4.5 /1,000 SF Office i Retail
Parking Demand 68 Spaces
SF/Space 325
Parking Area Required 21,938 SF 19
%
Remaining SF 43,063 SF
sa%
Summary
Building Footprint 19%
Parking 27%
Other 54% ■Building Footprint III Parking 13 Other
100%
E
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Athletic Club
Footprint
93,000 SF
Floor Area
120,000 SF
Site
268,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.45
Parking Demand Ratio
4 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
480 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
156,000 SF
Outdoor Recreation
0
Remaining SF
19,000 SF
Building Footprint
35%
Parking
58%
Other
7%
Outdoor Recreation
0%
100%
Water Park, City of Chanhassen
Area ( Acres) 4.2
Area ( SF) 182,000
9
Athletic Club
■ Building Footprint ■ Parking D Ottw O Outdoes Recreation
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
0
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
April 8, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel (Advance Fitness) - Planning Case No. 04-14 to the persons named on attached Exhibit
"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing
the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Sub� rbed and sworn to before me
this tiday of 12004.
i. • / Q a t LA�o
If Notary Pub
gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-14 -advance fitness -1891 arboretum blvd\affidavirdoc
KIM T. MEUVASSEN
NotaryPubtif. Minnesota
..,
CARVER COUNTY
MY Canmissiw &,^i: 113jr 05
vv
motice of ruionc nearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Tlme:
Tuesday, Aril 20 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
Proposal:
acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial
Planning File:
04-14
Applicant:
Advance Fitness
Property
1891 Arboretum Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
AtHappens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the
project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 952-227-1139
Comments:
or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
nuatq commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
kion In writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• aff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezoning$ and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexly may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
somethfna to be Included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
9 0
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
1891 Arboretum Blvd.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-14
a
�,
i.
EDi
i
b greet
� 6Aroretu6 mBoulevard----------/ --- w7enHSt,
_ --------- — -- State Hwy 5 Arbors
8
Cotler 9otevard CO�Ker a'
user
�p
TAMRA S ADAMS
1973 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
9
WILLIAM R B ANDERSON &
KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON
1974 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS C/O LAND RICHARD & SUZANNE M BONIN
GROUP 1943 ANDREW CT
123 NORTH 3RD ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1657
0
HARRY & JULIE BENJAMIN
1929 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
SUSAN M BOYLAN
2010 WATERLEAF LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
TIM P BRZEZINSKI & DON HERMANN CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND MONICA L DAVIES
1956 ANDREW CT GROUP INC 1952 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 123 3RD ST N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1407
ERIC B & MELANIE S DOWNUM THEODORE J & CORINNE Z DUDINE DARCI L ECKERMANN
1976 ANDREW CT 1947 ANDREW CT 1938 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL J GORRA
1680 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4503
ANTHONY R MALLAWAARATCHY
1934 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
SHARIMUSOKE
1932 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK & DAWN POLLMAN
1954 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY E SCHNEIDER
1946 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK HANLEY PAINE LEWIS
1967 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O
GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT
PO BOX 1113
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113
JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL
1972 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY J ROBILLIARD
1978 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
STEVEN & KATHERINE SCHRAMM
1949 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES
7801 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8205
RICHARD N & JANINE E MCLELLAN
1927 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
DOUGLAS J PETERSON
1971 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
JANE SCHMITZ
1944 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL S SMITH
1936 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
PRAMOD & SHILPA TANEJA THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE ASSN
1969 ANDREW CT GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT C/O PERSONAL TOUCH MGMT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 PO BOX 1113 PO BOX 5233
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 HOPKINS MN 55343-2233
VICTOR J ULLRICH & JEAN C
WILCOX
1931 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT
1950 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP RICH SLAGLE
1801 E 79TH ST 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
SUITE 21 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230
0
LAWRENCE D & EMILY P WALDRON
2085 MAJESTIC WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9356
GAPLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-14 -
Advance Fitness -1891 Arboretum
BlvdW4-14 PH Notice Labels.doc
Planning Commission Summary — April 20, 2004 •
3. The Interim Use Permit would expire upon the site being served by municipal
services.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
FOR A HEALTH CLUB, OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND HOTEL ON 21.7 ACRES
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim Lasher
LSA Design
Barry Blomquist, Jr.
Amerrest Systems
Richard Bjork
Amerrest Systems
Karci Eckermann
1838 Andrew Court
Brad Bohman
Dawn Pollman
1954 Andrew Court
Kathy Pensyl
1972 Andrew Court
C.J. Pappas
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for
staff clarification on their recommendation for only one restaurant and traffic between
this development and Lake Ann Park. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the
public/private situation with the proposed water park/pool and traffic concerns.
Commissioner Lillehaug had questions regarding zoning, roadways, and regional
ponding requirements. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification regarding the
proposed hotel. Commissioner Tjomhom stated she was struggling with the idea of a
water park in an industrial area. Chairman Sacchet had questions relating to the proposed
uses, i.e. hotel and bank, the percentage of uses, the water park and height of buildings.
Richard Bjork provided background information on the applicant, Advance Fitness. Jim
Lasher with LSA Design spoke on behalf of the team to outline the proposal.
Commissioner Tjomhom asked the applicant to explain how the water park differs from a
regular swimming pool. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the scale of
restaurants being proposed. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the
roadway connection with McGlynn Road. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing.
Brent Griowski, 2221 Hunter Drive, spoke on behalf of General Mills at 8000 Audubon
Road which is adjacent to the proposed development. He wanted to remind the
commission that General Mills is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and asked if a hotel
use the best use as a neighbor. Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court had questions
Planning Commission Slfmmary — April 20, 2004 •
regarding the type of athletic health club, traffic circulation, density and parking on the
site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the
following motion was voted on.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the easttwest street will
require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
3
Planning Commission Cary — April 20, 2004 is
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
CASE NO. 04-05a
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan & Val Tester
Eldon Beckland
Allan Mugman
Justin Larson
Dan Herbst
Marty & Jenny Clark
230 Flying Cloud Drive
10 Pioneer Trail
Westwood
Sathre-Berquist
Pemtom
18956 DorenKemper Place, Eden Prairie
Matt Saam and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner
Lillehaug asked for clarification on sharing road maintenance with Eden Prairie, roadway
geometrics, bluff delineation behind Lots 29 through 37, and access off of Pioneer Trail.
11
Planning Commission Sting — April 20, 2004 •
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW
FOR A HEALTH CLUB, OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND HOTEL ON 21.7 ACRES
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
Jim Lasher
Barry Blomquist, Jr.
Richard Bjork
Karci Eckermann
Brad Bohlman
Dawn Pullman
Kathy Pensyl
C.J. Pappas
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
LSA Design
Amervest Systems
Amervest Systems
1838 Andrew Court
1838 Andrew Court
1954 Andrew Court
1972 Andrew Court
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff.
Papke: I'll start. I assume the applicant is proposing two restaurants.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: In your recommendation you're saying one.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Okay. And the rationale for one I assume is that you're trying to keep the
business center of downtown Chan, is that the rationale or what's the rationale behind the
one?
Aanenson: Well, the rationale is, there will be in this facility they're proposing some
support, cafe sort of thing in order to capture that. But the rationale is this is an industrial
district. Restaurants aren't permitted in that district, in the retail district so if we're going
to allow it we'd want to stay under that 25 percent. So with the two and the bank, so kind
of pick and choose where you get that 25 percent. And the other concern we had with
that scale, could it be, if you put the cap on there, that it not be a drive thru? Could that
work if you still stayed under 25 for the two? Yes. So ... just no drive thru I think that'd
be.
4
Planning Commission ating — April 20, 2004 •
Papke: Second question. The proximity of the water park will be right across Highway 5
from Lake Ann roughly.
Aanenson: Let me show you on this map.
Papke: Pretty close to right across from Lake Ann.
Aanenson: Pretty close.
Papke: Is there any concern with that where traffic might be generated between the two?
Where you know, mom might drop off a couple kids at Lake Ann. The older kids at Lake
Ann. The younger kids at the water park, because it's.
Aanenson: I think with the right-in/right-out you can actually get over to, with a right,
taking a right, getting onto Highway 5 and then getting onto to West 78'b. I think that
would be pretty easy.
Saam: Yeah, and we actually have pretty good street access from the Lake Ann Park.
You come down to the new West 78`s Street. Take Audubon south and take a left on
Coulter, so.
Papke: So you don't think that would be an issue?
Saam: No. No, those are all collector roads.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think there's a signal at Audubon so even if you came this way on
Audubon and got on Coulter, I think that would work.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions of staff? Rich.
Slagle: I've got a couple. And I just want to confirm that the health club, this conceptual
PUD is a private enterprise from the health club standpoint, is that correct?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Slagle: The water park in the gentleman's letter was sort of left open as perhaps
private/public.
Aanenson: Right, and they'll speak to that but it's my understanding they're exploring
what amenities would be desirable for the community and if there's any participation and
that really is a discussion for the City Council and that's kind of a concept. Whether it be
an outdoor or water park or.
Slagle: Okay. The other question I had was, and thank you for using a comparison of
Lifetime in Savage. If my numbers are correct, the comparison of the Savage facility is
E
Planning Commission Meting — April 20, 2004 •
60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. Savage site also includes an outdoor pool.
And I'm assuming that is some more acres in addition to the 14.4? Do you know?
Aanenson: I'm not sure on that.
Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking is this. Is I'm seeing that the 60,000 club, excuse
me, the club that we're looking at is 6 point something acres with the outdoor water park
another 4. So you're in essence fitting that all on 10 acres, where a comparable club is on
14.4 and we're not sure if that includes a pool or not, so my only question is, do we feel
that this is somewhat limiting in size from an acreage standpoint?
Aanenson: Well I think obviously the parking's going to drive the footprint too because
the two have to match together, and as we move through those discussions, and I think
they're still trying to get a read from the community as what elements or amenities are
desirable so they match what our community standards are because I think every
community has a little bit different desires, so they're working through those issues too,
but certainly the footprint and the parking has been an issue. And I think that's what we
looked at too is some of those, you know it's a 24 operations. Obviously it peaks, ebs
and flows and looking at some of the cross over parking with some of the uses we had
talked about that too.
Slagle: Do you know, and I didn't see it, is there an outdoor pool or an indoor pool with
the health club?
Aanenson: There is an indoor pool proposed, yeah.
Slagle: Okay. And last for I guess engineering is on that proposed right-of-way Matt,
where the two roads will connect to what I will call the northeast of the health club.
What would be your traffic thoughts there? Stop signs or.
Saam: In the extension of McGlynn Drive from the east?
Slagle: Exactly, yep.
Aanenson: At this intersection.
Slagle: Yeah, and then hitting that north/south road. Yeah, right there. What would you,
hard to say at this point?
Saam: Yeah, what I would envision right now would be two way stop at McGlynn and a
thru on the north/south.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff?
0
Planning Commission N eeting — April 20, 2004 •
Lillehaug: I have some, yes.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: This is getting a little detailed but I think we just need to raise a few of these
points right now. These buildings, the right-of-way line on the north portion. MnDot
right-of-way. Would that be right up to where the colored portion is on their map?
Because I think we need a 50 foot setback to these buildings, correct? So that lessens
some parking area. So is that right-of-way right up to the colored portion or is it one of
them other lines further north? I guess I would, I just want to make it clear that I think
we need a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way there and it's clearly not that. Am I
correct?
Aanenson: They need to be 50 feet, correct. I'm not sure on that scale...
Lillehaug: I just wanted to raise that point so that wasn't even a question was it? Zoning.
Why would we want to allow a bank in this area? I mean what benefit does that give to
the city by allowing a bank in this area that it's not zoned for?
Aanenson: Well our recommendation was that it wouldn't be a free standing bank. That
it be incorporated with something else so I guess we leave that back up to you. There's
some banks that are still trying to land up some sites and obviously they're working with
some of the users they know are out there, but I would leave that up to you. Our
recommendation was that it be incorporated and so it would be a smaller building but a
bigger building with some other uses with it. That'd be similar to what we just did on the
bowling alley site. The bank has office over it. It's actually like a 30,000 square foot
building. So it still have the drive thru but there's offices over the top and adjacent to it
so it has a larger footprint and that would be our recommendation.
Lillehaug: Why allow a bank at all though?
Aanenson: Well I would leave it up to you.
Lillehaug: I mean it's not guided for that but why would.
Aanenson: And the same thing with a restaurant. It's kind of quasi office user.
Sacchet: It falls into those 25 percent flexibility, right?
Aanenson: Right.
Lillehaug: Let's see. Roadways. Trunk Highway 5. I guess we would only be, the city
plans on only allowing one access point off of Trunk Highway 5 for this entire
undeveloped area.
7
Planning Commission NlSeting — April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: Correct, and that's what MnDot had, when we did Coulter, right. They had
one access. Originally it was shown on the other side. At that time we weren't sure
exactly how the development was going to lay out so that was kind of held off in
abeyance and it's my understanding that the developer has an agreement with MnDot to
put it on the other side. But it would be right in, it was always was only planned right-
in/right-out.
Lillehaug: So there from Audubon to Galpin this will be the only right-inhight-out? I
mean there will be no others?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. Does the city, this is a Trunk Highway 5 brand new section of
roadway. Does the city anticipate requiring the applicant to provide a full length right
turn lane with concrete pavement to match that new road that we got out there? I would
hope so.
Saam: Yeah, and I would think that would be a MnDot requirement also Commissioner
Lillehaug.
Aanenson: Right, we haven't got their comments back but certainly that would be some
of their, in their jurisdiction too to comment on some of that.
Lillehaug: Okay. Then let's go on the north/south connector street. Right into the
proposed office bank building. Well, this isn't quite the same situation we had down on,
was it Century? It's not quite the same situation but.
Aanenson: Yeah, we struggled with that too. Just so you know again, we went through a
lot of, and we didn't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it for conceptual but
originally when it came in, I believe the restaurant was on the far side and we said you
know it would be nicer to have the restaurant closer to the creek. A nicer amenity if you
had outdoor patio. So when you worked out, went over there, that'd be nice. Is this the
best place for a bank based on traffic? That's something we'll have to explore. I
understand what you're saying with your concern there, and we're still looking at that.
Lillehaug: Not even necessarily a bank. You know I want.
Aanenson: But a cut, a curb cut right here.
Lillehaug: Right.
Aanenson: I agree.
Lillehaug: It's conceptual.
91
Planning Commission feting — April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: Yeah, we .... that issue with them too and how that works and right. But I
think it's something to flag and watch, yeah.
Sacchet: Chances are it's not going to be a good idea.
Lillehaug: Does engineering, is their opinion that, is it the city standard to have a 300
foot before you allow a curb cut so that would really in essence be down to the next
roadway, is that standard?
Saam: Yes. 300 is the standard. I just want to add that we did point that out. That
access would require further study. A traffic study to make sure that the intersection will
operate effectively. So we're not blanketedly saying that we're going to allow that. It
needs to be looked at.
Aanenson: It's on page 5 in one of the bullet points, yeah.
Lillehaug: You know do we even give a false indication of that because I guess I'm of
the opinion that we don't need, a traffic study's not going to tell us really anything. It's
just a matter, it's policy and.
Sacchet: But it's certainly within our discussion Steve. Make a firmer point if you want
to firm that one up.
Lillehaug: Okay. Let's see here. I apologize here. Let's see. Fast food. Fast food. Do
we have, is fast food defined in our code?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Lillehaug: It is? Okay. Regional ponding requirements. Does the city have any idea of
what they're proposing for any regional ponding requirements? The staff report indicated
that it need to fit in here somehow.
Aanenson: They'll have to come back in the next iteration with that.
Lillehaug: So on site regional ponding?
Saam: Correct. Yeah, we haven't received any drainage calculations to speak of at this
point so we have no idea the size that will be needed or.
Lillehaug: Boy, that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any questions Dan or Bethany?
Keefe: I just have a couple. The proposed hotel, does the city have a number of units
that they want to build out and this particular hotel sort of meets that guidance?
0
Planning Commission Oeting — April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: Again it's conceptual. I think when we give them, they were showing some
things that they thought may work. It may not be a hotel. That's the thing of putting the
list together. Again what we're trying to show is some uses, that is a permitted use so if
it went away and became another office or something else permitted, I think that'd be
fine. I think the thing that we're looking at was the retail, introduction of the retail and
that's why we're talking about the...
Keefe: And then in regards to the hotel, does that include...
Aanenson: Typically we don't address that if it's kind of the continental breakfast. We
don't have a lot of those that have full service. Most of them have the continental. All of
them do that are in town right now. The continental express breakfast so.
Keefe: And did we consider maybe making one larger restaurant versus the two?
Aanenson: Right. I guess that's where I was coming from. Having one larger one. You
know again, just to give you comparison if you look at Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings,
that's a 7,500 square foot building. Those are both sit down. Could something like that
go in there? Or something bigger, that would be one larger footprint so again our
concern was as long as it wasn't their drive thru, the quick in, we thought this would be
an opportunity for a nicer experience. A sit down, sit outside, that kind of atmosphere.
Keefe: So the proposed restaurant are really to support more the hotel and then some
local traffic as well, right.
Aanenson: Yeah, that they have tennis courts which is one of the things they talked
about. Play tennis, go across the street, and again with the hotel that they were looking at
a complimentary, but again some of those things may slide a little bit as we move through
this.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Keefe: That's it.
Sacchet: Questions Bethany?
Tjomhom: I'm kind of struggling with the whole water park, the whole thing in that area.
Is a water park really appropriate in an office industrial area or is it, you know I guess I
just, I'm trying to envision taking my kids to the water park by all the offices and is it
more of a neighborhood place?
Aanenson: Well it's tied in with the fitness center so you'd have to come through the
fitness center. It'd be part of that. Similar to some of the ones that other recreational
facilities we do. So it'd slide into that, and I think the intent there is to screen that, I
10
Planning Commission Oting — April 20, 2004 0
mean is control the access of how you get in and out of it so it would be related
specifically to this use.
Tjomhom: And so then, once I think someone aheady asked this question but so would
this be for private use then just for members only or would it just be.
Aanenson: Members only, correct.
Tjomhom: So it wouldn't just be for a city, anybody who wanted to
Aanenson: Right, it's tied to this project. That's correct.
Tjomhom: Okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: I actually have a few questions still too. Quite a number of them are addressed.
On page 2 of the staff report Kate, there's this comment that I cannot, I kind of was
wondering. It says that a hotel is permitted but it's an unlikely use. What does that mean
unlikely?
Aanenson: Well we just don't think there's a market, and that question was aheady
raised. We're just not sure that there's a market right now for another hotel.
Sacchet: Okay. So we're wondering whether we already have enough? But then bank is
not unlikely? We certainly have more banks than hotels.
Aanenson: All I can tell you is that I know there's two bank users looking so, and there's
a lot of reasons for that but personally I think there's not a market for a hotel.
Sacchet: Alright. Then.
Aanenson: Again going back, we have approved the other Northcott one. It hasn't been
built yet so there's already one...
Sacchet: And also bank buildings yeah. All trees within the creek setback, what does
this say? Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved. Are
they or I mean we'll see that when it gets more detail?
Aanenson: Right. At that level again there is the creek setback. The Watershed District
regulations so again at this level they weren't, they're here to get a read before they go
back and do that, the more detailed oriented plans, but if you're in the creek setback,
there's no reason to be grading or anything like that so all of those trees should be
preserved, and then we did talk about, if there was even an outdoor pool in this area, or
whether it's a water park, how we were to preserve those. Those features.
Sacchet: In terms of the restaurants and bank, when we say 25 percent, is it 25 percent of
the building footprint or what exactly is it 25 percent of?
11
Planning Commission Sting — April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: You know we took some different evolutions of that to see if it made a
difference and it can go either way, whether it's acreage or square footage of buildings.
It comes pretty close. It's negligible. We ran it a couple different ways, correct.
Sacchet: So it could potentially be two restaurants and no bank?
Aanenson: Right, and I guess that was.
Sacchet: Or we could say just 25 percent?
Aanenson: Or a restaurant not to exceed, give a square footage. You know, or give
yourself some flexibility because again this is giving them some direction as it comes
back through, you know that you can tighten that up a little bit but I think that's where
Steve was going, he wants to give some clear direction on some of his issues and that's
what I guess we're asking for too.
Sacchet: And based on the comment made about the water park, it does look like public
water park is at this point...
Aanenson: Well I think that's a discussion you may want to have with the city.
Sacchet: And then my last question, in the applicant's write up they're talking about the
hotel being 3 or 4 stories. What's, how high can they go?
Aanenson: It can go that high. In the IOP district.
Sacchet: No problem with that?
Aanenson: Yeah, and that's how tall the Holiday Inn..
Sacchet: Thank you very much Kate, that's all my questions. With that, if the applicant,
yes. Sorry Rich, go ahead.
Slagle: I'm sorry but I do want to get it out with staff before the applicant presents. And
Kate I just want your thoughts, again conceptually, would there be merit to tying in what
I will call either more sidewalks or such that would connect, obviously you have the
sidewalks on Coulter. But going up that new road and then maybe even going east on
McGlynn to the daycare.
Aanenson: Yeah, definitely, I think so, and you know we had talked about too, all the
places where you can possibly put a bridge across the creek to get, to tie into going across
that way too and they're willing to explore all those. We've talked about that and I think
that's certainly, it's exercise. If you want to go outside and do a walk, exactly.
Slagle: Exactly, okay. Thank you.
12
Planning Commission Oting — April 20, 2004 0
Sacchet: Alright, with this I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If
you have anything to add. We'd like to hear from you. You want to state your name and
address for the record please.
Richard Bjork: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Bjork. I'm with Advance
Fitness and I do live in Edina, Minnesota. I'd like to thank staff for their support on this
project very much and we hope that this is something that the Planning Commission
looks favorably upon. We realize that there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point
in time but we're here to just kind of banter it back and forth a little bit. See what works,
what doesn't work, things like that. We have developed a lot of different mixed use
projects and we've done everything from residential to some golf courses. Some parking.
Commercial. Things like that. We've assembled a team with some architectural
background. With some legal background. Some financial background, and some health
club background, so we've got a group together that should make this project work. The
fund raising that we put together is going in the right direction so we're comfortable that
we can accomplish this project, and one of the major things, because the site is 22 acres,
to put together a health club which is a primary use of the project, we really only need
approximately 13 acres, so therefore you say to yourself, okay you have to come up with
something to use the rest of the real estate to make the whole project work in a
complimentary manner. And that's one of the reasons that we have put down the uses
that we have. Also the fact that the water park is something that seems to be a growing
trend in communities and something that is practical for the local residents. Savage as an
example. They give their residents a discount when they come in, walk through the
health club and then use the pool on a daily basis. They just pay per day for the use,
something like that. So we have not really explored that in detail but it is something that
we'd like to see as an ancillary service to the health club, and make the use of the land.
So with that what I'd like to do is turn it over to our landscape architect that's on our
team, Jim Lasher and have him walk you through the, unless you have some questions for
me initially.
Sacchet: Any questions so far? No? Thank you very much.
Richard Bjork: Jim Lasher.
Jim Lasher: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Lasher from LSA Design. I'm
here representing the team. I can address any specific questions you have about the plan
or I can back up a bit and go through a little bit more detail of the specific plan and then
entertain questions at that point.
Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you give us a little more idea first. It doesn't have to be
lengthy but an overview would be great.
Jim Lasher: I think what I would like to touch on a bit is the access issues that have been
brought up and what we plan to do about those. We do have an easement agreement in
place. It's being worked on from MnDot regarding access to this site. Received it today
13
Planning Commission NR'eting — April 20, 2004 •
from, signed by Al Penn, Director of Land Development for MnDot. The basic idea is
that we would agree to this body to put the entire road on our property, although I think it
would be in our best interest to look at to try to split that right-of-way in essence to move
this project forward the team has agreed that we would accept the full 60 foot right-of-
way width on our property. That allows the project to move forward in our time frame,
and it allows you to move forward without having to go through an eminent domain
procedure for adjacent property so I think that is a great benefit of moving forward with
this particular project. The second piece is we would certainly agree to that connection
piece back over to McGlynn and look to make that a full connecting road all the way
through. One thing it does do however is move the access point a little bit further south
than we would actually prefer to be so we would request that you allow us to review that
in terms of layout. What it may end up being is a bit of a curvature in the road. I believe
the access comes in about down here so we may end up grinding that back and coming in
this fashion because as we mentioned we're going to try to put the health club on the
back portion of the site and re -use the front portion and the deeper it gets in the front
portion the more square footage we're actually going to look to this body for approval for
the ancillary development. I believe the 25 percent number is a good number and we can
live within that number but I would ask for your support in terms of how we locate that
specific road. The second piece is the shoreland setback and how we would handle storm
water. At this point in time we're going through the general calculations for what our
runoff calculation would be and our intention would be is to do storm water for this entire
site on our particular site. So please rest assured that is the intention of the group. The
shoreland setback we're showing now is approximately 100 feet, and we would look to
either a path along that side and then make a connection to the other side or possibly
combine the path on the other side with our's. If there's no need to be redundant, and we
certainly don't want to be redundant with the path, wherever the best location would be
for it, we would concur to go to that location. With regards to the specific uses, I think
we can agree to not have access off of the primary north/south road. This is the location.
It looks to all access off of this road in both directions. We would request however that
there be a secondary access along for the health club here because it would be a fairly
large parking facility and we'd like to have at least two accesses to that point. We're
probably looking at somewhere between 400 to 450 parking stalls for this particular
facility. Two access points would be preferred. And lastly I think what we would like to
do is move forward a bit with the water park discussion but another alternative which has
been done in other communities is to entertain discussions with the local school district
about the idea of combining a public/private venture for this particular project. I'll cite
an example in Plymouth where the city of Plymouth and the local health club got together
and built in essence a school swimming pool and swimming facility that was used by the
Wayzata School District. We'd request from this body the authority to at least move
forward with those discussions in the likelihood of maybe bringing back, not an exterior
water park but an expanded indoor pool facility that would be able to be used by the local
school district as well. With that I'll answer any further questions, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant?
14
Planning Commission Sting — April 20, 2004 •
Tjomhom: I have an easy one for you right away. Define to me what a water park, how
this is different from just a regular swimming pool.
Jim Lasher: At this point in time the water park industry is looking to kind of the bells
and whistles world of what's more to something than just a swimming pool. The big,
large slides. The outdoor play equipment. The pieces that generally provide that
excitement at a water enthusiastic type park, rather than just a swimming pool. If you
went to the communities like St. Louis Park or even the Plymouth facility or some other
communities in Hastings that have built outdoor water parks, they have large slides,
outdoor play equipment, so it's a little bit more of an entertainment type venue and not
just a swimming pool. That would be one option. The second option as I mentioned
would be more of an interior straight swimming pool facility that would maybe have an
Olympic sized pool that would be suitable for sort of school activities and possibly a
diving well that would be suitable for NCAA or high school sanctioned swimming events
as well. We'll look at both of those but in essence the outdoor pool would just be a more
kind of enthusiastic type facility with a lot more equipment.
Tjomhom: But would it generate a lot more noise, do you think than a regular outdoor
pool that you would find at an athletic club?
Jim Lasher: I believe any outdoor swimming pool will clearly generate more noise than
the inside would. I think our intention would be to go through that particular layout and
work with you to see if that was too much of an impact for the adjacent properties and
work with your preference there but clearly any flexibility you give us at this point in
time we believe we can produce the best plan.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt.
Papke: Can you elaborate a little bit on the nature of the restaurants you're proposing
there, so for instance the smaller restaurant immediately adjacent to the hotel, is this in
the you know, a Denny's or is this, you what level of scale are you considering for your
two restaurants?
Jim Lasher: We had two primary thoughts on the restaurants, and as you understand in
the development of this, what we're trying to do is service the highway user as well as the
health club user. When you look at the number of people that come to a facility like this,
it's an opportunity in an overall mixed use development to provide ancillary services.
We looked at two types of restaurants. The first would be a sit down type restaurant,
which would clearly provide seating space and parking space suitable in the 10 to 11,000
square foot range. The second was what we thought would be a fairly good place for a
drive thru. Given the fact that fast food is something that people may want to pick up
after a health club experience, they could do that quickly and leave the site.
Understanding your conditions here about what you'd like to see on this site, we would
agree to look at both of those ideas and see which one made the most sense. From our
standpoint we would prefer to move forward with both restaurants but understand your
position as well.
15
Planning Commission Meting—April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a question as far as connecting McGlynn Road up. What is your
involvement with that property to the east of you? Now you're showing the proposed
roadway here east/west roadway where it is, but what involvement do you have with that
property because I guess it'd be a good engineering standpoint that you don't want a
staggered intersection, and I'm sure you'd agree with that but why couldn't we just put a
curve in McGlynn and connect up there? Do you know something that we don't I guess.
Jim Lasher: We do not know or have any involvement in that particular parcel. All we
would ask is that we would try to do a pure 90 degree intersection at that point in time,
but we may end up curving our road a bit to get it closer to Highway 5 than what is
currently being shown on that connection and the parcel to the east of us.
Aanenson: If I could elaborate on that a little bit more. The property owner to the east
may or may not have as much development interest. It appears that right now there's
some different parties involved that are advancing some changes on some of that
property. Our position was that the two parties would have to work it out and I think as
Mr. Lasher indicated, based on timing, it would hold it up to get both parties to agree.
Certainly it's our job to make sure that the benefit of one is not to the detriment of
another and we'll try to make those connections. Give the other party an opportunity to
comment. You know they were notified of this project going forward so we'll try to
work those through, but again sometimes it's a timing issue. If someone's, if we have to
swing the road a little bit to still provide that opportunity for both connections to work,
that makes.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a
public hearing so if anybody likes to address this project, please come forward. State
your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Are there
any individuals here that want to address this? If I see nobody, yes. There's somebody.
Brent Griowski: Hello. My name is Brent Griowski. I'm at 2221 Hunter Drive in
Chanhassen. And I'm actually representing General Mills which is off 8000 Audubon,
adjacent to the area that we're talking about today. And I understand it's a conceptual
drawing and was also been some discussion about whether or not a hotel would actually
be considered for that area. North of the proposal. But just to remind the council, as you
decide what we're going to put there, it is a 24/7 operation just on the other side of
Coulter. And to remind the council that there is some noise that's generated from there.
Is a hotel the best solution for that? That's all I have.
Sacchet: Especially when you bang the trucks, right. Alright, is there anybody else?
Please come forward.
16
Planning Commission Sting — April 20, 2004 •
Brad Bohlman: Hi, my name is Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court. I have some
questions, not necessarily of the commission but possibly of the potential user of the site.
I guess my initial question is what type of an athletic club, how would you characterize
it? Would you characterize it as a Bally's? Would you characterize it as a Flagship?
How would you look at it?
Sacchet: Why don't you tell us all your story and then if you want to come back up, you
certainly can do so.
Brad Bohlman: Essentially also is there going to be any ingress or egress off of Coulter
into the site?
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: There is?
Sacchet: Yes, there is a connector.
Aanenson: This street here. ...if you're down on Andrew Court, you're right here.
Brad Bohlman: Correct.
Aanenson: Okay. So this street, there will be a street, Stone Creek comes onto Coulter.
It will be offset. This street would be offset and then this street would come through... so
this street would come through.
Sacchet: Instead of the other one.
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: And that goes into the site itself?
Aanenson: No, that's what we were just talking about. All has to do with the interior of
this road.
Brad Bohlman: So essentially the health club is set back so there's parking that would
abut Coulter?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Brad Bohlman: Okay. Okay, and then I guess another question would be, is there going
to be any type of landscaping or screening off of Coulter to separate the parking area.
Sacchet: That is standard, isn't it Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. And again this is concept. It doesn't have any...
17
Planning Commission Sting —April 20, 2004 •
Brad Bohlman: Right, I understand it's a concept...
Aanenson: ...complete landscaping plan will be another public hearing on those.
Brad Bohlman: And I guess kind of piggyback in what Rich was saying, it seems like
there might be a fair amount of density here based upon the amount of acreage that
they're planning, at least in my opinion. That would just be something, and then just
relative to proof of parking versus the density level also. Those are my questions. I don't
know how you want to address them but those are just questions that I have.
Sacchet: In terms that we have berming requirements for the city in terms of shielding
parking areas, in terms of density and parking requirements, we have standard formulas
that apply to that. We're not to that level of detail with this project obviously but those
would all come into play when this project gets further refined.
Brad Bohlman: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that?
Aanenson: I was going to say that they do have an iteration of the internal if you wanted
just for them to take a minute to go through kind of what they were thinking. That might
be...
Sacchet: Yeah, I would invite you to come back up if you want to address a little more of
the detail in terms of what type of flavor health club you're actually envisioning.
Jim Lasher: Commissioners, this is a very schematic layout just to get to our total square
foot uses of what the type of things would be within the club, but if I had to characterize
this club I would say certainly it's at the Lifetime, Northwest, possibly not to the level of
finishes of a Flagship but it's certainly within that general concept of what we're trying to
provide here. The uses are very similar in terms of indoor aerobic spaces, tennis courts,
swimming pool, the general health club type layout requirements. I think conceptually
what they're trying to do here within this new concept is to bring more of a holistic idea
to a health club use and so we'll be developing that concept further as we move through
this idea, but this does give you a general sense of the type of layout of the club, and it is
very similar in terms of what you normally would expect in a health club setting.
Sacchet: Do you want to just walk through this a little bit?
Jim Lasher: Yes, I suppose we could. I'd ask someone else to take you through that.
Sacchet: I mean it doesn't have to be very detailed since we're looking at high level
concept, but personally I have some curiosity.
18
Planning Commission Oting — April 20, 2004 •
Adrian Haid: My name is Adrian Haid, a resident of Eden Prairie. Okay, it's facing
north, or Highway 5 or west of here. West of town. The club will have basically a fairly
large lobby with several waterfalls, and daycare center. And several aerobic studios. As
you're looking at two indoor swimming pools basically for lap swimming and other
activities, family activities, indoor pool. And we've got 4 basically racquetball is in right
here. And we're looking at producing a group of ... residents always left out of these kind
of activities is basically the ages 6 and 14. They cannot go to their daycare. Mom wants
to go work out. They don't know where to go. So Advance Fitness would be the first
club in the United States to implement an area for youth. Children of 6 to 14. So that is a
department that's in there, and also a 12 hoop basketball court. In addition to that we
have the second floor of 32,000 square foot of workout that overlooks the lobby, and with
all glass looking outside. Therefore the Advance Fitness is not a Bally's. It is not
Northwest Athletic Club and it is not Flagship. By far better.
Sacchet: Ahight, thank you very much.
Richard Bjork: Could have said it better myself.
Sacchet Ahight. If you want to move on, do you want to add anything else?
Richard Bjork: I believe that's it, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay, the public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address this. Is
there any more comments you want to share with us? If not, I will close the public
hearing and bring it back to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Want to start
Rich?
Slagle: I can start. I'd like to thank the applicant because this is something that is
definitely needed in the city of Chanhassen and surrounding area. So I don't need to say
much other than I think it really is exciting. I hope we work on the thought that this is
sort of a community entity, not to mention that it is privately owned but he's open to the
community. The one thing I do want to add, and I hope the applicant hears this, is in
respect to the neighbors comment to the south. I can speak, and it's been a few years for
some of you to hear this story but we lived in Woodbury across the street from an open
lot, which was rezoned and a health club, very large one, 24 hour health club went in, and
had lots of lights and was open, lots of glass. And I will say this, that that particular
company was very open to working with the neighbors to the south where they actually
helped purchase evergreens, increase the berming from the city's minimum heights and
became really a partner with the neighbors to the south. So I just ask you guys to work.
AdrianHaid: I can answer that question. You're talking about Woodbury, I'm assume
you talk about Lifetime. If you look at the end of the building on Lifetime is about
maybe 15 feet to the next house. But if you're looking at this house ... right there, from
this edge of this building to the next residence down here is far. Approximately, I don't
know exactly so if you're looking at that comparison of Lifetime in Woodbury, that is
basically the distance to you and I.
19
Planning Commission Sting — April 20, 2004 •
Slagle: Well I think you're probably referring to the homes that were to the east. We
were across the street which would be 200-300 feet, and all I'm saying is, is when the
night time came, the glare of that particular company was quite bright. But not to say
that that's not good or bad. It's just that I think if anything you can do with the neighbors
would be appreciated.
Adrian Haid: Absolutely. We plan on putting an absolute landscaping in the trees, high
bushes. That actually makes it very private. You won't even be able to see it from the
south or either direction. Therefore we provide all the amenities to protect.
Slagle: And I'll remind you that you used the word private.
Adrian Haid: Alright.
Papke: The applicant is looking for feedback concerning a possible partnership with the
schools. Having been a customer of the Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth, shared with the
Wayzata school system, it was always been my dream that Chanhassen could build
something like that so I would be extremely supportive of such a venture and I would
very encourage it because there's a severe shortage of practice space for the high school
swimming team here. However, I have one caveat on that, and this is more a heads up
for staff. It was my experience that the diving facility, due to insurance reasons, was not
made available to Plymouth to the residents or the users of Lifetime Fitness. So as we go
through this, I suggest that we look very carefully at what is being permitted to the city
residents versus what is being allowed when the school is using the facility and so on
because I was disappointed as a customer that my daughter, who is on the Chaska High
School diving team could not practice diving at that facility so I just raise that as an issue.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points.
Lillehaug: Can I ask the applicant one more question?
Sacchet: Certainly.
Lillehaug: I don't think they've commented on it but staff has indicated that they would
prefer to see only one restaurant. Do you have a comment on that being you are showing
two?
Jim Lasher: At this point in time we would prefer to try to move forward with as much
flexibility that this body could give us, and if that did include two restaurants, we would
come back at that point in time with a more detailed site plan and let you... at that time.
However, we would also agree that if you pushed those two together, we could in essence
construct two restaurants in one single building and I think that's certainly a reasonable
solution given what you did here with Chipotle and Wild Wings so that's a reasonable
solution as well but we would like to continue looking and exploring the option of two
restaurants. Thank you.
20
Planning Commission sting — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: Thank you.
Tjornhom: I guess I can throw my two cents in. I also actually think that it's badly
needed in Chanhassen. A decent place to go work out. The water park concerns me a
little bit only for the neighbors and the noise, and maybe they're too far away so it
wouldn't be a problem. I don't know but I just would like someone to think about that,
that at 8:00 at night maybe neighbors don't want to hear kids screaming down a slide or
something. So just to take that into consideration when you are making your plans.
Jim Lasher: We would propose to do a noise study if indeed that was part of the overall
plan and engage someone to actually do a detailed analysis about the level of noise
generated and how far it would travel. And if we did come up with a plan, that an
outdoor park did make sense, we would provide some level of assurances through
scientific analysis that the noise wasn't going to impact the neighbors. If it did, we would
move on and do something else.
Sacchet: Well I have a few comments too. First of all I think it's a great project. Really
think we all welcome this type of thing to our city. I made some notes about some of the
specific things that came up in our discussion. I think it's an excellent idea, this idea with
working with school district for the water park or pool. And study the noise, if it's the
water park outside. Maybe there could be some noise barriers in terms of berms,
evergreens, what have you, in a nice way. I do believe that direct access to what's
currently the bank building from the road, I agree with the comment that Commissioner
Lillehaug made. I think it's a bad idea. May as well throw that out from the beginning
rather than invest planning and then find out that it's not a good idea. Sidewalks I think
are an essential thing. Really because it's connecting the trails. It's close to schools.
Close to the park across Highway 5 so I think sidewalks pretty much across the whole
thing are important. I would want to be very clear about the importance of preserving
whatever trees there are in the creek area. It's an amenity to what you're building so I
think it's as much in your interest as in the city's interest to preserve that. Be careful
about that. The path, to find out where it goes. It's best to cross the creek and all that. I
mean that's comes when we get in further detail. Some flexibility with the road
alignment. I think that's common sense. I don't see an issue with that. Really the sticky
issue is this thing with the restaurants and the bank. And personally I think, I don't think
it's within the city's purview, certainly not my purview to try to dictate what should go in
there. Whether it's one bank and one restaurant or two restaurants and no bank, or a
combined building with two restaurants and another bank. I mean we have tons of bank
in this city but apparently there are more that want to come in. Restaurants, I think it's a
good idea. I like to go eating out once in a while. Have some variety. And I would say
that's going to be governed by the market forces. I mean if it's appropriate for business
sense and that's for you as the developer and ultimately the people that run those
businesses to decide. Not for us here. So I would like to suggest that we just hold you to
the 25 percent. And maybe with the guidance I could see well, maybe two restaurants
and no bank could be more desirable. Or one restaurant and one bank, than necessarily
the two restaurants and one bank, but if it fits within the 25 percent I think you'd be
21
Planning Commission Ating — April 20, 2004 •
fulfilling the requirement that we're trying to live by. That's my comments. Any
additional ones?
Slagle: I just had one last one, and that was, you touched upon the restaurants. Again
just giving some guidance. I don't know if I would be supportive at all of seeing a drive
thru.
Sacchet: Yeah, good point. There is a, you'd encounter some resistance with drive thru.
Lillehaug: Can I reiterate my questions and put them into comments then?
Sacchet: Please.
Lillehaug: As you know, you can see I'm concemed with access. Not concerned but my
attention is to access so on trunk highway 5 I would like to see, like you have proposed, a
single access inbetween Galpin and Audubon. A fully developed right tum lane and
match that concrete pavement on that new trunk highway 5 out there. And one access off
of Coulter, like staff indicated. The drawing showing two but one access off Coulter and
then all, I think everything else is.
Sacchet: Oh, you're referring to the access to water park area?
Lillehaug: Right. Staff indicated, and I agree that we should only have one access off of
Coulter, and I think that's probably amenable to this. Other than that it should be good to
work with the adjacent land owner to get that intersection lined up so thank you.
Sacchet: Now we don't usually take comments at this stage but since this is conceptual
PUD, discussion is very important so if you apparently want to add something more, go
ahead.
Jim Lasher: I just want to let the group know that we're prepared to live with those
recommendations and believe we can move a plan forward based on these
recommendations.
Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, I believe we made our comments.
Somebody want to make a motion, which should say recommend approval. Not approve,
right?
Aanenson: Recommend approval, that's correct. Just for anyone struggling with the
motion, we have a pretty good listing of those comments so if you wanted to just say.
Sacchet: As discussed.
Aanenson: Yeah, as discussed. It would be hard to frame all those but I think we've
been writing those down and certainly...
22
Planning Commission ating — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: That will be an easy way to do it
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the concept PUD with the following conditions 1 through 12. And I would like to modify
number 4. That the easterly access would not be allowed. And then add to 5 that no
direct access and I'll just paraphrasing here but just one access off of Coulter, so it'd be
deleting the accesses as shown on the layout. And I think that is all I have.
Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments?
Aanenson: Did you want to add with comments on, I don't know if that was mentioned
or not. With comments as discussed.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: With comments as discussed?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Any of the comments that are burning enough that we want to mention them
specifically? Not from your end. Yeah, in point one it says bank and we definitely want
to say maximum of one bank. I mean probably be more than enough...
Lillehaug: Do we want to modify the one free standing restaurant or?
Sacchet: Yeah, well I think we should do something about that. My recommendation
with that we would say 25 percent maximum as allowed within that district for the retail
oriented business.
Lillehaug: And not fast food as it indicates.
Sacchet: Not fast food, and that we wouldn't necessarily hold it to one restaurant. That
we would leave that maximum of two restaurants and one bank. Or two out of the three.
I mean we have some options there. How specific do we need to be? Personally I would
think the market forces dictate that more than our.
Aanenson: Can I just frame what I heard you say is you're comfortable with the 25
percent.
Sacchet: Right.
Aanenson: Not necessarily fast food. Drive thru.
23
Planning Commission Wing — April 20, 2004 •
Slagle: I think it was clear.
Sacchet: Pretty much definitely not.
Aanenson: So again, so if they stay within that 25 percent, the menu's a little bit bigger
but footprint, architectural, all those things come into play so, so you're comfortable with
it. What we had talked about early on.
Sacchet: So we would replace the two last bullets with 25 percent of retail oriented?
Basically that could include restaurant and/or bank.
Lillehaug: I think that sounds pretty good.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
I. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive duu
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
NU
Planning Commission feting — April 20, 2004 •
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA): REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN), AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A
ACRES IN CHANHASSEN). LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND
CASE NO. 04-05.
Public Present:
25
O4-14
Planning Commission Cary — April 20, 2004 •
3. The Interim Use Permit would expire upon the site being served by municipal
services.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, GUIDED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, ADVANCE
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim Lasher
LSA Design
Bary Blomquist, Jr.
Amerrest Systems
Richard Bjork
Amerrest Systems
Karci Eckermann
1838 Andrew Court
Brad Bohman
Dawn Pollman
1954 Andrew Court
Kathy Pensyl
1972 Andrew Court
C.J. Pappas
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for
staff clarification on their recommendation for only one restaurant and traffic between
this development and Lake Ann Park. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the
public/private situation with the proposed water park/pool and traffic concerns.
Commissioner Lillehaug had questions regarding zoning, roadways, and regional
ponding requirements. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification regarding the
proposed hotel. Commissioner Tjomhom stated she was struggling with the idea of a
water park in an industrial area. Chairman Sacchet had questions relating to the proposed
uses, i.e. hotel and bank, the percentage of uses, the water park and height of buildings.
Richard Bjork provided background information on the applicant, Advance Fitness. Jim
Lasher with ISA Design spoke on behalf of the team to outline the proposal.
Commissioner Tjornhom asked the applicant to explain how the water park differs from a
regular swimming pool. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the scale of
restaurants being proposed. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the
roadway connection with McGlynn Road. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing.
Brent Griowski, 2221 Hunter Drive, spoke on behalf of General Mills at 8000 Audubon
Road which is adjacent to the proposed development. He wanted to remind the
commission that General Mills is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and asked if a hotel
use the best use as a neighbor. Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court had questions
2
11 Planning Commission firnary —April 20, 2004 •
regarding the type of athletic health club, traffic circulation, density and parking on the
site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the
following motion was voted on.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac tum around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SW -MP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
Rl
• Planning Commission Kinary — April 20, 2004 •
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE, ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan & Val Tester
Eldon Beckland
Allan Klugman
Justin Larson
Dan Herbst
Marty & Jenny Clark
230 Flying Cloud Drive
10 Pioneer Trail
Westwood
Sathre-Berquist
Pemtom
18956 DorenKemper Place, Eden Prairie
Matt Saam and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner
Lillehaug asked for clarification on sharing road maintenance with Eden Prairie, roadway
geometrics, bluff delineation behind Lots 29 through 37, and access off of Pioneer Trail.
4
Planning Commissionating — April 20, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING:
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, GUIDED OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL, ADVANCE
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
Jim Lasher
Barry Blomquist, Jr.
Richard Bjork
Karci Eckermann
Brad Bohlman
Dawn Pollman
Kathy Pensyl
C.J. Pappas
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
LSA Design
Amer -vest Systems
Amervest Systems
1838 Andrew Court
1838 Andrew Court
1954 Andrew Court
1972 Andrew Court
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff.
Papke: I'll start. I assume the applicant is proposing two restaurants.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: In your recommendation you're saying one.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Okay. And the rationale for one I assume is that you're trying to keep the
business center of downtown Chan, is that the rationale or what's the rationale behind the
one?
Aanenson: Well, the rationale is, there will be in this facility they're proposing some
support, cafe sort of thing in order to capture that. But the rationale is this is an industrial
district. Restaurants aren't permitted in that district, in the retail district so if we're going
to allow it we'd want to stay under that 25 percent. So with the two and the bank, so kind
of pick and choose where you get that 25 percent. And the other concern we had with
that scale, could it be, if you put the cap on there, that it not be a drive thru? Could that
work if you still stayed under 25 for the two? Yes. So ... just no drive thm I think that'd
be.
4
Planning Commissiongeting —April 20, 2004 •
Papke: Second question. The proximity of the water park will be right across Highway 5
from Lake Ann roughly.
Aanenson: Let me show you on this map.
Papke: Pretty close to right across from Lake Ann.
Aanenson: Pretty close.
Papke: Is there any concern with that where traffic might be generated between the two?
Where you know, mom might drop off a couple kids at Lake Ann. The older kids at Lake
Ann. The younger kids at the water park, because it's.
Aanenson: I think with the right-inhight-out you can actually get over to, with a right,
taking a right, getting onto Highway 5 and then getting onto to West 78`s. I think that
would be pretty easy.
Saam: Yeah, and we actually have pretty good street access from the Lake Ann Park.
You come down to the new West 78`" Street. Take Audubon south and take a left on
Coulter, so.
Papke: So you don't think that would be an issue?
Saam: No. No, those are all collector roads.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think there's a signal at Audubon so even if you came this way on
Audubon and got on Coulter, I think that would work.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions of staff? Rich.
Slagle: I've got a couple. And I just want to confirm that the health club, this conceptual
PUD is a private enterprise from the health club standpoint, is that correct?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Slagle: The water park in the gentleman's letter was sort of left open as perhaps
privatetpublic.
Aanenson: Right, and they'll speak to that but it's my understanding they're exploring
what amenities would be desirable for the community and if there's any participation and
that really is a discussion for the City Council and that's kind of a concept. Whether it be
an outdoor or water park or.
Slagle: Okay. The other question I had was, and thank you for using a comparison of
Lifetime in Savage. If my numbers are correct, the comparison of the Savage facility is
E
Planning Commissionating — April 20, 2004 •
60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. Savage site also includes an outdoor pool.
And I'm assuming that is some more acres in addition to the 14.4? Do you know?
Aanenson: I'm not sure on that.
Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking is this. Is I'm seeing that the 60,000 club, excuse
me, the club that we're looking at is 6 point something acres with the outdoor water park
another 4. So you're in essence fitting that all on 10 acres, where a comparable club is on
14.4 and we're not sure if that includes a pool or not, so my only question is, do we feel
that this is somewhat limiting in size from an acreage standpoint?
Aanenson: Well I think obviously the parking's going to drive the footprint too because
the two have to match together, and as we move through those discussions, and I think
they're sffi1 trying to get a read from the community as what elements or amenities are
desirable so they match what our community standards are because I think every
community has a little bit different desires, so they're working through those issues too,
but certainly the footprint and the parking has been an issue. And I think that's what we
looked at too is some of those, you know it's a 24 operations. Obviously it peaks, ebs
and flows and looking at some of the cross over parking with some of the uses we had
talked about that too.
Slagle: Do you know, and I didn't see it, is there an outdoor pool or an indoor pool with
the health club?
Aanenson: There is an indoor pool proposed, yeah.
Slagle: Okay. And last for I guess engineering is on that proposed right-of-way Matt,
where the two roads will connect to what I will call the northeast of the health club.
What would be your traffic thoughts there? Stop signs or.
Saam: In the extension of McGlynn Drive from the east?
Slagle: Exactly, yep.
Aanenson: At this intersection.
Slagle: Yeah, and then hitting that north/south road. Yeah, right there. What would you,
hard to say at this point?
Saam: Yeah, what I would envision right now would be two way stop at McGlynn and a
thm on the north/south.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff?
0
Planning Commissionating — April 20, 2004 •
Lillehaug: I have some, yes.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: This is getting a little detailed but I think we just need to raise a few of these
points right now. These buildings, the right-of-way line on the north portion. MnDot
right-of-way. Would that be right up to where the colored portion is on their map?
Because I think we need a 50 foot setback to these buildings, correct? So that lessens
some parking area. So is that right-of-way right up to the colored portion or is it one of
them other lines further north? I guess I would, I just want to make it clear that I think
we need a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way there and it's clearly not that. Am I
correct?
Aanenson: They need to be 50 feet, correct. I'm not sure on that scale...
Lillehaug: I just wanted to raise that point so that wasn't even a question was it? Zoning.
Why would we want to allow a bank in this area? I mean what benefit does that give to
the city by allowing a bank in this area that it's not zoned for?
Aanenson: Well our recommendation was that it wouldn't be a free standing bank. That
it be incorporated with something else so I guess we leave that back up to you. There's
some banks that are still trying to land up some sites and obviously they're working with
some of the users they know are out there, but I would leave that up to you. Our
recommendation was that it be incorporated and so it would be a smaller building but a
bigger building with some other uses with it. That'd be similar to what we just did on the
bowling alley site. The bank has office over it. It's actually like a 30,000 square foot
building. So it still have the drive thru but there's offices over the top and adjacent to it
so it has a larger footprint and that would be our recommendation.
Lillehaug: Why allow a bank at all though?
Aanenson: Well I would leave it up to you.
Lillehaug: I mean it's not guided for that but why would.
Aanenson: And the same thing with a restaurant. It's kind of quasi office user.
Sacchet: It falls into those 25 percent flexibility, right?
Aanenson: Right.
Lillehaug: Let's see. Roadways. Trunk Highway 5. I guess we would only be, the city
plans on only allowing one access point off of Trunk Highway 5 for this entire
undeveloped area.
7
Planning Commissionating — April 20, 2004
Aanenson: Correct, and that's what MnDot had, when we did Coulter, right. They had
one access. Originally it was shown on the other side. At that time we weren't sure
exactly how the development was going to lay out so that was kind of held off in
abeyance and it's my understanding that the developer has an agreement with MnDot to
put it on the other side. But it would be right in, it was always was only planned right-
in/right-out.
Lillehaug: So there from Audubon to Galpin this will be the only right-in/right-out? I
mean there will be no others?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. Does the city, this is a Trunk Highway 5 brand new section of
roadway. Does the city anticipate requiring the applicant to provide a full length right
tum lane with concrete pavement to match that new road that we got out there? I would
hope so.
Saam: Yeah, and I would think that would be a MnDot requirement also Commissioner
Lillehaug.
Aanenson: Right, we haven't got their comments back but certainly that would be some
of their, in their jurisdiction too to comment on some of that.
Lillehaug: Okay. Then let's go on the north/south connector street. Right into the
proposed office bank building. Well, this isn't quite the same situation we had down on,
was it Century? It's not quite the same situation but.
Aanenson: Yeah, we struggled with that too. Just so you know again, we went through a
lot of, and we didn't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it for conceptual but
originally when it came in, I believe the restaurant was on the far side and we said you
know it would be nicer to have the restaurant closer to the creek. A nicer amenity if you
had outdoor patio. So when you worked out, went over there, that'd be nice. Is this the
best place for a bank based on traffic? That's something we'll have to explore. I
understand what you're saying with your concern there, and we're still looking at that.
Lillehaug: Not even necessarily a bank. You know I want.
Aanenson: But a cut, a curb cut right here.
Lillehaug: Right.
Aanenson: I agree.
Lillehaug: It's conceptual.
Planning Commission Wring — April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: Yeah, we .... that issue with them too and how that works and right. But I
think it's something to flag and watch, yeah.
Sacchet: Chances are it's not going to be a good idea.
Lillehaug: Does engineering, is their opinion that, is it the city standard to have a 300
foot before you allow a curb cut so that would really in essence be down to the next
roadway, is that standard?
Saam: Yes. 300 is the standard. I just want to add that we did point that out. That
access would require further study. A traffic study to make sure that the intersection will
operate effectively. So we're not blanketedly saying that we're going to allow that. It
needs to be looked at.
Aanenson: It's on page 5 in one of the bullet points, yeah.
Lillehaug: You know do we even give a false indication of that because I guess I'm of
the opinion that we don't need, a traffic study's not going to tell us really anything. It's
just a matter, it's policy and.
Sacchet: But it's certainly within our discussion Steve. Make a firmer point if you want
to firm that one up.
Lillehaug: Okay. Let's see here. I apologize here. Let's see. Fast food. Fast food. Do
we have, is fast food defined in our code?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Lillehaug: It is? Okay. Regional ponding requirements. Does the city have any idea of
what they're proposing for any regional ponding requirements? The staff report indicated
that it need to fit in here somehow.
Aanenson: They'll have to come back in the next iteration with that.
Lillehaug: So on site regional ponding?
Saam: Correct. Yeah, we haven't received any drainage calculations to speak of at this
point so we have no idea the size that will be needed or.
Lillehaug: Boy, that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any questions Dan or Bethany?
Keefe: I just have a couple. The proposed hotel, does the city have a number of units
that they want to build out and this particular hotel sort of meets that guidance?
3J
Planning Commission Seting — April 20, 2004 is
Aanenson: Again it's conceptual. I think when we give them, they were showing some
things that they thought may work. It may not be a hotel. That's the thing of putting the
list together. Again what we're trying to show is some uses, that is a permitted use so if
it went away and became another office or something else permitted, I think that'd be
fine. I think the thing that we're looking at was the retail, introduction of the retail and
that's why we're talking about the...
Keefe: And then in regards to the hotel, does that include...
Aanenson: Typically we don't address that if it's kind of the continental breakfast. We
don't have a lot of those that have full service. Most of them have the continental. All of
them do that are in town right now. The continental express breakfast so.
Keefe: And did we consider maybe making one larger restaurant versus the two?
Aanenson: Right. I guess that's where I was coming from. Having one larger one. You
know again, just to give you comparison if you look at Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings,
that's a 7,500 square foot building. Those are both sit down. Could something like that
go in there? Or something bigger, that would be one larger footprint so again our
concern was as long as it wasn't their drive thru, the quick in, we thought this would be
an opportunity for a nicer experience. A sit down, sit outside, that kind of atmosphere.
Keefe: So the proposed restaurant are really to support more the hotel and then some
local traffic as well, right.
Aanenson: Yeah, that they have tennis courts which is one of the things they talked
about. Play tennis, go across the street, and again with the hotel that they were looking at
a complimentary, but again some of those things may slide a little bit as we move through
this.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Keefe: That's it.
Sacchet: Questions Bethany?
Tjornhom: I'm kind of struggling with the whole water park, the whole thing in that area.
Is a water park really appropriate in an office industrial area or is it, you know I guess I
just, I'm trying to envision taking my kids to the water park by all the offices and is it
more of a neighborhood place?
Aanenson: Well it's tied in with the fitness center so you'd have to come through the
fitness center. It'd be part of that. Similar to some of the ones that other recreational
facilities we do. So it'd slide into that, and I think the intent there is to screen that, I
10
Planning Commission Wing — April 20, 2004 is
mean is control the access of how you get in and out of it so it would be related
specifically to this use.
Tjomhom: And so then, once I think someone already asked this question but so would
this be for private use then just for members only or would it just be.
Aanenson: Members only, correct.
Tjomhom: So it wouldn't just be for a city, anybody who wanted to.
Aanenson: Right, it's tied to this project. That's correct.
Tjomhom: Okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: I actually have a few questions still too. Quite a number of them are addressed.
On page 2 of the staff report Kate, there's this comment that I cannot, I kind of was
wondering. It says that a hotel is permitted but it's an unlikely use. What does that mean
unlikely?
Aanenson: Well we just don't think there's a market, and that question was already
raised. We're just not sure that there's a market right now for another hotel.
Sacchet: Okay. So we're wondering whether we already have enough? But then bank is
not unlikely? We certainly have more banks than hotels.
Aanenson: All I can tell you is that I know there's two bank users looking so, and there's
a lot of reasons for that but personally I think there's not a market for a hotel.
Sacchet: Alright. Then.
Aanenson: Again going back, we have approved the other Northcott one. It hasn't been
built yet so there's already one...
Sacchet: And also bank buildings yeah. All trees within the creek setback, what does
this say? Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved. Are
they or I mean we'll see that when it gets more detail?
Aanenson: Right. At that level again there is the creek setback. The Watershed District
regulations so again at this level they weren't, they're here to get a read before they go
back and do that, the more detailed oriented plans, but if you're in the creek setback,
there's no reason to be grading or anything like that so all of those trees should be
preserved, and then we did talk about, if there was even an outdoor pool in this area, or
whether it's a water park, how we were to preserve those. Those features.
Sacchet: In terms of the restaurants and bank, when we say 25 percent, is it 25 percent of
the building footprint or what exactly is it 25 percent of?
11
Planning Commissionating— April 20, 2004 •
Aanenson: You know we took some different evolutions of that to see if it made a
difference and it can go either way, whether it's acreage or square footage of buildings.
It comes pretty close. It's negligible. We ran it a couple different ways, correct.
Sacchet: So it could potentially be two restaurants and no bank?
Aanenson: Right, and I guess that was.
Sacchet: Or we could say just 25 percent?
Aanenson: Or a restaurant not to exceed, give a square footage. You know, or give
yourself some flexibility because again this is giving them some direction as it comes
back through, you know that you can tighten that up a little bit but I think that's where
Steve was going, he wants to give some clear direction on some of his issues and that's
what I guess we're asking for too.
Sacchet: And based on the comment made about the water park, it does look like public
water park is at this point...
Aanenson: Well I think that's a discussion you may want to have with the city.
Sacchet: And then my last question, in the applicant's write up they're talking about the
hotel being 3 or 4 stories. What's, how high can they go?
Aanenson: It can go that high. In the IOP district.
Sacchet: No problem with that?
Aanenson: Yeah, and that's how tall the Holiday Inn...
Sacchet: Thank you very much Kate, that's all my questions. With that, if the applicant,
yes. Sony Rich, go ahead.
Slagle: I'm sorry but I do want to get it out with staff before the applicant presents. And
Kate I just want your thoughts, again conceptually, would there be merit to tying in what
I will call either more sidewalks or such that would connect, obviously you have the
sidewalks on Coulter. But going up that new road and then maybe even going east on
McGlynn to the daycare.
Aanenson: Yeah, definitely, I think so, and you know we had talked about too, all the
places where you can possibly put a bridge across the creek to get, to tie into going across
that way too and they're willing to explore all those. We've talked about that and I think
that's certainly, it's exercise. If you want to go outside and do a walk, exactly.
Slagle: Exactly, okay. Thank you.
12
Planning Commission Seting — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: Ahight, with this I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If
you have anything to add. We'd like to hear from you. You want to state your name and
address for the record please.
Richard Bjork: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Bjork. I'm with Advance
Fitness and I do live in Edina, Minnesota. I'd like to thank staff for their support on this
project very much and we hope that this is something that the Planning Commission
looks favorably upon. We realize that there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point
in time but we're here to just kind of banter it back and forth a little bit. See what works,
what doesn't work, things like that. We have developed a lot of different mixed use
projects and we've done everything from residential to some golf courses. Some parking.
Commercial. Things like that. We've assembled a team with some architectural
background. With some legal background. Some financial background, and some health
club background, so we've got a group together that should make this project work. The
fund raising that we put together is going in the right direction so we're comfortable that
we can accomplish this project, and one of the major things, because the site is 22 acres,
to put together a health club which is a primary use of the project, we really only need
approximately 13 acres, so therefore you say to yourself, okay you have to come up with
something to use the rest of the real estate to make the whole project work in a
complimentary manner. And that's one of the reasons that we have put down the uses
that we have. Also the fact that the water park is something that seems to be a growing
trend in communities and something that is practical for the local residents. Savage as an
example. They give their residents a discount when they come in, walk through the
health club and then use the pool on a daily basis. They just pay per day for the use,
something like that. So we have not really explored that in detail but it is something that
we'd like to see as an ancillary service to the health club, and make the use of the land.
So with that what I'd like to do is turn it over to our landscape architect that's on our
team, Jim Lasher and have him walk you through the, unless you have some questions for
me initially.
Sacchet: Any questions so far? No? Thank you very much
Richard Bjork: Jim Lasher.
Jim Lasher: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Lasher from LSA Design. I'm
here representing the team. I can address any specific questions you have about the plan
or I can back up a bit and go through a little bit more detail of the specific plan and then
entertain questions at that point.
Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you give us a little more idea first. It doesn't have to be
lengthy but an overview would be great.
Jim Lasher: I think what I would like to touch on a bit is the access issues that have been
brought up and what we plan to do about those. We do have an easement agreement in
place. It's being worked on from MnDot regarding access to this site. Received it today
13
Planning Commission Meting — April 20, 2004 •
from, signed by Al Penn, Director of Land Development for MnDot. The basic idea is
that we would agree to this body to put the entire road on our property, although I think it
would be in our best interest to look at to try to split that right-of-way in essence to move
this project forward the team has agreed that we would accept the full 60 foot right-of-
way width on our property. That allows the project to move forward in our time frame,
and it allows you to move forward without having to go through an eminent domain
procedure for adjacent property so I think that is a great benefit of moving forward with
this particular project. The second piece is we would certainly agree to that connection
piece back over to McGlynn and look to make that a full connecting road all the way
through. One thing it does do however is move the access point a little bit further south
than we would actually prefer to be so we would request that you allow us to review that
in terms of layout. What it may end up being is a bit of a curvature in the road. I believe
the access comes in about down here so we may end up grinding that back and coming in
this fashion because as we mentioned we're going to try to put the health club on the
back portion of the site and re -use the front portion and the deeper it gets in the front
portion the more square footage we're actually going to look to this body for approval for
the ancillary development. I believe the 25 percent number is a good number and we can
live within that number but I would ask for your support in terms of how we locate that
specific road. The second piece is the shoreland setback and how we would handle storm
water. At this point in time we're going through the general calculations for what our
runoff calculation would be and our intention would be is to do storm water for this entire
site on our particular site. So please rest assured that is the intention of the group. The
shoreland setback we're showing now is approximately 100 feet, and we would look to
either a path along that side and then make a connection to the other side or possibly
combine the path on the other side with our's. If there's no need to be redundant, and we
certainly don't want to be redundant with the path, wherever the best location would be
for it, we would concur to go to that location. With regards to the specific uses, I think
we can agree to not have access off of the primary north/south road. This is the location.
It looks to all access off of this road in both directions. We would request however that
there be a secondary access along for the health club here because it would be a fairly
large parking facility and we'd like to have at least two accesses to that point. We're
probably looking at somewhere between 400 to 450 parking stalls for this particular
facility. Two access points would be preferred. And lastly I think what we would like to
do is move forward a bit with the water park discussion but another alternative which has
been done in other communities is to entertain discussions with the local school district
about the idea of combining a public/private venture for this particular project. I'll cite
an example in Plymouth where the city of Plymouth and the local health club got together
and built in essence a school swimming pool and swimming facility that was used by the
Wayzata School District. We'd request from this body the authority to at least move
forward with those discussions in the likelihood of maybe bringing back, not an exterior
water park but an expanded indoor pool facility that would be able to be used by the local
school district as well. With that I'll answer any further questions, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant?
14
Planning Commission Wing — April 20, 2004 •
Tjornhom: I have an easy one for you right away. Define to me what a water park, how
this is different from just a regular swimming pool.
Jim Lasher: At this point in time the water park industry is looking to kind of the bells
and whistles world of what's more to something than just a swimming pool. The big,
large slides. The outdoor play equipment. The pieces that generally provide that
excitement at a water enthusiastic type park, rather than just a swimming pool. If you
went to the communities like St. Louis Park or even the Plymouth facility or some other
communities in Hastings that have built outdoor water parks, they have large slides,
outdoor play equipment, so it's a little bit more of an entertainment type venue and not
just a swimming pool. That would be one option. The second option as I mentioned
would be more of an interior straight swimming pool facility that would maybe have an
Olympic sized pool that would be suitable for sort of school activities and possibly a
diving well that would be suitable for NCAA or high school sanctioned swimming events
as well. We'll look at both of those but in essence the outdoor pool would just be a more
kind of enthusiastic type facility with a lot more equipment.
Tjomhom: But would it generate a lot more noise, do you think than a regular outdoor
pool that you would find at an athletic club?
Jim Lasher: I believe any outdoor swimming pool will clearly generate more noise than
the inside would. I think our intention would be to go through that particular layout and
work with you to see if that was too much of an impact for the adjacent properties and
work with your preference there but clearly any flexibility you give us at this point in
time we believe we can produce the best plan.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt.
Papke: Can you elaborate a little bit on the nature of the restaurants you're proposing
there, so for instance the smaller restaurant immediately adjacent to the hotel, is this in
the you know, a Denny's or is this, you what level of scale are you considering for your
two restaurants?
Jim Lasher: We had two primary thoughts on the restaurants, and as you understand in
the development of this, what we're trying to do is service the highway user as well as the
health club user. When you look at the number of people that come to a facility like this,
it's an opportunity in an overall mixed use development to provide ancillary services.
We looked at two types of restaurants. The first would be a sit down type restaurant,
which would clearly provide seating space and parking space suitable in the 10 to 11,000
square foot range. The second was what we thought would be a fairly good place for a
drive thru. Given the fact that fast food is something that people may want to pick up
after a health club experience, they could do that quickly and leave the site.
Understanding your conditions here about what you'd like to see on this site, we would
agree to look at both of those ideas and see which one made the most sense. From our
standpoint we would prefer to move forward with both restaurants but understand your
position as well.
15
Planning Commission feting — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a question as far as connecting McGlynn Road up. What is your
involvement with that property to the east of you? Now you're showing the proposed
roadway here east/west roadway where it is, but what involvement do you have with that
property because I guess it'd be a good engineering standpoint that you don't want a
staggered intersection, and I'm sure you'd agree with that but why couldn't we just put a
curve in McGlynn and connect up there? Do you know something that we don't I guess.
Jim Lasher: We do not know or have any involvement in that particular parcel. All we
would ask is that we would try to do a pure 90 degree intersection at that point in time,
but we may end up curving our road a bit to get it closer to Highway 5 than what is
currently being shown on that connection and the parcel to the east of us.
Aanenson: If I could elaborate on that a little bit more. The property owner to the east
may or may not have as much development interest. It appears that right now there's
some different parties involved that are advancing some changes on some of that
property. Our position was that the two parties would have to work it out and I think as
Mr. Lasher indicated, based on timing, it would hold it up to get both parties to agree.
Certainly it's our job to make sure that the benefit of one is not to the detriment of
another and we'll try to make those connections. Give the other party an opportunity to
comment. You know they were notified of this project going forward so we'll try to
work those through, but again sometimes it's a timing issue. If someone's, if we have to
swing the road a little bit to still provide that opportunity for both connections to work,
that makes.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a
public hearing so if anybody likes to address this project, please come forward. State
your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Are there
any individuals here that want to address this? If I see nobody, yes. There's somebody.
Brent Griowski: Hello. My name is Brent Griowski. I'm at 2221 Hunter Drive in
Chanhassen. And I'm actually representing General Mills which is off 8000 Audubon,
adjacent to the area that we're talking about today. And I understand it's a conceptual
drawing and was also been some discussion about whether or not a hotel would actually
be considered for that area. North of the proposal. But just to remind the council, as you
decide what we're going to put there, it is a 24/7 operation just on the other side of
Coulter. And to remind the council that there is some noise that's generated from there.
Is a hotel the best solution for that? That's all I have.
Sacchet: Especially when you bang the trucks, right. Alright, is there anybody else?
Please come forward.
Fri
Planning Commission Oeting — April 20, 2004 •
Brad Bohlman: Hi, my name is Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court. I have some
questions, not necessarily of the commission but possibly of the potential user of the site.
I guess my initial question is what type of an athletic club, how would you characterize
it? Would you characterize it as a Bally's? Would you characterize it as a Flagship?
How would you look at it?
Sacchet: Why don't you tell us all your story and then if you want to come back up, you
certainly can do so.
Brad Bohlman: Essentially also is there going to be any ingress or egress off of Coulter
into the site?
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: There is?
Sacchet: Yes, there is a connector.
Aanenson: This street here. ...if you're down on Andrew Court, you're right here.
Brad Bohlman: Correct.
Aanenson: Okay. So this street, there will be a street, Stone Creek comes onto Coulter.
It will be offset. This street would be offset and then this street would come through ... so
this street would come through.
Sacchet: Instead of the other one.
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: And that goes into the site itself?
Aanenson: No, that's what we were just talking about. All has to do with the interior of
this road.
Brad Bohlman: So essentially the health club is set back so there's parking that would
abut Coulter?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Brad Bohlman: Okay. Okay, and then I guess another question would be, is there going
to be any type of landscaping or screening off of Coulter to separate the parking area.
Sacchet: That is standard, isn't it Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. And again this is concept. It doesn't have any...
17
Planning Commission *eting — April 20, 2004 •
Brad Bohlman: Right, I understand it's a concept...
Aanenson: ... complete landscaping plan will be another public hearing on those.
Brad Bohlman: And I guess kind of piggyback in what Rich was saying, it seems like
there might be a fair amount of density here based upon the amount of acreage that
they're planning, at least in my opinion. That would just be something, and then just
relative to proof of parking versus the density level also. Those are my questions. I don't
know how you want to address them but those are just questions that I have.
Sacchet: In terms that we have berming requirements for the city in terms of shielding
parking areas, in terms of density and parking requirements, we have standard formulas
that apply to that. We're not to that level of detail with this project obviously but those
would all come into play when this project gets further refined.
Brad BohIman: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that?
Aanenson: I was going to say that they do have an iteration of the internal if you wanted
just for them to take a minute to go through kind of what they were thinking. That might
be...
Sacchet: Yeah, I would invite you to come back up if you want to address a little more of
the detail in terms of what type of flavor health club you're actually envisioning.
Jim Lasher: Commissioners, this is a very schematic layout just to get to our total square
foot uses of what the type of things would be within the club, but if I had to characterize
this club I would say certainly it's at the Lifetime, Northwest, possibly not to the level of
finishes of a Flagship but it's certainly within that general concept of what we're trying to
provide here. The uses are very similar in terms of indoor aerobic spaces, tennis courts,
swimming pool, the general health club type layout requirements. I think conceptually
what they're trying to do here within this new concept is to bring more of a holistic idea
to a health club use and so we'll be developing that concept further as we move through
this idea, but this does give you a general sense of the type of layout of the club, and it is
very similar in terms of what you normally would expect in a health club setting.
Sacchet: Do you want to just walk through this a little bit?
Jim Lasher: Yes, I suppose we could. I'd ask someone else to take you through that.
Sacchet: I mean it doesn't have to be very detailed since we're looking at high level
concept, but personally I have some curiosity.
IV
Planning Commission Seting — April 20, 2004 •
Adrian Haid: My name is Adrian Haid, a resident of Eden Prairie. Okay, it's facing
north, or Highway 5 or west of here. West of town. The club will have basically a fairly
large lobby with several waterfalls, and daycare center. And several aerobic studios. As
you're looking at two indoor swimming pools basically for lap swimming and other
activities, family activities, indoor pool. And we've got 4 basically racquetball is in right
here. And we're looking at producing a group of ... residents always left out of these kind
of activities is basically the ages 6 and 14. They cannot go to their daycare. Mom wants
to go work out. They don't know where to go. So Advance Fitness would be the first
club in the United States to implement an area for youth. Children of 6 to 14. So that is a
department that's in there, and also a 12 hoop basketball court. In addition to that we
have the second floor of 32,000 square foot of workout that overlooks the lobby, and with
all glass looking outside. Therefore the Advance Fitness is not a Bally's. It is not
Northwest Athletic Club and it is not Flagship. By far better.
Sacchet: Ahight, thank you very much.
Richard Bjork: Could have said it better myself.
Sacchet: Alright. If you want to move on, do you want to add anything else?
Richard Bjork: I believe that's it, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay, the public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address this. Is
there any more comments you want to share with us? If not, I will close the public
hearing and bring it back to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Want to start
Rich?
Slagle: I can start. I'd like to thank the applicant because this is something that is
definitely needed in the city of Chanhassen and surrounding area. So I don't need to say
much other than I think it really is exciting. I hope we work on the thought that this is
sort of a community entity, not to mention that it is privately owned but he's open to the
community. The one thing I do want to add, and I hope the applicant hears this, is in
respect to the neighbors comment to the south. I can speak, and it's been a few years for
some of you to hear this story but we lived in Woodbury across the street from an open
lot, which was rezoned and a health club, very large one, 24 hour health club went in, and
had lots of lights and was open, lots of glass. And I will say this, that that particular
company was very open to working with the neighbors to the south where they actually
helped purchase evergreens, increase the berming from the city's minimum heights and
became really a partner with the neighbors to the south. So I just ask you guys to work.
Adrian Haid: I can answer that question. You're talking about Woodbury, I'm assume
you talk about Lifetime. If you look at the end of the building on Lifetime is about
maybe 15 feet to the next house. But if you're looking at this house ... right there, from
this edge of this building to the next residence down here is far. Approximately, I don't
know exactly so if you're looking at that comparison of Lifetime in Woodbury, that is
basically the distance to you and I.
19
Planning Commission Wing — April 20, 2004 •
Slagle: Well I think you're probably referring to the homes that were to the east. We
were across the street which would be 200-300 feet, and all I'm saying is, is when the
night time came, the glare of that particular company was quite bright. But not to say
that that's not good or bad. It's just that I think if anything you can do with the neighbors
would be appreciated.
Adrian Haid: Absolutely. We plan on putting an absolute landscaping in the trees, high
bushes. That actually makes it very private. You won't even be able to see it from the
south or either direction. Therefore we provide all the amenities to protect.
Slagle: And I'll remind you that you used the word private.
Adrian Haid: Alright.
Papke: The applicant is looking for feedback concerning a possible partnership with the
schools. Having been a customer of the Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth, shared with the
Wayzata school system, it was always been my dream that Chanhassen could build
something like that so I would be extremely supportive of such a venture and I would
very encourage it because there's a severe shortage of practice space for the high school
swimming team here. However, I have one caveat on that, and this is more a heads up
for staff. It was my experience that the diving facility, due to insurance reasons, was not
made available to Plymouth to the residents or the users of Lifetime Fitness. So as we go
through this, I suggest that we look very carefully at what is being permitted to the city
residents versus what is being allowed when the school is using the facility and so on
because I was disappointed as a customer that my daughter, who is on the Chaska High
School diving team could not practice diving at that facility so I just raise that as an issue.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points.
Lillehaug: Can I ask the applicant one more question?
Sacchet: Certainly.
Lillehaug: I don't think they've commented on it but staff has indicated that they would
prefer to see only one restaurant. Do you have a comment on that being you are showing
two?
Jim Lasher: At this point in time we would prefer to try to move forward with as much
flexibility that this body could give us, and if that did include two restaurants, we would
come back at that point in time with a more detailed site plan and let you... at that time.
However, we would also agree that if you pushed those two together, we could in essence
construct two restaurants in one single building and I think that's certainly a reasonable
solution given what you did here with Chipotle and Wild Wings so that's a reasonable
solution as well but we would like to continue looking and exploring the option of two
restaurants. Thank you.
20
Planning Commission ting — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: Thank you.
Tjornhom: I guess I can throw my two cents in. I also actually think that it's badly
needed in Chanhassen. A decent place to go work out. The water park concerns me a
little bit only for the neighbors and the noise, and maybe they're too far away so it
wouldn't be a problem. I don't know but I just would like someone to think about that,
that at 8:00 at night maybe neighbors don't want to hear kids screaming down a slide or
something. So just to take that into consideration when you are making your plans.
Jim Lasher: We would propose to do a noise study if indeed that was part of the overall
plan and engage someone to actually do a detailed analysis about the level of noise
generated and how far it would travel. And if we did come up with a plan, that an
outdoor park did make sense, we would provide some level of assurances through
scientific analysis that the noise wasn't going to impact the neighbors. If it did, we would
move on and do something else.
Sacchet: Well I have a few comments too. First of all I think it's a great project. Really
think we all welcome this type of thing to our city. I made some notes about some of the
specific things that came up in our discussion. I think it's an excellent idea, this idea with
working with school district for the water park or pool. And study the noise, if it's the
water park outside. Maybe there could be some noise barriers in terms of berms,
evergreens, what have you, in a nice way. I do believe that direct access to what's
currently the bank building from the road, I agree with the comment that Commissioner
Lillehaug made. I think it's a bad idea. May as well throw that out from the beginning
rather than invest planning and then find out that it's not a good idea. Sidewalks I think
are an essential thing. Really because it's connecting the trails. It's close to schools.
Close to the park across Highway 5 so I think sidewalks pretty much across the whole
thing are important. I would want to be very clear about the importance of preserving
whatever trees there are in the creek area. It's an amenity to what you're building so I
think it's as much in your interest as in the city's interest to preserve that. Be careful
about that. The path, to find out where it goes. It's best to cross the creek and all that. I
mean that's comes when we get in further detail. Some flexibility with the road
alignment. I think that's common sense. I don't see an issue with that. Really the sticky
issue is this thing with the restaurants and the bank. And personally I think, I don't think
it's within the city's purview, certainly not my purview to try to dictate what should go in
there. Whether it's one bank and one restaurant or two restaurants and no bank, or a
combined building with two restaurants and another bank. I mean we have tons of bank
in this city but apparently there are more that want to come in. Restaurants, I think it's a
good idea. I like to go eating out once in a while. Have some variety. And I would say
that's going to be governed by the market forces. I mean if it's appropriate for business
sense and that's for you as the developer and ultimately the people that run those
businesses to decide. Not for us here. So I would like to suggest that we just hold you to
the 25 percent. And maybe with the guidance I could see well, maybe two restaurants
and no bank could be more desirable. Or one restaurant and one bank, than necessarily
the two restaurants and one bank, but if it fits within the 25 percent I think you'd be
21
Planning Commission Meting — April 20, 2004 •
fulfilling the requirement that we're trying to live by. That's my comments. Any
additional ones?
Slagle: I just had one last one, and that was, you touched upon the restaurants. Again
just giving some guidance. I don't know if I would be supportive at all of seeing a drive
thru.
Sacchet: Yeah, good point. There is a, you'd encounter some resistance with drive thru.
Lillehaug: Can I reiterate my questions and put them into comments then?
Sacchet: Please.
Lillehaug: As you know, you can see I'm concerned with access. Not concerned but my
attention is to access so on trunk highway 5 I would like to see, like you have proposed, a
single access inbetween Galpin and Audubon. A fully developed right turn lane and
match that concrete pavement on that new trunk highway 5 out there. And one access off
of Coulter, like staff indicated. The drawing showing two but one access off Coulter and
then all, I think everything else is.
Sacchet: Oh, you're referring to the access to water park area?
Lillehaug: Right. Staff indicated, and I agree that we should only have one access off of
Coulter, and I think that's probably amenable to this. Other than that it should be good to
work with the adjacent land owner to get that intersection lined up so thank you.
Sacchet: Now we don't usually take comments at this stage but since this is conceptual
PUD, discussion is very important so if you apparently want to add something more, go
ahead.
Jim Lasher: I just want to let the group know that we're prepared to live with those
recommendations and believe we can move a plan forward based on these
recommendations.
Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, I believe we made our comments.
Somebody want to make a motion, which should say recommend approval. Not approve,
right?
Aanenson: Recommend approval, that's correct. Just for anyone struggling with the
motion, we have a pretty good listing of those comments so if you wanted to just say.
Sacchet: As discussed.
Aanenson: Yeah, as discussed. It would be hard to frame all those but I think we've
been writing those down and certainly...
22
Planning Commission feting — April 20, 2004 •
Sacchet: That will be an easy way to do it.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the concept PUD with the following conditions 1 through 12. And I would like to modify
number 4. That the easterly access would not be allowed. And then add to 5 that no
direct access and I'll just paraphrasing here but just one access off of Coulter, so it'd be
deleting the accesses as shown on the layout. And I think that is all I have.
Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments?
Aanenson: Did you want to add with comments on, I don't know if that was mentioned
or not. With comments as discussed.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: With comments as discussed?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Any of the comments that are burning enough that we want to mention them
specifically? Not from your end. Yeah, in point one it says bank and we definitely want
to say maximum of one bank. I mean probably be more than enough...
Lillehaug: Do we want to modify the one free standing restaurant or?
Sacchet: Yeah, well I think we should do something about that. My recommendation
with that we would say 25 percent maximum as allowed within that district for the retail
oriented business.
Lillehaug: And not fast food as it indicates.
Sacchet: Not fast food, and that we wouldn't necessarily hold it to one restaurant. That
we would leave that maximum of two restaurants and one bank. Or two out of the three.
I mean we have some options there. How specific do we need to be? Personally I would
think the market forces dictate that more than our.
Aanenson: Can I just frame what I heard you say is you're comfortable with the 25
percent.
Sacchet: Right.
Aanenson: Not necessarily fast food. Drive thru.
23
Planning Commission Wing — April 20, 2004 •
Slagle: I think it was clear.
Sacchet: Pretty much definitely not.
Aanenson: So again, so if they stay within that 25 percent, the menu's a little bit bigger
but footprint, architectural, all those things come into play so, so you're comfortable with
it. What we had talked about early on.
Sacchet: So we would replace the two last bullets with 25 percent of retail oriented?
Basically that could include restaurant and/or bank.
Lillehaug: I think that sounds pretty good.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the easttwest street will
require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
24
Planning Commission Oeting — April 20, 2004 •
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be
allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase H Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN
URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT;
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN). 3
OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN). AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A
VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE, ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6
ACRES IN CHANHASSEN), LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND
EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL, THE PEMTOM
LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS, SETTLERS WEST, PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-05l
Public Present:
0141
June16, 2004
Kathryn R. Aanenson. AICP
Community Development Director
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Aanenson
As I mentioned in our telephone conversation of June 9, 2004, there has been a change in
our organization .However, there has been no change our concept plan and would like to
proceed with the original plan.
I would greatly appreciate if you put us on the June 28, 2004 Docket schedule.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
S' erel You C
�— c ,
Adrian Haid
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 2 4 2004
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
7206 Stewart Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55346. P (612) 963-3281 E-mail Adrianhaid@aol.com
' 2004
,., IASSEN
I
State Trunk Highway No. 5
mp ro
1 I
I_y`
SS 199q IA.'
-; l 1Runnsg;�I ■Proposed Hote;yedBest of Building FootpriLM.00 sl
(t8SBe:81.000s. c■an
sntprin10.000 &E.
a
13F000s.E.(32acres] _t!-y�; ------ Nil
W, 1 :;Proposed 0mce
_
Parking Area ,; +'❑'� Pa[YIM '�Bu diBngFoatprint:15.000S.0,
ii$de:80,000 S.E. (1.8 acres] ;I
'. Proposed Ritaurant ,
i' Building 5.000 &I. ,; a `` 1
Big 'I40.
Par
king
■ — ■�■ ■ ■ i Proposed Right of Way ■-- ■ ■
===__ ==---
1
J Water Part Area
m —A
� m
Proposed Health Club
Ruildn,o F•ptorint. 47000 &l
Site: 281.888 &I. 162 acres]
Parking Area
Parting AM
L Si Y N/W lAE /PY 51�I( 1MMr ,MYiWY
_ COUL 7 E A
y I II
T O W N H O M E S A T
E K S D E CITY OF CHANHAS�EN
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 2004
NOTE: AEE AREA NUMBERS SNOWN 1
ARE APPRONIMATE AND FOR 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
DISCUSSION ONLY
11 "° "" "" ®
c1�nK sr4i�: ALBER.SMAN & ARMSTRONG LTD.
i
UNION PLAZA NUITE 41 I 333 WA`JMINI';TUN AVENLIE N.ATM
_ MINNEAPULIS MINNESUTA SS4U1
' , , , PN UNE: 612 349 2998
FAX: 512 349�2779
Z
�
J
_ COUL 7 E A
y I II
T O W N H O M E S A T
E K S D E CITY OF CHANHAS�EN
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 2004
NOTE: AEE AREA NUMBERS SNOWN 1
ARE APPRONIMATE AND FOR 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
DISCUSSION ONLY
11 "° "" "" ®
c1�nK sr4i�: ALBER.SMAN & ARMSTRONG LTD.
i
UNION PLAZA NUITE 41 I 333 WA`JMINI';TUN AVENLIE N.ATM
_ MINNEAPULIS MINNESUTA SS4U1
' , , , PN UNE: 612 349 2998
FAX: 512 349�2779
;r II /
is,
t;l 1
State Trunk Highway No. 5
I,, j M,. ,. ,,. . I_MCD I%MI,.SS' r::, ■;;.I
i�rkinvAmil] : u \ ■,; . ;I
II I
■
t�oBuilding Footprint -
Sod Hotel 18unus/No;@(%Sjed eS�
dln.sne:8/.gogsLFu
ufootprint: 10,000 Lt. ■■
Site: 138,000 s1. 132 acres] --
k
:;Proposed Office5
1
mandliank
Parking Area; 0) ParkingAraa Is Building
—J footprint. 15,000
s.LaI�;Site:80,000sL118acresl
Proposed
'i
Building Foo1prr1w, S.ODo sl ;■ ■,
;�.SNe: 40.000 & 1 ■;
'■
i'
PorkingArea
'JILL ■' ■
■ ' ■� f
■ ■ ■ ■ m ■ Proposed Right of Way ■ ■ --■ ■
N
1j1
1
a�
s VIS I
Its
,
Z
m � �
,
4
I•
roposed Health Club
Wath Pari aroa�..nw:....:::"Ca.Z'"'
�� i■g � SIU: 268,000 &1. [62 BCraSi
Pari
■
LtY✓p/W IMY /wI / MUINI
IM 5 YIN K'LS MY/ yµttlAv
C
i Q
■
I Fy
r
ro
�I ac
'I -cm
Z
J
OF C H AN T O W N H O M E S �_�---- A -- �-------- `„—I
C R E E K S l D E
CI7V SSEN
RECEIVED
I
NOTE: Alt AREA NUMBERS SNOWN � MAR 2 5 2004
ARE APPRONIMATE ANO FOR
DISCUSSION ONLY CF{ANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
”" 12" '"" [NMarch 24, L ALB[RSMAN &ARMSTRONG, LTD.
limPluc 1.;dc
_ nMINNL/vPLILI� II.,INNL:ill to I
" , , Plan
. .
IllrI III"
J'�lll rll
rill.
NM[1NE: R12.:i9Y2'/7y
fN%: fi 1 234917'19
Ij
State Trunk Highway No. 5
, O
��'�� �, q•�., y�YFAIrIAArp�
2 sed llest
\ �� �1�✓"' uildi FootprinL10,008
1 r, Sito:136.000 SJ. W WO
9�o / Parking Arca
l�21
It
C t d \ L ,L \ ■
n
m
0
m
C� -p
m O
-Z A
I J49 98
=S TII------�
I SI," or �cw'N� norm+iacmvur
�� � 55 ,1'ir■�
E ,
✓Proposed Hotel 18units,romw;; �� ■
;'/Building Footprint• al \ y �I ■
S1 �_� �r�8ite:81.000 S.I. it
B
o • ` ' "'�; ;; Proposed Office i 3
�"❑;� Parking Arm �::Bu uinnand gFlk
glpr1aLd15,000S.l.:l
;Isne:go.000u atxesl ;I
ProposedRitauranti7
BuildingFoetp5,000LL ;
\tBe:40.000 S. rel
ParkingArea �,� ��__ ■ it
■ ■ ■ m1moosed Ruihtof Wan■ ■ ■ ■
IW
Water Par'F�a
Proposed Health Clul('
iI
Parking Alga ;i
a
. ...... ----, _,_-.
...... ..
-
...
- ...
... ..._.....
...................:.
.........................
..�
...... ...
.... ....
....::........................................
.................................................
................
' ..
...................�wwwwi?:
..
......:::.7:::::::.7.
... ....................
.......
..... 1 _.-r-
.........
..�..
.......
I
,
COI: I�
TERM
-
nh 1111
F�pV
T O W
N H
O M
E S
A T
4
C
R E
E K
S/
D E
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
_
RECEIVED
NOTE: A1LA0■BBMBERSSNOWN
MAR
ARE A1400gM U MB FOB
2004
DISCUSSION ONLY
CHANHASSEN
PLANU%G DEPT
MY "° 1w [NL
ALBERSMAN & ARMSTRONG LTD.
�II]N PL.P2A SUITE 411 333 WABNINOTON AVENUE NORTH
MINN EAPOL18 MINNESOTA 55401
I
_
Plan
March
24, 2004Land
PHONE: 612-349-2778
FAX: 61 2-3492799
State Trunk Highway No. 5
IL
www4- 'I / 1 5 ■
�¢ , �..r.w o-u•a es
�bx wv[»,.an er sAl
���f���.r n 11 \ ��11 �� I� wxnrss4r•� �I
■
10,000S
2 acrOR1
Parking Area
;I Ream
Site: E
—CJs ����----
0"
Ilk urant
VFW.5,800LL
I
I
;I
;;u
■
;I
■
...............................................:...............
........ ..;�.�
posed Btficerl■3
Bank ki
e
IinO Feetprin1 15,000 &IIIA
P-
80,000
80,000 k1{Uee[est NI
U y
( � .I
v ■ `,�
--------------
■ i Proposed Right of Wall i ■Y.rm--,
I lieu
I.
Water Park res
.I
4
♦ I.
I
Proposed Health
Ruddiee Footpkf -S&
Site: 268,0006 e
k
P S
---
.. -.
...............................................:...............
........ ..;�.�
AID
'•
,
Yb
U y
....:. ...:.
---
.. -.
...............................................:...............
........ ..;�.�
ma
C
R
E E K S
D E
CITY OF CHANHASSIN
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 2004
NOTE: ALL AREA NUMBERS SHOWN
1
ADE APPROXIMATE AND FOR
DISCUSSION ONLY
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
MV 0' w 12& IPO'
ALBCRSMAN
AR 5
LTD.
GapLlc Scale.
I,
Use �
N
i
� 0 0
• ,
,
PHONE: R 1 Z-:19 L'L'/'/tl
PA%: 61 2-399-2779
n
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual PUD of 21.7 acres of property for a health club, restaurant and hotel
LOCATION: 1891 Arboretum Boulevard
APPLICANT: Richard A. Bjork
Advance Fitness
3433 Broadway St. NE -Ste 255
Minneapolis MN 55413
612-378-0014
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 21.7 acres gross DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for
Office Park
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings because the City is
acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
Location Map
1891 Arboretum Blvd.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-14
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Richard Bjork representing Advance Fitness is requesting conceptual approval to develop
approximately 22 acres to build a fitness club with a water park, 2 restaurants, a bank/office and
a hotel. The site is zoned A-2 and guided for IOP. Some of the proposed uses are not permitted
in the IOP district. Staff would support some limited commercial but wants to ensure that there
is not strip commercial along Highway 5 as this site is intended to be office industrial.
The health club is located just north of Coulter Drive and west of the new north/south road that
would connect between Highway 5 and Coulter Boulevard. The Health Club comprises 6.2 acres
of land and 268,000 square feet of building. In addition, the site proposes a 4.2 acre (182,000
square feet) water park. For comparison purposes the Lifetime Fitness in Savage is 60,000
square feet of building on 14.4 acres. The Savage site includes an outdoor pool.
Staff finds that this is a good location for the health club because of its size and parking
requirements. The building will still be visible from Highway 5 but will not be imposing. The
hotel is a permitted use in the IOP district but staff thinks it is an unlikely use. The proposed
restaurants and bank are retail and are not permitted in the IOP district. While staff thinks a bank
or a restaurant may be a acceptable, we would prefer to see them incorporate into a larger
building.
Staff is recommending approval of the conceptual PUD with conditions in the staff report
ANALYSIS
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the commission and council without
incurring a lot of expense on the applicant's part. There is a greater level of detail required in the
preliminary plat and PUD process and the conditions of approval in this report. Following are
the requirements for conceptual PUD approval.
Sec. 20-517 General concept plan. Chanhassen City Code
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without
incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 3
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed
with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not
obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a
planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all
supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make
recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal
property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500)
feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission,
the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a
report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may
proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such
conditions, as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths vote of the entire
council.
Actions required
Subdivision
The development proposes 5 lots that would be served by a public street. These actions would
require a subdivision plat.
Site Plan Review
All proposed buildings would have to proceed through the site plan review consistent with the
zoning district.
Rezoning
The applicant is requesting a PUD zoning. The IOP zoning would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The PUD request proposes uses that are not in the permitted in the IOP
district but are commercial uses. Staff is recommending limiting the list of proposed commercial
uses to not more than 25 percent of the PUD with the following limitations. The strikeout
would be removed from the list of uses and the items in bold would be added as permitted
commercial.
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 4
Permitted Uses in the IOP
Offices
Warehouses
Light Manufacturing
Health Services
Printers
Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
Bady Shops
Utility Services
Recording Studios
Off preFFAse pa&ing lots
Conference/Convention Center
Antennas on buildings
Parking Lots & Ramps
WIN
Signs
Detail Sale Of.......1.,..t....tOred ,. ufeetufed.. the pfovided h 7!107 f 6
1..........w ow.c
Haar- spaee : used for- retail 1
.. .,i....... .....�.... .moi ra-mrumco
Day Care Center
Pubke Buildings
Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
Ser-eened Outdoor- -Steel
Research Laboratories
Hotels & Motels
Food Processing
D... Care Gente
Towers
1 freestanding restaurant not fast food (minimum square foot of building 7,500)
Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000 square feet or greater
Following are conceptual comments that the various city divisions have offered that need to be
made for the next level of review.
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 5
Engineering
• The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 -feet of dedicated right-of-
way for each. In addition, the east -west street will require a cul-de-sac turnaround per City
detail plate #5205. The connection of the north -south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT
approval.
• Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Blvd. to the south.
• The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will be subject to Mn/DOT and
further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning movements and functionality of
the proposed access will be required prior to the City allowing this access.
• No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Blvd. will be allowed.
• The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
Environmental Issues
• The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible)
sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP
standards.
• Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent
to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
• Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording.
• Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for
grading and erosion & sediment control.
• The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase H Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA).
• An erosion & sediment control plan is required.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 6
Forestry
Required landscaping for the site will include buffer yard plantings along Hwy. 5 and Coulter
Blvd., parking lot islands and peninsulas, foundation plantings, screening for blank walls, storage
and garbage areas. Staff would also recommend a boulevard tree plan along all public or private
roads within the site.
Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved and that any trail installed
would be field located so as to avoid tree removal. Preservation of vegetation would also
enhance the views from the proposed restaurants if they were located closer to the creek than
across parking lots as shown on the submitted concept plan. Additional plantings of native trees
and shrubs would also be encouraged in that area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission,pprove the concept PUD w1the following
conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service/m�
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing 5 (9 Cc • 1 freestanding restaurant minimum square foot 7,500 square not fast food 2 /
• Bank if integrated into a building of 12,000, square feet or greater
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated
right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east -west street will require a cul-de-sac
turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the north -south street to TH 5
will require Mn/DOT approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south.
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 7
4. The �u. r. Y oo �d bank b ng will be subject to Mn/DOT
and further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning movements and
functionality of the proposed access will be required prior to the City allowing this
access.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed to RW
r Boulevard will be allowed.
rbc-v�if�
6. The applicant will be required J6 provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible)
sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to
NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for
grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase 11 Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA).
1 . An erosion & sediment control plan is required.
�U
A ACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Narrative dated March 25, 2004
3. Public hearing notice and property owners list
4. Concept Plan dated March 25, 2004
z
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952).227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APP CANT: Advance Fitness
ADDRESS: 3433 Broadway Street NE, Suite 255
Minneapolis, MN 55413
TELEPHONE (Day Time) (612) 378-1007
64-I4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN .
RECEIV
MAR.[ 20 04
0' W"Ml,L ING DEPT
OWNER: Amervest Systems Corporation
ADDRESS: 3433 Broadway Street NE, Suite 255
Minneapolis, MN 55413
TELEPHONE: (612) 378-1007
Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included
with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be
invoiced to the applicant
If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. including an 81/" X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Intern Use Permit I
Variance i
Non-, onfcrrr.icy- Use Permit
Wetland Alteraticn Permit
I
Planned Um -1 Develocrr.ent'
Zoning Appeal
I
i
iRezcning
I
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
�
Sign, Permits
I
20-517 General Concept Plan i
Sign Plan Review
t
I Notification Sign j
Site Plan Review'
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
- $50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAFllWAP/Metes & Bounds
- S400 Minor SUB
Subdivision'
TOTAL FEES 500.00
Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included
with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be
invoiced to the applicant
If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. including an 81/" X 11" reduced copy for
each plan sheet.
"Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME:
Advance Fitness
LOCATION: Highway $5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached
TOTAL ACREAGE:
21.7
WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural
REQUESTED ZONING: Commercial
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Agricultural
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Commercial
REASON FOR REQUEST: The development of a Health Club, office, restaurant and hotel
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owners Duplicate Cert'if'icate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that if development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review, the city requires an automatic 60 -day extension for development review. Development
review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant.
Application Received on NL5_6
March 24, 2004
Date
,MPrt�CK �, laorj
Date
Fee Paid �SDb Qo
Receipt No. l q 4UI
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
G:\planVmm\Devetopment Review Applfcation.DOC
DESCRIPTION
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Township
116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 28 minutes 31 seconds East, assuming the
south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 15 has an
assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 30 minutes 44 seconds Sst, a distance
of 315.34 feet, along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, to the actual point of beginning; thence South 02 degrees 29 minutes
16 seconds East a distance of 398.42 feet; thence South 70 degrees 59 minutes
16 seconds East a distance of 125.00 feet; thence South 20 degrees 59 minutes
16 seconds East a distance of 510.00 feet; thence South 21 degrees 00 minutes
44 seconds West a distance of 323.46 feet; thence easterly a distance of 386.37
feet along a non—tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of
1537.00 feet, a central angle of 13 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds, and a
chord of 385.47 feet which bears North 89 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds East;
thence North 82 degrees 47 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 364.21 feet;
thence easterly a distance of 100.88 feet along a tangential curve, concave to
the south having a radius of 1637.00 feet, and a central angle of 3 degrees 31
minutes 52 seconds, to the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northecst
Quarter, thence northerly along said east line to the northeast corner of said
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence westerly, along the north line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, to the point of beginning.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Advance Fitness Health Club
MAR 2004
CHANHASSEN PLANhW DEPT
And
92
The access has a approved right -band turn into the property. There is a private resd
wixch provide a ascess;plw foo ga users. The roadway continues to Coulter Botr*V*: &
The staging and developm®t mo-bable will be established upon approval being granted.
It.would be our preferenceto be operational in the fall of 2005 for th6 health club. Ste
of die additional users would prekr to be developed in the spring;2M,
Health Club Tbeproposed health club would be located on ten acres ofpsoperty. It
would offer 480 piddag,spaoes, It would be a two-story building with atotal floor area of
120,000 sq. ft. It woalld odbra 24-hour facility private health club comept with a total
range of services for intgvidtyals and families of all ages. There would be day-care
services, spa and cafd food services. It would have a eVensive cardiovascular, weight
resistance and running tock located on the second f1wrttfthe facility. Other activities
are basketball, swimming and prlj�supervised sefveeiL -M* group fitness and other
studio classes would appeal baWtaen and women.
The zv�hip would grow as the facility becomes accepted in the community. We
anticipate baying over 3,000 members by the secondym, This concept would strive to
take fttsirss to the next level of baft featuva. We w6WhQte to promote a total
wellness concept to include nutritionalguidance, exev el i e and a fitness program
designed with every member's person4plan in mind. would be activities and
classes on a year round basis for all members.
W' We would like W explore a deve)opnaent of an open -ars Voter:pttvp ra .
with the health club. �Ne have s,tbr location of a 4 2 acres would
legitf well to a public or prisiate waterpark- it would be located along the �elcat�id:
havb its otvn '. ". , - parking facilities.
Fant aovatxtefal davoktpmetlta mopla md along the Highway 5 froze. Mw -buildings
>arta[ neaz HiBin+aY 3 w d,e icer:
iiOamants (2)
T ni.st doRnreaca ants are pb nned,*A* w madde offhe.sat4. For the purpose of this
vhttv x have &M d one restauraWat 1OAdW W&omAS.. 6B SF. It is intended
tb�both restaurants would be glannadm �eha rray ashxtitial�exsting natural
artvi�oment of the czeek bed to the � a Yiadal aA4mriy::33�e�stimated floor azea
z�iD tivltettthe ttodevelopable cLe�€is.iti�lxjeiatboe 5b+epi8n is .07. The floor
as�es�aGn fiat [lee �.k7Qt1SF resrm><aitt is :�3.
Y�'iot t $auk
Tim QMW $male would be located on the east side of the site directly adjacent to the
tx wrl bwag 3. c rbcut. It is anticipated tbatfhebuilding woo be a orae or two story
#t#"vf"Mx1mately15,000$Fwitha aozatea etuaof.}4.
Hotel.:
A70 to Bp nn$ boW of 3 to 4 stories is located betweonft todatuaaa sod the ot$cg
The �A�li4g-beplanaard to pmvideibatel guestswtt�c�rcnie��iceas�
n +qu tuakaUa a 8tnertities indhid�g the pmpttaed;>i�egrpmtk::lbe ROO am.
ratio:affl 1OWi6ApptolEi nately .69.
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Restaurant (10,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
10,000 SF
136,000 SF
0.07
15 /1,000 SF
150 Spaces
325
48,750 SF
77,250 SF
7%
36%
57%
100%
Restaunt (5,000 SF)
13%
Floor Area
5,000 SF
Site
40,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.13
Parking Demand Ratio
15 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
75 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
24,375 SF
Remaining SF
10,625 SF
nr A
Building Footprint
13%
Parking
61%
Other
27%
Total
100%
CITY OF RECEIVED
SSEN
MAR Z�d 2004
CHANHASSE NG DEPT
Restraunt (10,000 SF)
7%
36%
57%(l
■ Btalding Footprint ■ Parldrg 0 Other
Restraunt (5,000 SF)
■Buiklkg FootpriM ■Parking E3 Other
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Hotel (80 Units 15 Floors)
17%
No. of Units
84
Footprint
14,000 SF
No. of Floors
3
Floor Area
42,000 SF
Site
81,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.52
Parking Demand Ratio
1 /Unit
Parking Demand
84 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
27,300 SF
Remaining SF
39,700 SF
Building Footprint
17%
Parking
34%
Other
49%
Total
100%
Office / Retail
19%
Footprint
15,000 SF
No. of Floors
1
Floor Area
15,000 SF
Site
80,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.19
Parking Demand Ratio
4.5 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
68 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
21,938 SF
Remaining SF
43,063 SF
�I
Building Footprint
19%
Parking
27%
Other
54%
100%
Is
n%
4s^u
(134%
■Building Footprint ■Parkky DOOM
re -11 tr-TTI:?IrnI
(f27%
54%
■ Buk k V Footprint ■ Padang D O&W
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Athletic Club
Footprint
93,000 SF
Floor Area
120,000 SF .
Site
268,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.45
Parking Demand Ratio
4 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
480 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
156,000 SF
Outdoor Recreation
0
Remaining SF
19,000 SF
Summary
Building Footprint
35%
Parking
58%
Other
7%
Outdoor Recreation
0%
100%
Water Park, City of Chanhassen
Area ( Acres) 4.2
Area ( SF) 182,000
Athletic Club
■Building Footprint ■Parking ❑Other 0Outdoor Recreation
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
April 8, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel (Advance Fitness) - Planning Case No. 04-14 to the persons named on attached Exhibit
"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing
the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
I f
en J. E ge ardt, e uty Clerk
Subwr�ibed and sworn to before me V
this day of .1 2004.
aAA LA 814AAe*�
Notary Pub
g:Nplan\2004 planning cases\04-14 - advance limes -1891 arboretum blvd\affidavit.doc
ENlagKVW
m
1%W"W%/ W1 r Yvuv I10 118Ia
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, Aril 20 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposal:
review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial
Planning File:
04-14
Applicant:
Advance Fitness
Property
1891 Arboretum Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the
project.
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 9 someone about
Questions &
this project, please contact Kate Aanensori at 952-227-1139
Comments:
or e-mail kaanenson4ci.chanhassen.mmus. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Razonings, Comprehensive Pian Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application In writing. Any Interested party Is Invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item wlll be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciavindustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the
project with any Interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be Included in the report, lease contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification.
r,
PQ X
mom
(:;E
CL:
a
c5 c
m
d G y
IiF++1i � C rO
�cc c
Fsr ar c t
L U
U
v'`Soa9�6��ffiF&
3 5
8�� $"Ito
��S u
a
2,6 E
.a agxho 2J
5 a2
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
1891 Arboretum Blvd.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-14
TAMRA S ADAMS WILLIAM R B ANDERSON & HARRY &JULIE BENJAMIN
1973 ANDREW CT KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON HARHAR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 1974 ANDREW CT 1929 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN CT 55317-7409
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS C/O LAND
GROUP RICHARD & SUZANNE M BONIN 123 NORTH 3RD ST 1943 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1657
SUSAN M BOYLAN
2010 WATERLEAF LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
TIM P BRZEZINSKI & DON HERMANN CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND MONICA L DAVIES
1956 ANDREW CT GROUP INC 1952 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 123 3RD STN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1407
ERIC B & MELANIE S DOWNUM THEODORE J & CORINNE Z DUDINE DARCI L ECKERMANN
1976 ANDREW CT 1947 ANDREW CT 1938 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL J GORRA
1680 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4503
ANTHONY R MALLAWAARATCHY
1934 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
SHARIMUSOKE
1932 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK & DAWN POLLMAN
1954 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY E SCHNEIDER
1946 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK HANLEY PAINE LEWIS
1967 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O
GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT
PO BOX 1113
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113
JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL
1972 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY J ROBILLIARD
1978 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
STEVEN & KATHERINE SCHRAMM
1949 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES
7801 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8205
RICHARD N & JANINE E MCLELLAN
1927 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
DOUGLAS J PETERSON
1971 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
JANE SCHMITZ
1944 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL S SMITH
1936 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
PRAMOD & SHILPA TANEJA THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE ASSN
1969 ANDREW CT GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT C/O PERSONAL TOUCH MGMT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 PO BOX 1113 PO BOX 5233
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 HOPKINS MN 55343-2233
VICTOR J ULLRICH & JEAN CWILMICHAEL WAINWRIGHT LAWRENCE D & EMILY P WALDRON
1931 AN 1950 ANDREW CT 2085 MAJESTIC WAY
1931 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9356
WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP RICH SLAGLE GAPLAN\2004 Planning Cases\04-14 -
1801 E 79TH ST 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD Advance Fitness -1891 Arboretum
SUITE 21 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Blvd\04-14 PH Notice Labels.doc
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230
O
�- \'•�--mac � �` � � i —
Ia
Advance Fitness Concept PUD
Planning Case No. 04-14
April 20, 2004
Page 7
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will be subject to Mn/DOT
and further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning movements and
functionality of the proposed access will be required prior to the City allowing this
access.
5. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible)
sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to
NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary to Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for
grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase 11 Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA).
12. An erosion & sediment control plan is required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Narrative dated March 25, 2004
3. Public hearing notice and property owners list
4. Concept Plan dated March 25, 2004
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
CITY OF RECEIVED
ssEn
MAR N 2004
CHANHASSENPLAN G DEPT
Date: March 25, 2004
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner x /I���� f� it,\
JW
Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel on 21.7 acres located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate,
Guided Office/Industrial;Applicant: Advanced Fitness.
Planning Case: Planning Project 04-14 5) 11
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 25, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends May 24, 2004.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 9,
2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
L Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(Qwest or United)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. Other- City Manager
14.
CITY OF MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aarenson, Community Development Director
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Dor 147 FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
Chanhassen, MN 55317
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gest place to live, work, and play.
DATE: April 12, 2004
Administration
dated March 24, 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
Phone: 952.227.1100
Far: 952.227.1110
SUBJ: Concept Review of Advanced Fitness
Phone: 952.227.1140
LUR No. 04-03
Building Inspections
cul-de-sac turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the
Phone: 952.227.1180
north -south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT approval.
Far. 952.227.1190
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gest place to live, work, and play.
Upon review of the concept plans prepared by Albersman & Armstrong, Ltd.
engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
dated March 24, 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
Far: 952.227.1170
Finance
• The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 -feet of
Phone: 952.227.1140
dedicated right-of-way for each. In addition, the east -west street will require a
Fax: 952.227.1110
cul-de-sac turnaround per City detail plate #5205. The connection of the
Park 3 Recreation
north -south street to TH 5 will require Mn/DOT approval.
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Blvd. to the
Recreation Center
south.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
• The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will be subject to
Mn/DOT and further City review. A traffic study which looks at turning
Planning A
Natural Resources
movements and functionality of the proposed access will be required prior to
Phone: 952.227.1130
the City allowing this access.
Fax: 952.227 1110
Public Works
• No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Blvd. will be
1591 Park Road
allowed.
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
a The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within
Senior Center
the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
Phone. 952227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Web Site
www_ ci.chanhassen.mn.us
gAcngtrnatt\,nemos\staff reports\advanced fitness concept review.doe
The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gest place to live, work, and play.
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as ane. This map is
a compilation of records, infomafion and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and
other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not
warrant Nat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Dam used to prepare this map are error tree, and Me
City does not represent Met Me GIS Dam can be used for navigational, Madag or any other purpose
repuinng exacting measurement al distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features.
M some or discrepancies are found Please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding Osclemer is provided
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the
City shall not he hada for any damages, and eVressly waives all darns, and agrees to defend, indemnity,
and hold hemiess Me City from any and all dairrs brought by User, its employees or agenm, or Mind
parties which arse out of the users access or use of data pmvided-
111891 Arlsomfum Blvd. I
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used ss one. This map is
a compilation of records, intormatim and clam located in various city, county, state and federal offices and
o0rer sources regarding the area shown, anti is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not
warrant that Me Geographic Intomration System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free. and the
Gty does not represent Mat Ne GIS Data can be used for navigational, trecking or any other purpose
requiring exacting Measurertent of distance or direction on precumn in the depiction of geographic features.
If errors or discrepancies are found please concoct 952-227-1107. The preceding discerner is cmnded
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of the map acknowledges that the
City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all dam. and agrees to delmd, indemnity.
and hold hamYess Me City horn any and all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or gtid
partes which arise out of the users access or use of dam provided.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is
to consider a request for a Concept
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Review for a health club, office,
restaurant, and hotel on 21.7 acres
located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard
on property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate, Guided Office/Industrial;
Applicant: Advance Illness.
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 w ith respect to this proposal.
Kate Aanenson,
Community Development Director
Email:
k n on(' i hanhamit tunM
Phone: 952-227-
1139
(Published in the Chanhassen
Villager on Thursday, April 8, 2004;
No. 4154)
0 0 6q . ►4
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended. CC //
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 7
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvw`xy
Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this day of2004
Notary Public
GWEN M. RADUENZ
<' NOTARYPUBLIC MINNESOTA
L. *J Cwnrnig M ExB W Jan. 31, 2005
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $10.85 per column inch
• w Planning Commission Summary — April 20, 2004
014-
3. The Interim Use Permit would expire upon the site being served by municipal
services.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
r 111\L'aa, rLA1NiNENU I;Abh NU [14-14
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim Lasher
LSA Design
Barry Blomquist, Jr.
Amerrest Systems
Richard Bjork
Amerrest Systems
Karci Eckermann
1838 Andrew Court
Brad Bohman
Dawn Pollman
1954 Andrew Court
Kathy Pensyl
1972 Andrew Court
C.J. Pappas
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for
staff clarification on their recommendation for only one restaurant and traffic between
this development and Lake Ann Park. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the
public/private situation with the proposed water park/pool and traffic concerns.
Commissioner Ullehaug had questions regarding zoning, roadways, and regional
ponding requirements. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification regarding the
proposed hotel. Commissioner Tjomhom stated she was struggling with the idea of a
water park in an industrial area. Chairman Sacchet had questions relating to the proposed
uses, i.e. hotel and bank, the percentage of uses, the water park and height of buildings.
Richard Bjork provided background information on the applicant, Advance Fitness. Jim
Lasher with LSA Design spoke on behalf of the team to outline the proposal.
Commissioner Tjornhom asked the applicant to explain how the water park differs from a
regular swimming pool. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the scale of
restaurants being proposed. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the
roadway connection with McGlynn Road. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing.
Brent Griowski, 2221 Hunter Drive, spoke on behalf of General Mills at 8000 Audubon
Road which is adjacent to the proposed development. He wanted to remind the
commission that General Mills is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and asked if a hotel
use the best use as a neighbor. Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court had questions
2
Planning Commission Summary — April 20, 2004
regarding the type of athletic health club, traffic circulation, density and parking on the
site. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion, the
following motion was voted on.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
I. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac tum around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. One access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
7. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
3
Planning Commission Summary — April 20, 2004
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase H Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN), 3
OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN), AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A
VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH: AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE, ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6
ACRES IN CHANHASSEN), LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND
EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL, THE PEMTOM
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan & Val Tester
Eldon Beckland
Allan Klugman
Justin Larson
Dan Herbst
Marty & Jenny Clark
230 Flying Cloud Drive
10 Pioneer Trail
Westwood
Sathre-Berquist
Pemtom
18956 DorenKemper Place, Eden Prairie
Matt Saam and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner
Lillehaug asked for clarification on sharing road maintenance with Eden Prairie, roadway
geometrics, bluff delineation behind Lots 29 through 37, and access off of Pioneer Trail.
Commissioner Papke had concern with drainage on the Hennepin County Trail and wash
CI
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING:
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, GUIDED OFFICERNDUSTRIAL, ADVANCE
FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Liv Homeland
Jim Lasher
Barry Blomquist, Jr.
Richard Bjork
Karci Eckermann
Brad Bohhnan
Dawn Pollman
Kathy Pensyl
C.J. Pappas
8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie
LSA Design
Amervest Systems
Amervest Systems
1838 Andrew Court
1838 Andrew Court
1954 Andrew Court
1972 Andrew Court
54'1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff.
Papke: I'll start. I assume the applicant is proposing two restaurants.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: In your recommendation you're saying one.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Okay. And the rationale for one I assume is that you're trying to keep the
business center of downtown Chan, is that the rationale or what's the rationale behind the
one?
Aanenson: Well, the rationale is, there will be in this facility they're proposing some
support, cafe sort of thing in order to capture that. But the rationale is this is an industrial
district. Restaurants aren't permitted in that district, in the retail district so if we're going
to allow it we'd want to stay under that 25 percent. So with the two and the bank, so kind
of pick and choose where you get that 25 percent. And the other concern we had with
that scale, could it be, if you put the cap on there, that it not be a drive thru? Could that
work if you still stayed under 25 for the two? Yes. So ... just no drive thru I think that'd
be.
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Papke: Second question. The proximity of the water park will be right across Highway 5
from Lake Ann roughly.
Aanenson: Let me show you on this map.
Papke: Pretty close to right across from Lake Ann.
Aanenson: Pretty close.
Papke: Is there any concern with that where traffic might be generated between the two?
Where you know, mom might drop off a couple kids at Lake Ann. The older kids at Lake
Ann. The younger kids at the water park, because it's.
Aanenson: I think with the right-in/right-out you can actually get over to, with a right,
taking a right, getting onto Highway 5 and then getting onto to West 78`h. I think that
would be pretty easy.
Saam: Yeah, and we actually have pretty good street access from the Lake Ann Park.
You come down to the new West 78th Street. Take Audubon south and take a left on
Coulter, so.
Papke: So you don't think that would be an issue?
Saam: No. No, those are all collector roads.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think there's a signal at Audubon so even if you came this way on
Audubon and got on Coulter, I think that would work.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions of staff? Rich.
Slagle: I've got a couple. And I just want to confirm that the health club, this conceptual
PUD is a private enterprise from the health club standpoint, is that correct?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Slagle: The water park in the gentleman's letter was sort of left open as perhaps
private/public.
Aanenson: Right, and they'll speak to that but it's my understanding they're exploring
what amenities would be desirable for the community and if there's any participation and
that really is a discussion for the City Council and that's kind of a concept. Whether it be
an outdoor or water park or.
Slagle: Okay. The other question I had was, and thank you for using a comparison of
Lifetime in Savage. If my numbers are correct, the comparison of the Savage facility is
5
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. Savage site also includes an outdoor pool.
And I'm assuming that is some more acres in addition to the 14.4? Do you know?
Aanenson: I'm not sure on that.
Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking is this. Is I'm seeing that the 60,000 club, excuse
me, the club that we're looking at is 6 point something acres with the outdoor water park
another 4. So you're in essence fitting that all on 10 acres, where a comparable club is on
14.4 and we're not sure if that includes a pool or not, so my only question is, do we feel
that this is somewhat limiting in size from an acreage standpoint?
Aanenson: Well I think obviously the parking's going to drive the footprint too because
the two have to match together, and as we move through those discussions, and I think
they're still trying to get a read from the community as what elements or amenities are
desirable so they match what our community standards are because I think every
community has a little bit different desires, so they're working through those issues too,
but certainly the footprint and the parking has been an issue. And I think that's what we
looked at too is some of those, you know it's a 24 operations. Obviously it peaks, ebs
and flows and looking at some of the cross over parking with some of the uses we had
talked about that too.
Slagle: Do you know, and I didn't see it, is there an outdoor pool or an indoor pool with
the health club?
Aanenson: There is an indoor pool proposed, yeah.
Slagle: Okay. And last for I guess engineering is on that proposed right-of-way Matt,
where the two roads will connect to what I will call the northeast of the health club.
What would be your traffic thoughts there? Stop signs or.
Saam: In the extension of McGlynn Drive from the east?
Slagle: Exactly, yep.
Aanenson: At this intersection.
Slagle: Yeah, and then hitting that north/south road. Yeah, right there. What would you,
hard to say at this point?
Saam: Yeah, what I would envision right now would be two way stop at McGlynn and a
thru on the north/south.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Any other questions of staff?
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Lillehaug: I have some, yes.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: This is getting a little detailed but I think we just need to raise a few of these
points right now. These buildings, the right-of-way line on the north portion. MnDot
right-of-way. Would that be right up to where the colored portion is on their map?
Because I think we need a 50 foot setback to these buildings, correct? So that lessens
some parking area. So is that right-of-way right up to the colored portion or is it one of
them other lines further north? I guess I would, I just want to make it clear that I think
we need a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way there and it's clearly not that. Am I
correct?
Aanenson: They need to be 50 feet, correct. I'm not sure on that scale...
Lillehaug: I just wanted to raise that point so that wasn't even a question was it? Zoning.
Why would we want to allow a bank in this area? I mean what benefit does that give to
the city by allowing a bank in this area that it's not zoned for?
Aanenson: Well our recommendation was that it wouldn't be a free standing bank. That
it be incorporated with something else so I guess we leave that back up to you. There's
some banks that are still trying to land up some sites and obviously they're working with
some of the users they know are out there, but I would leave that up to you. Our
recommendation was that it be incorporated and so it would be a smaller building but a
bigger building with some other uses with it. That'd be similar to what we just did on the
bowling alley site. The bank has office over it. It's actually like a 30,000 square foot
building. So it still have the drive thru but there's offices over the top and adjacent to it
so it has a larger footprint and that would be our recommendation.
Lillehaug: Why allow a bank at all though?
Aanenson: Well I would leave it up to you.
Lillehaug: I mean it's not guided for that but why would.
Aanenson: And the same thing with a restaurant. It's kind of quasi office user.
Sacchet: It falls into those 25 percent flexibility, right?
Aanenson: Right.
Lillehaug: Let's see. Roadways. Trunk Highway 5. I guess we would only be, the city
plans on only allowing one access point off of Trunk Highway 5 for this entire
undeveloped area.
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Aanenson: Correct, and that's what MnDot had, when we did Coulter, right. They had
one access. Originally it was shown on the other side. At that time we weren't sure
exactly how the development was going to lay out so that was kind of held off in
abeyance and it's my understanding that the developer has an agreement with MnDot to
put it on the other side. But it would be right in, it was always was only planned right-
intright-out.
Lillehaug: So there from Audubon to Galpin this will be the only right-in/right-out? I
mean there will be no others?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. Does the city, this is a Trunk Highway 5 brand new section of
roadway. Does the city anticipate requiring the applicant to provide a full length right
turn lane with concrete pavement to match that new road that we got out there? I would
hope so.
Saam: Yeah, and I would think that would be a MnDot requirement also Commissioner
Lillehaug.
Aanenson: Right, we haven't got their comments back but certainly that would be some
of their, in their jurisdiction too to comment on some of that.
Lillehaug: Okay. Then let's go on the north/south connector street. Right into the
proposed office bank building. Well, this isn't quite the same situation we had down on,
was it Century? It's not quite the same situation but.
Aanenson: Yeah, we struggled with that too. Just so you know again, we went through a
lot of, and we didn't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it for conceptual but
originally when it came in, I believe the restaurant was on the far side and we said you
know it would be nicer to have the restaurant closer to the creek. A nicer amenity if you
had outdoor patio. So when you worked out, went over there, that'd be nice. Is this the
best place for a bank based on traffic? That's something we'll have to explore. I
understand what you're saying with your concern there, and we're still looking at that.
Lillehaug: Not even necessarily a bank. You know I want.
Aanenson: But a cut, a curb cut right here.
Lillehaug: Right.
Aanenson: I agree.
Lillehaug: It's conceptual.
91
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Aanenson: Yeah, we .... that issue with them too and how that works and right. But I
think it's something to flag and watch, yeah.
Sacchet: Chances are it's not going to be a good idea.
Lillehaug: Does engineering, is their opinion that, is it the city standard to have a 300
foot before you allow a curb cut so that would really in essence be down to the next
roadway, is that standard?
Saam: Yes. 300 is the standard. I just want to add that we did point that out. That
access would require further study. A traffic study to make sure that the intersection will
operate effectively. So we're not blanketedly saying that we're going to allow that. It
needs to be looked at.
Aanenson: It's on page 5 in one of the bullet points, yeah.
Lillehaug: You know do we even give a false indication of that because I guess I'm of
the opinion that we don't need, a traffic study's not going to tell us really anything. It's
just a matter, it's policy and.
Sacchet: But it's certainly within our discussion Steve. Make a firmer point if you want
to firm that one up.
Lillehaug: Okay. Let's see here. I apologize here. Let's see. Fast food. Fast food. Do
we have, is fast food defined in our code?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Lillehaug: It is? Okay. Regional ponding requirements. Does the city have any idea of
what they're proposing for any regional ponding requirements? The staff report indicated
that it need to fit in here somehow.
Aanenson: They'll have to come back in the next iteration with that.
Lillehaug: So on site regional ponding?
Saam: Correct. Yeah, we haven't received any drainage calculations to speak of at this
point so we have no idea the size that will be needed or.
Lillehaug: Boy, that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any questions Dan or Bethany?
Keefe: I just have a couple. The proposed hotel, does the city have a number of units
that they want to build out and this particular hotel sort of meets that guidance?
W
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Aanenson: Again it's conceptual. I think when we give them, they were showing some
things that they thought may work. It may not be a hotel. That's the thing of putting the
list together. Again what we're trying to show is some uses, that is a permitted use so if
it went away and became another office or something else permitted, I think that'd be
fine. I think the thing that we're looking at was the retail, introduction of the retail and
that's why we're talking about the...
Keefe: And then in regards to the hotel, does that include...
Aanenson: Typically we don't address that if it's kind of the continental breakfast. We
don't have a lot of those that have full service. Most of them have the continental. All of
them do that are in town right now. The continental express breakfast so.
Keefe: And did we consider maybe making one larger restaurant versus the two?
Aanenson: Right. I guess that's where I was coming from. Having one larger one. You
know again, just to give you comparison if you look at Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings,
that's a 7,500 square foot building. Those are both sit down. Could something like that
go in there? Or something bigger, that would be one larger footprint so again our
concern was as long as it wasn't their drive thru, the quick in, we thought this would be
an opportunity for a nicer experience. A sit down, sit outside, that kind of atmosphere.
Keefe: So the proposed restaurant are really to support more the hotel and then some
local traffic as well, right.
Aanenson: Yeah, that they have tennis courts which is one of the things they talked
about. Play tennis, go across the street, and again with the hotel that they were looking at
a complimentary, but again some of those things may slide a little bit as we move through
this.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Keefe: That's it.
Sacchet: Questions Bethany?
Tjomhom: I'm kind of struggling with the whole water park, the whole thing in that area.
Is a water park really appropriate in an office industrial area or is it, you know I guess I
just, I'm trying to envision taking my kids to the water park by all the offices and is it
more of a neighborhood place?
Aanenson: Well it's tied in with the fitness center so you'd have to come through the
fitness center. It'd be part of that. Similar to some of the ones that other recreational
facilities we do. So it'd slide into that, and I think the intent there is to screen that, I
10
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
mean is control the access of how you get in and out of it so it would be related
specifically to this use.
Tjornhom: And so then, once I think someone already asked this question but so would
this be for private use then just for members only or would it just be.
Aanenson: Members only, correct.
Tjornhom: So it wouldn't just be for a city, anybody who wanted to.
Aanenson: Right, it's tied to this project. That's correct.
Tjornhom: Okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: I actually have a few questions still too. Quite a number of them are addressed.
On page 2 of the staff report Kate, there's this comment that I cannot, I kind of was
wondering. It says that a hotel is permitted but it's an unlikely use. What does that mean
unlikely?
Aanenson: Well we just don't think there's a market, and that question was already
raised. We're just not sure that there's a market right now for another hotel.
Sacchet: Okay. So we're wondering whether we already have enough? But then bank is
not unlikely? We certainly have more banks than hotels.
Aanenson: All I can tell you is that I know there's two bank users looking so, and there's
a lot of reasons for that but personally I think there's not a market for a hotel.
Sacchet: Ahight. Then.
Aanenson: Again going back, we have approved the other Northcott one. It hasn't been
built yet so there's already one...
Sacchet: And also bank buildings yeah. All trees within the creek setback, what does
this say? Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved. Are
they or I mean we'll see that when it gets more detail?
Aanenson: Right. At that level again there is the creek setback. The Watershed District
regulations so again at this level they weren't, they're here to get a read before they go
back and do that, the more detailed oriented plans, but if you're in the creek setback,
there's no reason to be grading or anything like that so all of those trees should be
preserved, and then we did talk about, if there was even an outdoor pool in this area, or
whether it's a water park, how we were to preserve those. Those features.
Sacchet: In terms of the restaurants and bank, when we say 25 percent, is it 25 percent of
the building footprint or what exactly is it 25 percent of?
11
Planning Commission Meeting —April 20, 2004
Aanenson: You know we took some different evolutions of that to see if it made a
difference and it can go either way, whether it's acreage or square footage of buildings.
It comes pretty close. It's negligible. We ran it a couple different ways, correct.
Sacchet: So it could potentially be two restaurants and no bank?
Aanenson: Right, and I guess that was.
Sacchet: Or we could say just 25 percent?
Aanenson: Or a restaurant not to exceed, give a square footage. You know, or give
yourself some flexibility because again this is giving them some direction as it comes
back through, you know that you can tighten that up a little bit but I think that's where
Steve was going, he wants to give some clear direction on some of his issues and that's
what I guess we're asking for too.
Sacchet: And based on the comment made about the water park, it does look like public
water park is at this point...
Aanenson: Well I think that's a discussion you may want to have with the city.
Sacchet: And then my last question, in the applicant's write up they're talking about the
hotel being 3 or 4 stories. What's, how high can they go?
Aanenson: It can go that high. In the IOP district.
Sacchet: No problem with that?
Aanenson: Yeah, and that's how tall the Holiday Inn..
Sacchet: Thank you very much Kate, that's all my questions. With that, if the applicant,
yes. Sony Rich, go ahead.
Slagle: I'm sorry but I do want to get it out with staff before the applicant presents. And
Kate I just want your thoughts, again conceptually, would there be merit to tying in what
I will call either more sidewalks or such that would connect, obviously you have the
sidewalks on Coulter. But going up that new road and then maybe even going east on
McGlynn to the daycare.
Aanenson: Yeah, definitely, I think so, and you know we had talked about too, all the
places where you can possibly put a bridge across the creek to get, to tie into going across
that way too and they're willing to explore all those. We've talked about that and I think
that's certainly, it's exercise. If you want to go outside and do a walk, exactly.
Slagle: Exactly, okay. Thank you.
12
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Sacchet: Alright, with this I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If
you have anything to add. We'd like to hear from you. You want to state your name and
address for the record please.
Richard Bjork: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Bjork. I'm with Advance
Fitness and I do live in Edina, Minnesota. I'd like to thank staff for their support on this
project very much and we hope that this is something that the Planning Commission
looks favorably upon. We realize that there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point
in time but we're here to just kind of banter it back and forth a little bit. See what works,
what doesn't work, things like that. We have developed a lot of different mixed use
projects and we've done everything from residential to some golf courses. Some parking.
Commercial. Things like that. We've assembled a team with some architectural
background. With some legal background. Some financial background, and some health
club background, so we've got a group together that should make this project work. The
fund raising that we put together is going in the right direction so we're comfortable that
we can accomplish this project, and one of the major things, because the site is 22 acres,
to put together a health club which is a primary use of the project, we really only need
approximately 13 acres, so therefore you say to yourself, okay you have to come up with
something to use the rest of the real estate to make the whole project work in a
complimentary manner. And that's one of the reasons that we have put down the uses
that we have. Also the fact that the water park is something that seems to be a growing
trend in communities and something that is practical for the local residents. Savage as an
example. They give their residents a discount when they come in, walk through the
health club and then use the pool on a daily basis. They just pay per day for the use,
something like that. So we have not really explored that in detail but it is something that
we'd like to see as an ancillary service to the health club, and make the use of the land.
So with that what I'd like to do is turn it over to our landscape architect that's on our
team, Jim Lasher and have him walk you through the, unless you have some questions for
me initially.
Sacchet: Any questions so far? No? Thank you very much.
Richard Bjork: Jim Lasher.
Jim Lasher: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Lasher from LSA Design. I'm
here representing the team. I can address any specific questions you have about the plan
or I can back up a bit and go through a little bit more detail of the specific plan and then
entertain questions at that point.
Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you give us a little more idea first. It doesn't have to be
lengthy but an overview would be great.
Jim Lasher: I think what I would like to touch on a bit is the access issues that have been
brought up and what we plan to do about those. We do have an easement agreement in
place. It's being worked on from MnDot regarding access to this site. Received it today
13
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
from, signed by AI Penn, Director of Land Development for MnDot. The basic idea is
that we would agree to this body to put the entire road on our property, although I think it
would be in our best interest to look at to try to split that right-of-way in essence to move
this project forward the team has agreed that we would accept the full 60 foot right-of-
way width on our property. That allows the project to move forward in our time frame,
and it allows you to move forward without having to go through an eminent domain
procedure for adjacent property so I think that is a great benefit of moving forward with
this particular project. The second piece is we would certainly agree to that connection
piece back over to McGlynn and look to make that a full connecting road all the way
through. One thing it does do however is move the access point a little bit further south
than we would actually prefer to be so we would request that you allow us to review that
in terms of layout. What it may end up being is a bit of a curvature in the road. I believe
the access comes in about down here so we may end up grinding that back and coming in
this fashion because as we mentioned we're going to try to put the health club on the
back portion of the site and re -use the front portion and the deeper it gets in the front
portion the more square footage we're actually going to look to this body for approval for
the ancillary development. I believe the 25 percent number is a good number and we can
live within that number but I would ask for your support in terms of how we locate that
specific road. The second piece is the shoreland setback and how we would handle storm
water. At this point in time we're going through the general calculations for what our
runoff calculation would be and our intention would be is to do storm water for this entire
site on our particular site. So please rest assured that is the intention of the group. The
shoreland setback we're showing now is approximately 100 feet, and we would look to
either a path along that side and then make a connection to the other side or possibly
combine the path on the other side with our's. If there's no need to be redundant, and we
certainly don't want to be redundant with the path, wherever the best location would be
for it, we would concur to go to that location. With regards to the specific uses, I think
we can agree to not have access off of the primary north/south road. This is the location.
It looks to all access off of this road in both directions. We would request however that
there be a secondary access along for the health club here because it would be a fairly
large parking facility and we'd like to have at least two accesses to that point. We're
probably looking at somewhere between 400 to 450 parking stalls for this particular
facility. Two access points would be preferred. And lastly I think what we would like to
do is move forward a bit with the water park discussion but another alternative which has
been done in other communities is to entertain discussions with the local school district
about the idea of combining a public/private venture for this particular project. I'll cite
an example in Plymouth where the city of Plymouth and the local health club got together
and built in essence a school swimming pool and swimming facility that was used by the
Wayzata School District. We'd request from this body the authority to at least move
forward with those discussions in the likelihood of maybe bringing back, not an exterior
water park but an expanded indoor pool facility that would be able to be used by the local
school district as well. With that I'll answer any further questions, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant?
14
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Tjornhom: I have an easy one for you right away. Define to me what a water park, how
this is different from just a regular swimming pool.
Jim Lasher: At this point in time the water park industry is looking to kind of the bells
and whistles world of what's more to something than just a swimming pool. The big,
large slides. The outdoor play equipment. The pieces that generally provide that
excitement at a water enthusiastic type park, rather than just a swimming pool. If you
went to the communities like St. Louis Park or even the Plymouth facility or some other
communities in Hastings that have built outdoor water parks, they have large slides,
outdoor play equipment, so it's a little bit more of an entertainment type venue and not
just a swimming pool. That would be one option. The second option as I mentioned
would be more of an interior straight swimming pool facility that would maybe have an
Olympic sized pool that would be suitable for sort of school activities and possibly a
diving well that would be suitable for NCAA or high school sanctioned swimming events
as well. We'll look at both of those but in essence the outdoor pool would just be a more
kind of enthusiastic type facility with a lot more equipment.
Tjornhom: But would it generate a lot more noise, do you think than a regular outdoor
pool that you would find at an athletic club?
Jim Lasher: I believe any outdoor swimming pool will clearly generate more noise than
the inside would. I think our intention would be to go through that particular layout and
work with you to see if that was too much of an impact for the adjacent properties and
work with your preference there but clearly any flexibility you give us at this point in
time we believe we can produce the best plan.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt.
Papke: Can you elaborate a little bit on the nature of the restaurants you're proposing
there, so for instance the smaller restaurant immediately adjacent to the hotel, is this in
the you know, a Denny's or is this, you what level of scale are you considering for your
two restaurants?
Jim Lasher: We had two primary thoughts on the restaurants, and as you understand in
the development of this, what we're trying to do is service the highway user as well as the
health club user. When you look at the number of people that come to a facility like this,
it's an opportunity in an overall mixed use development to provide ancillary services.
We looked at two types of restaurants. The first would be a sit down type restaurant,
which would clearly provide seating space and parking space suitable in the 10 to 11,000
square foot range. The second was what we thought would be a fairly good place for a
drive thru. Given the fact that fast food is something that people may want to pick up
after a health club experience, they could do that quickly and leave the site.
Understanding your conditions here about what you'd like to see on this site, we would
agree to look at both of those ideas and see which one made the most sense. From our
standpoint we would prefer to move forward with both restaurants but understand your
position as well.
15
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a question as far as connecting McGlynn Road up. What is your
involvement with that property to the east of you? Now you're showing the proposed
roadway here east/west roadway where it is, but what involvement do you have with that
property because I guess it'd be a good engineering standpoint that you don't want a
staggered intersection, and I'm sure you'd agree with that but why couldn't we just put a
curve in McGlynn and connect up there? Do you know something that we don't I guess.
Jim Lasher: We do not know or have any involvement in that particular parcel. All we
would ask is that we would try to do a pure 90 degree intersection at that point in time,
but we may end up curving our road a bit to get it closer to Highway 5 than what is
currently being shown on that connection and the parcel to the east of us.
Aanenson: If I could elaborate on that a little bit more. The property owner to the east
may or may not have as much development interest. It appears that right now there's
some different parties involved that are advancing some changes on some of that
property. Our position was that the two parties would have to work it out and I think as
Mr. Lasher indicated, based on timing, it would hold it up to get both parties to agree.
Certainly it's our job to make sure that the benefit of one is not to the detriment of
another and we'll try to make those connections. Give the other party an opportunity to
comment. You know they were notified of this project going forward so we'll try to
work those through, but again sometimes it's a timing issue. If someone's, if we have to
swing the road a little bit to still provide that opportunity for both connections to work,
that makes.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a
public hearing so if anybody likes to address this project, please come forward. State
your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Are there
any individuals here that want to address this? If I see nobody, yes. There's somebody.
Brent Griowski: Hello. My name is Brent Griowski. I'm at 2221 Hunter Drive in
Chanhassen. And I'm actually representing General Mills which is off 8000 Audubon,
adjacent to the area that we're talking about today. And I understand it's a conceptual
drawing and was also been some discussion about whether or not a hotel would actually
be considered for that area. North of the proposal. But just to remind the council, as you
decide what we're going to put there, it is a 24/7 operation just on the other side of
Coulter. And to remind the council that there is some noise that's generated from there.
Is a hotel the best solution for that? That's all I have.
Sacchet: Especially when you bang the trucks, right. Alright, is there anybody else?
Please come forward.
IGS
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Brad Bohlman: Hi, my name is Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court. I have some
questions, not necessarily of the commission but possibly of the potential user of the site.
I guess my initial question is what type of an athletic club, how would you characterize
it? Would you characterize it as a Bally's? Would you characterize it as a Flagship?
How would you look at it?
Sacchet: Why don't you tell us all your story and then if you want to come back up, you
certainly can do so.
Brad Bohlman: Essentially also is there going to be any ingress or egress off of Coulter
into the site?
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: There is?
Sacchet: Yes, there is a connector.
Aanenson: This street here. ...if you're down on Andrew Court, you're right here.
Brad Bohlman: Correct.
Aanenson: Okay. So this street, there will be a street, Stone Creek comes onto Coulter.
It will be offset. This street would be offset and then this street would come through... so
this street would come through.
Sacchet: Instead of the other one.
Aanenson: Yes.
Brad Bohlman: And that goes into the site itself?
Aanenson: No, that's what we were just talking about. All has to do with the interior of
this road.
Brad Bohlman: So essentially the health club is set back so there's parking that would
abut Coulter?
Aanenson: That's comet.
Brad Bohlman: Okay. Okay, and then I guess another question would be, is there going
to be any type of landscaping or screening off of Coulter to separate the parking area.
Sacchet: That is standard, isn't it Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. And again this is concept. It doesn't have any...
17
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Brad Bohlman: Right, I understand it's a concept.
Aanenson: ...complete landscaping plan will be another public hearing on those.
Brad Bohlman: And I guess kind of piggy back in what Rich was saying, it seems like
there might be a fair amount of density here based upon the amount of acreage that
they're planning, at least in my opinion. That would just be something, and then just
relative to proof of parking versus the density level also. Those are my questions. I don't
know how you want to address them but those are just questions that I have.
Sacchet: In terms that we have berming requirements for the city in terms of shielding
parking areas, in terms of density and parking requirements, we have standard formulas
that apply to that. We're not to that level of detail with this project obviously but those
would all come into play when this project gets further refined.
Brad Bohlman: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that?
Aanenson: I was going to say that they do have an iteration of the internal if you wanted
just for them to take a minute to go through kind of what they were thinking. That might
be...
Sacchet: Yeah, I would invite you to come back up if you want to address a little more of
the detail in terms of what type of flavor health club you're actually envisioning.
Jim Lasher: Commissioners, this is a very schematic layout just to get to our total square
foot uses of what the type of things would be within the club, but if I had to characterize
this club I would say certainly it's at the Lifetime, Northwest, possibly not to the level of
finishes of a Flagship but it's certainly within that general concept of what we're trying to
provide here. The uses are very similar in terms of indoor aerobic spaces, tennis courts,
swimming pool, the general health club type layout requirements. I think conceptually
what they're trying to do here within this new concept is to bring more of a holistic idea
to a health club use and so we'll be developing that concept further as we move through
this idea, but this does give you a general sense of the type of layout of the club, and it is
very similar in terms of what you normally would expect in a health club setting.
Sacchet: Do you want to just walk through this a little bit?
Jim Lasher: Yes, I suppose we could. I'd ask someone else to take you through that.
Sacchet: I mean it doesn't have to be very detailed since we're looking at high level
concept, but personally I have some curiosity.
W
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Adrian Haid: My name is Adrian Haid, a resident of Eden Prairie. Okay, it's facing
north, or Highway 5 or west of here. West of town. The club will have basically a fairly
large lobby with several waterfalls, and daycare center. And several aerobic studios. As
you're looking at two indoor swimming pools basically for lap swimming and other
activities, family activities, indoor pool. And we've got 4 basically racquetball is in right
here. And we're looking at producing a group of ... residents always left out of these kind
of activities is basically the ages 6 and 14. They cannot go to their daycare. Mom wants
to go work out. They don't know where to go. So Advance Fitness would be the first
club in the United States to implement an area for youth. Children of 6 to 14. So that is a
department that's in there, and also a 12 hoop basketball court. In addition to that we
have the second floor of 32,000 square foot of workout that overlooks the lobby, and with
all glass looking outside. Therefore the Advance Fitness is not a Bally's. It is not
Northwest Athletic Club and it is not Flagship. By far better.
Sacchet: Ahight, thank you very much.
Richard Bjork: Could have said it better myself.
Sacchet: Alright. If you want to move on, do you want to add anything else?
Richard Bjork: I believe that's it, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay, the public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address this. Is
there any more comments you want to share with us? If not, I will close the public
hearing and bring it back to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Want to start
Rich?
Slagle: I can start. I'd like to thank the applicant because this is something that is
definitely needed in the city of Chanhassen and surrounding area. So I don't need to say
much other than I think it really is exciting. I hope we work on the thought that this is
sort of a community entity, not to mention that it is privately owned but he's open to the
community. The one thing I do want to add, and I hope the applicant hears this, is in
respect to the neighbors comment to the south. I can speak, and it's been a few years for
some of you to hear this story but we lived in Woodbury across the street from an open
lot, which was rezoned and a health club, very large one, 24 hour health club went in, and
had lots of lights and was open, lots of glass. And I will say this, that that particular
company was very open to working with the neighbors to the south where they actually
helped purchase evergreens, increase the betming from the city's minimum heights and
became really a partner with the neighbors to the south. So I just ask you guys to work.
AdrianHaid: I can answer that question. You're talking about Woodbury, I'm assume
you talk about Lifetime. If you look at the end of the building on Lifetime is about
maybe 15 feet to the next house. But if you're looking at this house... right there, from
this edge of this building to the next residence down here is far. Approximately, I don't
know exactly so if you're looking at that comparison of Lifetime in Woodbury, that is
basically the distance to you and I.
19
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Slagle: Well I think you're probably referring to the homes that were to the east. We
were across the street which would be 200-300 feet, and all I'm saying is, is when the
night time came, the glare of that particular company was quite bright. But not to say
that that's not good or bad. It's just that I think if anything you can do with the neighbors
would be appreciated.
Adrian Haid: Absolutely. We plan on putting an absolute landscaping in the trees, high
bushes. That actually makes it very private. You won't even be able to see it from the
south or either direction. Therefore we provide all the amenities to protect.
Slagle: And I'll remind you that you used the word private.
Adrian Haid: Alright.
Papke: The applicant is looking for feedback concerning a possible partnership with the
schools. Having been a customer of the Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth, shared with the
Wayzata school system, it was always been my dream that Chanhassen could build
something like that so I would be extremely supportive of such a venture and I would
very encourage it because there's a severe shortage of practice space for the high school
swimming team here. However, I have one caveat on that, and this is more a heads up
for staff. It was my experience that the diving facility, due to insurance reasons, was not
made available to Plymouth to the residents or the users of Lifetime Fitness. So as we go
through this, I suggest that we look very carefully at what is being permitted to the city
residents versus what is being allowed when the school is using the facility and so on
because I was disappointed as a customer that my daughter, who is on the Chaska High
School diving team could not practice diving at that facility so I just raise that as an issue.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points.
Lillehaug: Can I ask the applicant one more question?
Sacchet: Certainly.
Lillehaug: I don't think they've commented on it but staff has indicated that they would
prefer to see only one restaurant. Do you have a comment on that being you are showing
two?
Jim Lasher: At this point in time we would prefer to try to move forward with as much
flexibility that this body could give us, and if that did include two restaurants, we would
come back at that point in time with a more detailed site plan and let you... at that time.
However, we would also agree that if you pushed those two together, we could in essence
construct two restaurants in one single building and I think that's certainly a reasonable
solution given what you did here with Chipotle and Wild Wings so that's a reasonable
solution as well but we would like to continue looking and exploring the option of two
restaurants. Thank you.
El
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Sacchet: Thank you.
Tjomhom: I guess I can throw my two cents in. I also actually think that it's badly
needed in Chanhassen. A decent place to go work out. The water park concerns me a
little bit only for the neighbors and the noise, and maybe they're too far away so it
wouldn't be a problem. I don't know but I just would like someone to think about that,
that at 8:00 at night maybe neighbors don't want to hear kids screaming down a slide or
something. So just to take that into consideration when you are making your plans.
Jim Lasher: We would propose to do a noise study if indeed that was part of the overall
plan and engage someone to actually do a detailed analysis about the level of noise
generated and how far it would travel. And if we did come up with a plan, that an
outdoor park did make sense, we would provide some level of assurances through
scientific analysis that the noise wasn't going to impact the neighbors. If it did, we would
move on and do something else.
Sacchet: Well I have a few comments too. First of all I think it's a great project. Really
think we all welcome this type of thing to our city. I made some notes about some of the
specific things that came up in our discussion. I think it's an excellent idea, this idea with
working with school district for the water park or pool. And study the noise, if it's the
water park outside. Maybe there could be some noise barriers in terms of berms,
evergreens, what have you, in a nice way. I do believe that direct access to what's
currently the bank building from the road, I agree with the comment that Commissioner
Lillehaug made. I think it's a bad idea. May as well throw that out from the beginning
rather than invest planning and then find out that it's not a good idea. Sidewalks I think
are an essential thing. Really because it's connecting the trails. It's close to schools.
Close to the park across Highway 5 so I think sidewalks pretty much across the whole
thing are important. I would want to be very clear about the importance of preserving
whatever trees there are in the creek area. It's an amenity to what you're building so I
think it's as much in your interest as in the city's interest to preserve that. Be careful
about that. The path, to find out where it goes. It's best to cross the creek and all that. I
mean that's comes when we get in further detail. Some flexibility with the road
alignment. I think that's common sense. I don't see an issue with that. Really the sticky
issue is this thing with the restaurants and the bank. And personally I think, I don't think
it's within the city's purview, certainly not my purview to try to dictate what should go in
there. Whether it's one bank and one restaurant or two restaurants and no bank, or a
combined building with two restaurants and another bank. I mean we have tons of bank
in this city but apparently there are more that want to come in. Restaurants, I think it's a
good idea. I like to go eating out once in a while. Have some variety. And I would say
that's going to be governed by the market forces. I mean if it's appropriate for business
sense and that's for you as the developer and ultimately the people that run those
businesses to decide. Not for us here. So I would like to suggest that we just hold you to
the 25 percent. And maybe with the guidance I could see well, maybe two restaurants
and no bank could be more desirable. Or one restaurant and one bank, than necessarily
the two restaurants and one bank, but if it fits within the 25 percent I think you'd be
21
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
fulfilling the requirement that we're trying to live by. That's my comments. Any
additional ones?
Slagle: I just had one last one, and that was, you touched upon the restaurants. Again
just giving some guidance. I don't know if I would be supportive at all of seeing a drive
thm.
Sacchet: Yeah, good point. There is a, you'd encounter some resistance with drive thru.
Lillehaug: Can I reiterate my questions and put them into comments then?
Sacchet: Please.
Lillehaug: As you know, you can see I'm concerned with access. Not concemed but my
attention is to access so on trunk highway 5 I would like to see, like you have proposed, a
single access inbetween Galpin and Audubon. A fully developed right turn lane and
match that concrete pavement on that new trunk highway 5 out there. And one access off
of Coulter, like staff indicated. The drawing showing two but one access off Coulter and
then all, I think everything else is.
Sacchet: Oh, you're referring to the access to water park area?
Lillehaug: Right. Staff indicated, and I agree that we should only have one access off of
Coulter, and I think that's probably amenable to this. Other than that it should be good to
work with the adjacent land owner to get that intersection lined up so thank you.
Sacchet: Now we don't usually take comments at this stage but since this is conceptual
PUD, discussion is very important so if you apparently want to add something more, go
ahead.
Jim Lasher: I just want to let the group know that we're prepared to live with those
recommendations and believe we can move a plan forward based on these
recommendations.
Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, I believe we made our comments.
Somebody want to make a motion, which should say recommend approval. Not approve,
right?
Aanenson: Recommend approval, that's correct. Just for anyone struggling with the
motion, we have a pretty good listing of those comments so if you wanted to just say.
Sacchet: As discussed.
Aanenson: Yeah, as discussed. It would be hard to frame all those but I think we've
been writing those down and certainly...
22
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Sacchet That will be an easy way to do it.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the concept PUD with the following conditions I through 12. And I would like to modify
number 4. That the easterly access would not be allowed. And then add to 5 that no
direct access and I'll just paraphrasing here but just one access off of Coulter, so it'd be
deleting the accesses as shown on the layout. And I think that is all I have.
Sacchet•. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments?
Aanenson: Did you want to add with comments on, I don't know if that was mentioned
or not. With comments as discussed.
Lillehaug: Sure.
Sacchet: With comments as discussed?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Any of the comments that are burning enough that we want to mention them
specifically? Not from your end. Yeah, in point one it says bank and we definitely want
to say maximum of one bank. I mean probably be more than enough...
Lillehaug: Do we want to modify the one free standing restaurant or?
Sacchet: Yeah, well I think we should do something about that. My recommendation
with that we would say 25 percent maximum as allowed within that district for the retail
oriented business.
Lillehaug: And not fast food as it indicates.
Sacchet: Not fast food, and that we wouldn't necessarily hold it to one restaurant. That
we would leave that maximum of two restaurants and one bank. Or two out of the three.
I mean we have some options there. How specific do we need to be? Personally I would
think the market forces dictate that more than our.
Aanenson: Can I just frame what I heard you say is you're comfortable with the 25
percent.
Sacchet: Right.
Aanenson: Not necessarily fast food. Drive thru.
23
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
Slagle: I think it was clear.
Sacchet: Pretty much definitely not.
Aanenson: So again, so if they stay within that 25 percent, the menu's a little bit bigger
but footprint, architectural, all those things come into play so, so you're comfortable with
it. What we had talked about early on.
Sacchet: So we would replace the two last bullets with 25 percent of retail oriented?
Basically that could include restaurant and/or bank.
Lillehaug: I think that sounds pretty good.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright.
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions:
1. Permitted Uses in the IOP:
• Offices
• Warehouses
• Light Manufacturing
• Health Services
• Printers
• Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service
• Recording Studios
• Conference/Convention Center
• Antennas
• Parking Lots & Ramps
• Signs
• Day Care Center
• Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs
• Research Laboratories
• Hotels & Motels
• Food Processing
• 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru
2. The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of
dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will
require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of
the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval.
3. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the
south.
24
Planning Commission Meeting — April 20, 2004
4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed.
5. One access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed.
6. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the
development which meets the current City SWMP requirements.
The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where
possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the
21.7 acres to NURP standards.
8. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants
adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary.
9. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for
commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
10. Prior approval from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District is
required for grading and erosion & sediment control.
11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL, THE PEMTOM
LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS, SETTLERS WEST, PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-051
Public Present:
25
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
To: Richard A. Bjork
Advance Fitness
3433 Broadway Street NE
Suite 255
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Ship To:
Invoice
SALESPERSON
DATE
TERMS
KM
4/9/04
upon receipt
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
34 Property Owners List within 500' of 1891 Arboretum Blvd. (34 labels)
$3.00
$102.00
TOTAL DUE
$102.00
Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen
Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #04-14.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
gAplan\2004 planning wses`04-14 - advance fitness -1891 arbo eWmblvd`04-14 invoice-gis.dm
I
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
1891 Arboretum Blvd.
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-14
State Hwy 5
TAMRA S ADAMS WILLIAM R B ANDERSON & HARRY & JULIE BENJAMIN
1973 ANDREW CT KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON 1929 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 1974 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS C/O LAND RICHARD & SUZANNE M BONIN
GROUP
123 NORTH 3RD 1943 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MNN 55401-1657
SUSAN M BOYLAN
2010 WATERLEAF LN E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8343
TIM P BRZEZINSKI & DON HERMANN CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND MONICA L DAVIES
1956 ANDREW CT GROUP INC 1952 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 123 3RD ST N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1407
ERIC B & MELANIE S DOWNUM THEODORE J & CORINNE Z DUDINE DARCI L ECKERMANN
1976 ANDREW CT 1947 ANDREW CT 1938 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL J GORRA
1680 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4503
ANTHONY R MALLAWAARATCHY
1934 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
SHARIMUSOKE
1932 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK & DAWN POLLMAN
1954 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY E SCHNEIDER
1946 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MARK HANLEY PAINE LEWIS
1967 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O
GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT
PO BOX 1113
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113
JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL
1972 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
KATHY J ROBILLIARD
1978 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
STEVEN & KATHERINE SCHRAMM
1949 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES
7801 AUDUBON RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8205
RICHARD N & JANINE E MCLELLAN
1927 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
DOUGLAS J PETERSON
1971 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
JANE SCHMITZ
1944 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
MICHAEL S SMITH
1936 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
PRAMOD & SHILPA TANEJA THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE ASSN
1969 ANDREW CT GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT C/O PERSONAL TOUCH MGMT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 PO BOX 1113 PO BOX 5233
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 HOPKINS MN 55343-2233
VICTOR J ULLRICH & JEAN C
WILCOX
1931 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409
WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSN C/O GITTLEMAN MGMT CORP
1801 E 79TH ST
SUITE 21
BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1230
MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT LAWRENCE D & EMILY P WALDRON
1950 ANDREW CT 2085 MAJESTIC WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9356
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Payee: AMERVEST SYSTEMS CORPORATION
Date: 04/21/2004 Time: 8:53am
Receipt Number: DW / 4988
Clerk: DANIELLE
GIS LIST #04-14
ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------
GIS GIS LIST #04-14
GIS LIST 102.00
---------------
Total: 102.00
Check 2083 102.00
---------------
Change: 0.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
o
D nnuk 5`0 `
115
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposal:
review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial
Planning File:
04-14
Applicant:
Advance Fitness
Property
1891 Arboretum Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the
project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 952-227-1139
Comments:
or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndusthal.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersoNrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposal:
review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial
PlanningFile:
04-14
Applicant:
Advance Fitness
Property
1891 Arboretum Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
5. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
6. The applicant will present plans on the project.
7. Comments are received from the public.
8. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the
project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 952-227-1139
Comments:
or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVndustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard, Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
RECEIPT CITY OF 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147
CHMIMSEIV PHONE:
MN 55317
PHOONE:: (952) ($52) 937-1900
RECEIVED OF 6tq'I �r` DATE
No. 77407
DESCRIPTION PERWLIC. AMOUNT FUND I SOURCE I OBJ. I PROD.
TOTALAMOUNT CHECK,[] CASH ❑
1
DEPUTVTREASURER J(.
Date: March 25, 2004
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
CITU OFCHANHASSEN
RECEIVE
L
MAR N 2004
CHANHASSEN PLANNNG DEPT
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel on 21.7 acres located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate,
Guided Office/Industrial; Applicant: Advanced Fitness.
Planning Case: Planning Project 0414
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 25, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends May 24, 2004.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 9,
2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(Qwest or United)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. Other- City Manager
14.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Proposal:
review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
acres on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial
Planning File:
04-14
Applicant:
Advance Fitness
Property
1891 Arboretum Boulevard
Location:
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
5. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
6. The applicant will present plans on the project.
7. Comments are received from the public.
8. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the
project.
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
Questions &
this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 952-227-1139
Comments:
or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, CoMitional and interim Uses, Welland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is irwited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the pudic to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or party the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVindustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence, regarding the application will be included in ft report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us
111!81 Arboretum Blvd.1
ulaclag"Der
This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and Is not intended to be used as one. This map Is
a conplleton of records. Information and data located in various city, county, state and federal otlees and
otter sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for relemncs purposes only. The City does not
warrent that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the
City does not represent that the GIS Dela can be used for navigetonal, tracking or any other purpose
requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision In the depiction of geographic features.
If errors or dscrepancles are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer Is provided
pursuant to Minnesota Slannes $466.0.9, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the
City shall not be liable for any damages, and expmssly waives all claim. and agrees to defend, indemnity,
and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or mid
pelves Mich ansa out of the users access or use of dam provided.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Concept
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a health club, office, restaurant, and hotel on 21.7
acres located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate, Guided
Office/Industrial; Applicant: Advance Fitness.
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.
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Email: kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1139
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 8, 2004)
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Restaurant (10,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
Restaunt (5,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
10,000 SF
136,000 SF
0.07
15 /1,000 SF
150 Spaces
325
48,750 SF
77,250 SF
7%
36%
57%
100%
5,000 SF
40,000 SF
0.13
15 /1,000 SF
75 Spaces
325
24,375 SF
10,625 SF
13%
61%
27%
100%
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR 24' 2004
CHANHASSEN 7LANUNG DEPT
Restraunt (10,000 SF)
® Building Footprint ■ Parking D Other
Restraunt (5,000 SF)
0 Building Footprint ■Parking OOther
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Hotel (80 Units / 5 Floors)
17%
No. of Units
84
Footprint
14,000 SF
No. of Floors
3
Floor Area
42,000 SF
Site
81,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.52
Parking Demand Ratio
1 /Unit
Parking Demand
84 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
27,300 SF
Remaining SF
39,700 SF
un. �
Building Footprint
17%
Parking
34%
Other
49%
Total
100%
Office / Retail
19%
Footprint
15,000 SF
No. of Floors
1
Floor Area
15,000 SF
Site
80,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.19
Parking Demand Ratio
4.5 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
68 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
21,938 SF
Remaining SF
43,063 SF
Building Footprint
19%
Parking
27%
Other
54%
100%
Hotel
■Btti N Fooprirt MParl3g OOther
Office / Retail
19%
84%(1
27%
O Building Footprint 0Parking 0Other
4
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Athletic Club
Footprint
93,000 SF
Floor Area
120,000 SF
Site
268,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.45
Parking Demand Ratio
4 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
480 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
156,000 SF
Outdoor Recreation
0
Remaining SF
19,000 SF
M r iu. A
Building Footprint
35%
Parking
58%
Other
7%
Outdoor Recreation
0%
100%
Water Park, City of Chanhassen
Area ( Acres) 4.2
Area ( SF) 182,000
Athletic Club
00%
35%
5b%
0 Building Footprint ■ Parking E3 Other D Outdoor Recreation
w
Advance Fitness Health Club
Additional Commercial Additional Commercial Development
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR 'M 2y004''�l
CHANHASSEN LANN NG DEPT
The development, which is proposed, is located on twenty-one, point seven
(21.7) acres located on highway # 5 at 1891 Arboretum Blvd, west of Audubon Road.
T'he site has been shown as having four different uses, with the major project being
proposed as an athletic club. The total site is comprised of a gross size of 949,172 sq.
ft„with net developed area of 312,000 sq.ft.
The access has a approved right-hand turn into the property. There is a private road
which provide a access plan for all users. The roadway continues to Coulter Boulevard.
The staging and development time table will be established upon approval being granted.
It would be our preference to be operational in the fall of 2005 for the health club. Some
of the additional users would prefer to be developed in the spring,2005.
Health Club The proposed health club would be located on ten acres of property. It
would offer 480 parking spaces. It would be a two-story building with a total floor area of
120,000 sq. ft. It would offer a 24-hour facility private health club concept with a total
range of services for individuals and families of all ages. There would be day-care
services, spa and cafe food services. It would have a extensive cardiovascular, weight
resistance and running track located on the second floor of the facility. Other activities
are basketball, swimming and pre -teen supervised services. The group fitness and other
studio classes would appeal both men and women.
The membership would grow as the facility becomes accepted in the community. We
anticipate having over 3,000 members by the second year. This concept would strive to
take fitness to the next level of health features. We would like to promote a total
wellness concept to include nutritional guidance, exercise routine and a fitness program
designed with every member's personal plan in mind. There would be activities and
classes on a year round basis for all members.
Water Park We would like to explore a development of an open-air water park in
connection with the health club. We have shown the location of a 4.2 -acre, which would
lend itself well to a public or private water park. It would be located along the creek and
have its own enterance and parking facilities.
Four commercial developments are planned along the Highway 5 frontage. The buildings
are sited near Highway 5 with parking in the rear.
Restaurants (2)
Two sit down restaurants are planned on the west side of the site. For the purpose of this
plan we have described one restaurant at 10.000 SF and one at 5,000 SF. It is intended
that bosh restaurants would be planned in such a way as to use the existing natural
environment of the creek bed to tne west as a visual amenity. T_ -e estimated floor area
ratio when the umdevelopable creek bed area is include in the site plan, is .07. The f_oor
area ratio for the 5,000 SF restaurant is .13.
Office Banks
The Office ? Bank would be located on the east side of the site directly adjacent to the
new Highway 5 curbcut. It is anticipated that the building would be a one or two story
building of approximately 15,000 SF with a floor area -atio of .19.
Hotel
A 70 to 80 unit hotel of 3 to 4 stories is located between :he restaurants and :h. office.
The facility would be planned to provide hotel guests with convenient access to
restaurants and other site amenities including the proposed water park. The floor wea
ratio of the hotel is approximately .69.
Date: March 25, 2004
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR 2004
CHANHASSEN PLAN DEPT
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel on 21.7 acres located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate,
Guided Office/Industrial; Applicant: Advance Fitness.
Planning Case: Planning Project 04-14
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 25, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends May 24, 2004.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 9,
2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
8. Telephone Company
a. City Engineer
(Qwest or United)
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
9. Electric Company
d. Fire Marshal
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
e. Building Official
L Water Resources Coordinator
10. Medicorn
g. Forester
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
2. Watershed District Engineer
12. Carver County
3. Soil Conservation Service
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
13. Other- City Manager
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
14.
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
0
0
Advance Fitness — Planning Case No. 04-14
Contact as of November, 2004:
Mr. Adrian Haid
7206 Stewart Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55346-3248
(952) 943-2910
SCANNED
, J_I_ta
PARK AND RECREATION STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual PUD of 21.7 acres of property for a health club, restaurant and hotel.
LOCATION: 1891 Arboretum Boulevard.
APPLICA
Advance Fitnes
way St. NE — Ste. 255
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-378-0014
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 21.7 acres gross DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Concept Planned Unit Development Approval for Office
Park
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN:
This site lies within the park service area of the Chanhassen Recreation Center and Bluff Creek
Elementary School. Park amenities available at these locations include ball fields, play equipment,
tennis courts, hockey and in-line skating rinks and a shelter building. The acquisition of additional
parklands in this area is not required.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN:
The proposed development connects directly to an existing section of the city's comprehensive trail plan.
The proposed trail continuation depicted on the application connects with the existing trail system at an
underpass location. A secondary connection at street level is desirable. It is not necessary for the trail to
continue north of the proposed east/west right-of-way street. Construction of the trail continuation
connecting the proposed development to the city's pedestrian trail system is the responsibility of the
applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that park dedication fees be collected per City ordinance in lieu of parkland dedication
for the proposed Advanced Fitness Planned Unit Development.
0 0
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Narrative dated March 25, 2004.
3. Concept Plan dated March 25, 2004
Date: March 25, 2004
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
L
CITV p CEIVEDSSEN
MAR 2o4 2004
CHMHASSEN KMfAG DEFT
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for a health club, office, restaurant, and
hotel on 21.7 acres located at 1891 Arboretum Boulevard on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate,
Guided Office/Industrial; Applicant: Advanced Fitness.
Planning Case: Planning Project 04-14
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on March 25, 2004. The 60day review period ends May 24, 2004.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
Proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on April 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in
the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than April 9,
2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
City Departments
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(Qwest or United)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. Other- City Manager
14.
•
Advance Fitness Health Club
h\TI
Additional Commercial Additional Commercial Development
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR '34 2,�0�0-4,,�>
CHANHASSEN PG
N H4 DEPT
The development, which is proposed, is located on twenty-one, point seven
(21.7) acres located on highway # 5 at 1891 Arboretum Blvd, west of Audubon Road.
The site has been shown as having four different uses, with the major project being
proposed as an athletic club. The total site is comprised of a gross size of 949,172 sq.
ft„with net developed area of 312,000 sq.ft.
The access has a approved right-hand turn into the property. There is a private road
which provide a access plan for all users. The roadway continues to Coulter Boulevard.
The staging and development time table will be established upon approval being granted .
It would be our preference to be operational in the fall of 2005 for the health club. Some
of the additional users would prefer to be developed in the spring,2005.
Health Club The proposed health club would be located on ten acres of property. It
would offer 480 parking spaces. It would be a two-story building with a total floor area of
120,000 sq. ft. It would offer a 24-hour facility private health club concept with a total
range of services for individuals and families of all ages. There would be day-care
services, spa and cafe food services. It would have a extensive cardiovascular, weight
resistance and running track located on the second floor of the facility. Other activities
are basketball, swimming and pre -teen supervised services. The group fitness and other
studio classes would appeal both men and women.
The membership would grow as the facility becomes accepted in the community. We
anticipate having over 3,000 members by the second year. This concept would strive to
take fitness to the next level of health features. We would like to promote a total
wellness concept to include nutritional guidance, exercise routine and a fitness program
designed with every member's personal plan in mind. There would be activities and
classes on a year round basis for all members.
Water Park We would like to explore a development of an open-air water park in
connection with the health club. We have shown the location of a 4.2 -acre, which would
lend itself well to a public or private water park. It would be located along the creek and
have its own enterance and parking facilities.
0
0
Four commercial developments are planned along the Highway 5 frontage. The buildings
are sited near Highway 5 with parking in the rear.
Restaurants (2)
Two sit down restaurants are planned on the west side of the site. For the purpose of this
plan we have described one restaurant at 10.000 SF and one at 5,000 SF. It is intended
that bosh restaurants would be planned in such a way as to use the existing natural
environment of the creek bed to be west as a visual amenity. Tae estimated floor area
ratio when the undevelopable creek led area is include in the site plan. is .07. The foor
area ratio for the 5,000 SF restaurant is .13.
Office! Ban's
The Office ! Bank would be located on the east side of the site directly adjacent to the
new Highway 5 curbcut. It is anticipated that the building would be a one or two story
building of approximately 15,000 SF with a floor area ratio of .19.
Hotel
A 70 to 80 unit hotel of 3 to 4 stories is located between the restaurants and the office.
The facility would be planned to provide hotel guests with convenient access to
restaurants and other site amenities including the proposed water park. The floor area
ratio of the hotel is approximately .69.
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Restaurant (10,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
Restaunt (5,000 SF)
Floor Area
Site
Floor Area Ratio
Parking Demand Ratio
Parking Demand
SF/Space
Parking Area Required
Remaining SF
Summary
Building Footprint
Parking
Other
Total
0
10,000 SF
136,000 SF
0.07
15 /1,000 SF
150 Spaces
325
48,750 SF
77,250 SF
7%
36%
57%
100%
5,000 SF
40,000 SF
0.13
15 /1,000 SF
75 Spaces
325
24,375 SF
10,625 SF
13%
61%
27%
100%
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR 2n'�,d2004
CHANHASSENN' PLAWING DEPT
Restraunt (10,000 SF)
7%
36%
57%co
Y Building Footprint ■ Parking O Other
Restraunt (5,000 SF)
13%
2796
60%
■Building Footprint ■Parking OOther
0 0
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Hotel (80 Units / 5 Floors)
No. of Units
84
Footprint
14,000 SF
No. of Floors
3
Floor Area
42,000 SF
Site
81,000 SF Hotel
Floor Area Ratio
0.52
Parking Demand Ratio
1 /Unit
Parking Demand
84 Spaces 17%
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
27,300 SF 49%
(434%
Remaining SF
39,700 SF
1 JA
Building Footprint 17% ■Building Footprint ■Parking ❑Other
Parking 34%
Other 49%
Total 100%
Office / Retail
Footprint 15,000 SF
No. of Floors 1
Floor Area 15,000 SF
Site 80,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio 0.19
Parking Demand Ratio 4.5 /1,000 SF Office / Retail
Parking Demand 68 Spaces
SF/Space 325
Parking Area Required 21,938 SF 19
%
Remaining SF 43,063 SF
sa%
Summary
Building Footprint 190/0
Parking 27%
Other 54% ■ Building Footprint ■Parking E3 Other
100%
•
Chanhassen Project
3/24/2004
Athletic Club
Footprint
93,000 SF
Floor Area
120,000 SF
Site
268,000 SF
Floor Area Ratio
0.45
Parking Demand Ratio
4 /1,000 SF
Parking Demand
480 Spaces
SF/Space
325
Parking Area Required
156,000 SF
Outdoor Recreation
0
Remaining SF
19,000 SF
Building Footprint
35%
Parking
58%
Other
7%
Outdoor Recreation
0%
100%
Water Park, City of Chanhassen
Area ( Acres) 4.2
Area ( SF) 182,000
0
Athletic Club
■ Building FootPrlM ■ Parldrg O Odw D Outdoor Recreation
l_ _ _
-----------_���STATE
HWY 5
t
1
1
'7N O
Z -,�3
Cr\ -A
State Trunk Highway No. 5
--- + — — — — ----i—t— — -----I1 '------
YA4x:'x
farkinONe>t`T �� L
�' LL �I ■
Proposed Note
i 1 Bit tam
BOidingF6010FI�sedHest nt u
lBSf[E:BI,000Sf.trosin rinf.IO000&1 \ �;L_III ■■
2 acres]
-1
Parking Area
iRroposed Me
;and Bank L�
Pa
rking 'BBuilBin9Featprlm:15,000s.0ixesl ;
; ;;Sfle:80000a1 teaI
imposed Ristaurant J .I
IaIlBingFBatp7
5,000 Al �;
be: 40.000 s.
yrkingIs Is.
_L i; — ■ it
■�■ ■ m Proposed Right of Way ■ ■ ■ ■/
1 `p�. r
N
b
t� Water Pari AM
s",
Proposed Health Club
Bind... LnnfY'inf.09 AAA
><Its:26a,000 &t.16.2 acrosl
k
a
0
a
I
rb
...:......
LI
L
:I 3
ParkingAmre
\ 9
Y
�I w
'I o
'
`
CL
'I
LI C
'
iI r
t01 ■
k
iI
I
E E K S
I
OFCHANHASSEN
k
a
0
a
1, 1. ILO 1w
ALBERSMAN & ARMSTRONG, LTD.
N1 I N 1'MIJNE: 6123942'I')b
PA%: 612-349-2779
.............
.......
..... ........... ..
...:......
O_ W -N
H- O -M E S1------
A ------------;,—I
----------T
C /Q
E E K S
D E
OFCHANHASSEN
CIN
RECEIVED
1 MAR 2 5 2004
NOTE: AEE AREA NUMBERS SHOWN
ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR
DISCUSSION ONET
1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
1, 1. ILO 1w
ALBERSMAN & ARMSTRONG, LTD.
N1 I N 1'MIJNE: 6123942'I')b
PA%: 612-349-2779
Site:
State Trunk Highway No. 5
--- —__� _
.'�� °. / •. >- r-- ,9d44
�MA 3. Y[P fRW flNltl: M ! .,RAreel IIItRest�U!Jt m1prin1a0.000&L�'�0 at. 131 seresti:�I
W
Parking Area :' f'%Y�. ,� :,alil Bank ,I cm L
V ,� '�BuildfngFootpr1011000sLa m j
'i �iSi(E:80,0005.1.[l� 'I
Proposed nistaurant ;, �I 9
1'11 RlldinOFaotil 5,ODOs1.
no: 40.000 re] a�
a..�� _ � ■ '. _fix i
y�
c_ � p � ' ■ ' m ■ till ■ ■Proposed Right of Way ■ His ■ ■-------------------
■ ■
� Y
PropisedHeaRb a Parking Area ,I y
TJf
Be
Z ,,
y \ r/ /� o Z
m 73
it - ' ■ \� >.
l
ParkingArm
4ee° � it ■
..........................
::::...................
...................................................
.. ...... ................... ..............
—
-.
.......r.��. .........
` :?:
—.
..................-..
/': nes.
—
... .... ...............
e�ras,r
l..a' 3YY
...........___•-
T O W N
H O
A T'.,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
NOTE: AIL AREA NUMBERS SHOWN
MAR 2 5 2004
ARE APPROIUMATEAND FOR
DISCUSSION ONLY
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
" '"' 120 ""
ALBERSMAN & ARMSTRONG, LTD.
INoU
_
Ili lli �..
n 4111Th. •11 I:]]'i WPSHINI:i1 IN /.VP Ta ITG I.IIN IN
SS4(1
INNLHAOPNOLIJ MINN9L-SYO9I9AB
March
24, 2,04Land
I
FA%&12349-2999 �
v