08-7-96 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 7, 1996,8:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE
7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Planning Commission Interviews for Vacancy
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a medium density
residential development on 7.03 acres located south of Coulter Blvd. and east of the Stone
Creek Drive extension, rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD-R,
preliminary plat of 25 lots, 1 outlot, and associated right-of-way, site plan approval for 25
townhome units and a conditional use permit for excavation and filling within the flood
plain,Townhomes at Creekside, Heritage Development.
2. Site plan approval to construct a 30' x 44' canopy over the existing gas pumps and a six (6)
foot variance from the 25' front yard setback requirement on property zoned BH, Highway
Business District and located at 7910 Dakota Ave., Sinclair Station.
3. Preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 0.8 acre parcel into two lots on property zoned
RSF, Residential Single Family and located on the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Shadow
Lane, Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition, Coffman Development.
4. Conditional use permit to allow a 75' amateur radio tower on approximately 7 acres of
property zoned RR, Rural Residential District and located at 1225 Hesse Farm Circle,
Jeffrey May.
5. An interim use permit and wetland alteration permit request for a grading project to
construct a play area and parking lot in the Minnewashta Regional Park located on Hwy. 41
approximately 1/2 mile north of Hwy. 5,Carver County.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make
every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair
person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the
agenda at the next Commission meeting.
PC DATE: 6/5/96
CITY OF 8/7/96
CC DATE: 8/26/96
- UAHAEN
��1 CASE #: PUD 96-3, SP 96-6,
CUP 96-1
• By: Generous:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, PUD, for a 25 unit medium
density residential development on 7.03 acres,rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural
Estate to PUD-R,preliminary plat of 26 lots, 2 outlots,and associated right-of-way on
approximately 29 acres; site plan approval for 25 townhome units; and a conditional use
-Z permit for excavation and filling within the flood plain; Townhomes at Creekside, Heritage
Development.
LOCATION: South of Coulter Boulevard and east of the Stone Creek Drive extension
APPLICANT: Heritage Development of Minnesota
_1_ 450 East County Road D
Q St. Paul, MN 55117
(612) 481-0017
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate
ACREAGE: Gross: 28.97 Net(less ROW and Outlot A): 5.79
DENSITY: 4.32 units/acre (gross/net)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A2, Coulter Blvd.
S- RSF, Creekside Addition
E - A2, Bluff Creek, east branch
W- RR/A2, Timberwood Estates
. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is primarily an open field that slopes from an elevation of 942 in
the north to a low of 912 in the south. Steeper slopes exist adjacent to the east branch of Bluff Creek.
Existing wooded areas are located adjacent to the east branch of Bluff Creek. A storm water basin,
f) developed as part of the Creekside Addition, is located in the southern portion of the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Medium Density(Net'bensity Range 4.0 - 8.0 Units/Ac.)
.„ i iteiliiii.d.L.•
lit i
%di IT
40 A
„,„.._ i
��4 - ��\�141w:ii � ��41,1�;1 1 Lake ,�
,+%//j/��aral7�'11111P ,•.I."; j± Ann
,i yi�tJl�• t j �EI,JI / 3 -almaTUIUFi
A : -.fN
f �
- ` • -° LP CAlipt,4101
>
-1.44i ` ,rte 41**c*
oL
' -' ..Q' " , la; - .1 :0 - pi#44.14 ,14,7:11641 I 4,4A zt,I,1 I% ,
x' 411i i: --11="wiiiin ,...5.1* 111111 11
• . .
Ar r
i #1%
billittain Liii-AllainerratiFiar, it/4
Inn V Oriki .-.0 q� ,�•.�,•�::� may-'
ti
1111-
,� t E _• je e.
8700 . r
o 0 0 o n o c ir
8800 �� � 1:�R111 ii �, IQ ,do� k
8900WI 14
•,, At MI
will
0006zi AMIN& m11 l
I I yman Blvd(GR. 8) ` J .
9100 F
3 '
9300
'ITY OF 9300
r 9900 -->...,.`�...-.. ... .,..... yam..,......«.... -. : ,\J -
1 o
NHAS9500 p / i
SEN = ; ,/ ,
9600
oi:
U. "_-'
9700 L"
SSEt )�.. .
MAP -
9900 j / <3`ry*' ; i
/ ,
10000 -/, I'"� -
EMU
t. •
10100 r _ lip
..
- :" __ Q
10200
----5.,4--_, liriklill
A PROPOSED R/W 10300 � - - �'
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval for a medium density residential
development on 7.03 acres located south of Coulter Blvd. and east of the Stone Creek Drive
extension, rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD-R,preliminary plat of 26 lots,
2 outlots, and associated right-of-way on approximately 29 acres, site plan approval for 25
townhome units,and a conditional use permit for excavation and filling within the flood plain,
Townhomes at Creekside, Heritage Development.
The site is bounded on the east and south sides by Bluff Creek which constrains the potential
development of the property. In this area, a 100 foot building setback of which the first 50 feet is a
buffer area, has been used adjacent to Bluff Creek. A 50 foot building setback is required from
Coulter Drive. As part of the revised plans,the applicant is proposing an 80 foot setback in
the northeastern corner of the property from Bluff Creek. These setbacks limited the number
of units that can be incorporated in the development.
The proposed development consists of 25 townhouse units. This units appear very attractive.
Building material appears to be vinyl siding. However, no material schedules have been
provided for review.
Staff is recommending that the concept and preliminary PUD be . : - . . --- - - . . . ' . .
- ' - , - . . . . . .. - - --- - - .. approved subject to the conditions
of the staff report.
Site Characteristics
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately seven acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned
Unit Development - Residential for a 25 unit, medium density townhome development. The
following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken
from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
•
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, qnd a potential for lower
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996 —
August 7, 1996
Page 3
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views. —
Finding. While The development does preserve the area of the east branch of bluff
creek through the provision of a 100 and 80 foot building setback, the development, as
-•- . . - . - - . . The applicant has revised the site plan to relocate
dwelling units out of the flood plain. In addition, the applicant has reconfigured the
eastern layout of units, providing additional view corridors of the natural amenities
surrounding the development.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. The proposed developmentr while efficiently
- - . ' , ::- : and effectively utilizes the site for development. AdElitienal
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 4
Finding. The proposed development of medium density residential is an effective
transition from the single-family residential to the south and southwest and the
office/industrial to the north and east.
— 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The proposed development is consistent with Medium Density Residential
Land use.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. The proposed development does preserve a 100 foot wide corridor adjacent to
Bluff Creek and additional open area is created in the area of the storm water pond.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding. Housing in the development will be at market rate.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. Energy conservation would be achieved due to the relaxation of city standards
for lot layout and street standards.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. The development will provide all appropriate traffic control devices.
Additionally, pedestrian facilities are being required on both sides of Stone Creek Drive.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with the Comprehepsive Plan
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 5
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, trees, and topographical
features)
More efficient use of land —
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The proposed development consists of 25 townhouse units. This units appear very attractive and
provide varied building elevations. Building material appears to be vinyl siding. However, no
material schedules have been provided for review. —
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
WETLANDS
This development is proposing to impact 11,900 square feet of Bluff Creek as part of the Stone —
Creek Drive extension. Since this project will be extending City utilities to areas along Coulter
Boulevard, the City of Chanhassen has assumed responsibility of applying for the necessary
permits and creating mitigation areas as required by the Wetland Conservation Act. These permits
will be have been obtained as part of the City's Coulter Boulevard public improvement project
(No. 93-26B).
The applicant , -o - - , - --• • - -• • - -_ has submitted a wetland delineation report
for the site. The applicant will also be responsible to notify the Army Corps of Engineers, DNR,
Bluff Creek Watershed District and any other regulatory agencies who have jurisdiction on Bluff
Creek about any proposed changes in the flood plain and/or discharges into the creek.
Bluff Creek - An east and west branch of Bluff Creek comes together at the southeast part of this
proposed development and Bluff Creek continues to run north to south through the site. The creek
discharges into the Lower Minnesota River approximately three and one-half miles south of the —
site. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is a DNR protected water. The City is
committed to the protection and restoration of the Bluff Creek corridor and is initiating a
comprehensive watershed plan to protect the creek and the corridor associated with it. —
The City's shoreland ordinance requires that the lowest floor of a structure be placed at least two
feet above the highest flood of record, the ordinary high water level,or the level of a technical —
evaluation conducted to determine the effects of flood stages of the proposed construction. If there
is more than one approach used,the highest flood protection elevation determined shall be used for
placing structures and other facilities. The watershed district,the City,and the applicant will have
to meet to evaluate the methodologies used to determine flood elevations in order to establish a
flood elevation for the creek based upon the best available information.
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 6
Flood plain- The current grading plan shows building pads in the existing flood plain delineation.
The grading plan also suggests that the flood plain will change with the Stone Creek Drive
extension and construction of the building pads on the south end of the project. If the Bluff Creek
flood plain is altered this will require approval from the Bluff Creek Watershed District.
Any changes in the flood plain will also require the applicant to notify the Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA). The Applicant will be responsible for providing FEMA the
necessary documentation to have federal flood plain maps changed to reflect developed conditions.
Update July 24, 1996
The issues raised in the original report have been addressed in the letter accompanying the
plans, but have yet to be resolved. Staff is unclear on how the applicant can alter the
floodplain, but use the unaltered border to maintain structures and the building lots
outside the floodplain. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed
floodplain boundary and provide justification for the changes. The Bluff Creek Watershed
District has received a set of revised development plans. City staff recommends that we
review comments from the Bluff Creek Watershed District before final plat approval.
City staff has received the delineation report, visited the site, and is comfortable that the
_ new street grade will not impact the wetland northwest of the property. As mentioned in
the conditions of approval, no impacts to this wetland shall be allowed and the wetland
shall be protected during construction.
It is the recommendation of staff that because the development impacts the primary
corridor of the Bluff Creek, the applicant should be required to revegetate within the
altered floodplain and adjacent to the wetlands with native wetland vegetation to maintain
natural features along the creek and establish a consistency in preserving this natural
resource.
Buffers and Setbacks-The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands
located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a
minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to
20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these
wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance.
The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the
applicant $20 per sign.
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996 _
August 7, 1996
Page 7
Staff recommends that heavy-duty Type III erosion control fencing be installed and maintained
along Bluff Creek/wetlands adjacent to where ponding areas are proposed. The erosion control —
fences shall be maintained until the entire site is fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the
City. Staff also recommends that a drainage and utility easement be dedicated over the creek with a
minimum width of 30 feet on each side centered along the creek.
Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at
the Minnesota River. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the Design Center at
the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100-foot buffer setback to maintain a natural
resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP). The SWMP serves as a tool to
protect,preserve, and enhance the City's water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater
quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the —
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year
design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William
Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An
ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to deter- _
mine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
The City requires storm water quantity calculations for pre and post developed conditions and water
quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat. After review of the calculations, the City
will make recommendations for approval of the stormwater plan and calculate SWMP fees in
accordance with the SWMP. _
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication
shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon
a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. —
The water quality charge has been calculated at$1,530/acre for a townhome with 3 to 8 units per
acre. This development proposes a net density of 7.03 acres. This equates to a fee of$10,756 for
water quantity. It appears the proposed storm water pond has been sized to accommodate runoff
from this site; therefore, the storm water quality fee will be waived.,
-
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 8
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
trunk systems,culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storage.
Medium density developments will have a connection charge of$2,975 per developable acre. The
proposed development of 7.03 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection
charge of$20,914. Credits, if any,will be applied after review of the final construction plans
GRADING
The majority of the site is proposed to be graded for house pads, storm water pond and streets.
According to the plans, no grading activities will occur within 50 feet of the creek except with the
extension of Stone Creek Drive. A storm water pond was already created on the south side of the
site in conjunction with the Creekside residential subdivision. The plans propose on expanding the
pond to meet water quality requirements for the area. _ .. . - . ' ' . . ' -, - . . . .. -
• • - • .. •- • . - .. . •.. . .- ' .
- _ • ' : . . . . .. . - . . . . . - A large wetland
complex exists directly west of this site. The plans propose on filling only a small portion at the
creek crossing;mer, the proposed street section along Stone Creek Drive has been revised to
does-net provide the necessary boulevards adjacent to the curbs for trails and sidewalk. ill
. .. . . .. . - - - . : - -- . - _ . - - .. . •. -
Berms are proposed adjacent to Coulter Boulevard. The proposed street grade along Coulter
Boulevard will be approximately 6 5 to 12 feet higher than the first floor of the units on Lots 1
_ through 12,Block 1. The berms range in height from 8 to 10 feet high along Coulter Boulevard.
Additional berming has been proposed should-be-considered to extend through Lot 26 between
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 9
Lots 10 and 11 to assist in buffering the units from future Coulter Boulevard. The revised grading
plan appears acceptable to staff.
DRAINAGE
A small storm drainage pond was created on this site in conjunction with the applicant's previous —
phase of development (Creekside Addition). The pond design has been will-need-to-be increased
to accommodate storm water runoff from this development. The total drainage area contributing to
the pond is approximately 11 acres. Storm sewers will convey runoff to the storm pond for —
pretreatment prior to discharging into wetlands. The storm sewer plan proposes two storm sewer
outlets to discharge into the pond. One discharge point is from Stone Creek Drive(low point)and
the other is between Lots 17 and 18, Block 1. These two pipe systems need to be combined.into -
-- . _ _ - : - -- -. Access for maintenance purposes to the storm sewer
between Lots 17 and 18, Block 1 will be very difficult and negatively impact the landscaping
and wetlands. By changing street grades slightly and extending approximately 1501.f. more
of storm sewer along street A could eliminate this discharge point. This line would be
combined with the proposed storm sewer in Stone Creek Drive. Just one maintenance trip
would almost offset the cost of revising the system not to mention eliminate the imposition to
the neighborhood. i-additio t-The existing storm sewer in Stone Creek Drive has been revised
per staff's recommendation • ---: - - _ . . -- -• -• . _- --•- •- - - - --
. _ .. . - . . . -•• - - - - -- .- - .. - - ,
-- • - _ . -- . _ - �, r. :. - -
. The storm water quality pond has been revised and
shall-be designed d in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model. Detailed storm
sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events along with ponding calculations shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. Individual storm sewer calculations between catch
basin segments will also be required. The storm water pond has been revised""' ed to be
deserted-and constructed with ': .- . - -- 4: - . a 10:1 bench for the first 10 feet at —
normal water level and 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety purposes.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Stone Creek Drive. The plans —
propose on extending utilities along Stone Creek Drive to Coulter Boulevard and also into the site.
A sanitary sewer line will also be extended through the development to the east edge of the plat for
future extension to the adjacent parcel. The sanitary sewer along Stone Creek Drive is one of the —
City's trunk sewer lines(18-inch RCP). The plans propose extending an 8 18-inch line by the City
in conjunction with the Coulter Boulevard improvement. "-. • - - - - : - ••
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 10
Creek Drive. The applicant has petitioned the City to have these utilities extended in conjunction
with the Coulter Boulevard improvements. However,depending on the applicant's schedule it may
be more advantageous to have the sewer and water lines installed with this development. The
applicant would be credited against their Coulter Boulevard assessments for the oversizing cost
difference between and 8-inch lateral sewer line and the 18-inch trunk sewer line.
Detailed construction plans and specifications of the utility and street improvements will need to be
submitted in conjunction with the final plat approval for staff review and preparation of the
development contract. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance
with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The developer will also
need to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee
installation of public improvements.
STREETS
—' The plan proposes extending Stone Creek Drive up to Coulter Boulevard. In addition, a private
street (Street A)is proposed to service the development. Street A is proposed to be constructed
_ with a 2226-foot wide pavement section and a 35 45.5-foot standard radius on the cul-de-sac with
concrete curb and gutter. Both of these street widths should accommodate the proposed use.
are insufficient. The City's Fire Marshal requires a minimum 15 foot radius in the cul de sac to
.. . . _ - -
- _
let-eea€igufatien: Staff recommends adding one or two more parking stalls to the three
proposed west of Lot 25. Due to the number of driveways,parking will be at a premium
since there will be no parking on Street A. Staff has reviewed the criteria for private streets
and believe that this revised proposal complies with city ordinances. The streets will be
required to be constructed to meet(7) seven ton per axle weight.
•
Stone Creek Drive is proposed to be constructed in accordance with City standards: 60 foot right-
of-way with a 35-foot wide street section consistent with the existing street. A 5-foot wide concrete
_ sidewalk is else proposed along the east west side of Stone Creek Drive. An 8-foot wide
bituminous trail is also proposed along a portion of Stone Creels Drive(east side). Staff
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 11
believes the trail should be extended northerly to Coulter Boulevard to provide a safer
pedestrian crossing.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property
lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands.
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street —
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street
system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
including wetlands and forested areas.
Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not makes it tiftfeasible or inappropriate
to construct a public street due to the location of the flood plain and Bluff Creek
adjacent to the development. The proposed private street serving the development is not —
necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. The use of the private street does net
enhance protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas, —
permitting the location of structures outside of the flood plain. a-polifflie-street-eettlelrin
. , . . - - _ ' - - . ... _ . - .. --- . Due to the constraints imposed
to preserve the natural amenities surrounding the development and the location of —
Coulter Drive north of the project, a public street is impractical.
MISCELLANEOUS —
eutlet
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be
reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the —
submitted documents.
Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary
to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan
review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 12
lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO)must-be are
shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors
during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Setbacks. Exterior projections (at overhangs)and exterior walls(at porches)are regulated by the
Uniform Building Code(UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown,porches will not
be permitted as shown and overhangs will not be permitted in some cases. The property lines
should be at least three feet from any overhangs. These requirements are found in UBC Table 5-A,
503.2.1 and 705. Since these issues involve property lines, they need to be resolved before
— preliminary plat approval.
Building construction. Unit sizes as shown will require parapets (or compliance with UBC
709.4.1 exceptions 4) or 5) at walls less than three feet from the property line. The structures will
be required to be designed by an architect.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on May 21, 1996 to review this proposal. The
Commission tabled this item for further review. The Parks and Recreation Commission met
again on June 26, 1996 to review the proposed development. The Commission
recommended:
1. Land within the 50 foot creek setback will be dedicated public property.
2. Heritage Development will construct Trail "A" and Connector"A" within the 50 foot
setback. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and engineering costs
associated with these trails. Heritage will also be granted park fee credit for the linear
area required for these trails based on a calculation of length times 20 feet in width.
The proposed plat, at 25 multi-family units, generates a land dedication requirement of
two-thirds of an acre.
3. Heritage Development will also construct Trail Extension "B" within the right-of-way
of Stone Creek Drive. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and
engineering costs associated with this trail. The staking of these trails are to be
approved by the Park& Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to construction.
-- These improvements are to be bid as a unit of the larger public improvement projects
being sponsored by the applicant as part of this site work. Upon certification by the
_ city of a low bidder for the trail components, said work shall be completed. Upon
completion and acceptance of trail components,the applicant shall be reimbursed for
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 13
engineering and construction costs associated with the trails utilizing trail acquisition
and development funds.
TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING
The existing conditions in the development show minimal tree coverage occurring only along the —
northern branch of Bluff Creek. According to grading plans, none of these trees will be disturbed
by construction. However, since they essentially occur within a wetland area, the canopy
coverage is not included for the site. Therefore, the applicant is required to increase coverage in
the site in order to meet ordinance. For a medium density development with 19% or less
coverage, the base line canopy coverage is 20% or 2 acres. This equates to 81 trees. Applicant
has provided 86 89 trees in the landscaping plan including overstory, understory, and evergreen. —
According to the plan, the applicant has concentrated the evergreens on the north and east sides
of the development and deciduous and shrubs in the central and southern areas. As far as energy
conservation plantings and overall layout is concerned, the landscaping is appropriate and will
provide adequate buffering from neighbors, streets, and trails in time.
FINDINGS
Subdivision, Section 18-39 (f)
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.
The applicant has proposed a PUD which offers enhanced flexibility to develop a
site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. In exchange —
for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development
plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. -HHowever,
. . - - - . ! -- - - - _ . The
proposed development has been revised to incorporate staff
recommendations to enhance the design of the project and preserve
environmental features.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;,
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 14
Finding: The proposed subdivision of the property for the residential component
is inconsistent with the existing land use designation of the property which is
„f:ce/indusnin Residential-Medium Density,which was incorporated in the
Highway 5 Study. - . . _ - . - . -_ -- . . - • - - - . .3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: While some of the site contains poor soil conditions for development
(Cordova silty clay loam and Glencoe silty clay loam) on proposed building sites
or roadway, it is possible through soil corrections to make the site suitable for
development. As a condition of development, the applicant will be required to
incorporate best management practices for erosion control and demonstrate all lots
would be buildable.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
_ chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision attempts to minimize impacts to the
environment. While some tree removal and wetland alterations are oftentimes
necessary to develop sites through tree preservation measures and the use of
smaller right-of-way widths and front yard setbacks, the applicant has reduced
potential environmental damage.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
_ 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 15
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure. - : , -. - ' -- -: • - -- . - - . - - •- •
units —
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission . : - -• - -- - . -•- • - • •- -
. . . - - _ . ••_ -• . : issues adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conceptual and Preliminary Planned
Unit Development, PUD, for a 25 unit medium density residential development on 7.03 acres,
rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD-R, preliminary plat of 26 lots,2 —
outlots, and associated right-of-way on approximately 29 acres, site plan approval for 25
townhome units,and a conditional use permit for excavation and filling within the flood
plain,Townhomes at Creekside subject to the following conditions:
stacked units.
locate dwelling. nits
4. The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood
plain maps to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define,
graphically, the proposed floodplain boundary and provide justification for the
changes. -'
5. The applicant shall notify and obtain a permit from the Bluff Creek Watershed
district as needed for the activities of altering a flood plain and discharging storm
pond runoff into the Bluff Creek. The city shall review comments from the
Bluff Creek Watershed District before final plat approyal.
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 16
"_
7. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
8. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements over all
utilities, wetlands and ponding areas outside the right-of way. Consideration should also
be given for access for maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and
wetlands.
9. -- . ... . . --- . - -- - •. - - - - -- - !: .
ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or'1:1 throughout for
safetyrrposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading.
10. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived. Water quantity
fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
_ evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The
fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans.
11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a
10-year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine
if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design
calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 17
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, —
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information.
On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading
project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the —
Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas.
18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of two (2) feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines. —
19. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
20. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Additional
erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances may be incorporated
on the final construction plans.
21. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet shall be
maintained adjacent to ag/urban wetlands. The principal structure setback shall be —
40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
22. _ ... . . . . : _. - .. . . . _
23. All structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the project —
boundaries which are adjacent to center—e€Bluff Creek and its tributaries. An "
exception will be made in the northeast corner of the site where an 80 foot
setback from the property boundary will be permitted. The applicant shall be
required to revegetate within the altered floodplain and adjacent to the
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 18
wetlands with native wetland vegetation to maintain natural features along
the creek and establish a consistency in preserving this natural resource.
24. . --- ... .
- :-: . -: - - . ..
accordingly.
25. :. ' _ - - . - .. •_wetlands. Stone Creek Drive shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
City street standards, i.e. standard boulevards.
-•- - - -
27. The storm sewer system shall be redesigned to limit discharge points to one on
Stone Creek Drive.
28. line-heads-west. If the applicant installs the trunk sanitary sewer, they shall be
compensated by means of credits against their Coulter Boulevard assessments for
the cost difference between an 8-inch lateral line and the 18-inch trunk sewer line.
29. Street A shall be constructed as a pie private street with a
way-and a 31 foot 26-foot wide street section. .- . ..• ':-, • - - . .
Mon
30. . . - - • -= -- - _ - • .
, , - - • .
31. " - - - . - - -- e - - . • . - - • . • - . This
parcel will be dedicated as right-of-way.
-- 32. The developers and designers should meet with the building official as early as possible to
discuss commercial building permit requirements
33. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior
to final plat approval.
•
34. I - - . - . - - . . -: . .. . • . . •. - - --- - - - . , . -_
Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996 _
August 7, 1996
Page 19
35. Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to remove
projections. Adjust property lines to permit screen porches or revise plans to remove
porches. This should be done before preliminary plat approval. _
36. If parking on the street is desirable, the roadway must be widened to 28 feet. However,
this will allow parking only on one side of the street. If the street width is to remain at 26 —
feet, "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed per Chanhassen Fire Department
Policy #06-1991.
37. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP,NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated by firefighters. Pursuant to —
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
38. Land within the 50 foot creek setback will be dedicated public property. —
39. Heritage Development will construct Trail "A" and Connector "A" within the 50
foot setback. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and engineering _
costs associated with these trails. Heritage will also be granted park fee credit for
the linear area required for these trails based on a calculation of length times 20 feet
in width. The proposed plat, at 25 multi-family units, generates a land dedication
requirement of two-thirds of an acre.
40. Heritage Development will also construct Trail Extension "B" within the right-of-
way of Stone Creek Drive. Heritage will be compensated for the construction and
engineering costs associated with this trail. The staking of these trails are to be _
approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to
construction. These improvements are to be bid as a unit of the larger public
improvement projects being sponsored by the applicant as part of this site work. _
Upon certification by the city of a low bidder for the trail components, said work
shall be completed. Upon completion and acceptance of trail components, the
applicant shall be reimbursed for engineering and construction costs associated with
the trails utilizing trail acquisition and development funds."
ATTACHMENTS —
1. Development Review Application
2. Townhomes at Creekside PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan —
3. Preliminary Site Plan
4. Building Elevations and Floor Plans
_ Townhomes at Creekside
June 5, 1996
August 7, 1996
Page 20
5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
6. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/30/96
7. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated May 31, 1996
8. Letter from Kenneth Adolf to Bob Generous dated 7/22/96
9. Public Trail Sketch Plan
10. Planning Commission minutes dated June 5, 1996
L
FROM :SCHOELL c; MRDEON 612 S46 9065 1996,05-01 07:5'9 #684 P.04/07 —
REDEIVED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE MAY 0 9 RECD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1700 CITY OF ehhivnr,,)otN -
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Her f« Tur! pi,o.,'(-' OWNER: ,514/r1 1E
ADDRESS: 4S� f _.__r ,-7 L 4). ADDRESS: -
L,'lie- eatid'dee 4I 6 /i
TELEPHONE (Day time) 143i- 00/ 7 TELEPHONE:
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment '
Temporary Sales Permit
f _
`/Conditional Use Permit — Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit l Variance -
Non-conforming Use PermitWetland Alteration Permit
V.-Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal
Running Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits �[ -
Sign Plan Review _ (` Notification Sign CO,^ "Pf e
Ivo .-- crOiroSI -
/Site Plan Review" X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" ,.;'::-
(550 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision' TOTAL FEE$ :,)`:---- S- `�
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application_ _
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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.
FROM :SCHOELL r- MP00ON 612 546 9065 1996,05-01 08:00 #684 P.05/07
' PROJECT NAME / Ot..vn hpyrets Q'P Gree ,'cle
_ LOCATION Uri v e not CrP .c 4,ne Cher-(c d i/iu.Q .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION D E C, _i •
TOTAL ACREAGE -
' WETLANDS PRESENT YES - NO
_ PRESENT ZONING ---
REQUESTED ZONING P( )
— PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 7 tG�" r)714
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION m tG( D►?�� 7 .
- REASON FOR THIS REQUEST O,prru& .L- OT d POW hc9v s4.2h S •
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 fling 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.
-- 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 development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
m extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are a••rov-+ by the a a.- '._nt.
/7‘
Signature Signature a •plica Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
G'O
Application Received on 5 //Le Fee Falb! 2,505. Receipt No. (.cn I
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which Will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
11 not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address+
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
May, 1996
Submitted by:
Heritage Development
450 East County Road D
St. Paul, MN 55117
(612) 481-0017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
II. INTRODUCTION
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
B. Legal Description
C. Zoning
D. Project
_ E. P.U.D. Criteria
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
3. Traffic Access and Circulation
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING
_ V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT AND FLOOD PLAIN
MITIGATION
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
IX. COVENANTS
X. CONCLUSION
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The developer of this property is Heritage Development, a Minnesota business
located in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Heritage tradition has been synonymous with
quality neighborhoods throughout the Metropolitan Area for 10 years.
The Development Team is coordinated by John Dobbs, Vice President of Heritage
Development and Project Manager of this development.
Consultants
Planner: The site plan design by Schoell & Madson, Inc.,
Minnetonka, MN
Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell &
Madson, Inc., Minnetonka, MN
Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by
Analysis: Svoboda Ecological Resources of Shorewood, MN
Landscape Architecture: Landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation —
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to
obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval with
a wetland alteration permit.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2
Ill. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
This proposed Residential Planned Unit Development by Heritage is located in
Chanhassen in Section 15, Township 116, Range 23. The 5.79-acre site will
be served by Stone Creek Drive to the west, which will connect with Coulter
Boulevard.
Property to both the north and east remains undeveloped, and has been
guided for office/industrial usage by the City's guide plan. To the west is
Timberwood Estates single family development, and to the south is Creekside
Addition single family residential.
B. Legal Description
Parts of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23
west of the 5th Meridian.
C. Zoning
The project consists of land owned by Heritage Development. The property is
currently zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate. The Developer proposes to rezone
the property to a Residential Planned Unit Development.
D. The Project
The project consists of 25 residential townhome units with 2 to 4 units per
building that will be developed on lots ranging from 25.5' to 31.0' in width with
— lot depths of 92.5'. Each lot will accommodate a pre-designed townhome
structure. Each home will have a two car garage with a driveway. Twelve of
the units will be slab-on-grade with the remainder of the units having walkout
basements where topography allows. This site plan was developed in an
attempt to maximize the preservation of the natural topography along the
creek. Access will be provided by a private cul-de-sac street. The project
includes extension of Stone Creek Drive from the Creekside Addition across
Bluff Creek and connecting to Coulter Boulevard.
Proposed Building Setbacks:
25' Curb Setback Typical along Street "A"
30' Side yard Setback (minimum) along Stone Creek Drive
50' Side and Rear Yard Setback (minimum) along Coulter Boulevard
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3
25' Minimum Combined Between Buildings
100' Setback from Center of Creek (minimum)
Large wetlands, existing ponding, flood plain, slopes and the natural
topography of Bluff Creek create a variety of constraints to development,
requiring unique approaches and mitigative efforts aimed at providing quality
homesites while maintaining the integrity of the site topography. Measures
such as reduced setbacks, road design, and restrictive covenants all contribute
to this and will be discussed later.
Townhomes will be available in 2, 3, and 4-unit buildings. The range of
topography and building mixture provides an opportunity to accommodate
different home styles. Besides offering the advantage of a quality streetscape,
the mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help the City achieve affordable
housing goals while maintaining density which is in conformance with R-8
requirements.
With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we
propose, such as preservation of wetlands and Bluff Creek topography with
additional ponding, creates a development that is aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally responsible.
These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and
successfully create the ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to
affect.
Development Summary
Total Acreage 28.97 ac. -
R.O.W. Dedication (Stone Creek Drive) 0.97 ac.
R.O.W. Dedication (Coulter Boulevard) 1.22 ac.
Outlot A 20.99 ac.
Net Developable - Residential (Block 1) 5.79
Number of Units 25
Net Density - Residential Area 4.32 units/acre (25 _ 5.79)
E. P.U.D. Criteria
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines three expected
attributes of Planned Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the
Developer's findings are outlined below:
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 4
1. Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity
beyond normal ordinance requirements.
Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of an
individual neighborhood defined by the road system and the integrated
open space system as well as preservation of existing site topography.
This community was designed to accommodate moderately-priced
townhomes while providing generous amounts of open space.
The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by
ponds, wetlands, berms and creek and combines them with the
landscape elements such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees.
Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and
enhance existing natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and
groups of existing mature trees. Open space can beneficially influence
the micro climate by improving heat radiation and by providing channels
for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as more
than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal
recreation.
The Developer has used this process that embraces the delicate
balancing act of locating roads and home sites where it has the least
effect on the wetland and other topography to create a development that
is innovative and harmoniously sensitive to the environment.
2. Attribute: The City should be offered sensitive development in
transitional areas between different land uses. Lot sizes should be
mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and opportunities
and to offer a range of housing pricing options.
Finding: The proposed plan offers a development which provides
sensible transition between land uses. Properties to the south and west
contain R-1 single family residential developments, while the properties
to the north and east contain industrial/warehouse use facilities or are
guided for future office industrial development. This project, utilizing
medium density residential concepts, provides transitional land usage
between these uniquely different parcels.
3. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality,
provision of public/private open and recreational space.
a. Landscaping - By design, the landscape amenities identify the
point of arrival to the individual neighborhood. The entrance
features will include extensive landscaping and an entry
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5 —
monument. The cul-de-sac allows development of rolling hills
and creates a smaller, more private neighborhood. All areas of
landscaping will be maintained by a homeowner's association as
well as covenants on the land that must be adhered to by owners.
b. Construction Quality - Heritage Development invests a great deal
of time and money periodically upgrading its entire home product
line keeping current with design trends that are the most in
demand and efficient. The latest innovative construction
techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the building
industry. Heritage has been developing residential developments
and building quality homes for 10 years. —
c. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space
together with the preservation of the creek and the existing
ponding within the development are a direct result of the flexibility
allowed under a P.U.D.
d. Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes and other minimum requirements
and performance standards associated with traditional zoning,
Planned Unit Developments can maximize the development
potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its _
unique and valuable natural characteristics.
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
The property is currently guided for Medium Density Residential by the
City's Land Use Guide Plan. The Heritage property development plan
proposes 25 residential townhome units.
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
The site is within the MUSA. Sanitary sewer and watermain were
stubbed into the property during utility extension to serve Creekside
Addition. 12" PVC sanitary runs south on Stone Creek Drive and
Sanitary sewer and watermain would be extended north to serve this
site as well as sites to the north, west and east.
The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in
streets which will discharge into an existing storm water treatment pond.
This pond outlets into Bluff Creek. In general, the site drainage
pattern is from the north portion of the site to'the large pond and creek
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 6
in the south and east portion. The drainage facilities will be constructed
in connection with the other site improvements.
It is the intent of the Developer to maintain private streets. However,
sewer and water utilities will be publicly maintained and will be covered
by perpetual utility and drainage easements.
3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system proposed would be privately owned and maintained,
and has been developed to best facilitate the movement of traffic safely
and conveniently, while at the same time providing a unique
neighborhood community consistent with Chanhassen's high standards.
Primary access to the development will be off of Stone Creek Drive,
which will travel north to Coulter Boulevard.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The Developer intends to develop the project in one phase and will build as the
market demands dictate. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time
frame and special areas of development. The industrial lots will be sold for future
development by others.
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
As the optionee, Heritage intends to develop the property once they receive every
governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Heritage is a principal
developer in the Twin Cities and has never failed to meet is obligations throughout its
history.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
The topography is generally rolling terrain with the highest elevation being 940 feet
and the lowest elevation being 912 feet. There exists 0.71 acres of protected
wetlands on the site with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of
Chanhassen having jurisdiction.
The 5.79-acre site is a mix of open space and, along the creek, wetlands with
miscellaneous vegetation and some wooded areas. It is bounded to the south and
west by Bluff Creek and to the east by the northeast branch of Bluff Creek. The
Developer has taken these features into consideration in the planning of this
neighborhood community. The area to be graded for devOopment is an open field.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 7
In addition to these natural features, the development will include enhancement of
existing wetlands, and along with additional landscape elements proposed by the
Developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that is attractive and
enduring.
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
The project contains a total of 0.71 acres of wetlands along the creek. Generally, the
wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage
activities. In some cases, drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate
wetland hydrology, and in others it has rendered historic wetlands so marginal that
they serve few, if any, functional wetland values.
After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact
on the site, approximately 0.32 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are
proposed to be filled. In general, the impacts are associated with the extension of
Stone Creek Drive across Bluff Creek.. All of the impacts associated with the project
will affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Because of the extensive
distribution of wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be
avoided.
The sedimentation pond will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to
discharging it into the wetlands. The Developer's intent is that upon its completion
the site should have equal or greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than
existed prior to development. This should provide an improved variety of plant types
and a better habitat for more species of wildlife.
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of
wetland creation projects adjacent to the wetland in the southwest corner of Outlot A —
lying approximately 900' south of the residential area and east of Bluff Creek. We
have tentatively identified 0.86 acres of potential wetland creation. This site would
provide 1:1 acre for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project, -
including wetland previously disturbed by development, that wetland being altered for
the extension of Stone Creek Drive and wetland alteration in Outlot A to
accommodate future development. The acreage encompassed by this site is
exclusive of storm water storage/treatment ponds to be constructed for this and future
projects which are utilized to compensate for the other half of a 2.1 total mitigation
package. The wetland would be contiguous to and become part of the existing basin.
This basin would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create wet meadow or shallow
marsh conditions. In general, the wetland type to be created will provide substantially
higher wetland functional value than the degraded wetlands affected by the project.
Bottom substrates for the created wetland will consist of organic material excavated
from existing wetlands to be affected by the project.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8
A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of
this easement shall show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the
wetland. The depth of the easement shall be 10'. This easement, combined with a
usable backyard of 40', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 50' minimum.
The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and
wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement, combined with the
proposed sedimentation ponds, will work together to improve and maintain the
character of the wetlands.
Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a
fringe of upland habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter
that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the conservation
easement shall vary depending on the classification of the wetland.
In addition to wetland impacts, the Developer anticipates that approximately 13.01
acre feet of flood plain will be unavoidably altered. Mitigation for this flood plain loss
will occur in the same location as wetland alteration.
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
The vast majority of the existing trees along the creek will be subject to minimal or no
impact by any home or road construction.
There will be little tree loss occasioned by this development, and it is the expressed
intention of the Developer to keep tree loss to a minimum.
IX. COVENANTS
Protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of
- each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements. In addition, maintenance
and protective measures will be addressed by the homeowner's association.
X. CONCLUSION
Heritage Development feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of
this property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen. It
is our pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your
acceptance.
—
O n Z O Z S N
C'
W W Fca
—_- ___4,—. 4 g C.)
;ili a h Z W`ZZ <az a'�v QW w
j 2 W(7 W J< .. U > N - -7-'1:21.2_•!.7.,; M III
to
Z OK < Z LLIOO Z Ow._gO :=si�es�ii t�
X =va ,z, 50,i u�41 f. What n
rn ooi -- - �_ _ ° -
----J i
oi' Ilb
n.5 5.5 / =WV
/7 c —
4Y9 \ Q —
$ / /'/ a 22v
i — 'r`��1\� 2 / //(/
\ /
/� � _ j' il `� _ T \`1 - - 1 / ////,` C —
// x i -- / /,li Y
'-/ .40,-i i
N '•lii -14 A W _,
,.-- a , LEIN • ilo&-w--- 1
/��_ `�• ! / 11,1> —
5
!li: -`-''?4-, ''''' , ,ft.....,„..,...4. 1
= . i. i ty 3 i / / __ 141
IC
II I �i�i��iir �`J • Ja F'
__4.f I ? o
Ii
a ill
1 . =- .t1 j'IRr; - a ,/ , V i —
r i4-
I _almnstil_-
Jai
W
—— i:- F---- - - 1-7--, i
._
r.. 1 ,,
__
i,/ , .,., ,,...
,... -1
I fl
al
'ril3 —
i„.4:......_...........,,
.� _. 1 i s —
- Wiz= _%
r u !
�+N. ' -
. ;..„ (g ,2 .ii! :
q-6-...1,4.--t
° ' 1! _- -_ -
rT' -N _ 4' ,•'-a -=-:..:-=_ I,
-` Y -- mss_ -_Z
y 1_
JJ -_{_- 5�
,Re. - -<iZ; -.- a —
._
Y� y • 1 • 'fir 1•.`::F
r~r; •!I! ii
1 I • ' r p.-I 0�y7 r_
' • ■MO II
i III
JITI
��11 ,I -
- ' �__a
_/ nu �_o
a .= :,... ]
,,: , Trn
O FLiii7L7_, Y0<,<>LLt._I..1S4 `
11n
'l,"N
, ODIC
77.,„,;, G 1 r
w..7„,.IK- ,(3 i46%.Z.il \s\. Fin
i[ I i _I s'"/I., awl \ 1\ f- j�I Q
I. 111 > b
1 r W •
�� I' iii ^ J
L NL iceL. ; W •
■
r.
I k. r�• L� f i. ! 0
�km , I= / l: IHHf u_
- 11E0 ,.//1 I r �'
I .y I �II_
'l \ i UPjiIIl
L
7;1111 illfinEn
L , �Jirrl, 1 �. '1'. .. ... .. .. I r
�fi 4 J I ' . ' `
Y • 1 II":
//� E .. ...''!�• ,. .::'.. i IAF
. i:::•;• . 1HR
z
4,,:: r'= > .#.. .._ •^'-•^ ` `� ,1 it �L.J
/1:1 . „—:: ‘ciF:.• P
fr\
1E I IBT • 'i..ti \. I; I 1 inrin
kj
Inn l N `\ ' F11-11-1 II I
_ ,J t
�, ,a,� , ��. - .. it
,'. :c
L , _ ,,,
:.1„..,....„;s4.; .../7-2---.,,,(-:
..„....;,.,...i,.. ..,.._
..,..,......, „..„, t
...7...1....• .ff.
L
IT :
I >2, - j \
co
2 G W O C —
a ,- w O
o I S
Illi
((co c i
h i llUP 5 I _ W _
W
'o a 5
o a
_ ~ U "\ '
CC
I= O b
n ! a — Y m I I
LL
a a u J
i m Z
LP-0 IM
Y I W
LI
I�
I Y 2 a
J
rill- 71 5 H
. I —
1.
fa 11-1
B `� WOIC
•
ce
xi
5 S 5
1 s0 so" —
F34 W
u
u e
2 T
2 —
a LL
II
W
W
L
...L ...,-
L .. •. . _ . .
L ,
.........1 gm
Lo �
,_
_ SW .
0 o g
m
=\I �\
_. 11111111 os). — .
I 0 1111
W WCO
z f3 CO
Q m C
•
IH
• W
F
h —r it J
L a
ct
I m < -')1 c!lnl: SZ I , a 5
Fn \ Y I /- J
—7111
m UJ
__ 11 W CCa
t I__ O.N
—
z �r -1L _�
N
LW 41
`ILId.I i
r
. . . .. ...
_ u F-1, -
8 _ 1 'l_►.
g
W \
' .. . m TT
i
112 1 _
...
.... ti . . __
..
4 cc
to
\ •
.— . -...-._
C
I
limy . 4
bail
L
i�J=7rUIrr,Il.IVp " j
Id4Li47 lllllllh1 I '
iiii.,,,......„..■
_ _ •
NOTICE OF PUBLIC `_.. . ,
'" . ._ .
• ,
HEARING 11111
COMMISSION \ ,_
PLANNINGkik
_ _-.
MEETING ` ~ -
Wednesday, JUNE 5, 1996 r . '
i .
at 7:00 p.m. , .,....t 1 �..�.� ��'_ /
City Hall Council Chambers ,,WI`�-10,x\ remit
690 Coulter Drive `, ��C�:4 .fir
J ■M aim
Project: Townhomes at Creekside 11 *,-cri/i��j=;d0 4 '
IN LIVIIMIV,_-:-Leigalto)
4/10 Psi
Developer: Heritage Development .4vv.
,---plum'ta ; • ` •�� •tb,- . ,
Location: So. of Coulter Blvd. and east of ° %sdlih�. ,��a woo illA im di A --i. ..4.11
the Stone Creek Drive extension 'ce. T!-"'Tit�� ..i,.��� ���0
s s! •.��. . t ;`A,s:r,
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval
for a medium density residential development on 7.03 acres located south of Coulter Blvd. and east —
of the Stone Creek Drive extension, rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD-R,
preliminary plat of 26 lots, 1 outlot, and associated right-of-way, site plan approval for 25 —
townhome units and a conditional use permit for excavation and filling within the flood plain,
Townhomes at Creekside.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: —
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project. —
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
—
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City —
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff —
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 1996., /6 h; —
C--ree\Gs
'ity of Chanhassen Hi-Way 5 Partnership James C. Avis
c/o City Treasurer do Dennis Dirlam 8190 Galpin Lake Blvd.
'90 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 15241 Creekside Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
—:hanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prarie, MN 55344
fluff Creek Partners Chan-Land Partners McGlynn Bakeries
_23 N 3rd St. 200 Hwy 13 W. c/o Grand Met Tax Dept
Minneapolis, MN 55401 Burnsville, MN 55337 200 S 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Shamrock Property Partners Mark J. Foster& Kaern S. Olsson Richard D. & Mary A. Frasch
350 Commerce Ln. 8020 Acorn Ln. 8000 Acorn Ln.
Tridley, MN 55432 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
lames I. & Nicky L. Finley
Q001 Acorn Ln.
'hanhassen, MN 55317
4 CITY of
i
11, CHANHASSEN _
011. ,:„.. .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM _
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official a,,
DATE: May 30, 1996 _
SUBJECT: 96-3 PUD, 96-6 SPR, 96-1 REZ and 96-1 CUP (Townhomes at Creekside, Heritage
Development)
I was asked to review the proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY
0 6, 19 9 6, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. —
Analysis:
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private,must be reviewed
by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.
Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to
enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the
structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations _
as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard
designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These
standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining _
these designations is enclosed.
Setbacks. Exterior projections (at overhangs) and exterior walls (at porches) are regulated by the Uniform _
Building Code (UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown, porches will not be permitted as
shown and overhangs will not be permitted in some cases. The property lines should be at least three feet
from any overhangs. These requirements are found in UBC Table 5-A, 503.2.1 and 705. Since these issues _
involve property lines,they need to be resolved bedt+e preliminary plat approval.
Building construction. Unit sizes as shown will require parapets (or compliance with UBC 709.4.1 _
exceptions 4 or 5)at walls less than three feet from the property line. The structures will be required to be
designed by an architect.
Bob Generous
May 30, 1996
Page 2
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early
- as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public 9tfety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final
plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
3. Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to remove projections.
Adjust property lines to permit screen porches or revise plans to remove porches. This should be
done before preliminary plat approval.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
Nom
Imm
amp
:hafetylsak\nem os\plankrksde l
CITY 4F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMO• • i UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official -
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lcokoat This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Fairy Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling,
WO Designates Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
TU SE SEW° WO O
— , or RLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are cpmpared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
OF MINNesor
MIN Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters, 12 0 Warner Road,St. Paul,MN 55106-6793
Q Telephone: (612)772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
9f� tOJ
OF NATup,P,
May 31, 1996
Mr. Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, BLUFF CREEK, CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
CARVER COUNTY (CITY #96-3 PUD, 96-1 REZ, 96-6 SPR, and 96-1 CUP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the May 3, 1996 plans for the Townhomes at Creekside (received May 8, 1996)
a project located at the intersection of Stone Creek Drive and Coulter Boulevard (SW1/4 NE1/4,
Section 15, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is on the Townhomes at Creekside site. Any activity, such as
placing a stormwater outfall, below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which
alters its course, current or cross-section, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may
require a DNR permit. Unless the trail crossing of Bluff Creek that is shown already exists,
a DNR permit will be required.
2. Wetlands are on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters permit jurisdiction.
Townhomes at Creekside may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The
Department may provide additional comments on Townhomes at Creekside through our
review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs.
3. It appears that the stormwater will be treated in an existing sediment pond, which is good.
However, Chanhassen should examine the sediment pond design using Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's guidelines to ensure that the stormwater will be adequately treated.
Properly designed sediment ponds will decrease pollution and water level bounces that are
detrimental to the aesthetic, recreational, and wildlife values of downstream properties.
4. There should be some type of easement, covenant, or deed restriction for the property
adjacent to the wetland and the creek. This would help to ensure that the Townhomes at
Creekside Homeowners Association is aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that they cannot
be altered without appropriate permits.
•
DNR Information: 612-296-6157. I-8(X)-766-6000 • TTY:612-294-5484. 1-800-657-3929 JUN 0 3 X996
An Equal OpportunityEmployer A Printed on Recycled Paper Containing
a /�T y
Who Values Disersirn fin 4.1 Minimum of 10%Post-Consumer Waste VII {U. CHANrIASSEi
Mr. Robert Generous
May 31, 1996
Page 2
5. Heritage Development should be commended for showing the 100-year flood elevation on
the plans. All the work that is done for Townhomes at Creekside must comply with
applicable floodplain regulations of both Chanhassen and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District.
6. Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of Tributary Stream. The shoreland district extends
300 feet from the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek. Townhomes at Creekside
must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations. Variances to the
City regulations should be issued only if hardship exists for the applicant. In particular:
a. Bluffs (i.e., slopes that average 30 percent or greater and rise 25 feet above the top
of the bank) exist along the Northeast Branch of Bluff Creek. We recommend that
deed restrictions be placed on the bluffs to ensure that topographic changes or
intensive vegetation alterations do not occur.
b. Steep slopes occur on the Townhomes at Creekside site. Section 20-481(e)5 of the
Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance states that possible soil erosion impacts and
development visibility from public waters will be evaluated and conditions will be
attached to City permits for the project to prevent erosion and preserve vegetative
screening.
c. Section 20-482(b)(2)of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires vegetation and
topography to be retained in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact zones. The
minimum shore impact zone is a 25' strip along both sides of Bluff Creek. The bluff
impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff.
d. The structures of Townhomes at Creekside should be screened from view from Bluff
Creek using topog,aphy, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the
City as required by Section 481 of the Chanhassen Shoreland ordinance.
7. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
b. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must
apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan
Sullivan @ 296-7219).
Mr. Robert Generous
May 31, 1996
Page 3
c. The comments in this letter address DNR- Division of Waters jurisdictional matters
and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Gary Elftmann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Chanhassen Shoreland File
Chanhassen Floodplain File
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners_6_ -
Soil Testing • Environmental Services
10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525
Office 612-546-7601 Fax 612-546-2065 —
CITY OF CHANHAGSE"'
Rr`r• -
(JUL 23 1996
July 22, 1996 CHANHHbxivrvti,,.,, , ,ori
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bob Generous, Senior Planner
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Proposed Townhomes At Creekside,
Heritage Development of Minnesota
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith are the revised preliminary plans for the proposed
Townhomes At Creekside project. The plan revisions have addressed the
recommendations contained in the June 5, 1996 staff report and also the Planning
Commission's comments.
A new topographic survey was completed which shows the as-built location of
the stormwater basin. The original flood plain boundary prior to the excavation of the
stormwater basin was used for the new site design. This allowed more area in the -
southeast portion of the site. The previous plan used the flood plain after the
construction of the basin.
The new site plan shows 25 townhome units. This is the same number and
unit type as the previous plan. Heritage Development seriously considered use of
wider units which are not as long, but this resulted in loss of more than one-third of
the units. This was not financially feasible given the heavy special assessment
burden this site will bear. The new plan does not have any units in the flood plain
and provides more view corridors from the creek.
1956 sgelek<<rt nei 40 ( Aax; o/L iellic•r / 996
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer - - —
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
City of Chanhassen 2 July 22, 1996
The Planning Commission asked that the number of recommendations in the
staff report, which total 37, be reduced. We consider 17 of the recommendations to
be standard recommendations which are used for most projects. These are
recommendation Nos. 7 through 21, 33 and 37. Recommendation No. 32 does not
apply to this project. The remaining 19 recommendations are addressed as follows:
1. As described above, wider units were considered but found to not be feasible.
Stacked units were not considered as it was felt the single family residences to
the south and west would oppose such units.
2. Heritage Development has a purchase agreement to sell the eastern side of
the development to a developer interested in doing office/commercial/industrial
development.
3. The new plan shows no units in the flood plain. Only a small amount of flood
plain is filled by embankment slope from a unit. The elevation of Stone Creek
Drive has been lowered and the trail has been relocated to the boulevard to
minimize the flood plain filling.
4. Applicant agrees to apply and obtain changes to the FEMA flood plain maps.
5. Applicant agrees to obtain Bluff Creek Watershed District approval.
6. The wetland delineation has been done by Franklin Svoboda and Associates
and a report will be provided.
22. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the 50' width from the center of the
creek to the City for a park. An additional 10 foot wide drainage and utility
easement will be provided.
23. All structures will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the center of Bluff
Creek and its tributaries except in the northeast corner of the site. In this
corner, it is proposed to reduce the set back to 80 feet on the west side of the
creek and to increase the set back to 120 feet on the east side. We
understand that the watershed district's rules allow this flexibility and it has
been approved for several projects.
24. The new topographic survey and plans show the as-built storm water basin.
25. Stone Creek Drive crosses the creek and adjacent wetlands. The street
elevation has been lowered up to over two feet and the trail has been located
on the street boulevard. Both adjustments reduce the width of the street
embankment and reduce the amount of wetland alteration and flood plain
filling.
26. A berm has been added at the recommended location.
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
City of Chanhassen 3 July 22, 1996
27. The two storm sewer discharge points on Stone Creek Drive have been
combined. A second discharge is shown from the storm sewer on the east
end of the private street as it is not practical to extend storm sewer west to
Stone creek Drive. The flood plain elevation is lower on the east side and the
units and street, therefore, need to be lower. The east end of the private
street cannot be raised to drain to Stone Creek Drive.
28. The plans now show the proposed city sanitary sewer correctly.
29. Given the small size of the parcel and the significant setback requirements on
all four sides, it is not feasible to provide for a 60-foot wide right-of-way and
the additional set back requirements from it. A private street is therefore
proposed. The cul-de-sac is shown at City standards. Drainage and utility
easements will be provided for the sanitary sewer and watermain.
30. The Stone Ceek Dive and Coulter Boulevard right of ways will be dedicated as
recommended. This was shown on the previous preliminary plat.
31. The remnant parcel west of Stone Creek Drive will be included in the Stone
Creek Drive right of way.
34. The dwelling pads now show the standard designations.
35. The proposed townhouse lots show the property line a minimum of 5 feet
outside of the decks and other projections.
36. The street width is now shown at 28 feet.
We trust the revised plans, additional information, and above response will
allow you to proceed with the approval process. Please contact us with any
questions.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
iaaail
Kenneth Adolf
KEA/cj
enc.
cc: John Dobbs, Heritage Development
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
May, 1996
Revised July 22, 1996
Submitted by:
Heritage Development
450 East County Road D
St. Paul, MN 55117
(612) 481-0017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
II. INTRODUCTION
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
B. Legal Description
C. Zoning
D. Project
E. P.U.D. Criteria
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
3 Traffic Access and Circulation -
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT AND FLOOD PLAIN
MITIGATION
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
IX. COVENANTS
X. CONCLUSION
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The developer of this property is Heritage Development, a Minnesota business
located in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Heritage tradition has been synonymous with
quality neighborhoods throughout the Metropolitan Area for 10 years.
The Development Team is coordinated by John Dobbs, Vice President of Heritage
Development and Project Manager of this development.
Consultants
Planner: The site plan design by Schoell & Madson, Inc.,
Minnetonka, MN
Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell &
Madson, Inc., Minnetonka, MN
Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by
Analysis: Svoboda Ecological Resources of Shorewood, MN
Landscape Architecture: Landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.
11. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to
obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval with
a wetland alteration permit.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2
Ill. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
This proposed Residential Planned Unit Development by Heritage is located in
Chanhassen in Section 15, Township 116, Range 23. The 5.79-acre site will
be served by Stone Creek Drive to the west, which will connect with Coulter
Boulevard.
Property to both the north and east remains undeveloped, and has been
guided for office/industrial usage by the City's guide plan. To the west is
Timberwood Estates single family development, and to the south is Creekside
Addition single family residential
B. Legal Description
Parts of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Southwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23
west of the 5th Meridian.
C. Zoning
The project consists of land owned by Heritage Development. The property is
currently zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate. The Developer proposes to rezone
the property to a Residential Planned Unit Development.
D. The Project
The project consists of 25 residential townhome units with 2 to 4 units per
building that will be developed on lots ranging from 25.5' to 31.0' in width with
lot depths of 92.5'. Each lot will accommodate a pre-designed townhome
structure. Each home will have a two car garage with a driveway. Twelve of
the units will be slab-on-grade with the remainder of the units having walkout
basements where topography allows. This site plan was developed in an
attempt to maximize the preservation of the natural topography along the
creek. Access will be provided by a private cul-de-sac street. The project
includes extension of Stone Creek Drive from the Creekside Addition across
Bluff Creek and connecting to Coulter Boulevard.
Proposed Building Setbacks:
22' Minimum Curb Setback Typical along Street "A"
30' Side yard Setback (minimum) along Stone Creek Drive
50' Side and Rear Yard Setback (minimum) along Coulter Boulevard
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3
20' Minimum Combined Between Buildings
100' Setback from Center of Creek typical. 80' setback in northeast corner of
site with 120 feet on the opposite side of creek for a total width of 200
feet..
Large wetlands, existing ponding, flood plain, slopes and the natural
topography of Bluff Creek create a variety of constraints to development,
requiring unique approaches and mitigative efforts aimed at providing quality
homesites while maintaining the integrity of the site topography. Measures
such as reduced setbacks, road design, and restrictive covenants all contribute
to this and will be discussed later.
Townhomes will be available in 2, 3, and 4-unit buildings. The range of
topography and building mixture provides an opportunity to accommodate
different home styles. Besides offering the advantage of a quality streetscape,
the mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help the City achieve affordable
housing goals while maintaining density which is in conformance with R-8
requirements.
With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we
propose, such as preservation of wetlands and Bluff Creek topography with
additional ponding, creates a development that is aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally responsible.
These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and
successfully create the ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to
affect.
Development Summary
Total Acreage 28.97 ac.
— R.O.W. Dedication (Stone Creek Drive) 0.97 ac.
R.O.W. Dedication (Coulter Boulevard) 1.22 ac.
Outlot A 20.99 ac.
Net Developable - Residential (Block 1) 5.79
Number of Units 25
Net Density - Residential Area 4.32 units/acre (25 _ 5.79)
E. P.U.D. Criteria
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines three expected
attributes of Planned Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the
Developer's findings are outlined below:
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 4
1 , Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity
beyond normal ordinance requirements.
Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of an
individual neighborhood defined by the road system and the integrated
open space system as well as preservation of existing site topography.
This community was designed to accommodate moderately-priced
townhomes while providing generous amounts of open space.
The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by
ponds, wetlands, berms and creek and combines them with the
landscape elements such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees.
Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and
enhance existing natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and
groups of existing mature trees. Open space can beneficially influence
the micro climate by improving heat radiation and by providing channels
for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as more
than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal
recreation.
The Developer has used this process that embraces the delicate
balancing act of locating roads and home sites where it has the least
effect on the wetland and other topography to create a development that
is innovative and harmoniously sensitive to the environment.
2. Attribute: The City should be offered sensitive development in
transitional areas between different land uses. Lot sizes should be
mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and opportunities
and to offer a range of housing pricing options.
Finding: The proposed plan offers a development which provides
sensible transition between land uses. Properties to the south and west
contain R-1 single family residential developments, while the properties
to the north and east contain industrial/warehouse use facilities or are
guided for future office industrial development. This project, utilizing
medium density residential concepts, provides transitional land usage
between these uniquely different parcels.
3. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality,
provision of public/private open and recreational space.
a. Landscaping - By design, the landscape amenities identify the
point of arrival to the individual neighborhood. The entrance
features will include extensive landscaping and an entry
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5
monument. The cul-de-sac allows development of rolling hills
and creates a smaller, more private neighborhood. All areas of
landscaping will be maintained by a homeowner's association as
well as covenants on the land that must be adhered to by owners.
b. Construction Quality - Heritage Development invests a great deal
of time and money periodically upgrading its entire home product
line keeping current with design trends that are the most in
demand and efficient. The latest innovative construction
techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the building
industry. Heritage has been developing residential developments
and building quality homes for 10 years.
c. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space
together with the preservation of the creek and the existing
ponding within the development are a direct result of the flexibility
allowed under a P.U.D.
d. Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes and other minimum requirements
and performance standards associated with traditional zoning,
Planned Unit Developments can maximize the development
potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its
unique and valuable natural characteristics.
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
The property is currently guided for Medium Density Residential by the
City's Land Use Guide Plan. The Heritage property development plan
proposes 25 residential townhome units.
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
The site is within the MUSA. Sanitary sewer and watermain were
stubbed into the property during utility extension to serve Creekside
Addition. 12" PVC sanitary runs south on Stone Creek Drive. Sanitary
sewer will be extended on Stone Creek Drive under the City's Coulter
Boulevard project. Watermain will be extended north to Coulter
Boulevard. The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm
sewers in streets which will discharge into a relocated and expanded
storm water treatment pond. This pond outlets into Bluff Creek. In
general, the site drainage pattern is from the north portion of the site to
the large pond and creek in the south and east portion. The drainage
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 6
facilities will be constructed in connection with the other site
improvements.
It is the intent of the Developer to maintain private streets. However, -
sewer and water utilities will be publicly maintained and will be covered
by perpetual utility and drainage easements.
3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system proposed would be privately owned and maintained,
and has been developed to best facilitate the movement of traffic safely
and conveniently, while at the same time providing a unique
neighborhood community consistent with Chanhassen's high standards.
Primary access to the development will be off of Stone Creek Drive,
which will travel north to Coulter Boulevard.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The Developer intends to develop the project in one phase and will build as the
market demands dictate. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time
frame and special areas of development. The industrial lots will be sold for future
development by others.
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
As the optionee, Heritage intends to develop the property once they receive every
governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Heritage is a principal
developer in the Twin Cities and has never failed to meet is obligations throughout its
history.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
The topography is generally rolling terrain with the highest elevation being 940 feet
and the lowest elevation being 912 feet. There exists 0.71 acres of protected
wetlands on the site with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of
Chanhassen having jurisdiction.
The 5.79-acre site is a mix of open space and, along the creek, wetlands with
miscellaneous vegetation and some wooded areas. It is bounded to the south and
west by Bluff Creek and to the east by the northeast branch of Bluff Creek. The
Developer has taken these features into consideration in the planning of this
neighborhood community. The area to be graded for development is an open field.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 7
In addition to these natural features, the development will include enhancement of
existing wetlands, and along with additional landscape elements proposed by the
Developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that is attractive and
enduring.
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
The project contains a total of 0.71 acres of wetlands along the creek. Generally, the
wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage
activities. In some cases, drainage activity has been effective enough to eliminate
wetland hydrology, and in others it has rendered historic wetlands so marginal that
= they serve few, if any, functional wetland values.
After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact
on the site, approximately 0.32 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are
proposed to be filled. In general, the impacts are associated with the extension of
Stone Creek Drive across Bluff Creek.. All of the impacts associated with the project
will affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Because of the extensive
distribution of wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be
avoided.
The sedimentation pond will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to
discharging it into the wetlands. The Developer's intent is that upon its completion
the site should have equal or greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than
existed prior to development. This should provide an improved variety of plant types
and a better habitat for more species of wildlife.
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of
wetland creation projects adjacent to the wetland in the southwest corner of Outlot A
lying approximately 900' south of the residential area and east of Bluff Creek. We
have tentatively identified 0.86 acres of potential wetland creation. This site would
provide 1:1 acre for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project,
including wetland previously disturbed by development, that wetland being altered for
the extension of Stone Creek Drive and wetland alteration in Outlot A to
accommodate future development. The acreage encompassed by this site is
exclusive of storm water storage/treatment ponds to be constructed for this and future
projects which are utilized to compensate for the other half of a 2.1 total mitigation
package. The wetland would be contiguous to and become part of the existing basin.
This basin would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create wet meadow or shallow
marsh conditions. In general, the wetland type to be created will provide substantially
higher wetland functional value than the degraded wetlands affected by the project.
Bottom substrates for the created wetland will consist of organic material excavated
from existing wetlands to be affected by the project.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8
A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of
this easement shall show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the
wetland. The depth of the easement shall be 10'. This easement, combined with a
usable backyard of 40', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 50' minimum.
The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and
wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement, combined with the
proposed sedimentation ponds, will work together to improve and maintain the
character of the wetlands.
Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a
fringe of upland habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter
that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the conservation
easement shall vary depending on the classification of the wetland.
In addition to wetland impacts, the Developer anticipates that approximately 12 acre
feet of flood plain will be unavoidably altered. Essentially all of the flood plain filling
results from the Stone Creek Drive construction. Mitigation for this flood plain loss
will occur in the area of the on-site storm water basin with the balance provided in the
same location as wetland mitigation.
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
The vast majority of the existing trees along the creek will be subject to minimal or no
impact by any home or road construction.
There will be little tree loss occasioned by this development, and it is the expressed
intention of the Developer to keep tree loss to a minimum.
IX. COVENANTS
Protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of
each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements. In addition, maintenance
and protective measures will be addressed by the homeowner's association.
X. CONCLUSION
Heritage Development feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of
this property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen. It
is our pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your
acceptance.
` \N
«u<uriai i Z0 NI m
pm
i2:E4lo < v
.)--..:-.-= r, s ieii :. > i . EZWW
W
_
_ :1;g5 Iijcc dr-
mW
` _ "_. ..a - 6�- u tov-EA > =~_e \ = e g.>.<u� g � o3C '� n <r< � ;e - ` F Zhoao 10
�\'.+ < W • itl5 W e yeO 0-250 d : a ` p 1t �yW _W = n z � u e v \ � W ' eue e4r < t ' f W'21!::5 QW� sQ ss < aioFZ. v, . < r •fY
mm , 0 1,!.! pi Q 000z 51.41 rill _ > W2. _ J Z v
W =
01.%....,
ms i,J„o< ~_�� �V 5 •o ''s� EL, x a
e11 pb,< 1 g _ a0
Z :a ie 1 �ooi , Ai .• fir' r 1 �_i.��=o•�= �+.>44[26 y4.4eil «.ii ►�..- ` u
i I
o<
"7 rn
rn
_ I• J
Z
W
I M
a
0
i W
' 511 0
' o /
H it
b
F. o z / w
- ;'f __ = s / 0
ag
/OOO bap� y1 : t. . / t. I"'
I F 1 C; f _� = l i • / / 0 E
j C s 1gNvu9 3N. _ }r . x
s I E E s r/ "11 % ` -- /
Rigoop ,' 1 2 ' ° '§ ,
1 i rilk - 'oAt g
.`i!li I
i I ---- -' Illpinz -1/ \ / r \ :01i3
4qP= --1,4, .4.-: ••• i / , i ,•/ r ": g Vg:1 f
0.
%
ell-
„l r '�v nk / 3` r/// ,..0.;// iti i! _
If 1 1 : g , itrajail,=, �i f /1 r
_a,, -, . "
r,l f ,'-1� . . Ill i iii, / / 1 1 / �
/ill r ri d .,.^Z, st / �I / 751
for f , 851 rraqi
��8:niter• �f ! �/.,/�
I t g _ / \ N ;_
�� il
ms`s i y .,.,
_ 3ANb •33U0 3NOlS ----Mel' I 10.iY
f , I -- a g •
,1
I ' 1
' tr
I •
av P- r
r r e1d < s if -z�
_ r 1 ` o i
r.
I c ik W Z N
V < n
s �r he D. o
V--. ..31) .-~ w`Y IW Z n
(-) J_Z VI
IA _ N
. 1 ic 14,s. L
4c mol 8
k Il' \v ,. .. ,
,. <_Z
VO < 2
k N ,_ .i_
W
\ZJU >
I3 W g
w o , � a NNN
0 • Q
IN. 1
&ki
li
\tY , � r,Z =
144 I W
-- - - / / S Ll
ti0
/I; ♦
\f \ - / ♦ 0
/
/ W
I. f / I I ` -\ I/ /
/ ♦♦/ sl 1 I _ I � — ♦ W
N...) NW / / � i. I 161 1
t I '1 ♦ W
IllItigi' yigit , 1 I ..... <
- 11110,„„kriswa
llhiii, WIIIIIIIIN��i . r I ;l E
1 .
� / \F .-
iiiY' /P ' . dr� t�GaI W O,, s
1/Il/f rlainMi `•allffiIY ;, 1/ ,t-4
• G� �. • ras
i ur ilkl_II INIIIII 0!9iNgt I. .,,e1010,,frd-tt4"
r.
er--..3111titileri ,. 1... .00-eik
-; , •
' 1 I IIN;11
t fi • •>i J L. i \
Jillk
` tt t f I ,Iti
i :i i � 4-e 4
��1j e•�
• go
, _
S
..i1111ff l*N., I
::-,.. ,.. ,,
,. ,
P.f
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 7.03 ACRES
LOCATED SOUTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD, AND EAST OF STONE CREEK
DRIVE EXTENSION, REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
_ TO PUD-4, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 26 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT
OF-WAY, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 25 TOWNHOME UNITS AND A CONDITION
USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND FILLING WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN,
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane
John Dobbs 645 5th Avenue
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff. I have one Bob. If you could just talk through a little bit on
issue number 1 with the addition of environmental features to be achieved through mixing of
unit types. Walk me through a little bit better idea of what you mean by that. Is it wider
units and not as long but?
Generous: Well, all these units are basically, I can't remember the dimensions. They are
narrow and long, which has made them a little squaterly. They might fit in a little bit better
and give you bigger setbacks. Another idea is to single... Put the roadway on one side and all
the units on the other. So there are alternate designs that we might be able to work with and
that way we create a, potentially a better view corridor here and the fronts of these units
looking out over to this larger expanse of wetland area. That is something that we don't have.
We have tried something similar to that as a part of the Creekside Addition. It just didn't
work out but it creates more of a public space and Bluff Creek and the storm water pond that
they're creating. Could also build two level units where you have a lower and an upper.
There's a potential that since he is at the low end of the density, he could get an additional
density to make it work financially for this project to go forward.
Peterson: So you're not necessarily saying changing every unit but more of a mix. Having
some longer, some multi-level.
Generous: Yes. Fit it into the site a little better.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Other questions for staff? Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If you would state your name and address please.
John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs with Heritage Development Company, 645 5th
Avenue... I was here with the Creekside project and there were a number of ideas kicked —
around about how to, an alternative type of neighborhood that Bob mentioned be worked out.
What we've tried to do with this one is, there were a number of issues that came up for a 7
acre parcel as we moved through, and I was at Park and Rec the other night and I actually
asked to get tabled so some of those issues could be worked out. In particular which side of
the creek the west/east branch... The price point of the Creekside subdivision is essentially —
$280,000.00 and up for single family homes so what we did intentionally was we tried to set
up trying to build our end product that would make a higher density but price point was
applicable to what was going on to the south, which is the Creekside Subdivision... So what —
we did...and as you read this, you read the staff report and I think everybody...It's a very nice
building and it has the potential to be two streets, 40 units. The problem with a private drive
versus going public, Ken Adolf from Schoell and Madsen is our engineer and he talked about —
that a little bit but I guess what we did is we intentionally set off to have a little bigger unit
that was a little bit more...trying to fit something that would fit something that would fit in to
what was going on inside and also was going on in terms of the prices...the 50 foot setback
from the creek exists as code now. We are 100 feet back from the center line of the creek.
Todd Hoffman and I, the Park and Rec, and there's a letter that he wrote to me and I would
imagine when we come back you will see there is...50 feet from the center line of the creek
over to the... The problem with, that I have with the comments made by Mr. Generous is that
there's also an issue about the financial aspects associated with the project. The road that
runs north/south, Stone Creek Drive is going to be put in and funded entirely by this 25 unit —
project. We're also going to end up being assessed for Coulter Boulevard, which is going
through. Those two numbers together are going to be fairly large for a 25 unit project. So
doing a one sided road or those are the kind of ideas, all design wise and aesthetically would
be very nice. Plus an economic reality about whether this project can actually financially
sustain so there are some real...economic issues and on one side, we already have the one side
of the street here. Just to get up to Coulter Boulevard and then there would be the —
assessment for how Coulter Boulevard comes through. This way...so there are some real
issues associated with that so it's... I'd be happy to answer any questions and maybe Ken can
speak to those right-of-way issues for a public road versus a private.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and
Madson. We're the consulting engineers and planners to the applicant. This is going to be
the site plan that was submitted with the application on which in red we've shown the
setbacks. We've got the 100 foot setback from the creek. The main branch of the creek is
actually down here and there's a storm water basin that's been constructed on the north side of
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that. So that's, that would be expanded to also service this development. So this indicates,
what's shown on there is what would be the flood elevation of that storm water basin. In
addition to what's shown here in red, there's a relatively significant change in elevation from
the water elevation in the storm water basin up to where the units would be and then there's
elevation change continues on up to the proposed elevation for Coulter Boulevard so the
_ street needs to, and the units need to kind of fit in. I've got some elevation inbetween Coulter
Boulevard and the existing pond creek. You can see that the site is fairly constrained here in
the north/south direction and that was really the reason that we went with the private
driveway because it allows the units to be pulled closer together as compared to a public
street with a 60 foot wide right-of-way, which was recommended in the staff report and
there's front setback requirements from there which has a tendency to really push the units
_ apart to a point that it almost ends up being a single loaded street. This also shows his street
connection 300 feet south of Coulter which again pushes it south more so there really isn't
enough space on the south side of the street to put anything in there. So that's just kind of a
sketch to indicate what the additional constraints that result from a public street with the
resulting front yard setbacks.
John Dobbs: And if I could, I'd just like to follow-up. We came tonight knowing that there
were a lot of issues and that this item would probably be tabled and we're okay with that. It
would be nice obviously, if there's a lot of issues, that we have some general direction as to
what's...would be very helpful. The problem, as I'm a developer and...the problem with doing
a series of custom buildings on this project, these 25 units becomes problematic for the
builder to re-design. Figure out...in terms of entry and product type for each individual...so
they, builders tend to try to keep that to a minimum and at the same time...nice exterior and
very nice...So it'd just be helpful to get some direction and know where we're going and... I'd
be happy to answer any other questions.
Peterson: Thank you staff. I know we've got 37 points for you to address, which is sizeable
in and of itself. If you could maybe summarize what some of your major issues are so that
when you're asking for direction, and we can empathize with that.
John Dobbs: Sure. I guess my big, the big direction would be that, whether it would be
private or public as a drive and the reason for private would simply be to try to work with a
very constrained piece of property. We are trying to put a product in that I think is a price
_ point for the area based on what we're doing at Creekside. It's probably fairly acceptable...
and density isn't very large. Just under the 3.5-3.6 units an acre I think. Almost... If this
product isn't acceptable with the constraints of a public road comes in, we'll probably_ have to
go with a denser, more vertical, small type of unit. We tried to work with the economics of
the site...Also get some direction on the praduct and the density and private versus public
road. We'd also try to leave it as green as we can. Again there's a lot of green space on the
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
end and as...remember with the Creekside site, there was a little discussion about parkland
and that kind of thing. I think actually this time Todd Hoffman and I have come a long —
ways...and worked all that stuff out. I think it will be a nice addition to the corridor...
Peterson: Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, may I have a motion to open
this for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. —
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter? State your
name and address please.
Richard Frasch: My name is Richard Frasch. I live at 8000 Acorn Lane. My land would be
contiguous. My lot would be contiguous to this development. To me conceptually I don't
know first hand the economics necessarily. We have these large lot properties right to the
west of it. We've Stone Creek to the southwest. You've got Creekside, which are real nice
homes there. I really do not want to see townhomes there. I'd prefer to see single family
dwellings and I think that makes for a better transition and quite frankly I just think that
townhomes, particularly as you drive through some of the other cities like Eden Prairie or _
Edina, they don't put a very good face on the city driving through it and I would prefer to see
the Planning Commission not recommend this and rather have this move towards a single
family dwelling so it would be comparable to the homes at either Creekside or Stone Creek.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing. —
Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heating. The public heating was closed.
Peterson: Bob. Any comments regarding this?
Skubic: Well could you move on and come back to me. I'd like to collect my thoughts here —
a little bit.
Peterson: Kevin, you're on the hot seat. —
Joyce: Well I definitely think it should be tabled. I don't have any problems with putting
townhomes in there. It's not a huge development. You know I think conceptually they look
rather nice. It'd be a nice transition from what's there right now to the townhome
development. But as far as the plan itself, I think it has some work to be done. I don't —
understand this building site 14 and 13 being off like that. That I have a problem with. No
7 —
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
access to that or using some sort of...driveway there. I think that, I kind of agree with Bob
Generous. I think you could widen these things and have them fit into this space. So I'd like
to look at it further but I'd like to table it. I'm not opposed to it but I think there's definitely
some work to be done and I think you could probably fit the building and that's really where
I'm going from.
Peterson: Thanks. Ladd.
Conrad: I'm okay with the townhome concept here. I think it's fine. I like the product. It's
really an economic issue. Does it fit? And it's really terribly difficult to give direction
tonight. I mean that's what we should do but it's terribly difficult. It's easier to come to a
bottom line on direction by saying we've got to reduce the 37 points out there and something
that we can deal with. I can't deal with 37 points. I'm not saying cutting it down to 2 or 3
but we've got to reduce that. I think I heard Bob say some things that given we move some
things around, we probably could justify a private drive, and I think you've got to work
towards that. Bottom line to me is, it does get tabled. It doesn't work right now. It has
potential to work. Still may not be financially feasible but I think I've got to dump it off on
staff and say, you've really got to work with staff on this one. Bottom line, I think
townhomes are fine there. I like the product look. I empathize with the developer. It's hard
to change designs through the project. It seems simple but it's hard...different things together
or whatever it might be but again I think you just have to work with staff on this one and
that's much direction but I think staffs comments are valid and I'd support them tonight.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I agree architecturally it's shown us a good product. It looks good on all four sides of
the building. But I also agree here we've got a lot of points that staffs concerned with and
we are, I think we need to table it to allow them to work those out.
Peterson: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Well the applicant pointed out that there were constraints on here. I can understand
the difficulty...I understand the general concept... The private driveway, if that's what's
required, I'm okay with that. I'll go with what staff recommends on that.
Peterson: Dave, I've got a question for you. Can you give me some sense as to how onerous
a public road would be with that small of a development?
Hempel: Well 25 units, it's not all that small. I guess staff isn't totally opposed to a private
street as long as we can see some benefit from a private street. We've got three conditions
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that have to be met to warrant it and if we don't meet those, we could be setting a precedent
for future developments as well. With this layout here it works to the developer's benefit —
with a private street to lay out the units. I guess I can't justify it based on meeting the three
points listed in the ordinance.
Aanenson: If I could just add to that. I guess what we see as the environmental feature here
is the creek and we're not sure that this, this is the product he's chosen for this property.
We're saying that we're not sure that this layout does the best justice for the creek. That is
the feature that we are trying to preserve right now. So would we support a private drive if
we're working on the best to save the creek? Probably, but we're not sure we're there yet and
that's what we're trying to work through.
Peterson: And my comments parallel the rest of the commissioners in that I think the
townhouse idea, at that level as far as cost. I mean you have the opportunity to make some
fine, build some fine properties that can only add to the neighborhood and certainly enhance
it. Maybe not decrease not certainly enhance the neighborhood so I concur that they work
with staff to find a solution. So with that, may I have a motion.
Conrad: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission table this PUD #96-3 and SP #96-6 _
and CUP #96-1 per the condition, going along with the conditions in the staff report.
Peterson: Is there a second? —
Joyce: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to table the conceptual and preliminary planned unit —
development, PUD #96-3, Site plan #96-6 and Conditional Use Permit #96-1 to address the
concerns and issues of staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
9 —
i.'�;;i.4-tir Lake
�i��.In�� Ann
P L"911 gala y..4 maim►di
73,y.,�s.a lip,i�
,:i,' -',•-i..1.:7`-,7, -';
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC is.: gmlal
Iriighl.taillli`
HEARING , __; =
l
PLANNING COMMISSION l. •. , . `
MEETING p L
Wednesday, August 7, 1996 ;f— at 8:00 p.m. i ". - L CA + N
Hall Council Chambers mom-
City `
690 Coulter Drive �w��w c� 'M 1111—It"111111
ox9P--;-;', weta-41 WI
Project: Townhomes at Creekside ��ra`irp4g4k s 4j0'
Developer: Heritage Development +alen,,;: • -�,�r.,`;,t` !, '
— PTharr L time=do" tilrAii "
Location: So. of Coulter Blvd. and east of ,°9 .��solo,�;�•41� �, . �,�i,`•F��t► ,
the Stone Creek Drive extension U% �i�)NGi* ,..A '' i,„,..'
'`°li,,,,„:„....,fa . �I!�;
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval
for a medium density residential development on 7.03 acres located south of Coulter Blvd. and east
of the Stone Creek Drive extension, rezoning of property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD-R
— preliminary plat of 26 lots, 2 outlots, and associated right-of-way on approximately 29 acres site
plan approval for 25 townhome units and a conditional use permit for excavation and filling within
the flood plain, Townhomes at Creekside.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
_
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
—
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
— Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
— written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
— Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 25, 1996.
?S1 q
j ,-,,.lw--v+.•�., CrQe\cs2 5
City of Chanhassen Hi-Way 5 Partnership James C. Avis
do City Treasurer do Dennis Dirlam 8190 Galpin Lake Blvd.
690 Coulter Dr. PO Box 147 15241 Creekside Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prarie, MN 55344
Bluff Creek Partners Chan-Land Partners McGlynn Bakeries
123 N 3rd St. 200 Hwy 13 W. c/o Grand Met Tax Dept
Minneapolis, MN 55401 Burnsville, MN 55337 200 S 6th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Shamrock Property Partners Mark J. Foster& Kaern S. Olsson Richard D. & Mary A. Frasch —
7350 Commerce Ln. 8020 Acorn Ln. 8000 Acorn Ln.
Fridley, MN 55432 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
James I. & Vicky L. Fink.).
_
8001 Acorn Ln.
Chanhassen, SIN 55317
0CITY OF
C H A N H A S S E N PC DATE: 8/7/96
--..1:,.- CC DATE: 8/26/96
— CASE #: 96-10
STAFF REPORT
— PROPOSAL: Site Plan approval to construct a 30' x 44' canopy over the existing gas
pumps, and a six (6) foot variance from the 25' front yard setback
requirement.
z LOCATION: 7910 Dakota Av.
"� APPLICANT: Sinclair Oil Corporation
J 7910 Dakota Ave.
L Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 869-2436
1
—
PRESENT ZONING: BH,Business Highway
ACREAGE: 26,400 square feet(0.6 acres)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - BH, Business Highway
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
—
E - BH, Business Highway
1 W- BN, Business Neighborhood
41141 , WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Sinclair Service Station is located on the property.
111
— 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
l I A
a
-Oilier —
44i,i,..i I ill. I
4itg
iv
4;;Tit,
�� �j�� 1111��r�v.`" *frreatrillk"t"411 ito tog ' 7100
�1111����! i �� I I 7200
b %ZI�� D'�.41` ; �r 111 ' -
2N Pi 1 WP e Lake WViili
v .iv* IN-
�. ow 41: sommi0, , . � �,•�� 73 00
7 i
_. " :pm irronisr-,,3k-
iiiiti1 imP�,,%�� eJa3mt i+ 7400
.g4,k r�I N`a'b Illi Almi t`-'
�- Fir � ► $�16 47ia��, o co
_ wag cilk 4111 ii.4464111111 illitillWill
-Nis failli II lb- :1P4
ri
`mow �3< Dr u :Ill WIMP illgo, mow. ;� lait
1 ` .-I
e [Z1\ ` fit,X11♦ •,�� n C„iil'��� � • �� ,1 �� — -
�rr • d E g ir
Min11111
Art Its
�'S��� �°• y¢ M 1 -1• r ► Ilk
u a lipittIMMII_MP - 1.11. 1111111 _ 11 I I I 1111NM-
77th St _ _
s _1
,411 X11, r Cihin te Y -�'
Coulter Ds ,
_ ��11I
�C ,X°� L I I III 1 1 ' /
,tl i LOCATION „4411i
- _
•T. Lake
�� h St.
010 �LaK Dr T �ri ve E. i
�� �- �� �_,:� Chanhassen d 1 —
isil mV _ IV 111 2
1 Estates o
= '=_____ AV” - .w. L �,.. �a•> mini Park
Stat �.” ep vii
1m� ����
State Hw 5 �� �l. imp ► `4
—� 15017t�e���: ,■ mow, twig,
att Ali
it oFbaraiim1�i1 -
�'1���� � � ��
8100
c.
i 1111: -: Sa ial 0T.
1 --iffy.-- 4.1 4e gleP Pim, '
0r p►� - ! 8200 1
rill! ;fir
—''a Ogaif
::::
I; ; Rice Marsh _ -
Lake Park
k Susanf. fir, Rice 3
F. i� A arsh Lake
al c '•= ::::
-* . Ir 1 eL
Tidk
•, fur 7iim
e � r1 co
t.
3 N
yj. S
1�i„tr --- -" o i o
_�'
Sinclair Oil Sign Request
August 7, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Sinclair Oil Corp. is requesting site plan approval and a variance to construct a 30 x 48 foot
canopy over the existing gas pumps. The gas canopy will encroach six feet into the required 25
foot setback from Dakota Lane. Minor improvements are proposed for the existing building. No
changes will occur with traffic circulation or parking.
The proposed canopy has an overall height of eighteen(18) feet. Two columns will support the
canopy. The fascia of the canopy will be three(3) feet in height and will be white in color with
two green bands. The bands are proposed on the top and bottom of the fascia and measure 3 and
6 inches in width, respectively. Signage will consist of the "Sinclair"name and logo on the
north and east elevations of the canopy and will be back lit. The remainder of the canopy fascia
will be non-illuminated.
As part of the proposal, the applicant will be removing the existing green and white signs from
the building. The existing signs located on the light fixtures next to the pump islands will also be
removed. The only sign to remain is the pylon sign located on the northeast corner of the
property.
Staff is concerned with the amount of lighting proposed with the canopy. The proposal calls for
twelve 400 watts metal halide lights in a lamp which hangs down from the underside of the
canopy. The close proximity of residential homes, Dakota Avenue, and Highway 5 warrant
special consideration. Staff has recommended conditions which should minimize any adverse
impacts on nearby residences and roadways.
Staff finds that the proposed improvements will enhance the site by providing a canopy which is
compatible with the existing building and use, removing non-conforming signs, and making
improvements to the building to improve the overall appearance of the property. Staff is,
therefore, recommending approval with modification to the site plan and variance based on the
findings presented in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
The construction of the Sinclair Service Station predates the City's zoning ordinance.
The expansion of Hwy. 5 and the realignment of Dakota Avenue took part of the Sinclair
property for right-of-way purposes.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE .
Traffic circulation and parking will remain in its current form. The canopy will occupy the area
over the existing fuel islands, and will replace the existing lights and signs. The fascia of the
canopy will consist of a non-illuminated aluminum panel. Signage located on the canopy fascia
will be back lit.
Sinclair Oil Sign Request —
August 7, 1996
Page 3
As proposed, the canopy extends slightly above the roof line of the existing building. Staff is of
the opinion that the canopy could be lowered two feet to be more compatible with the existing —
building and surrounding area. Staff is concerned with the additional lighting used for the
canopy and the impacts that it may have on the residential homes to the south. Dakota Avenue
serves as the primary entrance to the subdivision to the south. Businesses located in this area —
need to be compatible with surrounding residential uses. Reducing the height of the canopy will
make the structure less intrusive and visible to surrounding properties, and will reduce light
trespass. Staff recommends that the canopy be lowered two (2) feet, which would allow for a —
clearance of 13 feet. By way of comparison, the canopy at Oasis Market on West 78th street is 13
feet in height measured from the ground to the underside of the canopy. The canopy on the
Holiday Station has a clearance of 15.5 feet. —
Improvements to the existing building will consist of removing the existing green and white
signs, and repainting the building where needed. The lower panels of the sales room will be —
changed from red to green.
Staff recommends approval of a six (6) foot variance for the location of the canopy. The —
applicant has demonstrated a hardship in the location of the existing gas pumps, and with the loss
of property for public right-of-way purposes. If the appropriate conditions are attached, the
canopy should not impair the use of the adjacent roadway or negatively impact surrounding —
properties.
ACCESS
Access to the site will remain as it exists today.
LANDSCAPING
The Highway Corridor district provides standards governing design and placement of
landscaping and site furnishings which apply to all new and renovated buildings within the
district. Additional landscaping will be required as part of the site plan approval. —
Existing landscaping is limited to the west and south side of the property. The grass area
between the parking lot and Highway 5 is void of any trees or shrubs. No screening of the —
parking lot currently exists. The north side of the parking lot adjacent to Highway 5 appears to
be used for the temporary storage of vehicles awaiting repair. City Code requires that parking
lots and vehicular storage areas be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-ways. As —
part of the conditions of approval, staff is requesting that a landscape plan be submitted for the
grass area between Highway 5 and the existing parking lot. Landscaping should also be provided
adjacent to the propane tank located on the north side of the building. The landscaping plan shall —
incorporate the standards outlined in the Highway Corridor Zoning District.
Sinclair Oil Sign Request
August 7, 1996
Page 4
GRADING/DRAINAGE
No grading is proposed on the site.
LIGHTING
Staff is concerned with the amount of lighting proposed with the canopy structure. The lights
may infringe on the neighboring homes and the adjacent roadways creating a nuisance and
potential public safety problem.
Lighting for the canopy calls for twelve 400 watt metal halide lights mounted in a vertical lamp,
which hangs down from the canopy. The light output from this type of lamp is high (see
attachments). Lighting associated with pump islands often seeks to achieve near daylight
conditions.
The City ordinance provides standards for parking lot lighting. However, the code does not
address canopy lighting or lighting associated with other uses. For parking lots, the code states
that light levels as measured at the property line shall not exceed one-half footcandle. The
lighting proposed for the canopy will most likely exceed this amount.
Staff recommends that the canopy be lowered by two feet, and that recessed light fixtures be used
as opposed to the vertical lamps. These conditions will help reduce the amount of light trespass
on adjoining properties. The applicant should also consider using additional shields, fixtures
with narrow beam patterns, aiming fixtures carefully so the light is concentrated on the intended
surface, and using lower wattage lamps. To ensure that the lights will have minimal impacts on
adjacent property and adjoining roadways, staff recommends that the applicant prepare a
photometric report using the point by point method, at the property line, measuring footcandles
and reflective light.
SIGNAGE
Signage is proposed on the north and east elevations of the canopy. Wall or canopy signs are
permitted on street frontage for each business. The canopy signs would be used in lieu of wall
signs on the building. No signage will be permitted on the south elevation of the canopy. The
ordinance prohibits signage which is positioned so that the copy is directly visible from adjacent
residential uses or districts. Staff recommends that signage be permitted on the north and east
elevations of the canopy only, and that no other canopy or wall signs be permitted.
The existing wall signs and the signs located on the light fixtures will be removed. The:only
existing sign that will remain is the pylon sign located at the northeast corner of the property.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
Sinclair Oil Sign Request
August 7, 1996
Page 5
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may —
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division; —
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development; —
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following: —
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general —
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; —
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and —
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement —
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations —
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The use complies with the conditions and standards provided in the city —
code. The addition of the canopy will not intensify the use or impact existing traffic
circulation or parking. If the necessary conditions are attached, the use will not
negatively impact adjoining properties or public safety. —
Sinclair Oil Sign Request
August 7, 1996
Page 6
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances,but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
c. The purpose of the variance is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
f. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Findings: The proposed variance will not impair adjacent properties or endanger public
safety if the necessary conditions are attached. The applicant has identified hardships in
the location of the existing gas pumps and the loss of property caused by the relocation of
Dakota Ave. The conditions upon which the variance are based are not applicable to
other properties in this zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan and variance subject to the
plans dated July 5, 1996 and the following conditions:
1. Canopy lighting shall utilize a recessed fixture to reduce light trespass and glare.
Sinclair Oil Sign Request —
August 7, 1996
Page 7
2. The applicant shall prepare a photometric report using the point by point method, at the
property line, measuring footcandles and reflective light. Light levels as measured at the
property line shall not exceed one-half footcandle as measured at the property line. —
3. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area adjacent to Highway 5. The plan
should consist of a variety of shrubs and trees. Small berms may also be necessary to help —
screen the parking area.
4. Signage shall be permitted on the north and east elevation of the canopy only. Wall signs on
the building are prohibited.
5. All existing wall signs shall be removed from the building. —
6. The height of the canopy shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application —
2. Letter from Sinclair dated July 5, 1996
3. Canopy fascia components
4. Lighting standards and ordinances —
5. Site Plan
;,5 /G / 77C-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 5-6"-C Z FOI---tioAld ,4ye n
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 /f jcA'f/V//J /fir, S S`/Z j
(612) 937-1900
/-4S72- ,F6?-05/.36
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Sire /a ;1 c3 / c rp , OWNER:
ADDRESS: 7 /1c7' .Av,. ADDRESS: LE.--e/-3-1- Sou fA
eAel. ,-,Aesse l71'4i/.kP eft. u A
TELEPHONE (Day time) 612- ,S3'67- 25136 TELEPHONE: o/- X02 Y 270
= Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
X Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ 2 SG
P�Y�Io� 6- z8 9G
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building materialsamples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
•
*Twenty full isize foldedcopies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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 n r7 a/%7 �2, /5 in_n
LOCATION 7 S'/ --) e , �� n n T S Phi l'/Ao
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See e
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO
PRESENT ZONING y G – —
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Gran P rc, ,/
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST �,�- ��i��� �� �:�j�� �> �'��_ / i�� 1_a �r��r�� ,
� rT
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I 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 development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant .��,r �;� ��� Date
t✓-�-LcIC�' ��/�r iY�/���JY.G.IJ?�..C_ G ,'1 2~ 6.71
�
Signature of Fee OwnerDate
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
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.
Sine/wi
July 5, 1996
Honorable Mayor, Council and Commission Members
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Re: Proposed Canopy
Site flan Review and Set Back Variance
We propose to construct a canopy over the fuel islands at Ivan's Sinclair at 7910 Dakota
Ave., Chanhassen, Minnesota. Ivan and Sinclair Oil Corporation rcqucst your approval of
the proposed improvements.
lam
The proposed canopy will be located to cover the existing fuel islands. 'Ile canopy will
measure 30'by 48' , will have two columns and will have Sinclair's new graphics on the
canopy fascia. The fascia will have the "Sinclair" name and a small logo on the north and
cast side of'the canopy. The name and logo arc the only items to be back lighted. The
remainder of the fascia will not he lighted. Spandrels containing island infonuation with
company graphics will not be installed above the fuel dispensers.
It is proposed to remove the existing green and white signs from the building. The old
company graphic panels will also be removed. The building trim will be painted white
where needed. We propose to change the lower panels of the sales room from red to green.
This will leave one free standing logo/price sign, the name with logo on two sides of the
canopy and the required signs to regulate dispensing fuel.
A set back variance is required to recognize the facilities on this Sinclair site relative to
current city ordinances. The current Sinclair Oil Corporation acquired this property in
1979. Since that time improvements have been made to streets and utilities adjacent to this
parcel of property. The layout or arrangement of the building and fuel islands is serving
the intended purpose of our business which we do not intend to change. Because the
arrangement of structures on our lot is fixed and because some of the property lines have
been changed for infrastructure improvements, we request that a set hack variance be
granted duc to circumstances created-by cooperation between government agencies and
Sinclair to allow the improvements to be constructed for the good of the community at
large.
_
6602 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
We request your approval of our site plan with the proposed canopy including signage and
the necessary set back variances to recognize Ivan's Sinclair site conditions and current City
ordinances. These improvements will allow Ivan's Sinclair to provide better service to —
customers and improve the business image of Sinclair along the Chanhassen Highway
Corridor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call Larry
Feldsien at(612) 869-2436 or Ivan Johnson at(612) 934-7124.
Sincerely,
Lawrence F. Fcldsicn, P.E.
Engineer —
SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION
cpychan6.wps
.
•••• 72
-
1 1 I 1
wi
1—
vo
I i
II
M
/ , n — L. •••• o'
s. .: .... !,.,.. E. .. .--
ILIL 8 Z, <
..;
, > r,, A 'i' "i• _Li 0
o < g o 0 r 1
I
immo a ; t
40
,“. .
...- 11.... Eli I CO: il 3 op
... ...,
2 w4
.....tzt
,.,
--......,
ta kik
,..
.. .
ti33
1_,W Z73 44 tg
• * i •
., . :::
. .
a...
' I
I
m..
11/211
.--. to•-i......,e.... - .. ' .-..------,—...... .... --.AMIL,,,.....-.-..-............, ..4----.... — .........-.160....--.— -..-,-.-,-c.‘A:2._ _______,_
4.1 4.4........_ L.
•
) r go
Z e
_ .•". . it,..4 t -4 E0 0
2 LA 14'.4 i x
1 1 I lw w
. 1 h....
i 1 1 I g 1 I
At 1.... 3 1 Ul 11 ! g / 1 / 111 11
1 -.."`*0 4.... ' IA
i
0
. x t,. ..
.... ' r,
I „...... '1
6' 4.1E6 Z`:# ig g0 fi. ip 1 Im
14 26 il ") 'ai i ‘‘13. i•-1 ° `'' '' A 4
el
4.1ATT ° P ,'1. il ° SI I
1 :
P ..;= - 0
— u -: f4 e., v v;
;le
o
—
7 7,
o et
. o
s o d i
u tEtE ,
- ?
.„ ,....,
..
il& C:1•4
...I . 8
*4 t, " 2 •-•o
. • ,....,
ad Z VI 2 c, t .... .11; Lu C.L° ? ,,,A1 7•I -
9 -40
CIO —I 112 . a
ILI 2 5 % 2
Z 0 w g 11 r =
1-- 2 z rc ..: g > E t
LU .. a.
1.-1.,
14-11 Ur) 11:,_
111 ill iN 11 41 11441 C:C.3; —0
D g.e:fc t.-.• 3 iii :::
ct ,: 18-.1.0
....-1 . E g . . E 2-.2 . •
< E 2
^ 0
O 0
— co
E g r
— - ON C...) > 15-1-: :_. ;:.
Z. Z +„ g LI D
—
i..T* -NI
f_ 0 _ t.= 0 s ; .-.. t. t.
r.T.1 :..) ,t.
- i
.6--I 144411 — IR II 1 NT , it1.1
1""1:61.`i' .
N''.... . ....' 1 1
... el
CONSIDERATIONS NOTE -,rr-L. j I
The following factors must be considered when install- All exterior installations must be provided with ground
ing or renovating outdoor lighting systems- . fault interruption circuit.
1. In.general, overhead lighting is more efficient and
economical than low level lighting.
2. Fixtures should provide an overlapping pattern of
light at a height of about 7 ft.
3. Lighting levels should respond to site hazards such
as steps,ramps,and steep embankments.
a. Posts and standards should be placed so that they
do not create hazards for pedestrians or vehicles.
-
y` �r) 60-100' 'IMP.
GLOBE WITH DIRECTIONAL REFRACTOR --/
STANDARD GLOBE -
WIDE SPREAD DOWN LIGHT
DOWN LIGHT 30-50' 11
UP LIGHTS "` 20-30'
STEP LIGHT MUSHROOM
q�i�II.,111' 10-15' 1 Q
Ir 1274WIIIW1' / L _ / I l r I I
i
LOW LEVEL MALL AND WALKWAY SPECIAL PURPOSE PARKING AND ROADWAY HIGH MAST
•Heights below eye level • 10-15'heights average multi- • 20-30'heights average •30-50'heights average .60-100'heights average
• erya e ROADWA
itepab ler ns with low use ety bef fau erse ofs exdf tr melighvarl • Recreational,commercial, . Large recreational,commer- • Large area lighting-parking,
waresidential,industrial tial,industrial areas;high- recreational,hi hwa inter•Incandescent and fluorescent patterns 9 g y
•Metal halide,mercury vapor ways than
•men ssbmaintelyncece require-e . Incandescent,mercury vapor . Fixtures maintained by pan• •Mercury vapor,high pressure • Mercury vapor,high pressure
•Susceptible to vandals Sodium
to vandals try sodium
• Fixtures maintained by gan- • Fixtures must lower for
DEFINITIONS try maintenance
A lumen is a unit used for measuring the amount of
light energy given off by a light source.A footcandle is
a unit used for measuring the amount of illumination
• on a surface. The amount of usable light from any
given source is partially determined by the source's
angle of incidence and the distance to the illuminated
surface.See Chapter 1 on illumination.
RECOMMENDED LIGHTING LEVELS
IN FOOTCANDLES
C OML+E R• INTERNE• RESIDE N- FOOTCANDLES LIGHT SOURCE LIGHT SOURCE
IINTEN SIT VI
CIAL DiATE TIAL
-
PEDESTRIAN r AVERAGE/-----s0 O MAINT4INED
FOOTCANDLE
AREAS g 0
Sidewalks 0.9 0.6 0.2 6 a
Pedestrian 2.0 1.0 0.5 • f ..-5--- ----
ways B
�, I SURFACE
VEHICULAR • 111
ROADS MINIMUM MAINTAINED NOTE
FOOTCANDLES, MEASURED
Freeway• 0 6 0.6 0.6 'ON GROUND SURFACE AT The total intensity of two or more overlap-
Malor road and 2.0 ping light patterns e u 1.4 1.0 LOLIUMI TON LEASTNT OF Q als the sum of thr-
expressway' individual intensities.
Collector road 1.2 0.9 0.6 MEASURING LIGHT INTENSITY IN FOOTCANDLES
Local road 0.9 0.6 0.4
Alleys 0.6 0.4 0.2 ROADWAY ..- -. _
PARKING a,�. � \ . LIGHT SOURCE __F.-LIGHT PATTERN
AREAS -C
I' "i-,OUSE SIDE. _
Sell-parking 1.0 I
- - TRANSVERSE ROAD LINE ITRLI i- `
-� PARKWAY -
Attendant 2.0 - - 1. CUTOFF means that maximum of 10% of light �lT^ r/ tltl
parking source lumens fall outside of TR L area- '
2. SEMICUTOFF means that maximum of 30%of light ` \TRANSVERSE ROAD LINE
Security _ - 50
problem area source lumens fall outside of the TRL area \ ITRLI
3. NONCUTOFF means that no control limitations LONGITUDINAL ROAD LINE ILRLI
Minimum for 10.0 10.0 10.0 exist
television -
viewing of y}�
important CUTOFF TERMINOLOGY MOUNTING
important
INOTE "CUTOFF" IS MEASURED ALONG TRL.I HEIGHT
areas IMHI
NOTE
BUILDING !�:- I -
Degree of cutoff is determined by one of the following: r sHOR T•s. s x ia-
AREAS
(al design of fixture housing MEDIUM .sox IN
Entrances 5 0 - - / -
( bl incorporation of prismatic lens Over light source LONG 8.0 x MH
General 1 0 Icl addition of shield to fixture on"house side"
grounds
TYPES OF DISTRIBUTION
•Botrl mainline and ramps. (NOTE' "DISTRIBUTION IS MEASURED
ALONG LRLI
Johnson Johnson&Rn• A.v,A.t.o,,1.1.cn,yn
2 SITE 1MPR(AVFMFNTS z1
•
INITIAL RATED LIGHT OUTPUT OF VARIOUS LAMPS
— (Information from Sylvania #.PL-150, General Electric #9200 and Philips #SG-100 large lamp catalogs)
LAMP TYPE LAMP WATTAGE INITIAL LUMEN OUTPUT
- INCANDESCENT LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 25 235
INCANDESCENT LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 40 375
INCANDESCENT LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 60 890
_ INCANDESCENT LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 100 1690
INCANDESCENT LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 150 2850
INCANDESCENT FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) 75 765
— INCANDESCENT FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) 120 1500
INCANDESCENT FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) 150 2000
QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 42 665
— QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 885
52
QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 72 1300
QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAME (FROSTED) (Syl.) 300 6000
—
QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 500 10500
QUARTZ-HALOGEN LAMP (FROSTED) (Syl.) 1000 21000
QUARTZ-HALOGEN MINI FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) (12 volt MR-16 type) 20 260
_ QUARTZ-HALOGEN MINI FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) (12 volt MR-16 type) 42 630
QUARTZ-HALOGEN MINI FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) (12 volt MR-16 type) 50 895
QUARTZ-HALOGEN MINI FLOOD OR SPOT (G.E.) (12 volt MR-16 type) 75 1300
—
FLUORESCENT LAMP (Philips) 7 400
FLUORESCENT LAMP . (Philips) 9 600
FLUORESCENT LAMP (Philips) 13 900
— FLUORESCENT LAMP (Philips) 22 1200
FLUORESCENT LAMP (Philips) 28 1600
FLUORESCENT LAMP (G.E.cool white) 40 3150
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (Phillips) 18 1800
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (Phillips) 35 4800
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (Phillips) 55 8000
_LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (Phillips) 90 13500
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (Phillips) 135 22500
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP. (Phillips) 180 33000
—HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 35 2250
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 50 4000
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 70 6400
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 100 9500
—HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 150 16000
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 250 27500
HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LAMP (DIFFUSE) (G.E.) 400 50000
MERCURY VAPOR LAMP (WHITE DELUXE) (Syl.) 100 4500
MERCURY VAPOR LAMP (WHITE DELUXE) (Syl.) 175 850
MERCURY VAPOR LAMP (WHITE DELUXE) (Syl. 250 11100
—MERCURY VAPOR LAMP (WHITE DELUXE) (Syl.) 400 20100
METAL HAUDE LAMP (Coated) (G.E.) 32 2500
METAL HAUDE LAMP (Coated) (Venture) S0 3400
METAL HAUDE LAMP (Coated) (G.E.) 9000
METAL HAUDE LAMP (Coated) (G.E.) 175 15750
METAL HALIDE LAMP (Coated) (G.E.) 250 20500
^v1ETAL HAUDE LAMP (Coated) (G.E.) 400 36000,E--- A
rraSo of
FC FC —
Building exteriors Piers
Entrances \
Freight 20
Active(pedestrian and/or conveyance) 5 Passenger 20 —
Inactive(normally locked infrequently used) I Active shipping area surrounds 5
Vital locations or structures S
Building surrounds I Quarries 5
Buildings and monuments,floodlighted Service station(at grade)
Bright surroundings Dark surrounding
Light surfaces 15 Approach I5
Medium light surfaces 20 Driveway 1.5 —
Medium dark surfaces 30 Pump island area 20
Dark surfaces 50 Building faces(exclusive dglass) 10*
Dark surroundings Service areas 3
light surfaces 5 Landscape highlights 2 —
Medium light surfaces 10 Light surrounding
Medium dark surfaces lS Approach 3
Dark surfaces 20 Driveway 5 —
Pump island area 30
Gardens Budding faces(exclusive of glass) 30*
General lighting 0.5 Service areas
7
Path,steps,away from house I Landscape highlights 5 —
Backgrounds—fences,walls,trees,shrubbery 2
Flower beds,rock gardens 5 Ship yards
Trees,shrubbery,when emphasized 5 General 5
Focal points,large 10 Ways 10 —
Focal points,small 20 Fabrication areas 30
Loading and unloading platforms 20 Storage yards
freight car interiors 10 Active 20 —
Inactive 1
Lumber yards I
Parking areas —
Self-parking area I
Attendant-parking area 2 'Vertical
illumination system.As such,a program of regular inspection is needed,supplemented byA —
special reviews after particularly severe windstorms,snows, etc. These inspections should be
performed at night,when it will be far easier to determine if aiming patterns have been TABLE IOutdoby thetfng
changed for some reason,or should be. illuminances recommended b1'the
Illuminating Engineering Society of —
North America.
UNIFORMITY
Average illuminance can be a misleading indicator of lighting quantity(and its quality
implications)because average virtually presupposes uniformity.If it is important to achieve,
say,30 fc in a large area, doing so by providing 50 fc in some parts and 10 fc in others
will not attain lighting goals.
With respect to any area illuminated for security purposes, it is essential to permit —
those using or traversing the area to see ahead and to the sides.This means that there
should be an absence of dark areas,such as those caused by shadows.Areas adjacent to
those which are the most highly illuminated should be illuminated by gradually less light. —
For example,it will not do much good to have a security walkway well-illuminated,only to
furnish no illumination on immediately adjacent areas.This would permit someone to rush
a pedestrian,by jumping out from the dark.
13
r
saG o 4 E.
_ 5 .4 eft P4L v ...pc) i+�;n j Ord ac,__
5 acre /2'ye..' 14r ch, s
In order to obscure any single illumination source as
_ observed at five feet six inches height above the /9.4.
ground at ten feet distance from the illumination
source, the angle of side shielding needed will result
in the following:
Height of Illumination Maximum Angle Of Incidence
Source Above The Ground Of Side Shielding
10 feet
65 degrees
12 feet 55 degrees
14 feet 50 degrees
16 feet 45 degrees
More than 16 feet Variable per calculation
10 . 3 Intensity of Light. The intensity of light exiting a
lot from all outdoor lighting sources located within
the lot shall not exceed the following horizontal foot-
- candles measured at a height of five feet six inches
above the ground at any point on the lot line, or any-
where farther away from said lot:
Maximum Horizontal
Land Use of Lot Footcandles of
From Which the Light Intensity at
Light Is Exiting the Lot Line
10 . 3 . 1 Residential . 1 footcandles
emr 10 . 3 . 2 Mixed residential/commer-
cial . 2 footcandles
10 . 3 . 3 Commercial or industrial
_ (other than parking and
loading areas) . 3 footcandles
10 . 3 . 4 Commercial or industrial
parking or loading area . 4 footcandles
10 . 3 . 5 Institutional, including,
but not limited to, public,
religious, medical and pri-
- vate clubs . 3 footcandles
10 . 3 . 6 Residential street right-
of-way . 2 footcandles
10 . 3 . 7 Town arterial or collector
street right-of-way desig-
nated within the Town' s
Comprehensive Plan . 4 footcandles
10 . 3 . 8 Right-of-ways of state-
maintained State primary
highways . 4 footcandles
10 . 3 . 9 Right-of-ways of highways
that are part of the Fed-
eral Interstate System . 3 footcandles
10 . 3 . 10 Village center or urban .y- footcandles
area where building facades at the building
may abut the lot line facade
-6-
Maximum Height Of
Illumination Source
Table: 10 . 4 . 1 - 10 . 4 . 13 Above Average Ground
10 . 4 . 1 Residential property: 12 feet
10 . 4 . 2 Residential street right- — I!I
of-way: 12 feet
10 . 4 . 3 Mixed residential/commer-
cial property: 14 feet
10 . 4 . 4 Village center property: 12 feet — ¶
•
10 . 4 . 5 Village center street
right-of-way: 12 feet
10 . 4 . 6 Urban Area: 14 feet
10 . 4 . 7 Commercial or industrial —
property other than parking
lots and loading areas: 14 feet
10 . 4 . 8 Commercial/industrial park-
ing lot or loading area;
gas station marquees over
gas pumps : 16 feet
10 . 4 . 9 Institutional parking lot,
including, but not limited —
to, religious, educational
and medical establishments
and private clubs : 12 feet —
10 . 4 . 10 Town arterial or collector
street right-of-way desig- — ;
nated within the Town' s
Comprehensive Plan: 16 feet
10 . 4 . 11 State-maintained State
primary highways: 16 feet
10 . 4 . 12 Highways that are part of
Federal Interstate Highway
System: 18 feet
10 . 4 . 13 The land use categories of Section 10 . 4 . 1 to —
Section 10 . 4 . 10 shall be determined by the
Zoning Ordinance. Town arterial , collector
and residential (also called local) streets —
shall be determined from the adopted Compre-
hensive Plan. If there is no designation of
streets in the Comprehensive Plan or there is
no adopted comprehensive plan, the Planning
W
�IaW i
✓et dczl•
f
.F
-s4-.i Ity0a �%
i 3
Ai°� l n`u H
_: f
W° °.
\ ^ b :;
�~ y ' j
I :!
n � ' , .
F {
. 3
i
s
I e
F
2 i
+c '
i
!i.=__
. ;
H : d1'
b
b:,
— v °3 LI
• ; we` ��
W � ,� 4 Il
r `:1F I =
rzd
, „ A .c`'', 43r°1-.,, I Q J' 1
°t
2° o . -14i 1 2 ] } ]Go- ri
i :
W
0
N �
ap CO ? kt rlt z
1,7 E
LLu o _ -,vEp,‘tziAliiii,_
u 7 = va i I4
` V y:tu2 II
I
41 —
:
.t t
e i
—
. 4 !
—
—•v4 , po_ —
r ��
•
;\
% ,
: V.I. 1 ---- I mom -7' _
\ 01*1
` j/ ` -
\ r
Q
S
\ ,
1 e —
'\ \I ni
�� 1 �,
_J 1 1
1 \ \
�e�c, � I I I I —
i/ 11
-z. \ I ,dr /,
\ —///rC>//// * ) ' \ 4 1 I'14
/ \ 4 i i I
F.
jil., \\ \ % /
1 \
\ \
\ 4 Cg
\ \
\ eit!t.i.,,,
h
h1t ,
w\ ,, —
1• o
;a i
�Ya ✓( � !
6 —
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 8/7/96
I Si
C H AN H A S S E N CC DATE: 8/26/96
. CASE #: Sub#94-4
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide a .79 acre parcel into two (2) single family
lots, Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition
.2 LOCATION: 1430 Lake Lucy Road. Lot 1, Block 1, Shadow Ridge. Located at the northwest
Qcorner of Lake Lucy Rd. and Shadow Lane.
APPLICANT: Coffman Development Company Owner: Al and May Harvey
7409 W. 112 St. 1430 Lake Lucy Road
Bloomington,MN 55438 Chanhassen, MN 55331
Q 828-0077 474-7492
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
ACREAGE: .79 Acres
DENSITY: 2.53 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-RSF,Residential Single Family
S-RR, Rural Residential
E-RSF, Residential Single Family
Q W-RR,Rural Residential
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property contains an existing single family home. Two garages
F- are located on the north end of the property. The site contains
several groupings of small trees along the property lines.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I • - . ....____,....----_
. _____ •,-----
_
1
_ . IL
_. _
E 1
1
1
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0
CT) cr) r-- L.r1 •cti m CV r-I H al CO
•
• . I.tk ,
• e=•.-- ; r hrts 4 77/ a c- --
• i ..,. . • 1..... - i• • •••• *--_,.... - c_ ---z•-•
,..t.• t !-- ,,---:-...:.. :a I- 1..--vr, t ...:.=.u:,9, r.-_____J-- ---.....i.__:-..---- ---- _•___ce.-• - _ ...A.-, ... .1. , L- •
' t*°-4',".-' . . ••—..,
li ; i ' Lake "------4,
L----, 4. .
----_,Q.
niar.!7 iiDelaTv, , ,'"----__ .---"---_ :c50 •..k ,',
_ .s . -..,z.....-- -
\-• . • ....---1
-----7ftg a _______
, _..,,.: _
1 ‘1---1 Ashton a_____J____ .2. __------7
- 4, ___<.-
: . \ t i
,,Ner Cir ,., . ' ! ' I: ti ! It, ---i-------:• i • Vjlad" -----------77, ,
• ---.
• ,
i. __.:-._.6..- .-7---.. ; • ........ , I •., -4-,_ r____ ____ '
--,7----. "..f ' - ..A.,-,t4.c,0 • . 1}---
•
-------_,.._ -- '"-----,_ 63rd St.,_: . :___, ,
l'-'1:\, , t•-•,:i.--... ' -•<„, .---,..:.----,----' •, ,v,,,-4
4,!//04D,A--- ?ha -,,.• ,.......--5----__
--'----1•'-7 l t i--1"--Thr' • .4"7 ,,....w _— -
,— : , ,. ...%. : _..... ii
._.=..--- •Cr' 4..y ' •-...• 4r,L -- ,. ...___ea.sau, _ --
-
----Tt% - -,r4. • AA_icy ,-',.---i - . 1 i . , - --rr. ;A r..1-...; • \Pi
..,?.-- ---- ----"&„...-4.---- ,...!:• ,4. I •-ry--; i I : ,, : .... ------ ! \-7------, ------- k • ------ -4-"- ----
-,,„,ricisi- ---:..,sz:_—, ''-'9' r-- '3— 1 .L---- -. - ....,____-7--- ii-- --! I— 1 -
--e__ __, . _ , ,--_. • i
_a on4/5-7---.
T , ---,. -..- uck tr, ". '. I Curry ,_-3•,7-----"<\„.--;-,, ,----. IN'
, .• ' :---6*'
'ir . -..... ,-----L_ _ I . ! iii 1,711"Ur Park,--- r-1 , , '-s,A i•-_-• : gJ.__ _-- --------
.-----7--- 49.&,\',..-;--v• ^-4, i ,
,. A •
) L__I--.>' "--1-1,-,,21 !--.:'-______,), i._ . ,xs,t____..,
•-i•i•-•
_ LOCATION..." 1 ---;g .1
---,,if---...L.. . • . : •-, --,z____:.2Tri .• ;--7,7-.. . . , .
44-'--- n Bencl___,
I. i I 'Tail H ichaPH-g , .--1-1 immorez. Carver*Beac71-- -' 7
ez--------__—_ -___ J____, 1 i ,; . 1. . . •
— ocy Lane ..=---' i : IP: I r_ •
-
Ie.. ' • , 71.!--- ,' -
' -01 I • •
: \ i :
• -J• •
• .
4jci,Rd Lr__Air ---4-_----zse-/Z-2
. i
J I .
-----V'• , . ----- \..,,K 1-.N• . .F'
-,... 1-...-- ._________MESterliDr-LAL '.----- illet .:"22Lit'--__ -- ,r-r---..'
. .•
i • ., '4E44 ' . I '-----.-k\ ‘<.- •.\\V>j/' i'‘ '' i r'''' '-i-- 1-: 1 ' . .'• *.' \\e<2.-'V;."-'-,—pa.
I '', --- -------r- •
• /-.1, „..„ % r. ivig_,,,, li,ti,:7",--I 1 I., 1 : .e ... 1th;
' C __I\) ._. , „,,i--.---r-E-.r-
z. Itli?,-.1---__r-c"\.„..). • ! ri. carver Betodh! Ica '
— _,- ,.. r,
_
e , .,
. ,
. 1 tvP.,,,--,/,_i-• f i . i---1 .--,--,,---- -777-\-
'; , 1 i---,..: icr.:\: ; 1 , —__i. E.-.11-- -=.1 ---1 acityr •- . .,.. .,
, r • \ '1 1 k i = in! —-.....___4_____13crF7-; . \---, •
' . 0,.:-1-1,._-:-. ---;.,
.•V
INE$I.-, •, ,.•''a I..:.: • 1- .\--------- .... ..-
, \ .
• / ( .
•
. . I . 2 )\. 1f--- ''' t --/E• '• :ro‘ cat.\- -
_ • /.., -
---,.....„---) ..._, ,,...-
--\---gl , ,,.<." \ _, , ‘.? • "--N, A:
D ti) I „., \\-' i-, L-- a,/ . .
, -0-
- I \\.4-0:.\\,. ,_•, II glip: ,--, -" "\N• i" --tliE""
bk •F
RE ,-- . ‘-----7 e-14,,i111---RE------74. '---
...—,;_. . . [vipAFrfroi-L ,0
..____I , I- ///' • ' 1 1 \ ' '--. --1.
_____i
, sp i is,._• . ..___., TSi• • • , , i--rr------.--
. Htsli--_ -/: -I 1 Ir_li III —410'kck.-,.. ...,ri !---1• . ' \
•-.)—r—1 •Fa of '.. .,;...", ; .-----• \-,77 ip,...kness v;,
Lae,. :.: ,,....,....--.-,---,--, .- ,.1---.i i--4i-,i•-_\41 .. . .. ,?----`',.,;>> '•''.::i\-t7,, '->•:`:\L_-i--4-4 ----1-7.
kLuc y
• . _ ,! i_o____i , i ,
•• ,--i i \....,-e- ,,
N ___ ,„•
H
„„,, • L...____ . • ....,
.
'
-A\--..1 -„r-'• ,.• n, • _
1 i I lit-A. --,," 7 1§1 meadmi0: •• • va---:::
. \
*0) ' IIIA
).
--94 Graf= 4
\ --......,
Park - 4_1i:.1
_ .
Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition
August 7, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a .79 acre parcel into two lots. The property contains an
existing single family home and two outbuildings. The existing home will remain and be located
on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. Lot 2 will be available for the construction of a single family
home. Both lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area requirements of the city's zoning and
subdivision ordinances. Access to Lot 1 will remain in its current location on Lake Lucy Road. Lot
2 will gain access from Shadow Lane. The existing retaining wall along Shadow Lane will need to
be modified to accommodate the future driveway. Staff is recommending approval of the
subdivision.
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 1994, the City Council approved the final plat for Shadow Ridge consisting of
seventeen lots and one outlot. Lot 1, Block 1, Shadow Ridge contains the existing home and
outbuildings. The approval for Shadow Ridge did not address the future subdivision of this parcel.
No tree preservation or conservation easements are located on the subject parcel.
STREETS/ACCESS
The existing home on Lot 1 will continue to gain access from Lake Lucy Rd. As part of this
development, the driveway along the westerly property line will be abandoned. This driveway
provided access to the two garages located in the rear of the lot and will not be needed upon
removal of the garages. Staff recommends that this access point be eliminated on Lake Lucy.
The future home on Lot 2 will receive access from Shadow Lane. Modifications will need to be
made to the existing retaining wall to accommodate the driveway. The proposed driveway and
retaining wall will be similar to those on the east side of Shadow Lane. Driveway grade will be
approximately 6 percent.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The site is sparsely vegetated with a variety of trees. No construction activity will take place on Lot
1 which contains the existing home, therefore, no tree loss will occur on this parcel. Construction
activity on Lot 2 will result in the removal of a number of smaller trees along the east and south
property lines. Several larger pine and spruce trees will be removed to accommodate the future
home. It should be noted that the trees located along Shadow Lane on the easterly property line are
of lower quality due to their condition and size.
The proposed grading plan lacks sufficient detail on the location and number of trees. The proposed
grading plan and house pad location appear to minimize tree loss as much as possible. Staff
Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition
August 7, 1996
Page 3
recommends that an individual grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plan be
submitted along with the building permit application for Lot 2.
GRADING
The site is generally 2 feet higher in elevation than the adjacent lots to the north and south.
An existing 5 foot high boulder retaining wall runs along the entire east side of the property.
Site grading is proposed to lower the site approximately 2 feet in order to match the elevation of
the adjacent Lot to the north and to meet the maximum 10% grade for the proposed drive access
from Shadow Lane. The use of retaining walls should be considered to reduce the amount of site
grading needed for the drive. Drainage swales will be required along the sides of the house to
ensure stormwater runoff is directed around the building into the street.
The applicant should be aware that if any excess excavation material is to be hauled to property
within the City, the individual property owner must obtain a grading permit through the
Engineering Department prior to earthwork activities commencing. Haul routes shall be pre-
approved by the City and the applicant will be required to maintain these haul routes and clean
the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets,
curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. _
EROSION CONTROL
Type I erosion control silt fence is proposed along the east side of the property and along a
portion of the north side. The silt fence on the north side should be extended to the east. Also,
erosion control should be added along the south lot line and possibly the west side as needed to
control erosion from fence and tree relocation work. A rock construction entrance shall also be
installed and maintained during construction.
DRAINAGE
The site currently sheet drains to the north and south onto adjacent properties and then into the
street. Any increase in runoff due to increased impervious surfaces from driveway and roof
surface areas will be negligible, especially since two existing structures are to be moved off the
property. Due to the limited size of the site, no storm drainage improvements are recommended
except for drainage swales on the north and south sides of the proposed new structure to direct
runoff into Shadow Lane. The overall neighborhood drainage pattern will be maintained as it
exists today. _
UTILITIES
The proposed lot subdivision is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA).
Water and sanitary services were installed to this lot in conjunction with the Shadow Ridge
Development. According to the"As Built"plans, the depths of the sanitary sewer and water _
Shadow Ridge 2"d Addition
August 7, 1996
Page 4
services are, respectively, 12 feet and 7.5 feet deep at the property line. Therefore, the lowest
floor elevation is somewhat restricted to the elevation proposed. A development contract is not
needed since all public infrastructure is in place.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
LOT BLOCK AREA (SQ. FT.) LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH
1 1 19,603 146 134
2 1 15,003 103 146
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
the conditions of approval.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Shadow Ridge 2"d Addition
August 7, 1996
Page 5
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but —
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Shadow Ridge 2nd
Addition as shown on the plat dated June 27, 1996 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once the well on
the property fails.
2. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in _
force at the time of building permit application.
3. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile _
on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or
relocated.
4. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only.
Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul
routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any
damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
5. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been
fully restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City.
6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with disc-
mulched seed, wood fiber blanket,or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
Shadow Ridge 2"d Addition
August 7, 1996
Page 6
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
7. Drainage swales shall be constructed along both the north and south sides of the proposed
house to maintain stormwater runoff to the street(Shadow Lane).
8. The applicant is responsible for water quality fees of$272.00 and water quantity connection
charges of$673.00 as per the City's SWMP plan.
9. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in
accordance with City and/or State codes.
10. The existing driveway along the westerly property line shall be abandoned.
11. Individual grading, drainage,tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by the City
with building permit application for Lot 2."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Phillip Elkin and Anita Benson dated July 24, 1996
2. Application dated 6/27/96
3. Survey showing existing buildings
4. Public hearing and property owners list.
S. Preliminary plat dated June 27, 1996.
CITYOF 041011CIIANBASSEN
-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Rask - Planner I
FROM: Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator
Anita Benson, Project Engineer 4(5 —
DATE: July 24, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat- Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition, Coffman Development
NW Corner of Lake Lucy Road and Shadow Lane
Planning Case 94-4 SUB - File 2 —
Upon review of the site plan documents prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 27, —
1996, we offer the following comments and recommendations:
WETLANDS —
The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on this site. The City's Surface
Water Management Plan Wetland Inventory and a site visit by City staff verify this finding.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(SWMP)
OVERVIEW
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the stormwater
quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize —
its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-
year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The
water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker,Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus —
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each
drainage area based on the projected future land use,and therefore,different sets of improvements
under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority
water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
SWMP requirements.
John Rask
Shadow Ridge 2nd
July 24, 1996
Page 2
Water Ouality Fees -The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new
subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land arid pond volume needed
for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and
pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per
cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for single family
resident developments is$800 per acre.
Water Ouantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based
on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land
acquisition,proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff
storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable
acre.
Water Quality Fee
The SWMP does not propose this site to provide on-site stormwater treatment. This property will
drain into an existing storm sewer system installed with Shadow Ridge. SWMP fees are based on a
total developable land area of 0.34 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay$272.00 in water
quality fees.
Water Quantity Fee
The total net area of the property is 0.34 acres as discussed above. Therefore,the proposed
development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$ 673.00. These
SWMP fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
GRADING
The site is generally 2 feet higher in elevation than the adjacent lots to the north and south.
An existing 5 foot high rock retaining wall runs along the entire east side of the property.
_ Site grading is proposed to lower the site approximately 2 feet in order to match the elevation of
the adjacent Lot to the north and to meet the maximum 10% grade for the proposed drive access
from Shadow Lane. The use of retaining walls should be considered to reduce the amount of site
grading needed for the drive. Drainage swales will be required along the sides of the house to
ensure stormwater runoff is directed around the building into the street.
The applicant should be aware that if any excess excavation material is to be hauled to property
within the City,the individual property owner must obtain a grading permit through the
Engineering Department prior to earthwork activities commencing. Haul routes shall be pre-
- approved by the City and the applicant will be required to maintain these haul routes and clean the
John Rask
Shadow Ridge 2nd
July 24, 1996 —
Page 3
streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets,
curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant.
EROSION CONTROL
Type I erosion control silt fence is proposed along the east side of the property and along a
portion of the north side. The silt fence on the north side should be extended to the east. Also,
erosion control should be added along the south lot line and possibly the west side as needed to
control erosion from fence and tree relocation work. A rock construction entrance shall also be
installed and maintained during construction.
DRAINAGE
The site currently sheet drains to the north and south onto adjacent properties and then into the —
street. Any increase in runoff due to increased impervious surfaces from driveway and roof
surface areas will be negligible, especially since two existing structures are to be moved off the
property. Due to the limited size of the site, no storm drainage improvements are recommended
except for drainage swales on the north and south sides of the proposed new structure to direct
runoff into Shadow Lane. The overall neighborhood drainage pattern will be maintained as it
exists today. —
UTILITIES
The proposed lot subdivision is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA).
Water and sanitary services were installed to this lot in conjunction with the Shadow Ridge
Development. According to the"As Built"plans, the depths of the sanitary sewer and water
services are,respectively, 12 feet and 7.5 feet deep at the property line. Therefore the lowest
floor elevation is somewhat restricted to the elevation proposed. A development contract is not
needed since all public infrastructure is in place.
STREETS
The applicant is proposing to access the site from Shadow Lane which is a public street. With the
removal of a portion of the existing retaining wall and site grading, the proposed drive meets the
maximum 10% grade requirement.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —
1. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain _
tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or
relocated.
John Rask
Shadow Ridge 2nd
July 24, 1996
Page 4
2. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances
only. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City.The applicant will be required to
maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles
tracking. Any damage to City streets,curbs or other public facilities will be the
responsibility of the applicant.
3. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has
been fully restored,revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City.
4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with disc-
mulched seed , wood fiber blanket, or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the CitYs Best Management Practice Handbook.
5. Drainage swales shall be constructed along both the north and south sides of the proposed
house to maintain stormwater runoff to the street (Shadow Lane).
6. The applicant is responsible for water quality fees of$272.00 and water quantity connection
charges of$673.00 as per the City's SWMP plan.
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
g:'cng'anita\pc\shadow.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN —
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: �oPf-'1A^/ )cVEzo'PrN,9%)7- C)All*Ny OWNER: A y( #,41 //,2 ✓EY
ADDRESS: 7/09 ii/. //Z 57 ADDRESS: /V3a Kc Airy 4A
g e /NG Z,\/ /1/1"/ 5 V 3d' (11/PiW 95S&' /IN 55-3 3 /
TELEPHONE (Day time) 82 B -00) T) TELEPHONE: y 7 V - 7 Y 9 2-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits CITY OF CHANHASSEN
q�rrIVF7
Sign Plan Review JUN 2 7 1996 Notification Sign /5i; — (50 160
Site Plan Review* r`"`y`a""��`�I X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 2..0&
XSubdivision* 17 p — TOTAL FEE$
y_ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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.
SURVEY FOR: COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT 1 O 1 U )Z-u i f 504/25
(65-48)
— 40 0 40 80 / I SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENCNEFRs • SUR 10 • pumps
SOL TEST)• F11vRC.egI+T �Rv,css
_ — — 106x0 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE I
Scale in Feet N4
ETONKA, La SS=
I � I (6,z) s+a-neo, rAx:s+e.-17065
I
1037.3 146.01
I N ki i ir)
1- - - �I - I ��- 17.7
1036.5 \ 0
0
— — x "? Exist.'?
24.4 30 1036.7 N\Gar. N
/_ N Prop. 81A=.,,\ 24.3.
_
P r,
/ Gcrage\
24.1 �� 0\ x
— 1036.3 1036.4 1 ,,r
I
W
_,
c Z
_ Q,c
_ as o
O A o Lo
p .V
n ' i�
in ch `\ M
is-
N O c C
V
4�
�\ 12.1 O 'o
c
— 1034.1 01\°' °D Q
9
149.5 22 2- Story v I 2
"1\ Hous \g, \ (i)\
_
49.2 22.4\' I 31.6x
1034.4
1034.0 I
—
co 1
co I
o
(IS co
in
— 5[_ __I10
in M /
— 1032.6 4., I I `
146.01 — ' 1030.7
X 1031.8 LAKE LUCY ROAD X 1028.6
— This drawing has been checked and
DESCRIPTION: reviewed this 6?4' day of
c: 7 b,ber- , 19 1Z,
— Lot 1. Block 1, SHADOW RIDGE by0 -- Q
GENERAL NOTES: I hereby certify that this survey was
prepared under my supervision and that
— 1. • - Denotes iron monument found. I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
2. 0 — Denotes iron monument set. laws of the State of Minnesota.
3. --- Denotes direction of surface drainage.
_ 4. X 1030.0 - Denotes existing spot elevations.
Theodore D. Kemna
Date: Oct. 4, 1994 License No. 17006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
0.
HEARING `� —
PLANNING COMMISSION s_� . �
..i.....c... alter-t- 1 ^�——
MEETING -- f —
Aphon CT
Wednesday, August 7, 1996 - ^_• .= --� – —
°�— --.63rd 9t� — — .
at 8:00 p.m. „ -_ r — _-cmc-.
City Hall Council Chambers _' a _ — ` -`J - - —
690 Coulter Drive - `-- 0°°do„ -Ar
Parma Paz*.-
2nd rt LOCATION- _' ' -
Project: Shadow Ridge 2 Addition - , ; _ - i
P
Cucy Lane ._
G� e
Developer: Coffman Development ` ; —
Location: Lake Lucy Road and Shadow , _ V f, �z
Lane Lake
, -� �,� —
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Coffman Development, is proposing preliminary plat approval to subdivide a
0.8 acre parcel into two lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located on the —
corner of Lake Lucy Road and Shadow Lane, Shadow Ridge 2nd Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the —
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public. —
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to _
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission. —
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 25, 1996. 44/
p/ —
I ^% 1 l �.
J Paul Sterns & Company, Inc. Lecy Construction Inc. Gregory& Ellen G. Fresh
50 South Broadway Avenue 10340 Viking Drive #105 6530 Shadow Lane
-.Jayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317
—Benoit& Karine Pouliquen Coffman Development Co. Paul R& Jolene C. Lunsford
6500 Shadow Lane 5151 Edina Indust. Bldg. 6511 Shadow Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317 117 Sentinel Building Chanhassen, MN 55317
— Edina, MN 55439
_Allen &Marjorie Satter Steven R Doepke& Robert H. Mason, Inc.,
6515 Shadow PI Kristen Hentz Doepke 14201 Excelsior Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 6587 Shadow Lane Minnetonka, MN 55435
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gregory& Julie Carter Eric & Jean Lopez Craig & Leslie Carlson
—6600 Charing Bend 6606 Charing Bend 1341 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Lori Delay Almond & Carolyn Krueger Jack & Kathryn Randall
—1350 Stratton Court 1600 Lake Lucy Road 1571 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Brian& Nacy Tichy Joseph& D Gayle Morin Thomas Alan Steward &
1471 Lake Lucy Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road Colleen Elizabeth Steward
—Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6471 Yosemite Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
Elizabeth Glaccum
1510 Lake Lucy Road
_Excelsior, MN 55331
C. DATE: 8-7-96
CITY 0 F C.C. DATE: 8-26-96
\� I - • CUAAEN CASE: 96-4 CUP
BY: Al-Jaff:v
— ALL
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 75 foot amateur radio tower
LOCATION: South of Hesse Farm Circle, east of Bluff Creek Drive, and north of
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority; Lot 18, Block 1, Hesse Farm
APPLICANT : Jeffery May
J1225 Hesse Farm Circle
Chaska, MN 55318
442-3713
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District
ACREAGE: Approximately 7 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-RR, Rural Residential District
S-Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
E -RR, Rural Residential District
W-RR, Rural Residential District
�--- SEWER AND WATER: Not available to the site. The property is located outside of
the MUSA line.
0
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The trees on the site are a mixture of significant and
}"- insignificant trees in size and quality. An existing single
family residence occupies the site. The site slopes to the
south
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot
I
Jeff May
August 7, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval to locate a 75 feet high, self supporting amateur radio tower
on a 7 acre parcel located south Hesse Farm Circle and north of Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority. The tower will be a self supporting open lattice work structure.
City ordinances allow for the consideration of amateur radio towers in any district by conditional
use permit. The ordinance has only one specific standard related to this use in that it requires that
these towers either be designed to collapse progressively or they shall be set back from all
property lines a minimum distance equal to the height of the tower. The current proposal is
consistent with this requirement since the tower is designed to permit somewhat progressive
collapsing to avoid a situation where a tower would topple as a unit. In addition, there are
setbacks greater than the height of the tower provided in all directions. The ordinance also
provides general issuance standards related to all conditional use permit applications. The
request must also be judged against these standards.
We note that at a height of 75 feet for this tower, it will not require night time lighting to satisfy f
the Federal Aviation Administration.
In many respects,the proposal is a reasonable one. The tower is well screened by existing trees.
For those members of the Planning Commission and City Council interested in seeing the tower,
there is a 65 foot high temporary tower which the applicant placed in his rear yard to allow
neighbors, commissioners, and council members to see what the structure will look like. The
proposed structure is 10 feet higher than the temporary structure and is currently disassembled
and located on the side yard of the subject site.
The proposed site is relatively secluded as it is wedged into an area adjacent to the Hennepin
County Regional Railroad Authority Trail and is bordered by mature trees to the east, west and
south.
There are three separate antenna structures on the site. The zoning ordinance allows only one
structure in any zoning district. Approval of erecting this amateur radio tower will be contingent
upon removing all other antennas/towers on site.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is
recommending approval of the conditional use permit request with conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The following constitutes staffs review of this proposal against the general issuance standards for
conditional use permit standards.
t
I
Jeff May
August 7, 1996
Page 3
GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
FINDING - We do not believe the tower poses a danger to public health or safety.
Setbacks provided on the site should ensure that there is no physical
danger. The nearest homes are located over 220 feet from the proposed
tower. Direct visual impacts are minimized since the site is surrounded by
mature trees.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
FINDING - The proposed use is not addressed by the City Comprehensive Plan.
However, it is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. It meets the
required setbacks.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
— appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
FINDING - The proposed location of the tower is screened from views. We believe
that it will be relatively difficult to see the tower from a distance unless an
individual specifically knows where to look for it. We do not believe that
it will change the essential character of the area.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
FINDING- We do not believe this proposal will have any hazardous affects coming
from the radio transmissions or from the physical tower itself.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
FINDING - The proposed use will not require any new public facilities.
Jeff May
August 7, 1996
Page 4
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. —
FINDING - As noted above, there will be no need for new public facilities generated
by this proposal. We do not expect that it would have a major detrimental
affect on the economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, _
or trash.
FINDING - This proposal will not result in any increase in traffic, noise, smoke,
fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash and to the best of our knowledge, it
will not contribute to any hazards or television interference stemming from
the radio transmission. —
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. —
FINDING - The site will be served by an existing driveway which also serves the
existing single family home. The proposal will not generate any increase
in traffic.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features of —
major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
FINDING - Towers by their nature have a visual impact over a relatively large area. In
this case, the impact is minimized, if not eliminated by existing mature
trees and topography.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
FINDING - Impact of the proposal on this standard is difficult to ascertain. It is —
reasonable to think that this will not impact any property values since it
will be screened from views by existing vegetation and topography.
Jeff May
August 7, 1996
Page 5
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
FINDING - The tower is consistent with the only standard provided pertaining to
setback requirements.
Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be
approved with appropriate conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use
Permit #96-4 as shown in the attached site plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. All existing towers/antennas shall be removed prior to installation of proposed tower.
2. The tower shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance
with the National Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city.
3. Comply with Sec. 20-915. of the zoning ordinance.
4. Obtain all applicable state, county, and city permits."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Zoning Ordinance Sec. 20-915. Amateur Radio Towers.
2. Application.
3. Letter from the applicant dated July 3, 1996, containing a site plan, sight line drawings,
photos, and tower information.
ZONING § 20-915 —
Sec. 20-914. Private swimming pools.
No private swimming pool shall be allowed in any residential district except as an
accessory structure for the enjoyment of the occupants of the principal building of the property
on which it is located and their guests. Fence requirements as stipulated in division 5 of this —
article shall be met.
(Ord. No. 80,Art.VI, § 18, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-915. Antennas,satellite dishes and amateur radio towers.
(a) Satellite dishes, television antennas, and ground-mounted vertical antennas shall be
permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts. —
(b) Amateur radio towers shall receive a conditional use permit in all districts prior to
installation.
(c) In all residential districts, only one(1)of the following are permitted per lot:
(1) Satellite dish.
(2) Amateur radio tower.
(3) Ground-mounted vertical antenna.
(d) A ground-mounted satellite dish shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above
ground level.
(e) No ground-mounted satellite dish, amateur radio tower, or ground-mounted vertical
antenna shall be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback.
(f) Ground-mounted satellite dishes, amateur radio towers, and ground-mounted vertical —
antennas shall be set back from all adjoining lots a distance equivalent to the height of the
dish,tower or antenna. If a portion of the tower or antenna is collapsible or securely fastened
to a building, only the portion which can fall will be used to determine the setback from —
property lines. Location shall not adversely obstruct views from a3jacentproperty.
(g) A building permit shall be required for the installation of any satellite dish, amateur _
radio tower, or ground-cover mounted vertical antenna. Building permit applications shall
require the submission of a site plan and structural components. When a satellite dish or
radio antenna is located on the roof of a building,the applicant shall furnish the city building
official with building plans and structural components displaying the means of securing it to
the building.The building official must approve the building plans before installation.
(h) Each satellite dish, amateur radio tower,and ground-mounted vertical antenna shall
b_ grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National
Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city.
(i) Satellite dish, amateur radio tower, and ground-mounted vertical antenna, electrical
equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in adherence to the National
Electrical Code, as adopted and amended by the city. _
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 21, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 8, 3-14-88)
Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq.
Supp.No. 1 —
1235
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
it
_ PLANNING COMMISSION ' 111 EL
MEETING
Wednesday, August 7, 1996 -%f1� r a V
at 8:00 p.m. ^ !
City Hall Council Chambers 4•V � a +
1,4
690 Coulter DriveWr
ig
C1/,`Altliabk 4
Project: Conditional Use PermitA -,A ai‘kA lilliiiiiiill'
•101s /
t'
Applicant: Jeffrey May , �. ovaes,
Location: 1225 Hesse Farm Circle / fi
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant,Jeffrey May, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a 75' amateur
— radio tower on approximately 7 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential District and located
at 1225 Hesse Farm Circle.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
_
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
— 3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
—
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
—
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 25, 1996.
— 471;jai //9-ttie°
Anne E. Karels Diane Gilbertson Harold Hesse _
1161 Bluff Creek Dr. 1190 Bluff Creek Dr. 1425 Bluff Creek Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Edward& Dorina Tipton Nicholas&Mary Waritz Dennis &Linda Smith
1291 Bluff Creek Dr. 1271 Bluff Creek Dr. 1251 Bluff Creek Dr. —
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Jeffrey Good&Lynda Poulin Eugene& Mirian Junker Roger&Vikki Broun
1231 Bluff Creek Dr. 1250 Hesse Farm Road 1200 Hesse Farm Road
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 —
Bruce Rech Todd Rogers& Dawn Drilling Peter Taunton
1180 Hesse Farm Road 1101 Hesse Farm Road 316 19th Ave. SE
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Willmar, MN 56201 —
L. Richard & Karen Dee Edward T. Mueller Keith W. & Stacy Carlson —
1202 Hesse Farm Circle 1251 Hesse Farm Circle 1301 Hesse Farm Road
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Hesse Farm Homeowner's Assoc. Mary Ann Elmgren
1425 Bluff Creek Drive 1221 Bluff Creek Drive —
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
86/21/% 88:89:49 612-937-5739-> 6129498542 Page Z
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937.1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT:_ Jeffrey May OWNER: Same
ADDRESS: 1?25 Hesse Farm Circle ADDRESS:
Chanhassen, MN 55318
— TELEPHONE(Day time) cat-?713 TELEPHONE: 49k-1487
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
— 2. VYY Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
8. Clildlrr/Excavatlon Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. ImirIm Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. F fanned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
8. Rtonln9
- 7. 8lOn Permits
9. elan Plan Review NotlfIcation Signs
9. RS Plan Review � Esorow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP/SPR/VACNARIWAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $
A list Of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Inolu$id with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
814" X 11" Reduced oopy of transparency for each plan sheet.
• NOTE - When muitlpie applications are processed, the appropriate lee shall be charged for each application.
— •• F!/!MW wilt ha rani ilra l 4". glhn. nrr.lt...nl....n I..,.......I, ♦i.., .......i�_....�... ��...-��
86/21/96 88:89:19 612-937-5739-> 6129498542 Page 3
fLItiOJECT NAME N/A
l'46CATION 1225 Hesse Farm Circle
LE AL DESORIPTION Lot 18 , Block 1 , The Hesse Farm
PRESENT ZONING Residential
REQUESTED ZONING N/A
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A
RBOUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST CUP to erect an amateur radio tower in mm back
'ard at above address
$ 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.
This Is to cert y that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
w1 all City n$ uirement$with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the Cit should oontact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (eit er copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting tees, 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.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
S�gnature of Appilaant Date
l�`;(-
t3�rlatu re,b fee wnbr "mate"
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If nbt contacted, a copy of the report will be milled to the applicant's address.
- JEFF MAY
1225 Hesse Farm Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55318
Phone: 496-1487
July 3, 1996
Chanhassen City Council Members,
Planning Commissioners, and City Staff
— CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please accept this and the enclosed materials as a formal application for an amateur radio tower I
wish to install on my lot at 1225 Hesse Farm Circle. This request is for a single tower of
approximately 75 feet in height. This would be the minimum height necessary to operate in the
neighborhood.
The enclosed materials include:
Lot/plat information for the immediate neighborhood
Sight line drawing
Photos, with corresponding map indicating location from which photos were taken
Tower information from the manufacturer
A list of property owners within 500 feet
What is Amateur Radio?
I am a licensed radio amateur through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the
call sign WOONM. The class of license I hold is the highest class license available, an Extra Class
License, which requires passage of tests involving extended skills, intimate knowlege of FCC
regulations, and detailed understanding of equipment operation. I am a lifetime member in good
standing with the American Radio Relay League(ARRL),the national organization of amateur
radio operators, which works on issues of education,proper operating procedures, and emergency
— preparedness. The ARRL stays in close touch with the FCC and aids in the testing and policing of
amateurs throughout the country.
Please be assured that I respect and take seriously the rules and regulations of the ARRL and FCC
regarding radio amateurs and that I would operate completely within those regulations to be a good
neighbor in this area. In the eight (8)years that I had antennas at my previous address I received
_ no complaints regarding television interference (TVI)or radio interference (RFI) from anyone in
my area. I intend to keep that clean record intact.
City of Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit Request
July 3, 1996 Amateur Radio Tower
Page 2 Jeff May
Civil Service and Emergency Preparedness —
While there are many different facets to the hobby of amateur radio, the most important is civil
service and emergency preparedness. This is the reason amateur radio was started in the first place
and continues to be the basic reason for its existence. Every amateur should be prepared to aid and
participate in emergency communications, should the need arise.
Some of the activities that have received national recognition include help with communications —
during the recent hurricanes in Florida, in the Caribbean, and Hawaii. Locally, amateurs have
participated in Desert Voices, providing communications links between soldiers and their families
during the Gulf War from a tower located in Farmington,Minnesota. —
Another service is called SKYWARN. When there is severe weather--tornadoes, high winds, hail,
flash floods--the National Weather Service alerts amateur radio operators, the SKYWARN _
volunteers. Amateurs station themselves at specified points and then report directly to the National
Weather Service about the severity of the weather and its location. If you hear of a tornado
spotted, it was likely an amateur who spotted it and reported to the National Weather Service.
Another main activity is working with missionaries in third-world countries, particularly South
America and Africa. Many of them are in locations that do not have any form of modern
communication; therefore,radio communications becomes extremely important to contact their —
loved-ones back home via a"phone patch"using radios and telephones.
Regarding my specific request, please consider the following details:
Screening
From the materials submitted,you will be able to see that the tower will be well-screened, and _
actually not noticeable, from the homes in our neighborhood. The trees on my lot work well to
screen the lot from the homes north, south, east, and west of the lot. The proposed tower has been
sketched on the sight lines to give you an idea of what will actually be seen.
It should be noted that the lot slopes down to the south-southwest. The difference in elevation
from north to south is approximately 35 -40 feet. Therefore, part of the height of the tower will be
"absorbed"in this drop in elevation,causing the tower to appear much less than 75 - 80 feet high. —
(See the sight line drawing in the application materials.)
Tower Location
The lot is large enough for me to locate the tower in such a way that I will be a minimum of 175
feet from any adjacent property line,exceeding the minimum requirement of the City of
Chanhassen for a"fall zone"equal to the height of the tower. This places the tower a minimum of —
400 feet from the closest neighboring house.
Safety Considerations
The tower is made of heavy duty steel and will have a base of concrete as recommended by the
installation instructions. These instructions are prepared and tested by structural engineers at the _
tower manufacturer's facility. I am personally experienced in assembling towers and am familiar
City of Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit Request
July 3, 1996 Amateur Radio Tower
Page 3 Jeff May
with the recommended installation procedures; however,if the permit is approved, I intend to have
the tower installed by St. Paul Tower Company, professionals in tower installation. Of course, I
will comply with any permit and/or inspection requirements of the City Building Official, as well.
Environmental Considerations
I am very conscious of protecting our environment. In fact,the natural environment of the Hesse
Farm Addition was one of the key factors that drew me to this location in the first place. Using the
antenna does not involve any chemicals,nor will there be emissions of any type produced. There
is no sound involved in its operation and there is nothing which will harm any plant or animal in
the area.
In my previous location in Chanhassen, I abutted Lotus Lake. With two towers at that location, I
had no negative impact on the environment and I will not have any negative impacts at this
location. Deer, dozens of species of birds, raccoons, and many other animals were frequent
visitors to my previous lot. I expect the same here.
City of Chanhassen Zoning/Conditional Use Requirements
I have thoroughly reviewed the requirements of the City of Chanhassen regarding towers of the
type I am proposing. As noted earlier, I fully intend to comply with the City's regulations.
In accordance with Section 20-915, Antennas, satellite dishes and amateur radio
towers, the tower will be the only antenna structure located on my property {Item (c)). It will
not be located in the front or side yard setbacks,but will be in the rear yard as depicted in the
documents attached {Item(e)). As noted above,the tower will be set back from all adjoining lots
at a distance more than twice the equivalent of the height of the tower; furthermore, the tower will
not adversely obstruct views from adjacent properties, as is evidenced by the pictures attached to
this application {Item (0).
As noted above,I fully intend to comply with the Building Permit regulations and have supplied a
site plan and information about the structural components of the tower I propose with this
application {Item (g)}. And, of course,the installation of any tower on my property will be
accomplished so as to be grounded to protect against lightening strikes and will be designed and
installed in accordance with the National Electrical Code adopted by the City of Chanhassen.
{Items (h) and (i)}.
With respect to Section 20-233, Conditions imposable on permits, you may want to be
aware that the tower will not adversely impact the adjacent properties in any of the following ways:
• It will not impact property values,nor did my previous tower have this impact at my previous
Chanhassen address.
• It will not result in any additional traffic to my property, other than for installation purposes as
described above.
• It will not involve any off-street parking or loading of any kind after installation.
• It will not interfere with any utilities.
• It will not be visible from my neighbors' homes due to the very dense screening provided by
the substantial number of trees along my property lines.
City of Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit Request
July 3, 1996 Amateur Radio Tower _
Page 4 Jeff May
• It will not result in any noise, odor, traffic, or other negative impacts on the residential _
neighborhood in which I live.
If you have any questions about my application, please contact me at: 496-1487. I will respond
to you as promptly as I am able. I want to enjoy my hobby to the extent that I have in my previous
location in Chanhassen. I also want very much to be a responsible neighbor and to be certain that
any concerns you may have are mitigated promptly. _
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
,1/142-j-
Jeff May _
Attachments
I430.
,I ,
4 el I el - • ••1. i. dttv
I ' s i
l 11
• liG 1 \ 1 `i N ie1
I D he,
(T� Q1
.. ' ��4:0 alb j — i i _f
of
oJi` / d, t• al O Z
it / 1\
a
•‹t
P
1 0
1.
z I iS
, .. : is it,'•[\
V n I i Y.
.11
r
— 1 rd.,..
a • % a i
L_ 3 .n. e
— w n vy, ;
N
/ u. 3• Y « y
LC) 14, .. In
___=________ ,...:IP _. _i ._—9 �yF Jy
") . . -----g if. 2 r 7,
ili
cr, 7. . ••••• .., ,,,, 4 .,
/: J
•o ilk 4 I I
6'I' wl I,
1 w
I _ '
h1 d
— fes' 1
\ ,
�J \ G •
...4
..\•..
•
i
— ` � —
W w
� N
f N
W
v
Huiiiii __.1 \::,•
b..\ / 0 0
4�
S )TE PLAN
Ni41
47
46
0
.
i /
I ,rte 100' TREE LINE ,4.1 MM
►:�� •3
4 3' ' I
Si' i
�v7•
_a A ,' 4\n/
It
\ MAi LIRE
2'� OAK,
.....
BASSWOOD,
270' g.4 MAPLE
f RoposED
•r To INER \ `o
LacAT�oK \ ed
0
1
^moi WELL _ --)f •••1
c:774/1 1. Z---/1
D'
W O style
co •
. /9y ' -
- To vJ ER D i sTA►V CE. FROM
To .RT' LANES
- -Tv CC r _ ,I1- -
E-}E I6+ITl ELEVAT T O N I N FES
0 bo
O o D o
1.1 To WER
40
So OWNER'S HOUSE — LaT I$)6LOCK I ,TRE fiESSE FARM
110
160
Zoo
OIAT B (Rog)) (5W P4RTof TuRNARDUND) Soul'k}FORK
HESSE 1-ARIA CIRCLE
240
L;$
ZYo
O U LOT 5 CR OND) (NE PART OF`TURN ARouND) 5ouZ h FORK
HE 55E FARM CIRCLE
n32t
—m
— 360
-n 4 o
—
44,0
4Yo
540
600
640
69a
L oT Ib $LOCK 13 'ME HESSE FARM
-,• 760
f /60
. Sio O u7 LOT B C RO1)) N ORT}+ 'FORK
m
� gso
�Zp LO? 5, $LOcJI) -ME NESSE FARM
44ELGI T/ELEVATION IPA FEET
o p e'
o p
T6 JI=R Lo r I S, B Loci< ! TOE HESE FARM
qa
7
eo
Lio
I0
2.00
zoo
zv , ►
AEN5E "DECtouot,u1REELINE
tt�� MovERAAELY 1. ENSU EvER6REEN TREE LME
�i0
o � .
PROPERTY LINE
360
m 400
z 440
-n
n Oso
-1
5Z0
56o Lor i% BLOCK I) TI+E 14E55E FARM
boo
640
6� Y
. Z
?Zo LOT 20) BLACKI, THE f-{Es5E FAA'
760
IDU
L1
= it
—{
O
t—
r71
NEICwr/ELLEVATIDN I N FEET
d 'o e6 t o
.4o
6 OWNERS HOUSE- LOT 18)6 ( I I 1 IfE HESSE FARM
t2D
140
200 -- TowER
zao 1
ZOO
Z 320
n
m
360
7 400
-4o0 DENSE DECIDUOUS TREE LINE
-71m ' --144410
4M
546
546
MODERATELY DANSE DEUDUduS TREE LINE'
— — — —— — — — — — —P R A'P E RT y Li t V E — — — — — — — — —
MO
BLU FF CREEK DRIVE
— 72D
Ltir 4) BLOCK I ) IESSE'S BL kc c CREEK
n �
Too
r� o
.:-, :: 2 n I i % ' V\. /Al
e : s as I iel i' •.I
$ 0 3 i•
s I ' \ \ /1cL
r..........)
C I \ : 1 i
s•
`
of �'I.? ��dl I r Iil
$
�-'
Oft /
`\� a % I1*b - i II 1
s i ei, I�. Q
1
a —
f �� / H�/ ` /' I ' ‘--1.P —fP-
i I exi
1\'‘\I
r
4 %1•%\
I
- r 11/
I c i / \�rte\
�..
/I W :ii • ..0 ...iy.M.0
.. r I /►
I Om J —
H
_
i �' O u ` �
iH-
C!) e— _.. _{.— __.4— 7
I
W 4 O US!! I � t
_su
r2
-
• r: \c•' 1. ; —
i
kk \•- •
a J
w
G ��. '•I �\ \ r
h1 d�-'
/
,./..
/' - y I
4.•
_ \.
4/ / ' 7 p
4.
—
.- - • �
. / i ' r
I W r .� I N r \\� —
I `
•
! I11;JI
m — _I / o
- I
aE iauno •t
G
:a;
Pkoo3T
IFROM
-P DPERk I-L S W tT4-k IN 500 OF-
S SITE • L Kl1�G To WAR')
TR6POSED I OWEocAT 1014
_._
_ , •4.
:, -
t• p
,,, .:0' •
.. ...-:. .. it'f..t • :,:.,-,r-•-.' _. . , , .0
.. •• 7
..c. !.'.
+'1- 99.
•..: __ .-. •
l L07 l 9 , ' LoCK I , 1-14E NESSE FARM
FROM S‘1)E yAR-t, e -DR\VEWA\I LOOKI KJG
SE @ SI7E (SEE 51C - T L+K8
_
- .
e: i;r:AT A.1,.• . j ;J
I .s`5•Rre,el• 1:1W- -.' *.....'l'-:.,..-',--..- .
"''.t.411.0...ii'llf''.0.f ''' - '•• --''-.D`14.-.1 !
,,,,,iffie,..- ., ,. .
-•:..ifty:ov0.5----.e. , ,
„0-1,-5?,,,,,47.m::::,:ii*110.-. •,,,,. ,
41•Cf.v,&;, ....ti'l-64,0. ii?;•,
Vi'iv.e4...,. .•-„,l'Altfi•.4 ';;=if • ii .4,.. ....._,:, „.......
.,.,=-,.-•;--4,....'P,Liy,,.,,,.,, ,.), .. .
iZeii t Y;*;1. ,IFI:',..M.•' ,rE 1 .I'fr'
?',1.••.pAr"-"csi:-TP, f.. 4, . ,
1 i
,*--Ppi"••-V--,1 1 *0.,.
r‘...,-14141*, • . -
ir ...,.. ....,,...„__„ ,
f./...z.2„....... ..,......:. „, . . . . ..•, . I
:,..f.; ......,.. .... ...11 (.0‘. I( ' . , . ,
•
.It 4647 •Ikkir.A41111 1 1 r 4tt' .' .4''' . I •
.•';'''.4:11.511116."..%.1 V4 ',•4 •i. •
s.'. ''. . ,... ..
4. . :1'..'7•04 C.I at*:' 0
t-'.4.'•ti• '41:: ;- • - -• ''-1,.. ..--, ' - -
„.
. -;.-stri• • . /4 'A • . -. k>. , -,, , : — N . ‘
.„.,,,,,,.. - .._ ,. .A.,..44',...., .-, '--4 ..,- .:•..,-?.."-...- Nit_,.. ._•••
•',:s i'• `:''.??4,0$ .2ce ,,„:- _-:, !..,-4 1.:,g. -..- ..w,At, L-1-...i.7. ,_ _., --, .-v4.-.,..--, -, -w- . .
5.,.40/1,7 ...k.2k- 7•1-1 z- - 1,„.i..0,11-kk .. ,.• k.,.. ..., 4 kr--,,, . •'11, ----..•-;I:t.,..-- - - r---.
• . ,,.. ..-. -11 r,r4-7;;;-. ;1:.,• I. ii.,-, , ..., 'N : - . .tit,,,-;'; . ' , .s. .'t,, ''s. :1' .V. Ze.14k. ."''' . '-'..
.% !'..P''''.?.:.:T.,,,-. 111 .. ' N.;t .1, ti kl.1' ...‘ ''‘E' 1 4 •71,14? ...,c- - ','.c.• " k•U- •• $•_t- - '... ..
.j. -4.!,$',. ,..,-- . A 4.1...1-% ' .. ., .„N.,,, i ,,:,. . '-.• ;- .,- 0. ... - -.--. • .-. ....,,,,,_..' , _,,,•2-. ;4A-44cs.-,:•:,...,.. - -.-
tl.
• - - - •%; .ki. - ;..-. - 4`..,..,,,,,T-• '.•-.. • .- --' .-5.,,,,-.. -. .......--.'' ' -
• .`'L T . ..i.- 4,.. ; ''.i.',,,- " ;a..,•; •Yl, ; 6 - • :$24,-.„ ....,%-, ..„.,.-... -,... i_-,q.77-,-7,;-.•,..,-• 4,.•
' - .1 ile i•,, h :: r if -.4 •:Irli -...'it_ . ..:•. •'..s.
•^:' • e• 'it. % .• •1; ''.14- .31 .> . , ,. .. -IX, ' 1-e'• - 7' ..N. s"..; ";
i....• '• ,*'.•-• •41,•+-'•-' _ ••',:'• A • ' 2' N. .•1.,----.'..f-:.‘..-V-. .
2 L 01- I (I)) TI:.LOCK 1 1 HE A E5 5 E -FARNI
' R(Dre‘ SIDE YARD - LooKIK16 SSV.) e Si-TE
(SEE S1641 LINE is%)
t•-•"--•_,--•
—
• ------! •,;L:,..k$.7.,.-,.
..,,,.,
• .',-;-4, ...-• -
. _
. .
, ' i.-..:• i.• .-
., .
...i....-
• i .1444,47 .'4,.•..4%. i ,
• .' -• ' • - _
1.'..1.'4'., .,. -.,.:.:f. -1
''•i• ....- -.'- ; •.f:'..r. ..tt-. , -.,.
- _
k .•
....,,...
, .... _
. ..
•• .,,,
. ., . . - 4'
'I .
. . .._..
.
..11*7•' •. .• •
•
s. ..- "-..s.
- ..:.
.7.if!. . •
• 4...• • •••••i. -..io '..
,...-
.- .
...-
....-- _ ,.. - • -7- • 4. ... • • ' -
.5 •-.7..• ,.'..174.7r- . ,s. .. . r- 1 • .,
:-i-•
• . 1 .
. 1
• ...'
"
. • .
.. ..,
.;'. . . .
. •
•-•.. •-; _
• . ...' . .
. .. • ..
• . •
. e ' AIME,
#3 L.oT 5 ) 131-ocK I ,TkiE 1-1E.5 se TARIA
cfot,'\ TZcl..1-t IART.:1- LooKINC, 55V-10 SITE
(SEG SIGI -kT Lit•1E k)
OM*
• ' •
... .... lc. _
• — ..- - ,...`
--
•-.4
.
,
.... . ,
,. .1-§„... • -=
;-. • - .7 : • -,
..• - .
•• •
....., -. • •
— ;Ili., , •
!....!*7 •-• '' '•' -...fr --.-.
• .„...1 . .-4•,-s-,
110 •• II '•• . .
• - • -
._ f _
• •,. - ,
., . .
.- .• ...
_
....- • .
.."*.. :-4,;,‘ • .. • -•-..e. z so••• .
4 -i- - - . •- --
•
._ • r
_ ... .i; 011--
- • • 1 due
. _ -•
LoT 1 )BLOCK 1 ) -T4e. 4-1E55E FARM
.._
' Rot.-.‘ DRkVEINANi , LooKt N() Sour k--I
- :4 .2- -- _ _
,_ • -,r •,-,4 ;- r
...
•.. •,-,r-:- -•- , . ",..„..-';•:41,:f" .•_.,...:•• '.,,,;
,,.. -). ,...., . • -.-'
"1.1.K 7 :. • -,r. ;'',,• .cis„ -= -',,
,.• -A, • ..,. • ,,gr-..---„;44.1,-er., ••.-,• •
- • ,-,,, •.-•:. ••• ..• ..,
, `11P• -k •.'.
. . *:,...4;.
'''' ,• "s" •' A,...--;-,,-
e-, 7.• ,...x. , :. . . .4.,,L
_.,co,..... 10',,,:,44- ...,a,,,......",',..,-.v.. : , • 001,37 . . ..
- ., ---.: /-... ;au•.• 41-Jr- . ._ _ , I,• ,f...• • 4..
' .lb.trit•-•• : j‘•'' . - •!.• . . 6'.. e • ,_-r
r'-'s :di. •el . .t- ••.: . .' - -. • - I •''',", .-. 4• '
-- • .-.e.6%.*-X '-ii : .- .:-• ''. " ! .*t ''.' Ite''.- '
.• . ..'-'4•SS ',.: 'P P...ZVI. ..V•to .14.. .•.' ..i,
:,A:
-. ••'.. . . • 'TV.7.. • • . 'tY 4.• - '1i. ' u- V u-'1# -;
- ....=- It •.0.-.. --. •• ; k,„„, , - .
4,..sr,J.,••••-ipPr - ‘ - • . ..,- 1,
-• •••
• - _ .. ._:. • ..
•
i' ..
.• :_.- 4 14g4,.
.-
• .•.'
-
- -• --
_. : LI P.,. , :, .1!.e.4;..-• 4.-. i.littrIl .,,,••••ti. ... i 4.;...-
1/,'"'ft.'r.<.. "•••‘•”•-•Y:••. , —
.. ••'..- 7 -? '•'..,-Jo... 1_41k"4 . "-) . ' •' S.-', •
' `- • 'I ,i -1,..4..y...:2,. ',
, , , • .„
, • ; ' L ' ,.,. ,
. • - • ,
• •
. .•. • . '' .
.. •" -f 7
' - - •• •
- • •.- _
. '''''.• . -,-.'7 •• • • '
•
-4 -' LS' LOT 3) BLocK I ) --ri- E EEA \
--_,
- LoOKiNC1 500 -k -V-TZ0I-A-ORk\IEW41
•
1001:,14� Z. e�Zj a w• w�t'.3.. - 3•� • • &" 4 /4 o' �' - "'N�e• it •K-f.:-..i.";
o
.'`•r 't!)--,t .�' 7S it,
•c• •-•41-•;•.'••L ►�..s'--•••i."...•.
;,•:L,``. 1 • .r` - fir -.t �a/"t
•
_•g -„ �1y►ll -T. ,.�.qj •T -I. •lT•6-r_ t: l 7:• j :•-•
•
Ze
4....,-'7311 ,...!-4., .
_ �
C _i• '
_ +' Rn \V- .4 '-•4:•;•.4..-.4j '• .: " •`- r11t . • - ; TiltY
-i - ..vs — 4� • . - ' 1..r• -�..
'• �.Is •
M P'`1�ti atria �.
41.r.
#1 LoT 2 ,—6LoCK I , Es5'E�s 13LuFC CREEK
FOM bR\vewkl LooKtNG WEST @ St1E -
�' -3" �r ., • Viak
r l ,Y . .. t ,V -A•• ' + ••y �: -
O. t cif •- Af VP
i `' ' ' t4 v
J +-- * r
A.
, I:,_-_-C. .."r 01'.`f � •isY- . - e `la, A:
Y
t.�
'K :d ` 11 ` �4r 7 � ' , *w,.. ` ,Ir.:. " • f ,� ="tk4 ..210. y ' 1 ' 1.
'
- • V ;, '4, eel ] . _ • ,
rr M
. a'
- _ ..--. � .•- �'
..
•
•
a
' ..
#7 LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , rkE•SSEI5 BLU CREEK -
TROMCRWvEWA LOOK(MC) WEs1 @ Slit.
•
• • AR .. -
• -f �^ 7s'Yi:' + 4.4,"* •J 'anS :: . . .:
.ifi , .
rdy':• / 44i. 7.' ' Pt
t '` -- ):y - 4':
,
.,,.....ey: ,
' • ,.-••h`•
'100*-46:•;c• .. •
- .. • ,•• f..... •., . ..f.' • •"4-'1•„V...7.1 lelt:PitoTviiii' '. --:,
• . • ,'- - :.-1 ...... ' -..„Wit. . itNik • 4.,N-,44. , - -
% •"'• A .6-,
-•1
731,•. • • ''''. • ' '. •..• '. • -;-.'
.. . '•• <--- - • . 5. • s $- -c A t.--ih.„,..'"•,_, •- -
•,, • ••• . .- t- n. ,...• :,. ,,, ,- I.L.0-.La• .... , ' .. t :
-F1 . • .%d•...- 4. ..".ti.o.... 4'''.. - '.-• • . '.
...-•• ' - iik.'. s -:..ts._.‘1. 2' %;'7•••-.----•--• ..4.-4. .
.. .4 -
' • ..
,,,i . -1-- • -,Is • :- '• . i ..
.....e.,,i, -42 4,-. .-..ze..:..',.•_.cf;;,-;,7-'44,...,s . . 7. •-•... - .:(1,.,A" .
_ -,....
--.Z , -Ve.,'S*6 ., . -• ....7 - ......-
- •
•1 . ,, ,;,::. - • - , ..x.,.. :g.•-• ,-
•' • •` ' -''. '-• • - 'etts- -•'-•*-
. • . ,... '•' •'' .--•.Z_ ': --4-11.,,- :' ', L:.%.;---Ii_
. _
- ' '., --..1....-:-•,`-, s ''. --4"les ' ''' -
•,-.. '.•••_4„ •. - - .."-•--? .-.....ii..., .:. ... ....‹.-..; -.- :..,_
• - ..
•- • --,.-, •".. ' - ' ---
.' ••.;-;"N -' ':4! .7 ''',..
...i.
...,:-..... *n'.."...-1,3N. • .„,...11 ,.. ••".V..... - ..,-..-----;-•:%10%. "5:214,• - _
.. ...
..• - -;: 3 .2- • •‘.... " - •"r:"'''''"
-'st•i ' ••• .7.i..'-grlit,,,,-
4.... ;•.. 4 44141 •:_ , ..0 ..f.Avrt. --- -•---,:... _
'-'' .-'•-.- •,_ •„ILNI,J. • -*-,:lit. .- . 4•-,.,,,,-;.•-,- -.;:. ,'
.. '','.• . , i;Lic';. t• - 1-" -•, .... -- •
• .- ,.-.• •
. .
'I-•••:. . - -•• ' .A.,t' ;c • , .:•• 3,-. ,
_ ..,... . .....,..... ._,,,....•,..........-4,,„2 . ..- • ... -•-,.•-,.V......., -
- -...... .i.,....... ......_7• 7.-7,-.0C,•••.--- , :, - • -- -:-."4.--'4-4,-, ..,,,,,-. • •,''.._,A.;.-...," :
'.'.--...'i Iv z):!, it' ,".-p..;1...f.....--Ntw,'-f,,,_t;.A.; -- ,„•:..z.... ,_,•-1..itei.z.,',,,`"? .....-Pi.,. .'•• •..? ••••-•4. _-- .-- -'-: ,:: .
.-..,.......•11._.. ..•:,•-t. ...e.' . :744•:.....-••'-''fil,.`*-:- -,•;i...e-..,;*"*-,....,-_-•4.... .s "‘,." ''',_''. . '
7-tc- -,-2,,,Wkat,".44,0_*'.1V-... -'--... ,...1-': ' . •- - , ;.. 'i •-4"..!..-..,•-_,• <.,'Mdlie•I
3,r
v . , r-•: •::"..•,! • - '
•
-At I 0 Rom IRA\Lk\Epa) TAR.KuNICA Loq, LookiN.G N @ !TE
iv!
•- .'" ,
- .. ,.... ,...- .. _
"' e. . P 11;.-. .:.•••...". ''
•"'• ' ' •• _ ,..; .11"rals
' .11111
46111'"•). • ••
:, ''' '' •
, ,....
••••••Ili--;
'-', i 1. iit,r,, V• . -...* . ,
' I
i..
• I
\. . . .
2‘.' ' - - 11.,.?.:,.1. • - •,•::,..i, " 1, • ' --, - ..
,
.••••
010-A2,14a- -- -,: • : •-'1i.,fe, ,i,°' . ,
.. _
, -
— '
•
' ' "....:.-.`•:•_ .
- - _
• .. • .
... .
- . .
. ,
_ .
44-I I LooKINIG N @ s iTE "zo
1,1, j_rATERsEcTioN OR
\ g
c NV4 R/13Lk.k.cr CREEK 11:k \-1
: . 0 -1T-;.,--1\\4\ \1 /
_ W 5 W x• I I Spy il
I i r a;tt
I
�b)
I -ill
got ss�y bl I I 1Q
ort J t ! '. \ t•a3 i LL
Z / _ _ off
Z.
\ 4 I 1 1 1_ O
\ II..I ...:',. '11.. i; 1
L.------------i ......--....// 11; / I ! . ii.7.
i ! I \ ? .; •:. 1 1 , ,d;,4, \ \
a all
A /
I I I N M •i / y
W
I � � / I , • /1 ry
/ I t j L N
I / I § N
0C) g
t u a
N > r
Cl) Irl 43 E
f J
0
IliAr
I Y I / . I
•
•••- °� 0 ii
~ ..1 • 41 I
' -1 :
N ' I
I w
If a / Isit i
OM= 1 1
G I
w 1
I e',\
•
cc
- ..... r. \\....'..;\ .
r . aun
, \\1w_ s N -
—
.7 \
W t w C en
3 i1!jjIlz " I -- - ....... ------r . • C)
91G 36 /� // 0) W
> V1
,...._,__
PDTO3 TN\K
i \ 1 L\ C_A I /OW KJER LoT
s4ow 1N 1—RE-E LINE 5 C)1••
Ac LL -3 o u N\--D-Alk«S
--.1,-,„1"....-.•, ' ',I,ti•.:: 1.,. ''',.••V... ,1, 1 ' . wy,• ••
• , ,S* Fyf; ' * � °`i • l ��+�it1l� 4.4 �
ifigt
At
•' ■ ^.t+l�a,,�., k�`�,. '�r�I .-r. • r /i - i,l,y 1� I 1 i
c `:�' J= ;i'd�� M1 `i:F • .\�'/a{b1\�Y _R..Z:241.N �� 'is' „.,,,.....„. .i ..„� . 1 , 1
ir
' ,,e14 .
; •
# A KE I -?,_GFER-T`) CoNR
`, .
kI
��;
it'll I'
'—
`� 1If1'
�. 1,
=' pj i.. ,yr p1,1 ,
�� � . v ft i �y y,� E ���+,I is
>'''t ) \R tri' ;� c�! , fr.. 1 t , 'i',,,,
III
•
It
mai. '.', t� � ..,1-
�AI ,.
k •
*13
.rr
Nvi oPERT1 CoRKE R
or
(� : Citi_ ' ' '
, �\��at.t.MI � _ k �. „fir_ 'r6 r' 1 L
i 11
' '-: d te. ik'—41- — - k . . ,,kx..: '..i mt. -..1 ., 1-- r:. .,, —,_
•
404 .� Ii:F• of4a ) '' a; !
li►II llhii11IllhI Ill;iriim n1l II lln1 1n"""
4C CtNTWEsTTRoPERtyLI NI E
- .
Y
-.r 9 "t-.. `Y r � \
:;
\v�Cl� A "4r "Z.i.;,..%.
S ���w� •Q y. `• �f � tel/�� .r4.
•.7wi« ter y
•^ si, 4•!
L
t t 4 , I.
I rtr f It
; 'i A i j
. - li
7111
—
___D Waw pRopE 13duNiD4tzy
; 4 .4.. ' :. _
-„,7„,-.-...,-,....1.....-.... . •,
, _. ,.
...,. . ...
, . ._
_ •_
._
.. ,,_
,......•,...
._,1,;: iv: . _.
. ..„.,...,.......... .,
.... ..•
. .
‘ , ,, ,, f. , .
s t
V. •`
+1 lig
..yp�ii 1. y7hrY Mr
\ .x a eft. •
'�. ;7 ,•*' /'
.1 .Akre . .� , . 1 i `• , . ' -..
SW D?ERRN \CORNE
L
,.... _ ...
. , _ . .. . _ . . . . .
_
L . .. .
a ,
L .. .
,, ‘....,_.
. „..
..:.!. .-.Z.
.. .. . . ..
L ,
i .
,..
. .,..,.. :•,_,
•, . •
_ . ., ..,.„,c, ,...:. . . , :• .
,
- - :---,....., _ _ „.,•......,_—.....„....„.„ ,..„ ...._, 111..-- -:"rb.- '•--...'--.7.-:-",,- ------7.'.••-.•-•--_,-...... .-
-•1 "--4...,„.„.„4--- y,,,,,,,---'- ..•-----C.-'...,.-5 ‘-lirap i'K-..1-.• -7.-- - ""le-f±.-••*-t . . ''''',.C;:.V.-1.'',55iO4,.:-..74-%
-. ..- • • ....•441,-.flar•-• ••F-Ar••..i.i..•al••••...---- -. 1170, r----- ‘-- ., . -I:-r.. -. .4.-• -`,.:.--'.- - -45.•`...,4. ,---.. ,---• ,_ ---
OiteVk-.i,
.• .,..•*.-"..• : . -• •-'-- •,- . -:.. 14.v -•;;.-%.'•••rtzt,f ..... i.„A. .t--,-.-i‘, - ..
44-9F,',;t•,. •••• : .-..'!`" :1.'3.:••••••7.•lir .-..--. . • .- •• . z-• ' ... t...1,.......$1. ',.t.L,..Ls'l•-•. r...- ,
, . .,......d-L.L 1....•- ,..7 .1.,t,"*. .........4.- -.1'' '..' C •.. 1. N
,. -••=•"-- . •Z.4,i't-r-.. ".--
_.... '‘''T'l'i:-.,;$.:11, ,. ..--.r, S.:-.i,z..Y.k.t ..-....."-,':.._- :....v.", -- •
• ' 1
.-.1 ' • '.-1\ft , •-`NA :' 'p3' ..-•-417.-.kr':.• ••-•• -1/4*--:N.' 4t.a,., . -41F ;;Ii.t._.. ..1%-a;•... .t4.•-•'.'' • ---. -•'•---'''
. .4.'..;,;!."-••..\•. - ...4..,:-......., 1,%r•I,Wr ,•,.,r,t.,..%, . -;. 1•,-, . .,,• 4 :'., ,i':',1.1... ..7F,..!.....,•-••.1 ••1..... _ . _ ..-.- .
...„•`10";:.:-V.4,t'. . ::,..,4.„.. i,-..,-J.T., .-....N-wr,,.--', ' " -.7.A.,:. :',••-.•.,..4•7..11r, -.: -'.§....7.• ':.'' '-r•-`1!:7-1.:-. • ,•
- ,.-.,•rt,,2-' t.:, - ..•%-s.,14-5;,..,. %v.. 1,:.„...-i, 't:i •-Ai:- f,::..,-.1.i-,- :, .-.:..,..,;.,, ..„..,, :74...t..N.,. -.— .
.4„.f.-„,... . ,_.. 4.,...„,.......-...„... ...„..., .i. . ••.. ..._. , .. ra. .. -- -
ti4liiir
Sou-1-44 TRoPERT"I LINE @ RojenAERN---k OS i
TTZEE LI NE C., 6E 57E-PLAN )
• _ ,
,--...._.,.,
,,-
,-:-
•,.....'..,,,t;',./4 - #, Vt'
A
... _
.,.........,•
, ..4•-:'igyar 1 •
,„,if,AP:41,•,_/.. ,Ar -
ler,
.--.:it
,..,..,!;...„„,.___,7".....,... ....4?-
%i,?r,#44,4,1102,14,4e. '
tg',e.:,,,_-„., Av7_0imi,,t,i ,- 1 •
-•fi 1,11k:ii,Jrir '44140.4Te,of, - • i
P.'..r 4:":43-vipi ,. ,el'ir-,„; ‘, ' _•/10'1 ' .
If
00.
L 1,
•0,,,z x„,e,-A.,;;:;7,301- ..„,rglf. , ,../ ,,,,,, , -: \ ti.;i..,....
r...11
..,,,.Z..t• t ,
. .' •.V.;.A-:::.I.-: 4'....,t.11#1,,,‘!' l'i,i 1" ., . .l.)
..i. . 1N3a.
__-____
. . ,
. , . , • ., ,-...s 1:.4.../....,y:
• ..-4°M.:!,1 ,
'. 1 ; •.M.•- -rl. 1.-."'-'v.,', .. ,
_
, .
. . . . , •- .
•.
• • •
_4: '''
/ .• • • • -,,,,„.. :
' • '
,• .
. •'11-4,• •'' - ."..
. • , .
• •' • •• '• .
,•, . ,-- ,,„
• .
---- .‘,..... •-• - . r
• ,-
...
. •( . .- 1,' 1 ./.. ,.
,,
G SE TROPE171 _oRt,IET 0e) tiRS"T INoRMER\I-Mos7
'TREE LINE (sEE sk-re
--`,Air»040‘ i f'j ,
V
1
y Ar
:��.
. 1,i P'y,w �;;� gyp".. 4R' de
,l,1. ;.; _
g is $ !�
is ill ►� f `
,+ it r �' `, 1;/ ,, . r- ' .z
It �- si,j•�� 1 r
1 p.
.\ IJP Apti-
,
I. \ '4.I• P:• 4
4 s. . 1,. . is > s,, - —
- 9
�... .- -
it 14 E 5 E PRo'PEkri-1 "CoRUER"@ NOwrttERN-MosT' TREE- Li NE —
(SEE SITE 17LA4N )
s 1' i• 4
' I fr.'ii,:ig' "'lye - ... A '
1.7_14%, ; i k Nellitif-11616.*Iiiii II/,r ) ' / 111
—fir. _ ! + '.'f .'.
1, C. -- r \ `� �.'r l `
..?.....••••-•'--'5-;---,-...t.:1,"„Asp, • -. . • , ' 44, -cA17---, I?f , i 1,-,ip. - ( /: ' '--.
•
T. i !/Jj , / t
,:te •:
.,- l':ill, r. .. ........... • Mit !!{fit tef$�ftF+ ! 114 L ` t —
t� l 1 II '�I``I (IIII I.II;I:I a'
4.
WEST EDGE OF CENTER–GAST TREE LIRE
Z
1!)-41, - .
ff
liti
110•
I
.Ik.I yi ,�� Y a
d
(*vs,
�
12 r-
!!__ 14Wf) ya�
�,
ObIV 0�os(§ ' irl
10. 041
0,v,
I� 's!
is 16- CC
1/1
.1111
141 .... .
-. ;I 2
mob,
_ 11 `-/0y E m
zigli
Fi
'Mil .''::.''..‘T:'!:'i..f,...7q10.
IS . 6) •. 441
LIrilil
(j3�
PL.i /bre fib) 0 top E.
1_01
' •`j0 • 11)‹<9 Is E
v co
1►- .S
. i�11 .' -. Cl) t
•
. fl ri
41110• Skilti$
411161111oO o E
. Ik.11 i s
L
liCs_t-.7 g .i 7'.;. i
. ., e-z-i:t,....:... ....Tr,
, . 1...„--:-..:--._-_:.,!-.)!,..i.:.7.:::.1 r
T
ate, ._.. . '1UAoS�� OWER
�, ,yr r;;�4 j 1 �DtAUR�IM /WW1) I�D�D/DIMENSIDNS
CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC.
CARVER TY
(612)448-5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448-5155 ABSTRACT&TILE
P.O.Box 106
Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E. Moonen 1
June 19, 1996 —
Kate Garwood —
2200 Tamarack Dry
Long Lake, MN 55356
According to the 1996 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the
following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County,
Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet to the following described property:
Lot 18, Block 1, The Hesse Farm
1. Anne E. Karels 7. Jeffrey M. Good & Lynda M. Poulin
1161 Bluff Creek Dr. 1231 Bluff Creek Dr
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
2. Diane Gilbertson 8. Eugene W & Mirian M Junker —
1190 Bluff Creek Dr 1250 Hesse Farm Rd
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
3. Harold F. Hesse 9. Roger & Vikki Broun
1425 Bluff Creek Dr 1200 Hesse Farm Rd
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
4. Edward & Dorina Tipton 10. Bruce B Rech —
1291 Bluff Creek Dr 1180 Hesse Farm Rd
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
5. Mary Waritz 11. Todd J Rogers & Dawn M Drilling
1271 Bluff Creek Dr 1101 Hesse Farm Rd _
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
6. Dennis L & Linda M Smith 12. Peter J Taunton —
1251 Bluff Creek Dr 316 19th Ave SE
Chaska, MN 55318 Willmar, MN 56201
13. L Richard & Karen C Dee
1202 Hesse Farm Cir
Chaska, MN 55318
14. Edward T Mueller
1251 Hesse Farm Cir
Chaska, MN 55318
15. Keith W & Stacy A Carlson
1301 Hesse Farm Rd
Chaska, MN 55318
16. Hesse Farm Homeowners Assn
1425 Bluff Creek Dr
Chaska, MN 55318
17. Mary Ann Elmgren
1221 Bluff Creek Dr
Chaska, MN 55318
18. Nicholas & Mary Waritz
1271 Bluff Creek Dr
Chaska, MN 55318
Ca'rver County Abstract & Title Co. , Inc.
This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report.
PC DATE: 8/7/96
C I TY 0 F CC DATE: 8/12/96
CASE #: 90-1 IUP
,
C11.11.111111SSEN C Al-Jaff, Hempel,
1Elkin
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for a grading project to construct
a play area and parking lot at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
LOCATION: West of Hwy. 41, east of Lake Minnewashta, north of Tanadoona Drive and south
-- of Herman Field Park-Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
.� APPLICANT: Carver County, Department of Public Works-Parks Division
7.71 County Government Center,Administration Building
600 East 4th Street
Chaska, MN 55318-2192
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District
ACREAGE: Approximately 350 acres
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
S - RR; single family
E-Hwy.41 and RR;
Q W-Lake Minnewashta
--� . WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site.
0
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is riparian to Lake Minnewashta and contains wooded areas
and open space.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Park
rn re) r) in m m e;1 ci co .1:-.. o i. o i5 c`- o o
:), k.J LA
tro
NV N .4
1111nne1
washta
:eights Par N N N N
1
I tNri N
I N
1 —
City of Shorewood
-..-- Mtn L.,... .......-..,...27
mg 12.0 nmiLtiNimprel ter, maigif Air._ '' .=-4.cesta.z
Pir;,„„triv.••reinp....,,,N-6 t----ilik. rirmAto,-,... .iii.inglows Ilit-i jog iy.0,4,..„, ,-----7--, ...,--;-,_i4----k --4--
!..„. ._, ,,,.. ,, •-.
*A" 1 - Al,' AligliklimuSellil %, ARM illiNE .4
mn as M.iii.„, ilill 1 i t.. _Auld. • um 4
- .r.
I )111
MI* writYiIWeldOPark
*loan 11111. _-i
NW III Iffili _
0 fp
e OPAIrPrt
, I saaltins
,
Mew.
, ‘
im,'AN ;--
_
4 ......_.:
4 ..v.....A47 c?...t,_
Tc....r.: ,
ItTim
,
Lake
Lake , Ao.vm
, 0 Minnewaishta #,VINUIll
14,.... —
k . _ucy t•
,
1 newashta Regional ,
51
) f Lake ...../
, Park-
v
"1- arrison cli
(County Park) - - - -- 6 _ _ _ „., ____,.E; .. ..
a, cz
/1
_
1401/1 L A
. ,„,3wit Nw V 'Woo
Ale' V' .• 1+
.7---------,
IIIR 0 iibi. d _
eitipiro iiti
111111, en
,,!. ' .1bk Rellj, PityPill IVES/Alt
4:-----Z- NI4
+or •0.„
„ 7,• t
1r io. frulq't 1,17%,'Park 1111111111111
kr-vo z „ 4.71_, own
.4 -,...i-..;-,,
.y, 4 r ilf ifj,111111 t-wW" alrill.Mi •
,
,
.... nime„, • Aiik._.*
41041.11111 7..'
Mem 1:e.i---------„ • ams.-.-IRK, air WWI: :
, IP-No am amm =
, P IT111111.--
\---\_
Minnesota tip
5 Landis cape ,
'
Air
Arboretum
_
::.
, . .
r
oe ,
Am."'g .
Park _
,...../ Bluff/ Cred
, Eleni School
Park
t --.....N Coulter 1311„,...
. e
_
NI /
= -damps Arboretum --- __ c.,
eil ilk —
w 82nd St. El I .-- ' /
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 1977, the City of Chanhassen approved a conditional use permit for Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park(Attachment#1). Section 401 of the Conditional Use Permit
Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Carver County states that detailed development
plans within the proposed park shall be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to
approval by the County.
The proposed grading is the second phase of the approved Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
development master plan and the existing conditional use permit issued by the city. Therefore,no
amendment to the conditional use permit is required. This project will provide active play areas
including a new area and parking lots for field games and a future shelter area as approved in the
conditional use permit park master plan.
On May 14, 1990, the City Council adopted an ordinance regarding interim use permits. The
purpose of the ordinance is to require any excavation or grading of 1,000 cubic yards of material or
more to obtain an interim use permit. An interim use permit requires the applicant to finish all
grading and excavation in a 12 month period or else an interim use permit must be renewed on an
annual basis.
The proposed grading will result in excavating 90,526 cubic yards and embanking 86,689 cubic
yards of material. All excavated material is proposed to remain on site. The grading plans illustrate
that the majority of the slopes to be created are flatter than 3:1. The grading area has limited
numbers of mature trees. Erosion control measures are proposed on the plans in the form of silt
fences and straw bales, depending on the degree of the slopes. Wetlands exist to the west of the
proposed area to be graded. Silt fences are proposed to be installed around the entire area to be
graded to protect the wetlands from any erosion that might enter the wetlands. The wetlands will
not be impacted by this work with the exception of a small area which is proposed to be replaced.
NURP ponds will be constructed to pretreat runoff prior to discharge into the wetlands. The
applicant has taken all measures to stay within the guidelines of the approved master plan of the
conditional use permit for the Minnewashta Regional Park. The applicant has also met all of the
requirements for the interim use permit and has stayed within the guidelines of the ordinance.
The project is being carried out by Carver County. It is benefiting the City of Chanhassen as it is
enhancing a park area in the City. Carver County is running short on funds to complete this project
and has asked that the City waive the application and grading fees. Staff feels that this project
benefits the community and that Carver County is a governmental agency,therefore, staff supports
the waiver of the fee.
Staff recommends approval of Interim Use Permit#90-1 for Minnewashta Regional Park for a play
area grading project.
4
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996 —
Page 3
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING —
ORDINANCE
Section 7 of the City Code provides a series of standards which an interim use permit must be in —
compliance with.
Section 7-40 - Fees —
The ordinance allows the City to determine the fee schedule for each permit and that each
permit must be annually reviewed by the City Engineer. Section 7-41 provides for an —
irrevocable letter of credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions of
approval.
Finding
Carver County Park Department is the responsible agency for this project. Previously, the
interim use permit fees and security requirements for phase one were waved by the city.
The work was satisfactorily completed. In the spirit of cooperation with the county, we —
recommend all fees and security be waived.
Section 7-42 - Setbacks
The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing street rights-of-way and 300
feet from adjoining property lines be required for mining activities. —
Finding
This condition does not apply. It was intended for mining operations only. The work will
be contained in the center of the park over 100 feet from any street right-of-way.
Section 7-43 - Fencing
The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to steep grades or where —
on-site ponding exists if the Council determines that a safety hazard exists.
Finding —
Staff does not believe fencing will be necessary.
Section 7-44- Appearance and Screening
The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining operations be
minimized and that where necessary, screening be provided.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 4
Finding
This earth work process will be creating a play area,parking, and drive aisles. Therefore,
the visual impact of the grading will be no different than subdivisions or site plans which
require no screening.
Section 7-45- Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water, Pollution, Top Soil
Preservation
A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site shall be within
limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA.
Finding
Staff does not feel that the earthwork on the site will be excessive beyond the activities
being experienced in the area with development of residential sites in Chanhassen. To
ensure that the noise levels do not become excessive, a condition is being provided that
noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA limits. If noise testing is required by the city, the
cost shall be paid by the applicant.
B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, and prohibited on national holidays.
Finding
The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and no work on national holidays or Sundays as
typically mandated in development contracts.
C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent
property from equipment operation.
Finding
Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on adjacent property. The
surrounding properties are contained within the park.
D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the protection of water
quality.
Finding
The applicant is providing erosion control surrounding the site to retain any runoff from
the site. There are two wetlands on the site. Grading shall.be prohibited within 10 feet of
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996 —
Page 5
all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well.
Interim sediment basins and permanent NURP basins are also being required by staff.
E. Operators shall comply with all regulations for the protection of wetlands. —
Finding
Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands except for the area being
mitigated, as shown on the grading plan. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside
the 10-foot buffer as well. Storm water runoff will be pretreated in the NURP basins —
prior to discharging into the wetlands.
F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed District where the
property is located.
Finding
The site is located in the Minnehaha Creak Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD
has transferred the permit process back over to the local governmental unit (LGU) which
is Chanhassen. Therefore Watershed District approval is not required.
G. All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has
taken place according to the restoration plan.
Finding
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as —
the excavation is completed. The temporary topsoil stockpile area shall be designated on
the grading plan.
H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and
fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it
impossible to prevent dust from migrating off-site, mining operations shall cease. —
Finding
Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with the site's location. In
addition,precautions prescribed in the conditions of approval will require providing water
trucks for dust control and street sweepers as necessary. —
I. To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt onto public streets,
internal private roads to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete
for a distance of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway. Alternate means
of controlling this problem may be accepted by the city.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 6
Finding
All materials will remain on site. The applicant is required to construct and maintain
gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. The applicant is also required
to provide street clean-up on a daily basis or as needed.
J. All haul routes to and from the site shall be approved by the City and shall only use
streets that can safely accommodate the traffic.
Finding
All earthwork materials moved will remain on site.
Section 7-46- Restoration Standards
The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site restoration. These are reviewed
below.
A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Finding
The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as park and the applicant's proposal to grade
the site is in conformance with the intended use of it being a play area, parking, and drive
isles. Therefore, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after
extraction operation has moved.
Finding
Site restoration will be required to be completed within two weeks after the site grading
has been completed.
C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plans submitted
with the permit application.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996 —
Page 7
Finding —
Staff is recommending that an as-built grading plan be provided at the completion of the
project so that staff can confirm the slopes were graded, pond construction, and that the —
site is restored in accordance to the approved plan.
D. Slopes, graded areas, and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to —
secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until
it is self-sustaining.
Finding
The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be respread after excavation of the clay —
material. The topsoil will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization of the
area. Erosion control blanket may be required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper if seeding does
not hold.
E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the
site.
Finding —
Other than sediment and NURP ponds shown on the plans, there will be no water areas
resulting from the excavation of the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable. —
F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or
agricultural shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for —
connection to sanitary or storm sewer.
Finding —
Not applicable. Sanitary or storm sewer connection is not required for this project.
G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland
restoration or other features.
Finding
The excavated areas will be spread with the topsoil, seeded and mulched within two
weeks after site grading is completed.
A
i -
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 8
INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS
Earth work operations will be allowed as an interim use permit. The ordinance provides that
interim use permits are reviewed under the general issuance standards established for conditional
use permits, Section 20-232 of the ordinance. The following constitutes a compilation of the
general issuance standards and staffs findings for each.
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
_ * The proposed excavation is a temporary operation. The grading of approximately
90,000 cubic yards will provide topography on the site which will be compatible
with proposed park uses and therefore it will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter.
* The excavation will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for park activities
which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
* The proposed excavation will be maintaining the site, compatible appearance with
existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The slopes will be leveled
in some areas to provide for field games but will not be changing the essential
character of the area. The land will be restored to a natural state once excavation
is completed and will remain as such.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
* There are no existing or planned neighboring uses in the immediate vicinity,
therefore this condition does not apply.
_ 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996 —
Page 9
* The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and —
services. The finished elevation will allow the site to be accessible to the public
and emergency vehicles if needed.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
* The activity will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
—
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
* The proposed earthwork could result in additional traffic, however, it is temporary
in nature since construction equipment will only be on the site for the duration of
the earthwork activity. _
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. _
* The applicant may need to obtain an access permit from Minnesota Department of
Transportation if the existing park access is not utilized. This will provide for _
traffic control for vehicles entering and leaving the site.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or —
historic features of major significance.
* The proposal will not result in any significant impact to natural or historic —
features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. —
* The area proposed for grading, once completed, will still be aesthetically
compatible with the surroundings. —
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. —
* The proposed use will not have an impact on surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
a
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 10
* The proposed excavation application is meeting the standards prescribed for the
district.
Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize potential impacts. With the
conditions proposed, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council
approve the project with appropriate conditions.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The proposed grading will prepare the site for a play area,parking lots, and drive aisles. The
drive aisles will be constructed in accordance with rural standards; 24-foot wide gravel surface
with drainage ditches to convey runoff to treatment basins. Drainage culverts will be placed to
maintain stormwater runoff underneath driveways and drive aisles to the wetlands. Some of the
_ culverts terminate midway up the slope. This will cause serious erosion problems over time.
The culverts need to be extended to outlet at the base of the slopes or at the normal water level in
the ponds. In addition, the culverts need to be designed to discharge at a rate of 3 cfs or less.
This may require adding manholes or drop structures to reduce grades of the pipe. Detailed
storm drainage calculations showing pre- and post-drainage conditions for a 10 and 100-year
storm event (24-hour duration) will need to be submitted to City for review and approval to
confirm pipe and pond sizing. In addition, calculations should be submitted for the NURP basin.
This basin shall be designed in accordance with the Walker model. Side slopes of all ponding
basins shall be designed with 4:1 slopes overall or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench at the normal water
level for the first 1 foot depth of water.
West of parking area No. 1, two drainage ditches are proposed to convey stormwater runoff to a
culvert approximately midway through parking area No. 1 which discharges into the wetland.
Prior to the culvert crossing, a sediment basin should be constructed to pretreat this runoff before
discharging into the wetland. Since the contributing drainage area appears relatively small, staff
believes that water treatment can be achieved through a sediment basin versus a NURP pond.
The plans propose two drainage swales side by side west of parking area No. 1. Staff suggests
combining these two drainage swales into one. This would improve grades on the slopes of the
swale as well as reduce maintenance needs.
WETLANDS
There are two jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Wetland Basin C is a DNR protected,natural wooded
wetland located to the west of the proposed development. The City's Surface Water Management
Plan recorded this wetland as approximately 11.4 acres. This wetland will not be directly impacted
as a result of development,however,the grading plan proposes to build a road closer to this
wetland. This grading will involve removing trees and increasing the slope to the wetland.
However, the plans have also proposed a NURP treatment pond,before exiting into the wetland.
A
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 11
Wetland basin A and wetland basin B are smaller ag/urban wetlands located at the east edge of the —
project,bordering park roads. Originally wetland B was connected to wetland A,but they were
divided with the construction of the roadway. These wetlands are currently connected with an 18"
inch culvert that drains wetland A to wetland B. The delineation report has determined that —
wetland basin B has been effectively drained through draintiles and previous grading activities.
Part of wetland A(0.05 acres)will be filled as a result of the re-grading activities. The applicant
has indicated to City staff that wetland restoration of basin A will be used as the 2:1 mitigation.
This mitigation would be accomplished by raising the culvert between wetland A and B. This
would cause the ordinary water level in wetland A to rise from an elevation of 977.54 to 980.40.
The increased water level will expand the wetland boundary by 1.52 acres.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT (SECTION 20-407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit,the following principals shall be adhered to:
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish
the wetland. —
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands through redesign of elements of the
development.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity _
and its implementation.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or —
minimize impacts to wetlands through revisions made to the plan to move
structures and roadways away from wetlands.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed.
Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to —
entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area
by creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the
enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands, the city
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use&Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 12
is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural
environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater
prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities
within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. This
wetland has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The
proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area. Water quality
ponding will be provided to filter storm water.
City staff recommends approval of this Wetland Alteration Permit application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The City Council recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #90-1 and Wetland Alteration
Permit as shown on the plans for a grading project for a play area for Minnewashta Regional Park
and subject to the following conditions:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
2. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section
404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all
phases of the project.
3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with
their conditions of approval. -
5. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996 —
Page 13
INTERIM USE PERMIT
1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the DNR, Army —
Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT.
2. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-
built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the state of
Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has been
performed in compliance with the proposed plan.
3. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which
will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed.
Topsoil and disc-mulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the _
completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook
dictates otherwise.
4. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA
regulations. If the City determines that there is a problem, such tests shall be paid for by
the applicant. —
5. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no work on national holidays or Sundays.
6. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
grading operation. —
7. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City to guarantee compliance
with the Conditions of Approval. All grading work shall be completed by November 15, —
1996.
S. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading —
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
9. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site
grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of
all existing draintile systems. - —
10. Erosion control fence adjacent to wetlands shall be the City's Type III version. Rockfilter
dikes shall be installed and maintained in the drainage swa'les until the site is revegetated. —
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Interim Use& Wetland Alteration Permit
August 7, 1996
Page 14
11. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be
installed outside the 10-foot buffer except as indicated on the grading plans.
12. The Interim Use Permit shall be waived.
13. The grading should be revised as follows:
a. All stormwater treatment basins shall be constructed with 4:1 side slopes or 3:1
with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level for the first one foot depth of water.
b. The drainage culverts which are proposed to end at midslope need to be extended
to discharge at the base of all slopes or at the normal water level in the ponding
basins.
c. Combine proposed drainage swales west of Parking Area No. 1 into one drainage
swale.
d. Add a sediment basin west of Parking Area No. 1, upstream of the culvert
crossing the drive aisle at approximately midpoint of Parking Area No. 1.
e. Detailed drainage ponding calculations for a 10 and 100-year storm event(24-
-
hour duration) shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval to confirm
pond and culvert sizing."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of the conditional use permit.
2. Letter and application.
3. Reduced site plan for proposed area to be graded.
4.4
�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the City
of Chanhassen , hereinafter referred to as the City , and the Board
of Commissioners of Carver County , hereinafter referred to as the
County;
WITNESSETH, that in the exercise of their powers pursuant to
law, and in consideration of the mutual convenants herein con-
tained, the City and County recite and agree as follows :
Section 1 . Recitals .
1. 01 . State Law and City Zoning Ordinance . It is
acknowledged by the parties hereto that under the provisions of
M.S. §398 . 32 , no county parklands or waters may be acquired
within the limits of any city without the approval by resolution
of the governing body of any such city; and it is further —
acknowledged that under the provisions of the City zoning ordi-
nance, parks and recreational areas owned and operated by govern-
mental units may be allowed within residential zoning districts
only upon the securing of a conditional use permit from the City.
1. 02 . County Park Proposal . The County proposes the
acquisition and development of a regional park to be located on
the northeast shore of Lake Minnewashta , designating said park as
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (hereinafter referred to as the •
"park") , and has made application to the City for approval of
said acquisition and development and the issuance of a con-
ditional use permit .
1 . 03 . Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Master Plan . Except
as hereinafter modified or otherwise provided , the Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park Master Plan - 1982 Updated - as
approved by the County Board of Commissioners on April 13 , 1982 —
forms the basis of this conditional use permit for said County
Regional Park . Said Master Plan and approving County motion are
attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively and incor-
porated herein by reference .
1 . 04 . General Purpose . The purpose of this agreement is
to setforth the terms and conditions governing the approval by
the City of the parkland acquisition and the grant of the within
conditional use permit which are conditions precedent to land
acquisition by the County for the park.
Section 2 . Park Areas C and D .
2. 01 . Master Plan . Whereas the Cit'! , ' and the
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities have determinea tnat
removal of areas C and D from the Master Plan, of the Lake
Minnewashta Region- . Park , hereinafter referr' 1 to as the "Master
Plan " , will not ad,_,rsely affect the purpose function of the
park , and whereas the City and the Metropolitan Council of the
Twin Cities have approved a change to the adopted Land Use Plan
from "Parks/Open Space" to "Residential-Low Density" , the parties
hereto acknowledge that land ar=u Parcels C and D are removed
from the boundaries of the park as defined in Exhibit "A" .
Section 3 . Schematic Plan .
3. 01 . Design Capacities . The design capacities as set-
forth on page 26 , table 6 of the Master Plan , and the Lake
Minnewashta Park Use Calculations of the Subcommittee for Master
Planning of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park , dated May 28 ,
1975 , shall constitute the maximum development allowable in said
proposed park.
Section 4 . Development Plans .
4. 01 . Review and Approval . Detailed development plans
within the proposed park shall be submitted to the City for review
and comment prior to approval by the County. It is not con-
- templated that the City shall have approval authority over the
detailed development plans so long as they are consistent in
scope and capacities with the Master Plan , except for appropriate
= development standards which may be applied to development
generally within the City. Any development plans not consistent
in scope and capacities with the Master Plan shall require an
amended conditional use permit .
4 . 02 . Development Schedule . The County does not propose
any significant development of the park until funds are available
through the grant program of the Metropolitan Council . Between
1978 and 1982 , the development activities at the park are pro-
posed to consist essentially of establishing a land stewardship
program, development of a primitive lake public access facility ,
and use of the existing buildings as either a nature center or
museum and park employee residence .
4 . 03 . Land Stewardship Program . The land stewardship
program will consist principally of gradually phasing from culti-
vated land to turf establishment on Parcel E, establishing a tree
nursery , beginning prairie establishment on a portion of Parcel
B, providing necessary access control in terms of gate and
fencing , controlling noxious weeds , and to the extent feasible ,
controlling Dutch elm and oak wilt disesase .
Section 5 . Advisory Committee .
5 . 01 . Advisory Committee . The park is intended to fill
the regional recreation needs of the Chaska, Chanhassen , and
Victoria area in Carver County (as described in Section 4, Local
and Regional Recreation Needs Analyses of the Master Plan ) . In
order to provide a means of continuing review during the develop-
ment and operating phases , Carver County shall establish an
= Advisory Committee consisting of two representatives from
Chanhassen , one from Chaska , one from Victoria , and one from the
-2-
County Park Commission . The City representation will be
appointed by the respective City Councils on an annual basis .
The Advisory Committee shall review the County ' s development plan
and make recommendations to the Carver County Park Commission in
regard to such plan . The Advisory Committee shall also moc,iccr
park operations in a general way, and shall make recommendations
to the County Park Commission in regard to improvements in
operating policies . The Advisory Committee members shall also
keep the City Councils of their respective cities informed of
their general activities . They shall also serve as the conduit
of concerns from their respective City Councils to the County .
Section 6. Governing Ordinance , Policing , Fire Protection and
Access .
6. 01 . County Park Ordinance. The Park Ordinance of the
County shall regulate the use of the park. The City and the
Advisory Committee shall recommend any appropriate amendments to
the County Park Ordinance or regulatory County Board Resolutions
as the same may be applicable to the park. In addition , all
County proposed park ordinance amendments or regulatory resolu-
tions shall be reviewed by the Advisory Committee for its recom-
mendations and comments prior to enactment .
6 . 02 . Policing . Policing of the park shall be the
responsibility of the County through its Sheriff ' s Department at
no cost to the City . Any supplementary police services furnished
by any future City police department shall be performed only
under the terms and conditions of a mutual aid agreement the City -
and the County .
6 . 03 . Fire Protection and Emergency Services . Fire pro-
tection and emergency rescue services necessitated by land-
oriented incidents shall be provided by the Fire Department of
the City. Emergency rescue services necessitated by water-
oriented incidents shall be provided by County lifeguards or the
County Sheriff ' s Water Patrol .
6 . 04 . Lake Access . A watercraft access to Lake
Minnewashta through the Park has been provided in the area so
designated as boat access on the Detailed Development Plan of the
1982 Park Master Plan Update. Said access is to be limited for
launch of watercraft of ten (10 ) horsepower or less and have a
capacity of 10 car/trailer spaces . An additional access without
horsepower restrictions having a capacity for 25 car/trailer
spaces shall be developed and located in accordance with the plan
titled "Lake Minnewashta Park 2nd Access" marked Official Copy.
Section 7 . Roads , Water and Sanitary Sewer Services . -
7 . 01 . Roads . All roads and trails within the park shall
be constructed and maintained , including snow plowing , by the -
County .
-3-
7. 02 . Water and Sanitary Sewer Services . The County
shall provide water and sanitary sewer systems through on-site
facilities approved by the Minnesota State Board of Health and
such other state regulatory agencies having regulatory power
thereof . When available , said water and sanitary sewer services
shall be connected to the City facilities at the expense of the
County. All connection charges , Metropolitan Waste Control
Comission sewer availability charges (SAC charges ) , and sewer and
water usage charges shall be paid by the County to the City at
the reasonable and customary then prevailing City rates for com-
- parable uses . Except for trunk water and sewer assessments
payable as provided in §8 . 01 hereof, sewer and water charges will
not be based on a price structure which assumes a 211 dwelling
- unit development , but rather will be based on a comparison of
volumes generated by similar residential , commercial or institu-
tional uses .
7. 03 . Water and Sanitary Sewer Easements . The County
shall provide, consistent with applicable Metropolitan Council
policies and the grant contract for acquisition of the Lake
- Minnewashta Regional Park between the County and Metropolitan
County, at no cost to the City , such linear water and sewer ease-
ments as the City may deem necessary to provide water and sani-
tary sewer services to the park and contiguous areas . Said
easement alignments shall not be so located as to materially
affect the character of the park.
Section 8 . Assessments , Taxes and Costs .
8. 01 . Outstanding Assessments . By resolution adopted
- October 20 , 1975 , the City levied a total of 211 trunk water and
sewer unit assessments against the properties to be acquired for
the park . It is a condition to the grant of the within con-
_ ditional use permit that all of said assessments to be paid in
full by the County immediately upon its acquisition of said prop-
erties . Included within said payment shall be accrued interest
computed pursuant to M. S . §429 . 061 .
8 . 02 . Tax Equivalents . In the event the Metropolitan
Council of the Twin Cities fails or declines to pay to the City
- tax equivalents under M.S . §473 . 341 , it is agreed that said tax
equivalents shall be paid by the County to the City upon demand.
8. 03 . City Costs . The County agrees to reimburse the
City promptly upon invoicing therefor, all resonable and custo-
mary costs incurred by the City since the enception of the park
L concept through the conditional use permit . Eligible costs shall
consist of publication and notification expenses , attorney fees ,
engineering fees , costs in connection with the November 2, 1977
public hearing , and any other reasonable outside direct costs to
the City.
Section 9 . General Provisions .
9. 01 . Inde:r:,if ica ti _n . The County shall indemnify and
hold the City harmless from liability on account of injury or
-4-
•
damages to person or property arising out of the operation of the -
park facilities . In the event legal action is brought against
the City, either solely or jointly with the County, on account of
any such injury or damage, the County, on notice to it by the
City , defend the City in any such action at the expense of
the County. In the event of judgement against the City in any
such action , the County shall pay such judgement and all costs in
connection therewith, and hold the City harmless therefrom. •The -
County does not agree to indemnify, hold harmless , or defend any
action or pay any judgement arising from acts of officials,
employees or agents of the city while in the park. -
9. 02 . Non-Assignment . Neither the within conditional use
permit nor the park contemplated hereunder shall be assigned or _
conveyed by the County without the prior written consent of the
City.
9.03 . Standards Applicable . The City Council and its -
Planning Commission have determined that in the grant of the
within conditional use permit , the standards of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance have been met. -
9 . 04 . • Execution. Each party warrants and affirms that
the within agreement was duly authorized by its respective
governing body and executed by its duly authorized officers pur-
suant to resolution duly adopted, and each party shall file with
the other party a certified copy of the resolution approving the
execution of the within agreement . -
Executed this day of 691,,64-CA) , 1984, by the City
of Chanhassen . -
ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN
/(-1lj �%0_„ _ l By ? ?2 tL
City Clerk7"Manager `1 " Mayor -
Executed this // day of -����.�i �' , 1984 , by the -
Board of Commissioners of Carver County.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
CARVER COUNTY
z� �-:6- By: �.�_=\ 1
County ,Executive Sedretary•
-
-5-
CITY OF CHAIHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT : Carver County, Dept. of Public Works OWNER: Carver Co.
- Parks Division
ADDRESS: County Govt. Center, Admin. Bldg. ADDRESS: Same
600 E. 4th St, Chaska, MN 55318-2192
TELEPHONE: (Day) J:Mauritz,(Apl . Data), 474-5618 TELEPHONE: 361-1026
Parks Div. , (Michael Liddicoat) 361-1026
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
1 Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amend:, nt_
Sign Permits
I — Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
: X Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney
Cost**
Subdivision* TOTAL 11.E $ (FEE WAIVER REQUESTED)
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property is included with the application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
Z� *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans are submitted,
including an 8 1/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency 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 Play Area Grading, Phase II
LOCATION Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Within Boundary of Lk. Minnewashta Regional '—
Park, per Master Plan approved 12 .06.77
TOTAL ACREAGE Park is +/- 350 Acres, Project is +/- 20 Acres
WETLANDS PRESENT Yes X No —
PRESENT ZONING Rural Residential (RR)
REQUESTED ZONING RR (no change)
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Regional Park
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Regional Park (no change)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST - Carver County has secured 1996 Metro
Park Funds and is ready to proceed with this phase of
planned development for public use, per the Master Plan. —
I understand that this application must be completed in full and must be
accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance —
provisions. Before filing this application, my representative conferred with
the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural
requirements applicable to this 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,
but I request that the city contact John G. Mauritz, at 6930 Tecumseh Lane,
Chanhassen, who will act for me regarding any matter pertaining to this —
application. I am the authorized person to make this application and am
authorized to sign this application for Carver County, the fee owner.
Mr. Mauritz will keep me informed of the deadlines for submission of material
and the progress of this application. I 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 docunents and —
information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be
completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review.
Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an —
automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall
be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved
by the applicant. —
� dam. _ ‘-/1{-9.ti
Signature ofApP t Date
Signature of Fee Owner ( Date
Application Received on Fee Paid (Waiver Requested) Receipt
Applicant should contact staff for a copy of the report which
will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not —
contacted, a report copy will be mailed to applicant's address .
Application Information Checklist
Site Plan Review, City of Chanhassen
per : CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, Division 6,
Sec. 20-106 through Sec. 20-122
Submittal Date : 06 . 14 . 96
Project Name: Play Area Grading, Phase II , Lake Minnewashta
Regional Park
Application includes : 1 . Cover Page
2 . Applicati age
3 . Copies (S of all Plans
4 . Application Checklist* Numbers in
parenthesis (3) , refers to numbers in
the pertinent City Code Sections .
(Sec. 20-109) . . . (3) Site Plan Content : ( . . .as follows)
( 4) General :
a . Project Name - Play Area Grading, Phase II , Lk .
Minnewashta Regional Park
b. Name, Address and Phone of :
Applicant : Carver County, Department of Public
Works , Parks Division
600 E. 4th St . , Chaska MN 55318-2192
Parks Director - Michael Liddicoat
Parks Division Phone . . . 361-1026
Application coordinated by :
Jack Mauritz ,
6930 Tecumseh Lane,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
( 612 ) 474-5618
Engineer : Project Engineer will not be named until
bids are taken for the work .
Owner : Carver County : 600 E. 4th St . , Chaska
MN 55318-2192
Parks Division Phone . . . 361-1026
c . Legal Description:
IIMMP The project lies within the legal boundary of Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park, as established in the Master
Plan. The park was assembled from multiple parcels
during its acquisition . The park boundary is shown in
the map submitted as part of this application. A legal
boundary for the project area has not been surveyed, it
lies completely within the park and does not touch the
1
park boundary at any point .
d. Date Proposed:
Advertise for bids - . . . July 18, 1996
Award Contract - . . . August 22 , 1996
Project Completion - . . . September 30 , 1996 —
* Submitted Plans include the required North Arrow,
numbered sheets and name of the Drawer .
e . Vicinity Map:
A city map and a vicinity ma from the park master plan
are included in the submitt heets . _
f . Description of intended use:
The finished project will support public open space
recreation uses including picnicking, individual or
group field games such as "pick up" softball , etc .., and
may be used for "low level " organized field sports .
Intensively developed sports facilities; ball diamonds , —
courts or fenced fields , are not intended for this
site .
g . Existing zoning and land use: —
See city map in submitted sheets . Current zoning is RF
and designated land use is regional park .
h. Tabulations :
- Size of Parcel , +/- 20 A, within the 350 A regional —
park .
- Gross floor area of each building . . . . N/A in this
phase of project development , ( =...e path master plan
proposes a picnic shelter in a future phase of the —
project) .
- Per cent of site in building . . . . N/A in this phase .
- Per cent of site covered by impervious surface . . . . —
( _ % ) will be under hard surface, ( road and parking)
as a result of development in phase II .
- Per cent of site covered by parking area . . . . ( _% )
will be under designated parking areas as a result of
development in phase II .
- Projected number of employees . . . . . No change is
projected in park maintenance or operating staff . -
- Number of seats . . . . N/A in phase II of project .
- Number of parking spaces required . . . . N/A in phase
II of project . -
- Number of parking spaces provided . . . . will be ( )
in the parking lots to be built in Phase II , including
( ) designated for Handicapped park users . -
- Height of Buildings and Structures . . . . . N/A in Phase
II of the project .
2 —
(5) Site and Building Plan:
a - Property Line Dimensions - See Site Plan in
submitted sheets .
Imob - Grading and Drainage Plans are included in the
submitted sheets . The plan set also shows existing
features , proposed grade elevations , sedimentation
and storm water retention ponds . Calculations used
for 10 and 100 year events are described in an
attached memo .
c - Existing and Proposed points of egress . The
existing park entry (gated) , located on Hwy . 41 ,
will continue to be th blic access point for
the regional park. (see ubmitted Master Plan)
d - Vehicle circulation plan for the park is described
in the Development Plan sheet of the Master Plan ,
plus , proposed work in the project area is shown
in the construction documents submitted.
e - Landscaping Plan is described in the final grading
plan, the finished graded project area will be
planted and managed in turf cover to support the
proposed picnic and play area uses .
f - Location of Trash Enclosures . . . . . N/A in this
proposal , collected trash is stored elsewhere in
the park . (near maintenance shop)
Ism g - Location of Rooftop Equipment . . . . . N/A in this
phase of project .
h - Location and detail of signeage. . . . . none is
proposed in the Phase II project area . Existing
park signeage meets all current and anticipated
needs .
i - Lighting location . . . . . N/A in this phase of
project .
j - Building elevations . . . . . :/A in this phase .
k - Utility Plan . . . Existing underground utilities ,
(Northern States Power and U. S.West) , wi ' l be
relocated from along the current road to a similar
location along the new road .
I - List of proposed hazardous materials . . . . . N/A
m - Proposed fire protection system. . . . . No change
in the current fire protection for the regional
park, ( i . e . , with Chanhassen) .
n - Other identified required information. . . . . None
has been identified to date.
o - Photo composite images . . . . . N/A for this project
since the existing and final grade of the site are
described in the construction sheets submitted.
( 6) Within HC Districts :
N/A to this project .
3
(Sec. 20-110) STANDARDS
1 . The project is consistent with City Development Guides .
- The project is consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Development Plan in the Master Plan for
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park .
- The project is consistent with the Conditional Use —
Permit , first approved by the City when it reviewed and
approved the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Master Plan
on December 6 , 1977 .
- the Phase II project continues Play Area development
for the regional park begun during Phase I , which was
approved by the City as Inte m Use Permit #90-1 , in —
July of 1990 , and completed VE 1990 .
2 . The project is consistent with the appropriate division of
Chanhassen's Zoning regulations , lying within an area zoned RR,
with which the park use is consistent .
3 . Preservation of the site in its natural state .
- The project site is already essentially rough-graded to
its final condition .
- The project site is under grass cover established by _
the County for interim protection.
- The project site, once final graded, will be overspread
with existing top soil , now stored on site, and
revegetated in turf grasses to support the planned open —
play activities .
4 . creation of a harmonious relationship . —
- Adequate recreation open space , as in the proposed
grassy play area and througout Lk . Minnewashta Regional
Park, is an important part of any developing or
urbanizing area . The regional park has been planned to —
provide open space recreation to Chanhassen and other
nearby Carver County CC:ommunitie .
5 . Functional and Harmonious design of structures and site
features .
- The only structure proposed for the project area in Lk . —
Minnewashta Regional Park is a picnic shelter, to Ne
added in a future phase . This structure is not yet
designed . Its architecture will be in accord with other
structures already in the park, particularly the beach -
- bath house located on Lake Minnewashta . It will be
designed to support outdoor recreation use as a picnic
shelter and will be submitted for a separate site —
review, probably in 1997 .
(sub-points under 5 . , a - d, are N/A to Phase II. of the project . —
6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties .
4 —
Issues related to this were addressed and resolved
during Master Planning which culminated in plan
approval in 1977 . Note that all of the Phase II project
area lies well within the boundaries of the regional
park.
(Sec . 20-111) PUBLIC HEARING
A mailing list of all property owners within 500 ft of the Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park Boundary is enclosed with the County' s
- submittal . Many of these properties are more than 500 ft from
the Project boundary . `
Although part of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park lies on the
shoreline, no part of the Phase II Project Area reaches the
shoreline of Lake Minnewashta .
Ilm
—
Moo
Mom
5
•
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
—
JULY 17, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad,Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Nancy
Mancino, and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE TO THE PARKING LOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND A SIGN PLAN
REVIEW FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL FACILITY ON 1.06 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 501
WEST 78TH STREET, HIWAY 5 CENTRE, ROMAN ROOS/MIKE RAMSEY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? I just have one and that is the variance or
the setback is 25 feet. Now you said that the Prairie House, when it was there, had the same
setback as what is being requested tonight.
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: Now is that because it's prior to the ordinance that was passed for a 25 foot
setback?
Aanenson: Correct. I believe that was consistent with how that area was developed.
Mancino: Originally?
Aanenson: At that time, right. Yeah, and I guess in evaluating, we said you know, it's
consistent with what's on either side in that area and the sidewalk being on either side, we felt
that was...
Mancino: Is that normally what we do though?
Aanenson: On a variance criteria, generally we look at what's surrounding within 500 feet.
What other people have had. Sometimes that's a rule of thumb that we've used for criteria.
What's consistent within 500 feet.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: But when we pass a new ordinance, do we not expect new development to follow
the new ordinance or? —
Aanenson: Certainly I think that it's an issue we did examine. You know would it be, is it
onerous and can it be accomplished? Certainly you could say that we could put it there and —
then require the shared parking.
Mancino: That's my other question. Is there another option besides granting the variance?
Aanenson: It's my understanding that you could do a shared parking with the hotel site. I —
guess what we'd also be concerned in the long run too, if the hotel site, they haven't had a
parking problem to date but that doesn't mean in the future that they couldn't be generating
more parking. —
Mancino: Okay, so we could do shared parking and we're looking at that more and more.
Aanenson: Sure. Yep. That's an option, certainly.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? —
Conrad: Yeah. In the recommendations. I don't, number 2. Wall signs are permitted on no
more than two street frontages. A total of each wall mounted sign display area shall not —
exceed 24 square feet. Is that right?
Aanenson: That would be this. For each tenant. —
Conrad: For each tenant?
Aanenson: Correct. And maybe we could clarify that.
Conrad: That's the major difference between what I thought the staff report kind of said.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to approach the Planning
Commission?
Roman Roos: Good evening. My name is Roman Roos. I am the developer for Mr. Mike —
Ramsey. The center that you're looking at has... This evening regards, the first issue is the
sign ordinance I guess. Indeed when you look at the building north/south, the very north end
of it will be the Gold Medal Sports. Mike Ramsey will be having his signs on two sides of _
the property. ...signs on the north side facing along 79th Street. We'll also have a sign on
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
the west side, which the majority of the signs will be. As you move down the property from
north to south, each of the five...will have signs on the east and west side of the property.
_ Again within the ordinance of 24 square foot on each of them. We're going to try and keep
standardized letters again...We're looking real hard at trying to keep the signage common in
color. When you have some franchises that are major franchises, they have a little problem.
We'll try to keep a relatively close consistency in the size of the sign and the back lighting of
the sign. To try and keep them all one color is going to be very difficult...as in most strip
centers as far... The only exception to the rule will be on the south side, is on the north side.
That will be the Chesapeake Bagel operation, the sign as I understand it from the
representatives from Chesapeake Bagel...the sign will be on the west side and on the south
side. Again, just two sides. Referring to the pylon sign and the monument sign, which you
have in your...this evening. We fell within the ordinance. The signs are going to take an
identical color scheme as the building itself. Including the final canopy on those signs... The
signs are back lit. They'll be strictly identification signs. There will be no special existing...
Strictly identification. They will be uniform as I have...unlike the signs on... I guess that
pretty much is the detail on the sign ordinance. On the signs themselves. The last issue this
evening is the... There again what we felt was an issue when we first met. We kept that
down to 14 foot. We kept within the same parameters of the property to both the east and
west side of us had met. We looked at...this seems to be the best alternative. We hold our
setback off the...and we're asking for the variance this evening on... Short of that, it's pretty
clear cut. You've been through the project before...
Mancino: Anyone have a question at this point? No questions. Thank you. May I have a
motion to open for a public hearing please, and a second.
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come up and
give their comments to the Planning Commission at this time. Please do so. Seeing none,
may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second please.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Questions and comments from commissioners. Craig. On both design and the
variance. Parking variance.
Peterson: The issue that I have before, that we all had on the sidewalk aspect of it I think as
Kate mentioned earlier has been mitigated. I don't have any problem with the variance on the
setback. And then the sign, it seems like every other meeting we have a sign ordinance
variance in front of us. I think we've been pretty consistent by, unless there's a compelling
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
reason and I didn't hear from staff or from the applicant a compelling reason that we need to
provide a variance in this case. Over the last few...been through it so I wouldn't think we —
need to support that variance.
Mancino: Okay. Now Kate at this time we don't have a sign variance?
Aanenson: Well he wanted the three I guess so. Three sides and it only allows two so.
Mancino: Okay. So we would keep it in favor of the two street frontages. Okay. Thank
you. Ladd.
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the staff report.
Mancino: Okay. Bob.
Skubic: Me too. —
Joyce: I have nothing to add.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm comfortable with the staff report. One note there. I've noticed that some of
the stores that have been developing here now, we're seeing a lot more window signage of
large size and in some cases larger than the amount of letters on the wall. That's something
that we should be cognizant of, particularly a retailer...as to how much of a demand it's going
to be...pedestrian traffic or even the issue of temporary promotion. It's sort of circumventing
the restriction to signage for the highway street traffic. And even the office buildings up
here, you're seeing additional signage in the windows. Also, for instance Richfield Bank —
where they had a tenant who was getting additional signage. That has nothing to do with
temporary... Anyway, this particular site elevation faces the highway... Something maybe we
should look at with the signage ordinance itself.
Mancino: Good. I agree with the staff report. I still have some reservations about the,
excuse me, the parking lot variance. The 13 feet only because when I went there, Kate I
noticed that on the north side, most of the setbacks are 25 feet. It was on the south side, the
Holiday station which wasn't and the motel structure was a good 20 feet off the curb. Now I —
don't know if that was a right-of-way. But I'm assuming that when we do agree to
development in areas, that we do go with the ordinance and if we keep saying every time we
have redevelopment that everybody's going-to have variances, we'll never follow the new
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
ordinance so that's my only concern with that and I'm afraid that that will keep coming up.
Otherwise I agree with the staff report. Thank you. May I have a motion please.
Conrad: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 13
foot front yard parking lot setback variance and a sign plan review for a 10,000 square foot
retail facility, Hiway 5 Centre, with the conditions listed in the staff report, 1 through 10 with
the only modification on point number 2 that we add after the, in parens, 24 square feet. We
add for each tenant and that's the extent of the motion.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Joyce: I'll second that.
Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
13 foot front yard parking lot setback variance and a sign plan review for a 10,000 square
foot retail facility, Hiway 5 Centre, with the following conditions:
1. All businesses shall share one monument sign. The area of the sign may not exceed 64
square feet and a height of 8 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the
property lines.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet for each tenant.
3. All signs require a separate permit.
_ 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural
accent to the building.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
6. Wall signs shall consist of individual dimensional letters and logos and be back-lit if
illuminated.
7. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height.
8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
9. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a
height of 16 feet. The sign must maintain a 10 foot setback from the property line. —
10. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided —
prior to requesting a building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion caned.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR COULTER BLVD. PHASE II, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 93-26B TO FILL 0.72 ACRE TYPE 3 AG/URBAN WETLANDS AND
MITIGATE BY CREATING 1.42 ACRES OF TYPE 3 NATURAL WETLAND LOCATED _
BETWEEN BLUFF CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND AUDUBON ROAD, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
Joyce: Kate, just for my edification. Are you saying that, as far as that wetland bank, I'm
just a little bit confused. To get the 2:1 you're going to get to add to the Lake Susan project?
Is that what you're saying?
Aanenson: It's already there. The City, when the City did that project, we enhanced that
wetland.
Joyce: So you had those credits? —
Aanenson: The credits are available, correct. So we're just, as a city project we're taking the
replacement credits and applying to the bank, exactly like a check and balance. There's only —
so much credits available.
Joyce: Okay.
Mancino: Will the culvert be able to be walkable? I mean you know when you put a 60
inch culvert up.
Aanenson: I'm glad you brought that up. I meant to mention that because that was an issue _
as far as the Bluff Creek, as far as wildlife habitat and crossing of the creek. The crossing
6 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
underneath, if you can point that out Bob. It's right at the top. There's a crossing underneath
Highway 5 which has really been a critical crossing point right there...that would allow deer
to get underneath. In looking at this, we did go back and carefully evaluate that. Really the
critical crossing as far as a deer is really TH 5, where there's more intermittent traffic along
the Coulter so, and to make the grades, it didn't work as well but we believe that, as far as
wildlife.
Mancino: So the deer will go over the road is what you're saying?
Aanenson: Probably go over, right. Under TH 5, correct. And there also is another crossing
further down, where Bob's pointing that there is another structure that will allow larger
wildlife to go underneath at that point. Further down where Bob just point which is, as a part
of that, we did receive some ISTEA money to get a structure at that point so there is an
undergrade passing at that point. But not closer to the school.
Mancino: And when you say bigger wildlife, are you including deer?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: That big? Oh, okay.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: Moose?
Aanenson: I don't know.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Thank you. May I
have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please?
Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time.
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second please.
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Jeff.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Farmakes: No other comments.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: Pretty straight forward. I support the staff I guess.
Mancino: Okay. Bob.
Skubic: I'm in agreement with the staff report.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Staff report's fine. —
Peterson: I agree.
Mancino: I have no comments either. May I please have a recommendation, or a motion.
Joyce: I'll make a motion that the planning staff recommends the City Council approve _
Wetland Alteration Permit #96-6 subject to conditions 1 through 4.
Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second? —
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: It has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of —
Wetland Alteration Permit #96-6, subject to the following conditions:
1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan —
requirements.
2. The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of
Engineers, the DNR, and the Bluff Creek Watershed District.
3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around the existing wetlands. —
8 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
4. The applicant review the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Watershed steering
committee and incorporate the recommended improvements into this plan. Specifically,
determine the best location for the proposed wildlife corridor.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL.
INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
UP TO 307,000 SO. FT. OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDINGS, 100,000 SQ. FT. OF
INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS, AND 322 DWELLING UNITS; REZONING FROM IOP
AND RSF TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 13
LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE; VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND EASEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
FINDINGS; AND INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT REVIEW FOR THE VILLAGES ON THE
PONDS PROJECT ON 66.12 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 BETWEEN GREAT
PLAINS BLVD. AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. LOTUS
'— REALTY SERVICES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mary Bernier 8155 Grandview Road
Martin Fajdetich 8100 Marsh Drive
Roberta & Bob Armstrong 8400 Great Plains Blvd.
Dick & Pat Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle
Linda Anderson 8210 Grandview Road
Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
Tammy Harris 8408 Great Plains Blvd.
Gregory Larsen 8151 Grandview Road
John Seibert 13941 Vinewood Lane
Clark Cummings 8019 Dakota Avenue
Bob Savard 8080 Marsh
Austin Ward 226 Summit Avenue, St. Paul
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Joyce: Is that because you have a perspective retail user that you increased this or is this
just? I'm sorry, am I interrupting here?
Aanenson: No, no. That's a good point of discussion. We spent a lot of time on this. We're
doing something that's very different and we're concerned about that, in order to make it a —
village you have to have components that people want to live there. What staffs original
proposal was that we really have the residential component with it. In order to make it
exciting for the residential component we really felt we needed to have services that are
convenient for residential. Whether it's a dry cleaners, a bakery, those sort of things. So
we're concerned that if the market says we're going to put all big boxes in there, does that —
entice people to live there with something that closes down at 9:00 or 10:00 or something like
that. So what we want to encourage, is that we really have a mix. If you remember when
the applicant originally came in they were showing pictures...sort of exciting, kind of small —
specialty type shops. While we don't want to discourage some of the larger, maybe a larger,
a use that may have different, some different departments or components within it. We want
to make sure we've got what looks like smaller shops, if it's a bigger user, but we also want —
to make sure that there's a variety of the mix of enough units that it is an exciting place. A
village concept. So really to be true to the village concept, we're concerned about it and I'm
not sure that this is exactly where we want it but we're trying. This is where we spent a lot —
of time with the applicants trying to get some better definition here. To really make it a
village, how do you accomplish that?
Joyce: So I can visualize this, how big is Target compared to this? I mean how many
20,000 square foot buildings can you put in Target? Can you put 3 or 4 or something like
that? —
Aanenson: Sure.
Joyce: Okay. That's what I'm thinking. So it's 20,000 feet is not huge?
Aanenson: Right. I think the applicants agree that that was a reasonable number that we —
kind of compromised on that as a number but I guess we were concerned about some other
larger discount sort of thing that may want to be there. And we're not saying that's
necessarily bad. We want to make sure though that we've got the right mix. If it's all large —
discount, then we haven't got the right mix to make it a village.
Mancino: Well and it also, per the City Council conditions from December 5, 1995 it says,
25. No big box users shall be permitted within the development. Very cut and clear as a
condition. Okay.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Bob Generous continued with his staff report.
Mancino: Bob, so what you're saying is, of the 322 residential units, there are a total of 322
proposed. 50% of those, or 161 would be rental units. Out of the 161 rental units, 35%, or
56 of those units would be affordable. 50% would be owner occupied or 161 units. And 80
units of those would be affordable, within the whole complex.
Generous: Correct.
Audience: Can you define affordable?
Mancino: Well, we'll wait until we get further on in this process. Thank you, we will.
Bob Generous continued with his staff report
Mancino: I think that we are going to have questions and comments as we go through the
presentation by the applicant, and we will do that in stages. And then you'll be able to hear
our questions and comments and then we'll open it up for a public hearing. Can you take one
minute Bob though to tell us what affordable housing is from, the owner occupied housing is
$115,000.00.
Generous: Based on 1995 dollars and that's established by the Metropolitan Council.
Imm
Mancino: So when you say based on 1995 dollars, that means with inflation it goes up.
Generous: We believe so, yes.
Mancino: Every year it's indexed to the.
Generous: We don't know exactly what they're indexing it to. We'll get that from them.
Mancino: Okay. So it is housing that is priced at $115,000.00 or lower. If it is a rental,
affordable housing, it is $650.00?
Generous: $625.00.
Mancino: $625.00 for a one room apartment. I mean one bedroom apartment.
Generous: It's silent on that. It just says for a dwelling unit.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: It just says what?
Generous: Per dwelling unit.
Mancino: Per dwelling unit. $625.00. —
Generous: So I imagine an efficiency would meet that. A one bedroom. Potentially a two
bedroom.
Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address? Before we do that, I'm sorry. —
Excuse me. There's one other thing I'd like to do first and that is, I'd like to have Dave
Hempel get up and talk a little bit about the road on the east side. What's going to happen to
Grandview Road and Great Plains Boulevard, and utilities and how that is going to affect the
residential property to the east. The existing.
Hempel: Thank you Madam Chair. Planning Commissioners. I'd like to show the audience I _
guess the existing configuration of Grandview Road in relationship to the existing conditions
out there. Grandview Road is a private road. It's gravel. Gravel street and the shaded...
Mancino: Can you show us where that is? Where are we looking?
Hempel: It's approximately in this alignment. It serves I believe 6 or 8 residential homes in
the area. The area does have future capabilities to further subdivide once sewer and water is
provided. The area for the most part is on well and septic. There are a couple residents I
believe on the city sewer and water at this time and the adjacent development to the east, the —
Hidden Valley. What I'll do is overlay the proposed development on top of that to give you
some sense of how it fits with the existing neighborhood. Lake Drive East is on the east side
here there will be a full intersection with eventually a couple of stop signs for traffic control.
The intent to service Grandview in the future is through a public street which would deadend
at the property line in this location here. We worked with the applicant to reduce this cul-de-
sac parameter down to a 25 foot radius to minimize disruptions in the area because eventually
this street will become, most likely a public street in this area here when further subdivision
occurs. We're also looking at it as a secondary emergency access to the southern part of the
Grandview neighborhood to St. Hubert's Church parking lot. That is emergency access only. —
Utility service to service the Grandview neighborhood is in two areas. What I'll call the
northern part of Grandview and the southern part of Grandview. What delineates it is a high
ridge or an elevation change which requires the sewer to be serviced from the south, to take
the southern part of the neighborhood and a sewer line from the north to provide service to
the northerly part. With this development they will be extending sewer and water service to _
the easterly property line on the development for further extension into the Grandview
12 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
neighborhood. When the neighborhood wishes to have that extended, it would require a
petition to the city requesting a utility extension to the neighborhood, at which time a
feasibility study would be conducted which would generate project costs, preliminary
assessment rolls, etc.
Mancino: Now does everybody have to? Is it a majority? Let's say one house wants to
hook up to sewer and water. Can they petition and get that or does it need to be a majority
of the homeowners?
Hempel: It does need to be a majority of the property owners. The benefitting property
owners. It is up to City Council to review any petition and decide whether or not there is
ample percentage of property owners to warrant the project.
Mancino: Okay. So we already have some there that are hooked up, and some aren't. Some
have their own septic and well.
Hempel: That's correct.
Mancino: Does the gravel road remain so that all we're going to do is be upgrading the Great
Plains and then the little turn around? Or is the whole.
Hempel: The part of the street which would be upgraded with this development to city
standards with the blacktop, curb and gutter and storm sewer infrastructures, would be what
I'll call Lake Drive. They have listed Lake Drive and then this part of what I'll call
Grandview. The remaining, the access here would then be converted over to this location
here.
Mancino: Do the property owners, are they assessed for any of this?
Hempel: There's no assessments for these improvements in conjunction with this project.
Mancino: Thank you.
Hempel: Bob made a good point I guess. There is, with the existing Hidden Valley
subdivision, a sewer and water line was extended at the end of Dakota with the intent of
extending up into the Grandview neighborhood. Reviewing the topographic, and vegetation in
the area, there's a ravine that comes down in this location here that would be impacted by
extending sewer and water up into that area and that's why staff came up with an alternative
alignment for the sanitary sewer to service the neighborhood. Around the back side of St.
Hubert's School. This area here is already all being graded and leveled off so there would be
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
no further vegetation lost. It would require additional, approximately 200 feet of sewer line
to be installed to make that alternative work.
Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission at this
time please.
Brad Johnson: Sure. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is _
Brad Johnson with Lotus Realty. We represent the owners of the property, the Ward family
and here this evening are Bill Ward and Austin Ward...so they are here to probably more
listen. As part of the presentation this evening, we'll have a number of different people —
participating in the presentation. Most of which you have met but I'd like to introduce. The
presenter will be Vernelle Clayton. Mika Milo who is on the architectural side. Dean Olson
and possibly Beth Kunkel coming from the site side. The environmental. In addition to that, —
we have representatives of St. Hubert's Church here and the Americlnn which was proposing
both which will come and follow us with a site plan and building reviews...but down the line
and they of course can answer any questions you may have specifically about the site plans —
that... This evening I'd just like to make some brief comments...and then finally, we have
some I guess concerns about the staff report. I think we're doing pretty good. I think it's
around 50. We may have...general comments about that but we're concerned how it's —
development and Vernelle will summarize those, and everybody else's comments. One of the
things that this project has probably been one of the most thought out that we've been
involved in. We've done a couple other projects in the community that primarily have been —
done with the HRA, not with the Planning Commission. We've also had an enormous amount
of neighborhood input. Staff input. I think we've taken to heart things that the City Council
recommended and I want to read something from Steve Covey because you know, with all the
turmoil we go through in this redevelopment business, we all have visions and everybody's
vision isn't always the same thing. It's kind of a difficult problem to fit it all together and I
think we can actually work in that process so I'm going to read this with the idea that it just
kind of says where we're at...doing a good job of it, to my way of thinking...the only
difference is, the essence of synergy, the mental and emotional and psychological difference
is between the people, and the key to...those differences is to realize that all people see the —
world not as it is, but as they are. In other words, each of us looks at it differently. And
each of us, each person has their own input and the key to probably development and
anything like this is to listen to the differences and combine all those differences and in fact
you may come up with a good project. If all of us never listened to somebody else, then in
fact we may end up with what we think is right and not necessarily what is right. I think —
that's the essence of what he's trying to say and I think, I had a number of meetings with the
neighbors. Had a number of meetings with the various community groups and I really want
to compliment everybody on what we've been trying to accomplish. We've been trying to
translate this vision not into the vision of the Ward's or the vision of the...vision of just the
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
city, but the vision of a group of people that have been working on that towards that end.
The project has about 7 or 8 key components that we've all addressed periodically. One is
that the retail will support the existing downtown retail. Number two is that we're trying to
preserve the site characteristics as much as possible. That was the trees, slopes, and the
wetlands. We want to provide a suitable buffer between the residential development to the
east and this particular development. We want to discourage traffic out of this project onto
East Lake Drive. That was one of the big concerns that the neighbors have had is...do our
site plan to eliminate that. Provide affordable housing components. One of the pressures put
on the City and a lot of the businesses here is that we don't have affordable housing in
Chanhassen. It's one of the things we took upon ourselves to see if we could actually do that.
We've done it very creatively. Whether it's financable, we'll find out but we've already put in
here some concepts that are far reaching. One of the things that we've tried to do is
incorporate St. Hubert's Church and school into the community. We've tried to take a project
that potentially could have used up 80 acres, or 30 acres of the community's land and build
expensive things and...and place them on 7 and 10 acres. Sort of downtown area. Once
again what's found. I think we've done a good job on that thanks to everybody. We didn't
want to have any big box users. To me a big box is 40,000 to 50,000 square feet and we
have a lot...And finally, we're mass transit friendly that would include mass transit in this
project and we could have as many as 100 buses a day coming through here...but this would
be a major hub for the community and it's all the things that I think that we've added and put
into the project. I'd like then to have Dale come up front and go through his group of...
Vernelle Clayton: Actually it's Dean. Hi. My name's Vernelle Clayton. As you know I'm
with Lotus and for your convenience, to be clear to follow along...a list of the items that we
have with us and those that are going to be shown to...
Mancino: Vernelle, do you happen to have enough copies for the public to see? Or a couple
to hand out. We can share up here.
Aanenson: Dave's going to run some more.
Mancino: Okay. Dave will be running some off so that you'll get a copy. So on our list is
first order of presentation is that BRW is going to show the existing conditions as they exist
today. Number one, And then two, go into site physiography. And three, tree canopy. If
you could pass those out. Thank you Dave.
Dean Olson: Your Honor, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Dean Olson.
I'm with BRW. I'm a planner and we have been retained by Lotus Realty to do the
environmental and engineering aspects of the project. As Brad mentioned earlier, Beth
Kunkel is with me who's a wetland specialist with our firm and she can answer any specific
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
questions regarding wetlands. First I'll go over the existing conditions for the site. North on
the plan is here. This is Highway 5. This is Highway 101 which cuts through the site. The —
blue outline that you see here represents the proposed alignment for TH 101, which of all our
plans which you'll see in the future here take into account that new alignment for TH 101 so.
You can see how that cuts through this marsh area in the southern portion of the site as a —
temporary alignment. Also running through the site is Great Plains Boulevard which ties in
down at this... Adjacent to the property on the west side is the Rosemount facility which is
zoned industrial and then also the residential area to the east over here and small commercial —
area which has the VFW and I believe a gas station in this corner. This is Lake Susan in this
corner and Rice Marsh here. The grayish blue areas represent existing wetland areas on the _
site. A major one being adjacent to Highway 5 here. Another one in the center of the site
and several others at the periphery portions of the site. Small one on the west side of
Highway 101 and then of course the larger buffered area which is associated with Rice Marsh _
Lake down here. We do have also one wetland that exists up here in this corner of the site as
well. The existing trail system that the city has runs along the west side of TH 101 and ties
into the trail system that runs parallel to both Rice Marsh and Lake Susan down here. And _
also the larger green areas represent canopy cover on the site as it pre-exists current today.
Next, talk about the site physiography. Again, north is to my side of this plan. Both Rice
Marsh and Lake Susan are on the south...site. Bob mentioned earlier that there's an existing _
ridge that runs through the site. That ridge is approximately at this location here and that
ridge elevation is generally at an elevation of about 961. The grade from there drops to the
north slightly into this darker green area which is at an elevation of about 950. And then it —
also falls to the south pretty continuously across the site, with the exception of a fairly level
area in this portion and a couple high points here and here. This one being at about 949 or
950 and 943 here. By the time we get to this portion of the site, we're down into an —
elevation about 30 feet lower than the ridge line here. At about 930 in here and then all the
way down to approximately an elevation of 900 here and down to finally 880 for the lower
marsh area associated down here. The knoll that Bob was talking about earlier is at this point —
and that's an elevation of about 905, which puts it at approximately 25 feet at it's highest
point higher than the surrounding marsh area. Also, a significant high point or the highest
point on the site actually is on this eastern edge, which is adjacent to the residential area. —
That high point is at about 970, 971 at it's highest point. And it again falls to either side.
Next I'd like to show you some of the existing tree canopy cover on the site, and if I could
—
put this one. Do you have any questions of the first set of boards?
Mancino: Excuse me Dean, are you going to go into the, what's going to happen to the new _
TH 101. Where the existing trail on the east and west side meet. I mean is it going to go
under the new TH 101 or what's going to happen to the existing trail that right now...
16 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Dean Olson: Right now, it's my understanding that the city is proposing a connection beneath
TH 101. I don't know at this time because the engineering documents for this portion of TH
_ 101 are not complete. It's a little bit unclear at this time exactly how that trail connection
will happen, as well as how this portion of TH 101 will traverse this lower portion of the site
down there. So that is something that we are waiting to see.
Mancino: So you will have to wait before any final approvals are given to see what's
happening with TH 101 in that area?
Dean Olson: Yes. There are some issues that need to be resolved regarding TH 101...
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
Dean Olson: I might as well keep working with the board on my side. Again, Highway 5 is
here. TH 101 runs through here. The wider portion is the improved portion of TH 101 to
this point and then the old alignment is here. This edge of the tree canopy here really
represents the western most edge of the realignment of TH 101 as it would come through this
area so that realignment will cut through this canopy area here and that knoll that you were
talking about just earlier somewhere in this location. We do have a tree survey which was
done as a part of our work on the project. It does identify approximately 460 existing trees
-- that are 12 inch in caliper or larger, regardless of what species the trees are. And you have
that I believe... What this represents is an aerial photograph which we took from a 1994 fly
over by the Department of Natural Resources. And per the City's requirements, we used this
to determine the amount of existing canopy cover on the site. And the white line, if you can
see it on the camera, around the outer edges, represents the property line. Approximately
property line and the new residential area just to the east of the site. The Rosemount property
here. That existing ridge line that we talked about...is really this portion in here and you can
see that it does not have very much vegetation. Most of the vegetation is concentrated around
the wetland area here. Also some pockets associated with wetland over in this area. And
then really the greater concentration of the canopy cover is on the southern portion of the site.
What each of these figures represents are percentages of canopy cover in those various areas.
We determined through looking at shadow lines for the trees, and then also the city's
requirement is that we take into consideration both sapling trees, which could potentially grow
to approximately a 20 foot canopy tree, as well as mature trees on the site. We made these
determinations in terms of amount of canopy cover so. We do have areas which we
determined to be 100%, basically here, here, in this area, in here and then again down on the
southern portion of the site. This being the least amount of canopy cover at 5%. In working
through the calculations for tree preservation we came up with approximately 26 acres of
existing canopy cover, which is about 42% of the site. And that again does include both the
saplings and the overstory, existing overstory trees. As I mentioned earlier, the tree survey
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
identified 12 inch caliper trees and larger. Of those there were a total of 464 trees. After
looking at the tree preservation requirements, in working through the calculations, it was
determined that 10.4 acres of canopy cover must remain on the site as a part of this
development. Our project...canopy cover preserved and remain on the site. Again as Bob
said, the majority of that will be the southern portion of the site from the ridge line south.
The distance between the 10.4 and the 6.1 requires that we provide 226 trees on site to make
up for the loss of...
Mancino: How many are you proposing?
Dean Olson: Total trees? I haven't honestly taken a count but...150 or so. And also being
considered... I'd like to next talk about the site constraints. Here is sort of a synopsis of how
the city's zoning requirements affect this site. Again, Highway 5 is here. TH 101 is as it
runs through the site. This is the proposed alignment for TH 101 that you're seeing here.
The existing alignment is over in this area. There's a number of things that affect the site, in
terms of the zoning. First off a shoreland ordinance which affects the setbacks from Rice _
Marsh Lake as well as Lake Susan and those differ because Rice Marsh Lake is a naturalized
lake versus a recreational lake for Lake Susan up here. Lake Susan requires that we provide
a 75 foot setback for both buildings and parking. And going around Rice Marsh Lake, we —
need to provide 150 foot setback for both... Those setback lines are determined by the high
water level for both of those lakes. This also affects the impervious surface, and this red line
here represents the shoreland zone from the lakes into the site in both cases. That is 1,000 —
foot distance from both those high water marks. Impervious surface on the site in essence
switches...medium and high density residential even though the maximum of 35% of
impervious surface on the site. Within that shoreland itself and 25% if it's a commercial type
of development within the shoreland boundary. Also along Highway 101 we're required to
have a 50 foot setback on either side of the right-of-way line. Also the green areas that you
see here, both along Highway 101 and along this edge of the site are the required areas for —
buffer zones for the city ordinance. We've already talked with Mr. and Mrs. Savard who live
adjacent to the site actually in this location. We've talked with Mrs. Anderson who lives
down in this area adjacent to the proposed location of the church and school. And have heard
their concerns regarding their desires for additional buffering and plantings along their
property lines and we intend to work with them in that respect. We will work also with the _
architects for the church in attempting to maintain as much of the existing vegetation along
the Anderson's property line as possible because they are extremely close to the property line.
Mancino: Dean, will you speak to that more when you get to the landscape plan?
Dean Olson: Yes.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: Thank you.
Dean Olson: There are also a couple of bluff zones that exist on the site. There is a lot of
areas which have severe grade changes or...grade changes but there are really only two
locations on the site and those being adjacent to Lake Susan over here, which is actually
qualified as a bluff zone, and those areas cannot be disturbed in any manner. And we also
need to provide, I believe it's a 30 foot setback from the top of those...along those areas. The
other thing that comes into effect is the Highway 101, or excuse me, Highway 5 corridor
placed in this portion of the site...HC1 zone which is highway corridor 1 zone. It has some
effects on the building setbacks along that line. We need to maintain a 50 foot building
setback. There's also along this edge a 45 foot existing... And next I will talk to the
preliminary plat. Bob showed it once earlier so I'll try to breeze through it. Highway 5 is
still on this side. Obviously this is the TH 101 boulevard. There are two blocks proposed
with the project. Block 1 being this major eastern portion of the property, east of TH 101
excuse me. And then also Block 2 being this portion, which is the west portion of TH 101.
Within those two, Block 2 would have two lots and then the southern most portion would be
outlot. And then also an outlot on the southern portion down here, as well as outlots through
both Main Street and...being proposed as Lake Drive going through the site as well as around
the existing wetlands area. And within this block we're proposing... And then finally, the
landscape plan...provide at least 208 replacement trees to accommodate the loss of...and we're
proposing a great deal of those be along on both Lake Drive here and Main Street that comes
through the center portion of the site here. We will also be providing a fair amount of tree
canopy along this portion of the roadway here.
Mancino: Excuse me, what is that roadway?
Dean Olson: It's actually an extension of the parking lot. It will serve as storefront parking
for a lot of the stores along here. So it really serves as parking for a fair portion of the shops
along...
Mancino: Okay, but it will have a name to the street?
Dean Olson: We haven't put a name on it as of yet.
Mancino: I put St. Hubert's Ave. I had to call it something.
Dean Olson: The retail and residential for the property is actually through this zone. We're
proposing a special paving in this area, which is highly concentrated pedestrian area, even
though there's some of these areas around here. Here you see the entry points to the center
portion of the site would be at this location and at this location on...drive and then the
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
southern portion, excuse me really the main street feel as far as a plaza in front of the St.
Hubert's Church. We're proposing we'll have a fountain in the center of it. And then from —
there, all the way up to another sort of town square in this location, which extends even
further around the water front on village pond. We also need to provide as a part of the code
requirement for the city, to place buffering around the existing wetland areas so what we see —
in here, in the yellow areas will also happen around other wetland areas on the site. Via a
buffer zone that will vary from 0 to 20 feet in width around the edges...probably be
naturalized plantings. Grasses and so forth. We're also looking at of course the buffering
along the edges, as Bob indicated earlier. We will provide that buffering along this zone.
We'll have to do both the combination of overstory trees and shrubbery and...along this edge. _
Even more importantly, along the eastern edge of the property here, particularly where you're
coming very close to the property line here, which...a significant grade change between the
edge of the parking lot and the existing grades in the residential area adjacent to it. We're _
proposing that a series of tiered retaining walls in this area be...and also intensify plant
material, both at the top and all the way down that hillside for screening. And obviously the
greatest impact...plant material that would cover those portions of that hill or retaining walls —
adjacent to the neighboring property owners. As I said earlier, we met with Mr. and Mrs.
Savard who actually live down in this area. The new road alignment would be coming a little
bit closer to their home so we'll be working with them to include an increased plant material —
in this area. And also that area that's adjacent to the Anderson's property here, they've got
about an existing 30 foot...tree canopy cover in here that we'd like to work and save as much
as possible so that these...
Mancino: I have a couple questions. One is, and if other commissioners do at this time. My
view shed from Highway 5 is as I go down Highway 5 I see a pond and I see parking. How --
is parking going to be screened?
Dean Olson: Well grades, the grade is going to be fairly flat through here. It is going to
open up. You won't have that much stuff in here but the highway is higher along this edge
so you'll see across this opening. Right now we're proposing to plant along the edges of the
pond area. We also want to keep some of the views open to the retail across the front here
so it's going to be a balance between both plant material and this is going to be retail...in that
zone.
Mancino: Are you going to use shrubs as walls around parking?
Dean Olson: We can certainly do that, yes. We can provide hedges around these edges here
to...still allow us to provide views to the retail.
20 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Joyce: I have a similar question. You're looking out from...point. Will you be able to see
Highway 5?
Dean Olson: Oh yes.
Joyce: That wetlands area will not have vegetation high enough?
Dean Olson: No it won't. The existing wooded area that we're trying to preserve is in this
zone here. The wetlands here will probably be not too unlike what they are right now with
the exception of taking out the trees.
Mancino: But there could be some berming added to the east and west side.
Dean Olson: Along this edge. We are pretty tight along this edge.
Mancino: Well what about on the northwest side of the parking lot? Right here in some of
these areas that are right in front of the parking lot. There could be added berming.
Dean Olson: Yep. As a matter of fact, when we talked to staff yesterday, they made that
very suggestion that we look at trying to provide some berming in this area along the parking
lot. We can certainly look at the same thing up here.
Mancino: Okay. So that when we see the site plans come in, we will be able to see the
shrub rows around the parking lots, etc. I mean we need to see the detailed landscaping
around the parking lots when we get each site plan. Overall landscaping. When you have a
taller building, will the boulevard trees be bigger as proportionately to the building?
Dean Olson: That's something that we kind of talked about amongst ourselves and exactly
how we approached that with number one, trying to get that street tree feel through the main
portions of the site and still not block a lot of the...for the signage and so forth. One way we
may get to do that is to do something like...canopy but still allow shade. There's a number of
ways that we can get it to happen. Primarily what we're looking at in the overstory trees,
rather than...as street trees, we do have approximately a 14 to 15 feet of width between the
building bases and the grade and the curb line in that area so we do have a fair amount of
room for both pedestrian movements. We have some on grade plantings beneath the trees
and also tree canopy above.
Mancino: Okay. And what about, I didn't see in the landscape plan anything about bunches
and planter boxes and all those wonderful public gardens.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Dean Olson: Yeah, I believe actually as a part of the guidelines, the...guidelines, we
encourage things such as flower boxes, window boxes, free standing planters. Potted plants
in the fronts of buildings. Anything that...to that sort of character. So yes, we're encouraging
a lot of plant material at the base of buildings... Benches and so forth will be provided _
obviously around the city square. Probably on both main street and along some of these store
fronts here. We have made an attempt also to provide, with the additional amount of space
that we have in the fronts of the shops here, between the curb line and the adjacent building
to provide some cut outs for plant material as well so that...
Mancino: Will there be any sort of courtyard effect? I mean you have some of these as _
being apartments and people will obviously be entering the back. Will there be some sort of
a courtyard? Some sort of plantings in the back for the residential that will be over the
commercial. _
Dean Olson: We've got in a couple of cases, previously we had discussions of, Dave talked
about it here...and really as a part of those pass throughs, and we'll talk about it in the —
architecture phase, where the access to the parking lot...on the upper floors of the buildings.
We're trying to get as much plant material at those entry points, wherever they may be,
whether it be here and/or here. Same thing over here, at entry points to the apartments —
above...at those locations. Also, we're going to try to provide as much plant material as
possible to get that courtyard, although this is the town square feeling, although this is the
one area that really provides a large open space for the...so typically in European settings and —
so forth, there are a lot of open spaces...
Mancino: Tell me what goes on around the pond? I mean usually again in European settings —
when you have a pond, there's a promenade around the pond, etc. What's going to, when I
walk down main street and I get to the pond and obviously you'll be able to see Highway 5.
But why do I want to go down there? What's going to draw me besides the water? What
else is down there?
Dean Olson: Well we obviously have to provide first vehicular access through this area and
what we try to do with the paving is to...cars and extend the paving for main street all the
way out to here and here. In addition to what's on the driving surface as well as providing
some special paving around the walking surfaces here and then the actual pier which will
extend out into the pond and then carrying this planting beds and/or seating areas. There's
plenty of room in here to provide both planting and seating along the base of that...at the —
pond edge. There are opportunities for individuals to gather along that edge of the pond.
Mancino: And also from that edge, this would be staff suggesting that there be a landscaped
walkway in that parking lot area to get to the motel.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Dean Olson: Yes. Along here. This is the area where staff was mentioning that I take
another look at expanding or keeping that existing wetlands intact...and possibly moving this
facility in further into the site and...along that edge from this corner of TH 101 and TH 5
where realistically a lot of people will be coming from. Downtown area and business so
across Highway 5 so that sense of entry both along here as well as a stronger connection of
the hotel entry as part of the... And this side, the primary connection, the pedestrian
connection...
Mancino: And that will be a paved sidewalk.
Dean Olson: Yes. Mika will talk a little bit more about pedestrian and vehicular circulation
for the project.
Mancino: Okay. Have you also look at it overall in relationship to our existing downtown?
How do we get from there to the existing downtown? With the amount of traffic, from the
EAW study that's going to be.
Dean Olson: That's a difficult issue because of obviously Highway 5. Also the fact that you
do have a pedestrian street crossing which is to the east of this site which in some respects is
a little bit distant from this project. Our hopes are that, as a part of this development, this
will spur additional improvements in this area to the east which will also encourage
movement by pedestrians through that zone...pedestrian crossing to the east. It's difficult to
get any sort of a low grade crossing through Highway 5 here. I think because of the grades
and because of the amount of wetlands and the water in these areas on this side of Highway
5...so your real access is where it exists now, over here and possibly looking at some way of
improving that pedestrian crossing across TH 5 and upgrade that, as well as trying to bring
people across here and further down here. Realistically it may be a safer... Again, Mika will
talk to some of the pedestrian circulation. That's really what we see as the primary access
point into downtown...pedestrian system that crosses here and moves...
Mancino: Okay. I'm not sure Dean if you're the person I should ask this to but about the
_
mitigation of some of the traffic. Volumes of traffic that will, that were in the EAW report.
Are you the person that would talk about that?
Dean Olson: ...I personally am not...traffic.
Mancino: Thank you. Before we get into architectural, I just have a couple questions.
Unless anyone else has other.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Conrad: Yeah, I have one Madam Chair. What's your vision for that pond? The main pond,
pond 2000 or whatever. And when I say. —
Dean Olson: Ice rink in the winter.
Conrad: Yeah, there you go. I like that. But seriously you know, we talk about, when we
talk about wetlands, I think we all go back and we think there's reeds but this is a holding _
basin.
Dean Olson: Yes it is.
Conrad: And so again, I'm curious what the vision is for how this looks. It's a real
instrumental part of the whole design and just to let you know, I'm not out there trying to —
protect the cattails right now. I'm trying to figure out how this wetland functions as part of
the overall design of what the vision is for it. It's not a very good looking wetland right now,
and it's going to be improved no matter what we do but I guess, again I'd like to hear a clear —
vision of how this fits with the community that you're designing.
Dean Olson: Well first off, we are trying to preserve as much of the wetland as possible on
the site because there are so many, we are removing some of them so we want to try to save
as much of this as possible. We think that's, I believe that's part of the reason staff was
suggesting...along the western edge. Originally when I looked at this, I had hoped that we —
could maintain as much of this obviously, this upland vegetation as possible and possibly do
something similar on this side which really sets it as a framework for what's happening at the
core of the study on the pond. On the pond itself, I would hope that we can improve that —
pedestrian circulation around the edges first off, and obviously the connections from the city
core to this. We really need to provide some sort of buffering along the edges...access to the
pond. —
Conrad: Are you looking to make it look natural? Or are you looking to make it more of a
pond? Of a pretty pond.
Dean Olson: First off a pretty pond. This portion of it would be dredged out, cleaned up and
contain water. It would be a "pretty pond".
Joyce: You could boat on it or something. It'd be almost functional, right? —
Dean Olson: Well part of the actual image of the project is the main sign which will sit in
this location so there is a lot of emphasis on views across that pond to that location. One
thing that may be considered is an aerator or a fountain in the center of it as well but it will
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
tom
be, it will function as retention for the site. With a fair portion of the drainage for this zone
is going to go into that pond so there's a need to keep it clean, yes.
Conrad: I don't think you still answered my question. And maybe somebody else will. It's
not a catch question at all. I'm just trying to see how it fits. Is it a natural? Are we going to
let weeds grow up along the edges or are we going to keep it pretty clear? When we dredge
it, are we going to keep that a clean edge type pond and one of a picturesque versus a natural.
That's my question.
Mika Milo: The answer is the first one. To have it more picturesque. To have that look...
reflect what can be the front face of our development and...keeping it more clean and to
function more as a decorative element. So while it does have the function of a retention, the
idea of that pond as a central feature as a reflecting mirror of the village, is to have a
decorative function. A clean edge that will...walk around and kind of a central feature that
will be like a...
Aanenson: Can I answer it from the staffs perspective?
Conrad: Sure.
Aanenson: The way we saw it, and I think actually...when we first looked at this as part of
the wetland we were concerned about the same thing and we went back and looked at when
Bill Morrish did the Highway 5 study. The view and the view corridors when you drive
through Chanhassen, what are your impressions? The wetlands. There's certainly water is a
feature that the city values and the trees. So when they first approached us about using this
as a feature, we were concerned about what that meant but while Mika's answered the
question that it does have some clean parts to it. We also, that's why the staff went back and
said we also want to have kind of the natural component to it too. So it actually does have
kind of duo. It provides a perspective when you come across water, which reflects what
Chanhassen is about. And it's preserving some of the edges, which Dean was speaking about.
The woods and the natural features so it really has both. We see it as Mika indicated, it does
_ provide the reflective kind of vision going across, catches your eye looking, but also has a
natural component too and that's why I guess we were concerned about making sure that we
still kind of maintained that natural edges to it so it looked like...
Conrad: I'm not sure that that's what belongs here.
Aanenson: Well we're allowing it to be altered. A significant part to be altered.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Conrad: I sure think so. Again, but I was looking for the vision and I just kept having a
hard time envisioning a real natural wetland here. I think it is a focal point. It is not a good
wetland right now. It's not attractive. It's a holding basin but then I started thinking, well are
we clear? Is it functioning as a pond that filters and I think it's holding. It's not filtering as
much as it's holding so I'm not sure of the purpose of the reeds and grasses and whatever, so
again I'm not a scientist on this but my gut feeling was that in the setting was more of a
pretty pond than natural. And that's just a personal feel on this and maybe a design team has —
this all under control but I was curious how it fits. How it was envisioned.
Mancino: Any other questions? —
Conrad: No.
Mika Milo: Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission, my name is Mika Milo...and
we have been retained to...to create the Villages on the Pond. A vision for the expansion of
downtown Chanhassen and...months that we spent on that. We went to a number of segments
and very complexities that surround the plan and came up finally... We were guided with
three main goals. Number one is that we create a community, a mixed community that
provides the opportunity of the same place to live, to work, to eat, entertain, recreate... And —
number two is to provide a...extension of downtown...already exists of Chanhassen, but to
extend...retail into the whole complex area of the downtown Chanhassen. And number three
is to, number three goal, which is not really a priority but...that we preserve the natural face
of the site as much as possible. Preserve the use of...so that development fits really well and
strengthens the village...And with this in mind, with these three goals in mind we went into
the planning and...concept of the early...century American town that you've seen around and -`
that's also traditional, neo-traditional planning concepts that would allow these to be
accomplished. All three main goals that I just mentioned. This would allow...as much as the
American...earlier in this century. Also the European towns that you can see across...And my —
recent...Europe that I just came back that was to a great extent devoted to the study of the
situation that we also have here on Village on the Ponds, is serving as a further confirmation
that the direction we are going, I really feel comfortable we are going to the right direction. I
believe that we are going to have something that works well for the city...live here in the
United States but in the same time preserve and maintain these values that we have had
before but we started to lose in recent decades to the typical suburban sprawl that...that the
car is just one mode of transportation. With this in mind we...concept that is based on the...
framework that we established as the...to use as a consultation as well. And to accommodate
various use...that would be strongly pedestrian oriented streets...opportunities for biking,
pedestrians and the car. But the cars would be only as...another means of transportation. In
general the cars are strong in the surrounding area where we have the streets but as they are _...
close to the village, they get more and more slowed down. Stopped so to speak. They have
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
to feel like they are part of the overall...The car is just parked and...go 50-60 miles per hour
around on these highways but this is the area not for the car to go 60 or...40 mph but they
have to slow down because this is a special area. This is an area where we'll live. Where we
will sit. Where we talk. Where we entertain and so on and shop and therefore the car is just
a means that we come to that area. We park the car or we maybe short term park on the
_ street but...shop and come out and...parking areas behind the building and so that way we
make sure that...are going to provide the framework for all these multiple functions to happen.
The buildings are mostly going...go along shops...but in any case these buildings are framing
the streets and on the front sides of the buildings we are allowing for limited parking.
Parallel or diagonal parking, while on the back side of that we have a majority of parking. In
some special situations where there may be some festivities or some special events that
happen, the event can park the cars on the fringe areas and use them, turn that main street
completely into a pedestrian zone for a certain segment of time for some special events like
centennial or...or some other festivities. So the streets have been an important concept to us.
...but we are also allowing the car and modem amenities...so we are allowing plenty of
parking...so we are making a combination of what we see as traditional town...or the
European towns and the modem technology that we have... This is the challenge for us to
make that work and make that become... Second important...side of street is that we have, that
we have secured that...that allows that use of...In the diagrams that we prepared for that
indicate that we have vehicle circulation and the pedestrian circulation. And they reflect that
'- what I just said. Vehicle circulation indicates this strong circulation around these highways,
TH 101 and TH 5 and indicates that as you come along the Lake Drive at these entrance
points, the traffic tends to slow down and the dotted line with the street indicates that is the
slow traffic for the cars departing... We enter the parking...from these streets as well as the
connection for the Grandview loop around that... Along the TH 101 we are going to have
three communication nodes that will be intersections as we go East Lake Drive here. As we
go into the...going to the east and also to the main street... The pedestrian circulation. While
the vehicle circulation...is weaken and reduced down and we use...of slowing down that
_ circulation and... In the core area of offices and pedestrian circulation, this is the strength of
the pedestrian areas... The pedestrian is the...in that area and the car is just a guest. What we
are showing with this diagram is that pedestrians are not only on the street but they also have
a very strong connection opportunities to all regional trails...along Lake Susan and Marsh
Lake. Go south to the Chanhassen Hills and Rosemount and to the bridge, pedestrian bridge
here. There are also these two crossings to the downtown, as has been mentioned before...
Highway 101 and also here on the eastern portion as well. So the...pedestrian circulation and
the car circulation and...but it indicates that we have the uses both vertically and horizontally.
We did not mix just horizontally. That means here is the office. Here is the church. Here is
the retail. Here is, they are not separate uses like that...horizontally mixed but we also have
vertical...to be used that the building itself contains the garage...retail on the first floor. The
office for the second floor and then the residential on top of it. So...vertical and horizontal
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
mix that we have here, that we provide opportunities for like cycle housing or for all this
synergy and all this...uses that are going to make that... maybe I should be a little more —
specific about the units...St. Hubert's Church. This is the residential...up to four story high.
...Lake Susan and potentially back off this side will be also a place... We have along the
highway we will find the motel here and the restaurant probably and the office building. And
in the area along TH 101 you will have office retail... And in the core area we are having
retail and residential units. And the fourth element that we use to create a concept of the _
development is not an architectural design standard of...and as we are looking at these...I
would like to point strongly out strong use of size. That these elevations, as well as...that
take the intent, the overall intent of that development on a broad brush basis of the whole
PUD, but they do not reflect that we are...exactly like that will look, the floorplan of the
building...but that's not, as a matter of fact, we are not designing any specific buildings. We
are just trying to indicate to give some idea of the flavor and the character of...that we are —
trying to achieve and suggesting to individual developers as they come along that they...along
this line of these...that we are trying to reflect with these elevations and the design standards
that Bob is working with us on and...we would like to have more of this continuous look of —
the village developed over the time rather than just single hand, that one single architect did
the whole thing. Number two, we are suggesting that we go along...like maybe
south...Spanish or Cape Cod or who knows what. We would like to have more of midwestern —
architectural flavor. Maybe...things that you see in the old towns in Minnesota, or most any
other midwestern town... We would like those to reflect that some architectural elements that
are... I think that some European flavor on some of these elevations is fine to get reflected
and if we have this type of design that reflects midwestern...European type of style of
architecture, we believe that that makes...that has been here from the early settlers in
Minnesota has been really provided. I mean the people came from Europe and Sweden and
so they also...and so this elements that have been here established before, we are trying to...
Mancino: Mika, I have a question. So what doesn't work?
Mika Milo: Pardon?
Mancino: So what kind of architecture doesn't work?
Mika Milo: Will not work?
Mancino: Yes.
Mika Milo: For our villages as we are saying and it would be...we work out together the
design standards, says that we are, that we-don't believe that the flashy, streamline of modern,
super modern just architecture would really work very well here. We would like to have
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
more of a warm traditional feeling of...That does not include that you cannot have modern
elements...and modern materials and means to achieve the construction but it would in general
_ it's encouraging more familiar forms of the more traditional kinds of forms...That you feel
comfortable in it and it's not cold and modern and one huge big building along horizontal
lines or bands or something like that, that you see very often in developments...the facade and
the elevations, the other thing that we have strongly encouraging through guidelines...and also
down the road because there...an architectural review...established here down the line you
know for the review and development as it comes even before you, it will be first reviewed
by the architectural design committee against the guidelines, against the whole intent of the
village is also that it would encourage that not only there is a place for facades and all these
that we are trying to...floorplan of the building and the street, building on the street...as many
as possible interesting effects that the pedestrians will feel very comfortable or being around
or...and those benches on the streets and plaza...multitude of visual effects and interests that
the people like to talk about this village as something special. It's almost like a destination.
Let's go and spend a quality couple hours there walking and maybe...
Mancino: Can you talk a little bit about the materials used. Natural materials and materials
found in this area as they do in Europe versus aluminum siding and man made materials.
Mika Milo: We are suggesting the guidelines here, materials that come more typical for
midwest and...which is brick and wood. Brick and wood that's being earlier...we are
encouraging here. Stucco as well. But less of metal panels and gray concrete and all these
more...or very flashy, very cold, cold architectural materials. Used more as an accent. We
are...So any questions. I'm just going to...
Mancino: Any questions, Jeff, architectural...
Skubic: I have a question. What would that mass transit component be on the plan? Do you
have some idea where and how that would be located?
Mika Milo: ...and right here at the core, at the intersection of Main Street and the Lake Drive
where we had the village square, there would be a bus station on both ends of the eastbound
and westbound. There will be bus stations down here. The Southwestern and Met Council
worked with us on that and they are going to participate in...funding of these areas to be
created for their transit stops here and that will be a very welcome feature that we have as
many activities and...for the village here as much as possible. And so that's an important
element in the consideration so I'm glad you...
Mancino: And where will the main route of the buses be? Will they come from Great Plains
Boulevard into that area and then go out TH 101?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Aanenson: We haven't really worked that out with Southwest as far as what they see their
loops and as TH 101 gets widened, those transit may change. The loops depending on where —
they're feeding.
Mancino: So, when will we have that figured out by? Will that be something for final plat?
Aanenson: It may be something that changes over time too. I mean that's a flexibility that's —
part of Southwest Metro that we have. I mean what we're really trying to provide is transit
stop locations where people can sit in a comfortable, enclosed area and that's what we're
providing.
Generous: Or do other things while they're waiting for the bus.
Aanenson: Right, yeah. And so the routing may change depending on where people are
going. Destinations so there's some flexibility.
Mika Milo: Again I would just like to again...of that image of the village...East Lake Drive
as well coming here to this end. That would be something later. It could be a motel...but
certainly that design was come before the church was designed so it does not reflect the site —
design of the church...but that gives the overall understanding of the village concept and I
think it projects a very comfortable feeling about what we are trying to achieve...
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: ...but as a practical matter there isn't a whole lot that...If you want to —
follow along...that there was a change that they would like to have us consider which I...staff
recommended that we change this configuration, put the configuration of the pond in this
area. There's some pictures that Bob had at the onset that...and shows the restaurant actually —
moves forward. That's a part of what we'll be working on. Making way for the pedestrians.
Working to... So it's not quite done yet. In the meantime we're going to deal with the impacts
of taking this land out of this site which is the site that would ultimately...motel and
restaurant site. They need a certain size site and if you're taking this away...giving them a
little larger site and I just wanted to...that there may be some changes in this area to
accommodate that. ...This was never intended to be a street...
Mancino: So Vernelle, can I interrupt you for a minute? For some of these changes that you
may ask for or don't like...it may be that we table this and ask you and staff to work on the
changes and the appropriate verbiage of them for next week when we meet again and...
because you have not had time to go over that with staff and we don't want to do that during
this meeting.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Vernelle Clayton: Right. I don't know either if that was what your intent was on some of
these...
Aanenson: That's up to the Planning Commission. I guess they have to decide what the
scope...and how much changes you're talking about.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. We're trying to keep the changes to a minimum and keeping in
mind that what we're doing is...changing the plat to reflect...
Aanenson: To answer your question Nancy. They've already shown us a revision that we
believe is moving in the right direction to answer our concerns... The Fire Marshal had
concerns about egress into that area. We were concerned about the amount of wetland.
They've already given us the plans that we're pretty confident moves in the right direction.
Now you haven't had an opportunity to see it but we...
Mancino: Sure. Well it just depends how many there are because we don't want to sit here
for 45 minutes where you guys can do that and then come back to us next week and go over
it in half an hour and you will come to an agreement.
Vernelle Clayton: ...because I didn't want to come either next week or subsequently having
worked it out with staff...
Mancino: Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: The item that we have...we do have a problem...items that we do have a
problem with, as Bob mentioned, is the natural area and knoll in the southern part of the
development. Number 4...as open space and subsequent item...It is their input...further study
and we will bring additional information to you on that. Further study of the...stand on the
current TH 101, you don't appreciate...The other thing that needs to be taken into
consideration is the amount of grading the new TH 101 will take from that site. That's the
grading that will... There is canopy there but there is very few significant trees on the site and
we'll get you some more information on that. We also will be accompanying St. Hubert's to
the Park and Rec meeting on...There is some need for a soccer field in town...and I should
add that the option of having the...is not a viable option to either the seller or the buyer. It's
not practical economically for either one...so I just want to let you know that that's an
option...
Mancino: Even with underground parking? As an option.
Vernelle Clayton: Underground parking where?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: Up in that area.
Vernelle Clayton: Even with the underground parking we have...
Mancino: ...enlarging it.
Vernelle Clayton: We wouldn't have a building in that area that could provide underground
parking. If the soccer fields were put, which way is up?
Generous: It's side ways.
Vernelle Clayton: Up here. Then you would not...with the underground parking...and it
would take more space than the office building and... _
Mancino: I thought they still had the office building.
Generous: They did. It's a smaller building.
Mancino: Okay. —
Peterson: As the drawing shows there Vernelle, how far is the soccer field approximately
from the church? —
Mancino: 450 feet.
Aanenson: As the crow flies.
Mancino: At least that's what the report said.
Hempel: Madam Chair, one alternative to that, I don't want to get into the design specifics at
this point. One of the recommendations was to consider consolidating this storm pond with —
this storm pond and eliminating the tennis court which would open up additional space for a
possible parking lot expansion or retail or something of that sort so there are some options...to
explore.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Again...
Generous: To agree on the development approval, the City has to...
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Vernelle Clayton: ...we've covered 3...Number 14 relates to...Rerouting of Riley Creek...but
not that we would be doing rerouting. That's part of TH 101.
Hempel: It actually depends on the final design parameters of the storm pond adjacent to TH
101 in that location as it impacts the creek. Or the storm pond's going to utilize the creek
area so some more discussions on that as we move further along.
Vernelle Clayton: Another important item is number 16. We want and we have talked about
the timing on that. We have talked with staff and staff is currently working on determining
how they can work something out on that... Number 23, all access points on to Trunk
Highway 101 are subject to MnDot approval and there Dave, I think that this...all access
points for right in and right out...very important to...able to have a right-in and right-out and
we're going to make our best effort to...so that's another ongoing item.
Mancino: So it will stay just as it is. I mean 23 is fine but you're mostly concerned about
that northern access on TH 101.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. 25. We're... Again at 34... 40, I believe that in our discussions that
language should be changed to a width of 50 feet right there.
Hempel: That's correct.
Vernelle Clayton: 41. It says that the applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101
right-of-way with the initial phase of development. We would like to add, and at the same
time...vacation of the existing at the same time. Park fees, we're going to be talking with the
_ Park Department... Development of Block 2. Again that went with....TH 101 or determination
of...temporary setback... The only thing that was not specific in here is the 50/50 ownership
on the... I wanted to I'm sorry go back, to item number 6. Development shall comply with
the development design standards included in the staff report and incorporated herein by
reference, and I do want to say there that we are a little uncomfortable with listing the items
that are permitted. Typically you...here we have a lot of permitted retail and we, in
discussions we...we're not uncomfortable that what we're trying to... We seem to have a good
meeting of the minds on what everybody wants...but we would like to, when it comes back,
we would like to see it come back...we'd like to be sure that there... They're kept much more
up to date than this... For example, we are trying to have a special...and I'm most concerned
about other technologies. Areas of technology... I might want to open a fax store. Just sell
fax machines. That's not listed as a permitted item but if you use the same zip code... Now
20 years ago there were no fax machines. Today we all have them. If we want this to work
20 years from now...
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: We'll have to update this list, no question.
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. But what those...lists are updated_..I think that's about it....thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions?
Conrad: Yeah Vernelle. Are you comfortable with the sign restrictions?
Vernelle Clayton: I think we have, we...spent quite a bit of time talking about that. One of
the things we'll probably do, in both our covenants and...and incorporate some of that in them. —
And in the final report. We're going to have...illustrative documents. We'll have a lot of
illustrative documents that...developer and then their review and usually...so yeah, I think
we're pretty comfortable...Any other questions?
Mancino: I don't think so. That's fine. Thank you very much. I think we want to now
move forward to the public hearing. And then maybe after that, depending on how long it —
goes, make some suggestions about staff and the applicant getting back together and going
over these recommendations. Cleaning them up and bring it back to us next week for a final
wrap. May I have a motion to open the public hearing and a second please. —
Conrad moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public healing. The public hearing was
opened. —
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Those wishing to address the
Planning Commission, please do so at this time. Come up. State your name and address.
Dave Nikolay: My name is Dave Nikolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. My property is in
the southeast corner of the proposed development on the. —'
Mancino: Kind of where is it?
Dave Nikolay: Mission Hills, not Mission Hills. Rice Lake Manor development. Some of
you may remember...number of times on the Rottlund... Number of people that address the —
issue relative to the ballfields and park space and the one issue that hasn't been addressed
here deals with, I've owned the property I'm currently residing on for about 16 years and over
that 16 year period there's been numerous discussions about the possibility of a trail system —
that would go all the way around Rice Marsh Lake. Nobody's mentioned anything about that
trail here. If some day that that trail should be built and connected to the existing trail that
runs on the north side of Rice Marsh Lake;then I think it would be advantageous to consider
dedicating this space for this land that might otherwise be...proposed as open space, to be a
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
park piece of property that would be similar to the Rice Marsh Park. It could be potentially
similar to the Lake Susan Park. I think there are a number of other parks classified as
neighborhood parks in Chanhassen. I'm one of now over 230 households that are a part of
the Rottlund and Rice Lake Manor developments. We have one-half acre of parkland for that
many residents in our area. We have no access to parkland by any trail on our side of TH
101, which is the east side of TH 101. So anything that you can do, whether it be small or
large, and I don't think there's going to be much large...Park and Rec passed on the proposal...
they passed on the Rottlund development as having a park space provided. We eventually did
get a half acre. You approved that. They approved it so I would seriously ask that you
would recommend to the Park and Rec that they reconsider that they review the first decision
or review and that they look at this as park space. I don't know whether it should be St.
Hubert's or it should be the developers or who's it should be. I think the City should take
responsible or take control of that and if they want to hand it off to St. Hubert's or to some
other party to develop or to manage, that's fine. But we need park space and to have a park
at that location that might be eventually...a trail that is not addressed yet here at this point, it
would be helpful. So I would recommend that you seriously consider allowing some type of
park open space to be provided.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Now this is going in front of the Park and Rec on July 25th.
Generous: 23rd. Next Tuesday.
Mancino: Okay. So that might be an important meeting for you to attend too. Excuse me,
I'm losing my voice. Anyone else?
Dave Bangaster: Hi. I'm Dave Bangaster and I'm a member of the St. Hubert's Building
Committee and I don't want to belabor the ballfield point but I do want to make it clear that
that is an important issue to St. Hubert's and just ask your consideration to leave some of
your thoughts open to you and to present our case next Tuesday to the Park and Rec. We
think we've got some ultimate plan to help mitigate some of the issues. To save some of the
trees and also replant some things. To rework some grades in there that we think will help.
We'd just like the opportunity to sit down and work that out with staff so I'd just you keep
that open and it's understanding that this will likely be continued to next week and we
hopefully will have a chance to reconsider it at that time.
Mancino: Thank you.
Pat Hamblin: I'm Pat Hamblin at 340 Sinnen Circle. First of all I had a question, it's
probably a dumb question. I had a really hard time hearing anything. On that plot, the
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
square. The town square thing... What is that? Is that just a fancy intersection or is that a
building or what? —
Mancino: Mika, could you answer that please.
Generous: Fancy intersection.
Mika Milo: It's just a plaza that... It's a paving...so that you can drive vehicles.
Pat Hamblin: So you can drive through there? —
Mika Milo: Yeah, you can drive a car.
Pat Hamblin: Okay. I was trying to figure out how...TH 101 from over here.
Mancino: It's decorative paving. But it will still be the roadway.
Pat Hamblin: And that was the one concern I had. Other than that just, you know I'm
hoping that the number of...apartments or townhouses or what but I can talk to you about that —
later. Only other thing is, on a personal note, it just kind of breaks my heart to see all these
trees and sumac and stuff being removed. It also makes me wonder, what's going to happen
to all this wildlife that's over there. Especially when they go, you've got 212 coming up to —
Rice Marsh...that's a sad comment but I guess that's not an important thing... So okay, that's
just my...
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Have any questions. Comments.
Greg Larsen: My name's Greg Larsen. I live on 8151 Grandview Road. My question is, the —
section of trees that butt up against my property. What they have proposed, it doesn't look
like there's anything left in the parking lot there. What's the buffer actually going to be? I'm
the first house on. —
Brad Johnson: He's the one on the left as you go up Grandview.
Greg Larsen: I'm the first house.
Dean Olson: ...we'll have to first off meet the standards of the city in terms of...
Greg Larsen: Yeah buffer zones... —
36 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Dean Olson: I would propose that we come in with evergreen and overstory and shrubbery in
there so that we get a full mix...
Greg Larsen: And then I would like to know a little bit more on how that road's actually
going to change. Where it's going to come in according to my property. You say you're
going to change access.
Mancino: Dave, do you want to address that?
Greg Larsen: Yeah, I was here but.
Hempel: Maybe I can just use this board right here. The way it's currently, Grandview Road
accesses TH 101 in this location approximately 100-150 feet south of Lake Drive.
Approximately double that distance. Probably 200 to 300 feet south of the intersection to a
public street which...
Greg Larsen: Is that looking to come, right now the road goes past the end of my property
and now it's going to come up into the center of my property. Possibly.
Hempel: Where you garage and your driveway is served?
Greg Larsen: There's actually a lower driveway that goes into my garage...down there.
Brad Johnson: You've got two trees there. The biggest tree...
Mancino: Dave, is it possible for you to go over to Mr. Larsen's house and kind of walk it
and show him where it's going to come?
Hempel: Certainly.
Mancino: I think that that would be a good idea to actually do it on site.
Hempel: It would approximately come into your driveway right here.
Greg Larsen: Okay, good. That's the one we're...
Mancino: But the public road, the public cul-de-sac won't go into his property?
Hempel: No. It will terminate at the development's property line.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: Okay. But it will not go into your property and take part of your property.
Greg Larsen: No. That was my concern was. This was going to be the cul-de-sac...going to
be in the garage. That was a concern.
Brad Johnson: Probably what we should do...
Mancino: Yeah. An on site review of it.
Greg Larsen: Thank you.
Mancino: Anyone else wishing to come in front of the Planning Commission? Seeing none,
may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. _
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public healing was closed.
Mancino: At this point, what would the commission like to do? Do I have a motion to table
this until the next meeting and have the.
Conrad: I think we should talk a little bit in terms of things that we would like staff working
on.
Mancino: Okay.
Conrad: Or reinforce something or not.
Mancino: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I continue to like this development...
Audience: Couldn't hear you.
Farmakes: Couldn't hear me?
Audience: No.
Farmakes: I'll try and...project. I like this development as much as anything I've seen since
I've been on. I think it's a very high quality and I continue to see that. I'd like to see the
issue that was touched on briefly about more screening up on Highway 5. In particular _
screening the parking lot...site line to see through the distance to the retail areas. I'm sure the
38
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
staff can work on that. The other issues and materials that you touched on, I have yet to see
worked out. Everything else is well thought out. I look forward to this continuing on. I
don't have any critical comments to the thing.
Peterson: Moment of silence.
Mancino: Nobody knows what to say.
Conrad: I'm going to get this videotape.
Mancino: We're going to hold this against your from now, forever more. Kevin. Comments.
Joyce: The only comment, my comment is I'm excited. I think the staff did a great job. I
think Lotus did a great job. Mika. I think it's all wonderful. I've got two things though.
Number one, Bob can you put up your suggested Section 2 with the parking.
Generous: Oh the soccer field?
Mancino: Northwest corner by the motel, restaurant. Correct?
Joyce: Yes. I imagine you guys will be discussing this. This would be your suggestion.
What am I looking at here? That's the only thing I don't like. I don't like your suggestion
I'm afraid. I don't like all that parking right there in that corner. I think that's adding to the
problem. I know you're trying to get away from the idea of seeing a lot of parking. I see
more parking.
Aanenson: Well, what we were trying to do is...new urbanism is that now if you wanted the
restaurant to be against Highway 5, you're doing a traditional, very suburban development.
We're saying, if there's a relationship to the restaurant to the rest of the development is should
be pulled closer because anybody sitting at that motel has to walk across a sea of parking lot
which is exactly what we're trying not to accomplish. So we wanted to pull it closer to
what's the energy of the rest of the center. We're not sure this is the right solution but we
think it's moving...
Mancino: Well and you're also trying to make the pond bigger.
Aanenson: Right. That's the statement of the project is the pond and it still can have a view
of the pond, which is the nice edge but, so we're working we think in the right direction.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Joyce: Yeah and I'm not saying. I don't have a solution for you, okay. I just saw that and I
went oh. I don't know. It looks like more parking to me is all I'm saying. Is it more? —
Generous: No. It's probably the same. I didn't have the numbers.
Joyce: If there was some way of breaking that up, I don't know. I'm just saying, you know
since you'll be talking about it. That's something I'd want to consider. The only other —
consideration I've had, and I've had it from the beginning is the segregation of this from the
other part of downtown. I mean I wish we could figure out some method of slowing down
traffic on Highway 5 or something. I just think that's going to be a problem and I look at this
as just a beautiful project. If there's some way to integrate this with the other part of
downtown Chanhassen, I wish we had a solution...I can't think of anything else so.
Mancino: Another bridge.
Joyce: Another bridge, right. Otherwise congratulations.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: ...and I think real nice implementation. I think everybody else is quite excited about
this. My opinion on it, as far as the integration with downtown is that, even if you were
going to put a bridge there, it's too far away from the other businesses. I know I don't walk
from Perkins to Target and I don't know if anybody does and that's a lot closer than this is.
And it's quite cold here in the winter too. I just don't see this as being part of downtown. I
wish it was. The soccer fields, I certainly think we need to keep that...St. Hubert's property
or open to the public but I attended the open house at the Park Referendum Task Force had a
month ago and it was well represented by the athletic folks in town and they stressed the
shortage of ballfields and considerable need...fields and I'd sure like to see that retained and —
I'd like to see it retained closer to the church...I think if there needs to be a plan of how you
get access to the field there. I don't see how that works so. And one more access...it sounds
like we are continuing to have an underpass under TH 101 for a trail and I think there needs —
to be an access for the east side of the trail to main street...so they can access the downtown
development... That's it.
Mancino: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't have that many things. It's such a big project. Very few things.
Couple quick ones. As probably was evident in my comments, I think this pond can be a
pretty pond and I guess I'm not looking for it to be a totally natural habitat. Is it more of a —
picturesque pond. I want to make sure the applicant is really comfortable with the signage
40
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
restrictions. They look real complicated to me and they've got me nervous but Vernelle said
that she's okay so, but I'd just challenge that. Make sure it reflects what we want to do. I
very definitely feel we should screen the parking lots on Highway 5. There's just no doubt
about it. It's probably a greater emphasis and maybe we just don't know what the plan is but
it looks like we need more. I'm real interested in the impact of the soccer field. What kind
of trees are we taking down? The quality of trees. Are they bad trees? It doesn't look like it
fits down there. It looks like it's just sticking right out in a natural area. There's got to be a
way to make it fit. If it goes in there, there's got to be a way to make it look more than just
like a soccer field stuck in a very natural. I don't know. If the field goes there, I'm real
interested in how it's being linked here. It's just not connected. It's just not connected so we
need to see that plan and if the soccer field, if we decide the soccer field goes there, it's got
to be connected somehow and I haven't seen that. So again what I need is, and maybe the
Park and Rec will, no, no. Staff will figure this out. If we tear it down, if we tear the trees
down, I need to know what kind of impact there is there. I'm not committed to the
reconfiguration of the restaurant location as we just saw. It didn't look, I don't know. There's
more, something's not right and I'm not sure what it is, but it just didn't strike me right so the
staff proposal for where the restaurant is located, I still see the same thing and I haven't
looked at it real good. I still see the same pedestrian problems. Before I could walk people
around the edge of the parking lot. Now I've got to route them through so I'm not there yet
in terms of a solution for changing that. I like the comment from the public about a trail
around Rice Marsh Lake. That's kind of neat. I don't know. I'd sure like to challenge the
Park and Rec. Again, I don't know their detail plans for how the south is connected to this
development but a trail going through that property sure sounds reasonable. Or sounds like
something that should be pursued. I'd sure like to see the Park and Rec. I'd like to get their
input before we review this. Boy, they meet on Tuesday.
Mancino: They meet on Tuesday. Will we be able to get that?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Mancino: We can still get it. One, we can attend and number two, we can get that.
Conrad: But overall it's really neat. This is just a real treat to see a project like this in
Chanhassen.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: I agree with virtually all the comments. I vacillate back and forth on the soccer
field being there and having a nice quiet walk through the trees to get there from the area. I
see that as being a positive. It depends upon how we cover it from TH 101. Does it look
41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
like...is it fitting in there with the natural trees around that. Part of me likes it there for that
reason. Part of me, it is going to stick out like Ladd offered it might but it wouldn't, more
landscaping definition of that needs to be done. I'm a little confused on that. I think next
time staff, I want to talk a little bit more about the idea of expanding the pond and really the
rationale for that. I'm not convinced that expanding it is the right thing to do. I'm more —
biased towards making it a manicured pond. I think long term it's easier to maintain and keep
it looking reasonable. To try to balance the natural versus manicured, you're going to have... _
I think that a manicured, and how you push that into the wetland area...going to diffuse the
look of it so I'm more biased towards manicuring.
Aanenson: Can I get your input on that then, just as direction for staff. Because one of the
guiding principles, preservation of natural features and so, which ones? I mean basically
we've taken the trees down. We don't have enough wetland. We've taken the wetlands out. —
We have to replace them off site. I mean they've offered to put them in Chaska. We're
saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's try to keep them at least in the
general area. They want to use the city bank so, but that's where the Park and Recreation's _
battling too as far as the PUD. What is the city getting out of it, and that's where we were
wrestling trying to preserve some of the wetlands. Like this is an area to maintain some of
the wetland preservation. So I guess what you're telling us is that it's not important and try to —
find banking somewhere else? I mean we're talking a significant amount.
Joyce: I'm curious though Craig. So how do you manage with the wetland, won't that —
somehow overtake the opening pond, the pretty pond?
Aanenson: No. —
Joyce: I don't know either I mean.
Aanenson: I think we can accomplish that. If you dig it deep enough, sure. That was our
proposal. But I mean what you're saying then is that there's not enough replacement on site
for wetlands. So what you're saying is that, you want us to come back specifically. We —
didn't address a lot of that in detail tonight but that was one reason why we tried to put some
back there.
Peterson: Well I guess what I was thinking, what I'm sensing. I'm confused as to what it's
going to look like, and Ladd tried to get that.
Aanenson: Okay. Well maybe there needs to be a better definition of what that would look
like.
42 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: I think a vision needs to be articulated much better. I think the vision for the pond
and even maybe graphically too. Verbally. Graphically.
Peterson: Computer video graphics would be nice.
Mancino: Or a rendering.
Peterson: A couple other quick items. In the very macro sense, every time I look at this, the
first thing I see and the last thing I see is parking everywhere. You know you want to get a
feel for you know a little bit of serenity but on a busy day all you're going to see is cars.
Even though we're putting a lot of them underground. If you look at it and there's,
everywhere you drive getting in and out of there is, there's a car space. Park. And again, this
is not an answer. It's just a reflection of what I see when I look at it. I just don't think it
generates that much warmth on that level and...can't give you specifics above that. Another
item, we talk about where the restaurant is and we talked about it earlier as far as... One of
the things that I compare it with, if you've been at the Friday's over by the Radisson South
and trying to get to that Friday's through the parking lot of the Radisson, it's a pain. And
almost to the point of being dangerous trying to fight your way through the parking lot.
People backing out and in and...easy entrance or exit to it. What I don't want us to have is
restaurant sites and you've got to go through a maze to get to the parking lot. So that as a
—' parking...there really is a natural level versus trying to figure out where to get to it. And
lastly, it really wasn't talked about. It was talked about at one of the preliminary meetings
that over on the westerly side where the office complex is. Now at one point in time that
was talked about being condo's and trying to have all three of those areas being kind of
considered kind of a mix of that. I still find that rather intriguing to have them all three
_ condo's versus office. I know there's a balance of office so you can have some working area
but again, I'm looking at the parking aspect of it with office bringing in a lot more parking
than you would with condominiums. So those are my salient points for tonight.
Mancino: Thank you. My last comments. I think I agree with what ever other
commissioners has said. Parking, from what Craig just brought up. What are the options?
More shared parking? Underground parking, etc. to alleviate the massive parking.
Generous: What I have initialed. These were based on the standards that the Code has. Not
what we're proposing for the development. I believe we dropped it down. The number of
parking that would...have as part of this.
Mancino: Okay, so we had dropped it down. Okay. So what we're saying.
Generous: ...It's illustrative but it's not exact.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: Oh, okay. So how much illustrative is it? I mean is it 20%? Because I've got to
tell you. —
Generous: I did run through the numbers once. I don't remember them off hand. It's
significant. It's like 100 over. It exceeds 100 more than I would have had. Just based on
those numbers of what they have there.
Mancino: So the illustration has more than really what's required?
Generous: Yes. Under the proposed guidelines. —
Mancino: Okay. So we can cut back when it comes to the actual.
Generous: When I come back, I can use this example and tell you how many they have and
then how many the BC would...
Mancino: Would that be helpful for you Craig?
Peterson: Yes. Absolutely. —
Mancino: Okay. Me also. I'd also like to have you and Lotus investigate other ways of
parking. Whether it's more underground, etc. What are the other options? And they may be —
prohibitive but still bring out those options if you could. Secondly, window signs. Part of
Vernelle, I know that Ladd asked you about signage. And being a frequent European visitor
and being in a neo-traditional setting quite a lot, one of the most stimulating things about it
are the window displays and in Europe they don't put huge window signs up because they
have the product out very, almost art directed window displays so everybody wants to walk
down the street and everybody wants to go to the shops and everybody wants to look in the —
shops and all this kind of stuff. We don't tend to do that here in our strip malls. We tend to
put huge hand lettered signs in our windows and because we're going to have so much
window treatment, and that is something that you want to offer, I didn't see anything in the —
signage area about window signs. Are we going to, are you requesting that we stay with the
ordinance of 50%. Somehow that just doesn't seem like it would work in this sort of
development. So I'd like to see that addressed. You don't certainly need to answer that to me
tonight but if you could address that because it makes a huge visual difference in the
streetscape and in the public area. Along with an articulated vision of the pond I would also —
like to see in writing, to listen to, to read in writing, what traditional village character means.
Architecturally wise. If there could be a paragraph describing for me the traditional village
character in architectural terms. So that it's real clear that there is a direction being set design —
wise. I would also like to make sure that, and part of the recommendations is that it is a
44
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
—
—
covenant of the development to have the Villages on the Ponds architectural and landscape
review committee established and maintained during the project. And I'd also like something
about the street furniture recommendations, plants, public art, benches, bicycle racks, also in
the recommendations. I think this would be a wonderful place for public art. And I must
say, I can't really fully support the master landscape plan because it just doesn't show me
much. It's very sketchy so I'm going to be relying mostly on the site plans. I don't feel that
in this development we should keep overstory trees of 208 for replacement. I think that if it
demands more as boulevard trees, then there should be more as a PUD. And I think those are
_ all my comments. Do we have a motion at this time?
Conrad: I'd make a motion that we table this item.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
— Peterson: Second.
Mancino: Okay. The motion is seconded. Any discussion at this point? Now, do you need
— to know why we tabled it?
Aanenson: No. We've got the direction.
Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission table the Villages on the
Ponds until the meeting on July 24, 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
—
OLD BUSINESS:
—
Mancino: Do we have old business?
Aanenson: Yes. Just one item. There was four applications for the Planning Commission
and what I was hoping is that maybe we could do it next week. I was just trying to base it
on how much, it seems like we've kind of condensed. There's two items on next time. Next
on the 24th which you've already got in that packet and this will continue. I'm just looking
—
for some direction from the Planning Commission is you want to try to do those before. I
kind of hate to have people come late because you never know exactly when we're going to
end. We've already kind of noticed those hearings for 7:00 so we would have to start more
—
like 6:30. So whatever your pleasure is on that.
_ Mancino: So you've already given notices at 7:00.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Aanenson: Yeah. Fortunately the hearing, we almost have to get two weeks ahead of time so
the hearing for the 24th, they were published almost 3 weeks ago.
Mancino: So we could do it at the end, couldn't we?
Aanenson: Yeah, it's hard to gauge. Tell people to show up at 9:30.
Mancino: Because we'd need to be here at 6:00 then because it's.
Peterson: They may as well get used to now.
Mancino: Well that's a good approach.
Aanenson: See if they really want to serve.
Mancino: But Kate we'd have to start at 6:00 because there are four. —
Aanenson: Yeah, whatever you'd like to do.
Mancino: What is people thinking?
Conrad: What day are we looking at? —
Aanenson: Next Wednesday.
Conrad: Next Wednesday. And there are only four. I guess that just pops up. That's a bad
sign. Four applicants. We are not positioning, we are not a sought after positions here. Four
applicants is really, you know we've had 20 in the past so. —
Farmakes: People just don't get mad like they used to.
Conrad: They just don't care. They don't have enough issues. Four.
Joyce: What do we need, an hour?
Mancino: Well 15 minutes is generally. _
Aanenson: Well generally we kind of put 15. It's up to you. That's generally what we've
done.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: If we started at 6:00, the meeting probably wouldn't go too long. What would
everyone's pleasure be? Start at 6:00 and interview or interview at the end? Or wait until
August.
Aanenson: Yeah, otherwise we could schedule it for the first one in August. Although we
have no breathers between now and September. We've got you pretty booked, yeah.
Actually on the 12th, August 12th. Excuse me, it would be August 7th. We've got six items
and then on the 21st we've also got, we just received projects coming in for this one now. So
there's really not a good time. What I could do on the other ones is push the meeting back
later but then you're just going to be here later. So whatever's convenient for you or.
Mancino: I suggest that because we only have two items, and now three items on the agenda
next time, we do it next week at 6:00 and come for four interviews at 6:00.
Peterson: I don't know if I can get here at 6:00.
Conrad: I just don't know that I'll be here at 6:00.
Mancino: What about 6:30? Can't we put something in the paper tomorrow? Oh we can't.
We don't even have a week.
Aanenson: The paper goes out Thursday. It's already been pretty much put together. Oh, it
comes out tomorrow morning. I can check with the City Attorney and see what we can do as
far as it goes. If they show up and we start at 6:30 and see if we can just hold people off.
Mancino: Could everyone make it at 6:30?
Conrad: Yes.
Mancino: Is 6:30 better? Okay.
Aanenson: Also the fact that it wasn't published so I can check on that too.
Conrad: It wasn't published.
Aanenson: Yeah. That we do the interviews but I'm not sure that that's. We'll check on that.
I'll let you know. And then as far as old business too. As far as your preference for updating
you. We can certainly get going on the issues that you've given us direction on. I'm just
wondering if it would be okay if we get those out, try to get those out Friday afternoon.
Does that give you enough time to have the weekend for that. And there might be some
47
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
things we might have to just do orally and present at the meeting but we certainly got clear
direction. I'm not sure how much of that we can really address between now and.
Mancino: Or even if we got some of it on Friday and some on Monday. That would be fine
too.
Aanenson: Okay.
Conrad: Can I go back? Madam Chair, on four applicants. We have a tendency, if you have
four, you're going to pick one. Very seldom do you not find, do you not recommend one. It
just makes me a little bit nervous that we only have four.
Farmakes: Are any of the other previous applicants that were last time, were they encouraged
to re-apply?
Aanenson: One of them is. —
Mancino: Yes, one is.
Conrad: One is what?
Aanenson: Re-applied. —
Mancino: So go a little further...your thinking.
Conrad: Yeah, if you have 6 or 7 folks, you're going to find somebody that's, when you get
down to 4, only 3 may show. You know stuff like that. I tell you, it's real easy to slip your
standards in terms of who gets on here. I think it's real important that we have, if they're all —
good boy, then what I'm saying is not a problem. If they're all bad, I don't know that we've
ever had enough, whether it's all gumption or whatever, to say none of them meets our
standards because they're all good people. Everybody we interview are nice people. —
Joyce: What happens if they don't meet our standards? Do we just put a new ad in the
paper?
Aanenson: Yeah, we would re-advertise.
Conrad: See I've never seen that though. I guess that's my point. I've never seen where, oh
we'll find one. Somebody's got to be best out of the 3 or 4.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Farmakes: ...before we interview them, continue to try to get 4 more candidates?
Conrad: That's, I don't know. It's what you folks want to do on that.
Mancino: When did we close the applications? July 5th?
Aanenson: Yeah, right. That Friday.
Mancino: July 5th so it's been closed for a while.
Joyce: It's summer time application too.
Aanenson: Well we can certainly re-advertise if that's your preference. Tell people that
we've extended it, if that's your preference. I just don't want to make it onerous for the rest
of you...Whatever's your pleasure.
Conrad: If we interview candidates, we will pick one and submit one to City Council. That's
what we do. So it's just whether we feel comfortable that we want to have four and maybe
there's a no show and maybe, you know do we feel comfortable we have enough candidates?
Mancino: I have no idea because, well I do know that one is good... I'm not even going to
tell you who it is. I went out and tried to get people to apply.
Conrad: If you're comfortable that we have a couple decent people, it's just real important
that we have some.
Mancino: How does staff feel? That we have a couple.
Aanenson: Staff usually stays out of that. We work with whoever is chosen.
Mancino: I'm just afraid if we opened it again in August we wouldn't get any more only
because in August, everybody's on vacation.
Aanenson: Well actually fall's generally a hard time because you get the new school year.
People kind of get up and running into a different kind of, depending on I guess where you're
at for age. Life cycle. Actually we've had a harder time. The worst time is late fall. That's
when we've had the hardest time because people are already in the Christmas thing... So
imr
probably later summer, first part of all might be okay. We could certainly re-advertise. I'm
just trying to help you so if someone wants to take vacation you don't feel the other people
are burdened by being short 1 or 2.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Mancino: Craig, how do you feel?
Peterson: I think in reality, I think what Ladd has brought up today makes me feel more
comfortable saying no. I think we've got it on the table that we can say no, and should say
no if required. It sounds like you planted a seed that will nurture through next week and... If —
not, I'll bring it up again.
Conrad: I will. So let's do it.
Mancino: Bob, do you feel comfortable?
Skubic: Fine with me.
Mancino: Jeff? Okay. Next week at 6:00.
Aanenson: 6:30. —
Mancino: 6:30.
Aanenson: And I'll double check and make sure and let you know for the time it starts, if
that's okay. That's all I had for old business.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: Tomorrow night's the final meeting of the Bluff Creek. They've been working on —
their watershed plan and we've scheduled a work session for the, and inviting the City
Council for the Planning Commission to get you up to speed on what the watershed plan is
about because it does have zoning recommendations. And I've tentatively scheduled that for —
September 4th. So we'll have people that were working on the watershed plan, Bonestroo and
Diane Desotelle who was kind of the coordinator of that, spend some time in open discussion
going through that document so when you hold the public hearing, you're comfortable. That —
gives us a whole month. I'm looking more in October to holding the public hearing. You, as
a Planning Commission holding the public hearing on that document. That gives you a good
month to get familiar with the document and ask questions. —
Mancino: And some of that zoning will be clustering?
Aanenson: Yeah. And it pretty much, if you look at what this is going to put in place is the
zoning south of Lyman. We're putting that pretty much... _
50 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Peterson: Land use.
Aanenson: Excuse me, land use. Land use recommendations, which we need to be looking
at anyways. That was the 1995 study area so it's taking a largest portion of that so then we'll
accomplish the rest of that and have that right now is separate from bringing it into the
MUSA. It is a whole separate issue. Because we give the land use guide for that area.
Mancino: It will also be up to the City Council folks on 212.
Aanenson: Yeah. Well actually the recommendation...but certainly you have to give your
approval on that to the Council for those recommendations so. And also the State law says
we have to have our zoning and our land use in conformance by 1998 so it meets that
objective too.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated June 19, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: The Council approved the Interim Use Permit for the retail garden center on the
corner of TH 101 and 169/212, Skip Cook. They also approved the first reading of the
fencing, landscaping issue that we talked about on a 2 to 2 vote. The handicap parking issue
was actually it was 2 to 2, it's denied. For a code amendment you have to have a majority.
So that one won't be put out until they were championing your cause Craig as far as...
Mancino: But it's a State law so it doesn't make any difference.
Aanenson: Yeah. And then they gave final plat approval to Highlands of Lake St. Joe and
that was a resolution of the boundary dispute that we spent about 2 years working out with
Victoria and we did work out the transfer of the...so now they can final plat those lots and
they'll all be in the City of Chanhassen and the portion that was on the southern end, there's
one lot that was made larger, that will be part of Victoria when that area actually subdivides.
And last but not least, Town and Country rezoning and the comp plan amendment was tabled
until August 12th.
Mancino: Why?
Conrad: Yeah, where are they?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
Aanenson: A couple of reasons. Mike was out of town and to get a fair hearing, you really
need, you have to change a rezoning and comp plan you need 4/5ths and with Mike, right —
there you're already forcing four to vote the same way and then the applicants also asked for
time to meet with the neighbors, which they did on Tuesday to work some, see if there's some
other design issues that they can work out.
Peterson: It looked like the Mayor went public with his position. Where's everybody else?
Aanenson: I have no idea.
Conrad: What'd the Mayor say?
Peterson: He's for it.
Joyce: That was out in the paper, the Tribune.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Mancino: Okay, ongoing items. I don't know if this is ongoing items or open discussion but
on Monday they had the open house for 212 and did anyone here attend? Well there were
quite a few people there and very active and very vocal and it was, well I think 200 to 300
people were there. —
Aanenson: It was all three communities.
Mancino: Yeah, but mostly Chanhassen and as the councilmembers came in, they were just
kind of like magnets all the people came to them but anyway. So there were a lot of people
there. It was a remarkable, or I thought. I didn't think there would be half as many people
there.
Peterson: And the sense was what?
Mancino: Most of the people that were there were not for it. Were not for the private toll
road. They had a lot of questions and concerns. —
Conrad: Is that because they're not for the road in general and this is in disguise? Is the toll
the issue? —
Mancino: Sure. Some of it, but others really had some concerns about the private sector and _
how the financials were set up. Because the State will actually maintain it. Our tax dollars
52 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 1996
will maintain the toll road during this...and there were all sorts of questions like that. Does it
affect property taxes? What if the public sector gets it back? How does that...so there were a
lots of detail...and then people also wondered, when you get all this, is it doing what the
Metropolitan Council wants as far as, is it going to create more growth west and put a strain
on the infrastructure, schools, etc. So there were all kinds, I mean they were good questions
and what will it do to our downtown. I mean we'll have a big freeway going down. How far
will it be? About a mile and a half from Highway 5.
Aanenson: It's all addressed in the comp plan. I don't see how that would. That's what we're
planning on. That's what the Villages are planning on. The additional increase up TH 101.
That's what we want. And actually that's what we're hoping too. When we looked at the
traffic study for the EA, the additional truck traffic going south. When we did the EA for the
Chan Business Center, once that and TH 41, there will be additional truck traffic going south
instead of all on TH 5 so this will actually tend to lessen some of that traffic. Trucking
traffic anyway.
Mancino: Well it may be something that we thought about but you know Chaska or some of
the other communities, Eden Prairie whole downtown is...there will be a tremendous pressure
for communities on that 212 corridor to put in big boxes, commercial, low income. I mean it
all gravitates towards those areas.
Aanenson: Well I don't know. Everybody's had it in their comp plan and all or most of
Chaska's...through there. Same with Eden Prairie.
Mancino: But then it goes out west to TH 41.
Aanenson: Well yeah, but that's there already. I mean it's just widening it.
Mancino: So I'm just saying, those were the questions that were brought up. To be answered
at a later date. Can we have a motion to close the meeting?
Joyce moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00
p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53
6—
CHANHASSEN PLANNLNG COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24. 1996
Cha:rwe.rnan Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, and
Ladd Ccnr d -.:zo arrived during discussion of Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob
P!anner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, and Steve Kirchman,
3u::sir._ O :c:ri
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.57 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE
_ FAMILY LOTS AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED TO THE EAST OF HWY 41
AND ADJACENT TO MELODY HILL ROAD, MELODY HILLS. SPRINGBROOK
CORPORATION.
Public P esenr.
Name Address
y. o 10640 Lyndale, Bloomington
To= 10640 Lyndale, Bloomington
6287 Chaska Road
2280 Melody Hill
3onthius 2300 Melody Hill
Kasen ?e:e::o- 2240 Melody Hill
Sharmin Al-Jaif presented the staff report on this item.
The :e:=rc n_ .vas poor quality of this portion of the discussion.)
_. _ questions for staff at this point?
?e:_:ser :: ::e oniy reason for the setback variance is the trees?
They could use the setback with the variance but it will result in losing
L l
L
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
that is especially sensitive to...and he has shown a willingness to...so Sharmin's done a good
job of presenting the plan. It's pretty straight forward and I would like to answer any
questions you might have...the one issue of Lot 8. We will be addressing that...by addressing
the...
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Number one, allowing a
variance. You had figured a driveway. On my plat, I don't see how you get in and out of
Lot 1. Is that all...off of Chaska Road?...some back up area...location of the driveway be _
from the dedicated public road, the cul-de-sac that's going to go in...
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. The lots you're referring to are located on
Chaska Road... Given the grades of Melody Hill, the majority of the time...
Howard Kyllo: That's correct... —
Mancino: I would think you'd want to keep that buffer for Chaska Road and... My only other
question has to do right now with the cul-de-sac. It seems huge. —
Howard Kyllo: Well our first vision for the site was a village green...and that turned out not
to be possible... First of all it helps the frontages on the lot rather than taking them all down
to a little narrow, 50 foot frontage... and this would allow us a little larger center island which
is...
Mancino: Any other questions?
Joyce: I have a quick question for Dave. I'm trying to find where it is. The storm sewer —
line. I think...put it between Lot 4 and 5 and you're suggesting it go through 5 and 6. I'm
curious why.
Hempel: Based on the area topography...drainage ditch along Trunk Highway 41...
Joyce: It looked more natural to me between 4 and 5 and I was just curious why.
Hempel: .. —
Joyce: Okay. -
Mancino: Thank you very much.
3
C-- iss,on Meeting - July 24, 1996
Howard Ky.:c In anticipation of any of the audience questions, our lot prices are going to be
:oma- "o': :o :�1 80's. Houses to be built in there will probably, at the very minimum be
Ls25,-., to 5=:,") Not being builders we can't...
Manche: :ank you very much. Can I have a motion and a second to open this for a public
-earns
Joyce moved. Slmbic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
L
Marc:ro: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time. If
you ::a:a any .uestions or if you have any comments. If you would direct all questions to
� .1e. 7.-:ank you.
Rich N:coi: Hi. My name's Rich Nicoli. I live on Melody Hill, 2280. I have a number of
_oncer:.s and... Rig►tt now there's 7 houses on Melody Hill...10 house in the development is a
en endous mat's number one. Number two, I...about the trees...increase in traffic in that
L
area. .=.,:c:ns :0 homes, most people have two cars...so that's a significant increase for that
area. Also concerned about the...
'•la�-:ro Dave, can you comment for a minute...upgrade Chaska Road in the future and
.vne:: -Lave _ :.:v Road goes all the way through you'll have less traffic on Chaska Road.
correct. There some possibility to improve Chaska Road in the future...
::s
not a orionty for the City at this point so it would be probably a few years
=efc:eat_ zone.
..tans:no: Okay.
-o :ouch base a little bit more on the traffic...
_off Dave. :s :here a sign out there? I can't remember now. Is there a sign on Melody
i:: an C:as:a.' A stop sign there.
a t:a:e:ica: Nebottom of Melody Hill.
.ov:e• 3u: :-eves not one.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: But there's not a stop sign on Chaska Road so when you turn off TH 41 from...
Joyce: You can go directly west, or east on Chaska Road without stopping?
Mancino: Without stopping there, yes. —
Joyce: Would that be something that we'd look at that...? Or is that too small a spot for a
stop sign? —
Mancino: You would be off on TH 41.
Joyce: Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...
Mancino: ...if we put a stop sign there so I don't think that's going to happen...it would just
be horrendous. Trying to get it and out of TH 41... Anyone else wishing to address the
Planning commission on this issue, please come forward. I'd like to hear your comments.
Questions. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and second please. —
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Any other comments, questions from the commissioners.
Peterson: Question for staff. Based upon this being zoned...for single family, what is the
maximum number of lots we could put in here logically on 4.5 acres...?
Al-Jaff: They have to have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, which they meet. —
Density of 2 to 4 per acre. No, 0 to 4, I'm sorry, per acre. And they meet that as well.
Peterson: I mean the point of my question is, another developer coming in couldn't really get
any more in there. Maybe one more lot.
.Aanenson: I don't think so. I don't think you could get any more. ...generally we look at
plats at 1.9...some larger lots but yeah. I mean they're basically...
Mancino: The hard part that's in this area is...they all have...1 1/2 acres and those may even
subdivided in the future also which makes it very hard when you have some people who are
subdividing and some who aren't. Any other comments? —
Peterson: No. I think as we look at the development itself, I think the applicant has worked
with staff and provided a nice neighborhood feel...cul-de-sac being that large is unique and
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
add some amlbience to the area and the development. I want to emphasize to the residents, as
you said Nancy. it is going to change the feel but it is going to be developed and is this a
good development and I think yeah. The applicant meets everything that I look for anyway
in a development...I'm a little concerned about Chaska Road. That area has always scared
me. There's a tot of traffic in there and it's not a natural feel to drive through that going one
way or the other. It just doesn't feel like you should be turning or there's ability to turn so
people get confused. I don't know what the accident ratio out there is but I suspect it's
reianvely high. There's nothing we can do about that but all and all, I would be supportive of
:he development.
Vianc:no: Thank you. Bob.
Sk_bic: everything is altered but...In looking over the grading plan here, there's...large trees
that are quite close to the area that you're grading so we'd appreciate...
Mancino: Okay. Kevin.
Joyce: Not r uch else besides what the other commissioners have said. I think it fits nicely
into :hat piece. :hat property. I think the development looks like nice...best thing that they
can come lip ..vrh for that particular parcel of land and I think it's pretty well thought out and
planned properly. The only real question I would echo is that traffic. I was out there at rush
aour. Bad ::me to be out there...something the City just keeps an eye on and you know, if
ye„: have. acc:dents out :here or something, we might have to rethink what's going on out
:here out : agree with Nancy..stop sign there. I don't know. I'd just like to keep an eye on it.
Manc:no: goes go through, all the way to Galpin...I have a couple of questions. Sharmin I
had one. On bage 6. the compliance with the ordinance. The lot width, the ordinance is 90.
9C feet. And yet Lots 4. `, 6 and 7 aren't 90. Can you explain to us what that means?
.A -Jan: Yes. The ordinance allows the lots that are on the bubble of the cul-de-sac to have
a reduced frontage. but at the 30 foot setback they have to meet that 90 foot. These lots, 4,
5. 3. and - are NI :he bubble on the cul-de-sac. and at the setback they do meet the 90 foot
se:Jack, and _ should have put a note underneath that...
\Ianc:no. Thank you. Good. Dave, question for you on the downstream settlement pond off
Highway 41. Where is that, and my other question is, is you know that the Middle School is
doing to re adding on to it and they'll have more impervious surface, etc so we'll have more
:rto :his :owrstream settlement pond. Is this pond built there ready for all this added runoff?
_nci 'w :..e .:ay. u_: because I live in the area, where is it?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Hempel: Madam Chair, the existing storm water pond is actually south of the property... It's
approximately 400 feet west of Trunk Highway 41...Development at this time, or the —
additional runoff generated from this will be minimal.
Mancino: Minimal?
Hempel: ...any future expansion to the school however will have to be further evaluated...
Mancino: And that's what they have to figure out when they do the school, okay. Great.
My only comments are...development, I would like to add some more language to the tree
preservation condition and that would be that on condition 1(a), so the applicant hear too that
in the second sentence, installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a minimum
at least 15 feet from the trunk. (b) is fine. (c) is fine. (d), I would, the landscape buffer plan
along Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval. —
Landscape buffer plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees. So that
the 24 trees are within the subdivision be Highway 5 or arterial plantings that are done along
TH 41 are in addition. That plan is in addition to the 24 trees. I just want to make that
clear. And I'd like to also, (e). That all significant trees must be shown on the building
permits so that we make sure that we preserve those. And (f). I am in favor of the front
yard variance. The reason why I am in favor of the front yard variance is so that we can save —
those trees so I would like to also put down that for (f), the vegetated areas which will not be
affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement so that we do make
sure that we are saving, and I'm sure that the applicant wants to save these buffer areas too. —
Those are my comments. May I please, I'd like to entertain a motion.
Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision 496-4) for 10 single family lots with a
10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received June —
14th with conditions I through 19 and to add onto condition 1(a). Installed fencing must be
approved by staff and placed at a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. On 1(d).
Landscape buffer plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees required. —
1(e). All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. 1(f). The
vegetated areas which will not be affected by development will be protected by a conservation
easement. The applicant shall provide the City with a legal description of these easements. _
Mancino: May I have a second please?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion' —
•
L..
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Peterson. The only question I'd have is, is the conservation easement the most appropriate
way :o handle :hat issue?
Al-Jaff: Its the only way that we can require the applicant not to take down any vegetation
within a given area.
Peterson. Okay
Imo Ma:_cinc Any ather disr_ssion:'
Joyce moved, Slubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision 496-4) for 10 single family lots with a
10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received June
14. 1996 with the following conditions:
1. Tree preservation conditions:
a. Applicant to :nstaii tree preservation fencing at grading limits prior to any grading or
constr-ction acti'.-ties. Installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a
minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree.
b. Applicant must _-_omit tree removal plan for the development as a condition of
approval.
c. Applicant will be required to preserve any trees not scheduled for removal. Trees
removed in excess will be replaced at a rate of 2 times the diameter.
d. A landscape buffer plan along Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester
for review and approval.
e. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys.
f. The vegetated yeas which will not be affected by development will be protected by
a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the City with a legal
description of these easements.
2. Budding Official conditions:
a. Buba:: street na.:,es to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for
Levie.v prior to f nal plat approval.
8
•L
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
b. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads,
using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. _
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
c. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the _
property.
3. Fire Marshal conditions: _
a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. the street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable tv, and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to City ordinance 9-1.
b. Install one additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Melody Hill Road and the
new planned road.
c. Submit street name to Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
4. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances.
5. The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accordance with the City and/or State codes.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MnDOT, and comply with their
conditions of approval. _
7. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a permit.
8. The frontage on Lot 8 shall be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements of 90 feet lot
frontage.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to _
the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed
around the downstream side of the construction limits. Rock construction entrances
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved
with a biriminous surface.
10 All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with sees and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
:.ompieticn of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
11 The applizant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
:he City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat
Snow approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed
stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized.
12. The proposed single family residential development of 4.50 net developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,600 and a water quantity fee of
$8.910. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
13 Lots 2 through 10 should be mass graded prior to utility installation. Lot 1 may be
custom zraded when the building permit has been obtained through the City.
14 The aDpi:;ant shall consider installing retaining walls in the rear of Lots 8, 9 and 10 in
an effort :o reduce grading and tree loss.
:5 The appi:cant shall obtain the appropriate demolition permits for removal of the existing
:louse. Sewer and water services shall be abandoned and disconnected the right-of-way
1•••• line at Meiody Hill Road. The dwelling shall be removed within 30 days after the final
pi at has keen recorded.
:6 Staff and :he applicant shall evaluate the location of the proposed storm sewer line
between Lots 4 and 5 to see if this is the most feasible location. A 20 foot wide
drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated to the final plat and centered over the
storm sewer line.
?nor to :nal plat approval, the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans and
:oec:flea^ons in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Deta:i Pates for staff review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
final plat approval. As-built construction drawings will be required upon completion of
the utility and street improvements. —
18. The cul-de-sac island shall be reviewed by city staff to ensure a proper turning radius
for Public Safety vehicles and the cul-de-sac reduced accordingly. —
19. All lots with the exception of Lot 1 shall access the interior proposed street. No direct
access will be permitted from State Highway 41 or Chaska Road. Lot 1 shall access
from Melody Hill Road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. —
PUBLIC HEARING: —
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL
KENNEL. COMMERCIAL STABLE. TWO BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE LOT: SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL AND STABLE. A VARIANCE TO ALLOW —
A METAL BUILDING AND A PYLON SIGN IN A BF. FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF HWY 212/169 AND TH 101, PAWS. CLAWS. AND
HOOVES PET BOARDING. NANCY LEE AND PATRICK BLOOD.
Shemin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino- Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point?
Skubic: I have one. Were there any neighbors that were close enough to require notification —
for a public hearing? I didn't see the list in the packet here.
Al-Jaff: It's in the file. There was one and it was mailed on July 11th.
Mancino: And they have to be what, 500 feet? _
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: It went to 17 people.
Mancino: 17 people it went out to, okay. Any other questions? —
Joyce: Who does all the periodic inspections?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
.Arenson: As far as compliance?
Joyce: Yeah.
Aar.enson. T.e staff does that.
Joyce: The staff?
.Arenson: Yep. That's what John does is work with compliance.
Joy cc: Okay. -.hanks.
Amp
Peterson: in going by this, one of the issues is, that I'm struggling with is the building
materials. as you can probably imagine. I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time on. One
of :e key :hi:?s...driving by I really can't get a sense in the winter time, if you truly won't be
able to see the structure from the highway. I think that my biggest concern is that you can't.
We have an c_oortumry, it's a highly visible, obviously the road isn't as highly traffic so if
dur:ns the •.vi:::er whenever the vegetation is obviously diminished, you can see the buildings.
It'_ a :3St oppc.rtunity. As you perceive the site, and if you've walked it, how much of the
building are :• .u going to see during the winter?
Al-:af:: The =uiiding is going to sit on higher elevation than the highway. Significantly
higher so you '..ill be able to see quite a bit of it. The applicant brought, and they will be
able :c share more of what the building is going to look like. They have some renderings and
some materia: sampies. One of :he samples that they will show will give you an idea of what
the cmiding :s going to look like.
Aarenson. .1...st on :hat same note. When we discussed this, as far as screening it, that was
_ one of :he questions :hat Sharmin and I spent some time discussing and the visibility, so one
of :he recomr-endanons :hat we had as far as landscaping replacement was to put more trees,
conifer :y_e :re_s to help as far as the replacement. I think that's in the protection. To try to
put some of :gat back in ..vhen you're screening more of the building.
Peterson: So ..vnen you look under signage and I think the narrative talks about the fact that
the buildings ..7i1 be screened with the topography and existing vegetation. That's what I'm
struggling wits is. I'm getting mixed.
:-:aff• There :s existing vegetation. In some areas it's very thick and quite mature. And
:here s ;._e way to _o. I mean it will only get larger.
Ono
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Peterson: Because of the bluff aspect...
Mancino: I have a couple more questions along those lines. Is there any other road, arterial
road in Chanhassen where we allow metal siding? Corrugated metal siding. Is there
Highway 5? Is there TH 101? Is there any other area? So not allowing it stays fair to —
everything else that we're doing in the city. And as we see our city changing quite a bit from
rural to urban, more and more, and we're going to be looking at this area in the next couple
years, it certainly won't stay the same. —
Aanenson: That was the concern had. There's existing buildings on there...Does that mean
we continue to put those type of buildings on there. On this was a big discussion we spent —
internally trying to resolve that issue because at what point do you say now you have to
become more up to the standards of the rest of the city. I guess the reason why we supported
this type of building, and it's really specifically the use. We looked at this use as. —
Mancino: It's a good use.
Aanenson: Well we looked at the use_as, it's kind of a rural type use. You don't see a dog
run, a horse stable in an urban setting. That's the only way we came to the conclusion that
we could accept this type of construction. If this was something, a retail, we wouldn't be —
supporting that type of materials. But we said because it's a horse barn and animal shelter
that really is rural in character and we felt, and I think that they can show you the types of
materials, because we struggled with this too. We said it felt it met that rural kind of —
character. And that's the only way that we could say, well it does seem to fit that type of
character.
Mancino: I mean we have a...and in this more natural, it goes in with that whole area down
there by the river.
Aanenson: Sure.
Mancino: Yeah, okay. I mean I, obviously we're all struggling. What's the difference —
between a, I mean a pylon sign and a monument sign? Can't you just have a taller monument
sign that's? _
Aanenson: They cap at 8 feet.
Mancino: They cap at 8 feet, okay. From there on they're called pylon signs.
Aanenson: Yes.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay. Regardless of architecturally design wise, what it looks like. Any other
questions? We can ask more specific things as, I'd like to give the applicant a chance to
come up. Is the applicant here and do you wish to present? Thank you.
Nancy Lee: Do you want to start with the metal buildings, as long as we're discussing that
-tent now''
Mancino: Wherever you would like to start. That'd be fine.
Nancy Lee: Tne reason there's different colors is because I can't decide yet. What we're
:ooking at :s...:hat's the actual metal pieces...actual color chips and what we're looking to do,
:hat was as close a coloring job as I could do. We did have...and light color walls and one of
:he those wails will actually be 12 foot back because we're going to have a foot long...and
doing :0 be... We want it to look nice, as much as you do. We're trying to use the
colors...as you can see on these panels. The only things you're really going to be able to see
on :his side...and as you're coming...You won't be able to see the sides of the building. One
faces 212 and the other faces the hill. The stable goes back even further on the property
which we're able to see...so it's not something that's going to be...but it still has a lot of
coverage...
Mancino: Explain the columns to me. What are the columns? That's that part, okay. And
:hats _oing to be painted?
Nancy Lee: That's the same...just of the accordion metal. The little chips there, those are the
actual color samples on the metal of the building...
Mancino: Nancy, my concern is, one of the concerns that I have with metal is rusting. I
-:lean after so many years, I mean it always looks.
Nancy Lee: There's a 20 year warranty on it.
tilanc:no: There's a 20 year warranty.
Nancy. Lee. .on a building. Any building has to be kept up, whether it's metal or wood or
anything sae. And that was one of my concerns too, the 20 year warranty. It has a 10 year
warranty on any type of fading. Up to 20 year warranty on the paint itself. It's not like the
oici buildings that you used to have all the red rust...and that's exactly what it was. All the
re:: rust.. They've taken care of that problem... If I get red rust in 20 years, they'll come out
arc take :are of it for me.
14 •
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay, and you don't mind us putting some sort of a condition in here that says you
know, any rust will be taken care of or maintenance of the building in particular with the
metal if that's the way the commission goes.
Nancy Lee: ...with the business so we're already... —
Mancino: And I'm assuming it runs vertically like this?
Nancy Lee: Yeah. The ridges are for strength. There is, underneath those chips if you take
that clip off, there is a...
Mancino: Oh, okay.
Kirchman: What's the height on the sides? —
Nancy Lee: ...on this it's going to be 8 foot...and then 10 foot vertical...
Mancino: So what's the overall height of the kennel? And what's the overall highest of the
stable?
Nancy Lee: The sight lines...
Mancino: No, but I mean with the roof too. The peak. —
Nancy Lee: I don't know. I can't give you those answers. This was done by...and it's in
proportion to this...
Mancino: So that's 10, the roofs got to 8 to 10 because it looks almost 50%. _
Nancy Lee: ...This is the stable. There's a small one here and here's where the horses will
be. And then here's where the indoor riding arena will be and so it's a 14 foot height right —
here. The roof will be a 4:12 pitch.
Mancino: Okay. —
Peterson: Not that steep.
Mancino: Not that steep, okay.
Nancy Lee: Yeah we didn't... —
15 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay.
Nancy Lee: Okay. And then I would like to touch base on the driveway. We have proposed
to pave the driveway to the kennel...and propose to put...Class V driveway up to the horse
stable. And it was...put on our plans 20 foot wide... The only people utilizing the horse stable
\kill be the people who have horses in the stable, and of course ourselves and our employees.
Inns
So guess what I'm requesting is that we ask to pave only... To us it's a driveway. It's not a
road. It's a private roadway... To be quite honest, the additional paving would be
approximately 530,000.00 to do that additional part because it's... The other request I have is
n reference to the recommendation of the wetland delineation. We're as conscientious about
:he wetlands.. and what we did is we purchased the aerial topography from the City itself,
assuming that :hat would be...and what we have been requested...142 feet from the wetland.
We re required to have a 60 foot setback...one foot setback and a 20 foot buffer strip...asking
:o do a wetland delineation, I don't think's...
Mancino: I must tell you that we ask everyone, absolutely nobody has a preliminary plat
approval without doing that.
Ism
Nancy Lee: Okay. That was the first we learned about it. We just heard about it a week
ago. Okay. think that really covers...answer any questions that you may have.
MIancino: I have a few. Does anybody have? Can you explain a little bit about the stable.
Are you going to be doing, is there going to be outside grazing of the horses in the area
around it? Are you going to have, I know you're going to have an inside arena obviously, but
-.vcn't people •.vant to ride their horses outside around or have a jumping ring or whatever?
Nancy Lee: What we plan...
Mancino: Oh good. Is there in the conditions a perimeter fencing around the whole other
area. because we need to put that in. Maybe someone who's had a couple horses and having
:hem _et through down Galpin Boulevard, it's important. We wouldn't want them.
Nancy Lee's answer could not be heard on the tape.
Mancino: Okay. Because you're on 212 and 101.
Nancy Lee: We don't want them lose...so we do have that perimeter fencing.
\Ianc:no: .And I think the other reason why it's important is that, so that people who have
:ne:r horses out and they're riding around, don't go into other people's property. They know
16
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
the boundary delineations so they can't get on other people's property. Are you going to be
teaching lessons, obviously for people who come and board their horses and teaching some —
riding lessons?
Nancy Lee: ...at the start, no. But I guess that's not in our plans right now... —
Mancino: Okay. If I want to come and I don't have a horse there, can I come and will you
have a couple horses so if I want to ride around a little bit on a Saturday afternoon, I can do —
that, and I'm an accomplished horsewoman?
Nancy Lee: Somebody else asked if we're going to have a lease a horse program. We —
haven't set one up...
Skubic: ...access to parking in those areas, there will be congestion. There won't be any —
parking area where...?
Nancy Lee: ...as you're coming down...
Skubic: Will there be room adjacent to the stables for more parking?
Nancy Lee: Actually there's a lot of...but obviously any additional parking will probably be
up closer to TH 101. As you come in down the driveway, it goes through...Do you see that
on there?
Skubic: Is that the existing concrete foundation?
Nancy Lee: Yeah. That would be...
Mancino: Any other questions?
Peterson: None of the applicant, no. A couple for staff.
Mancino: Okay. One of the recommendation I'm going to make is that the dogs in the dog
kennel be inside, not from 10:00 to 6:00 but from 9:00 to 7:00. 9:00 at night until 7:00 in
the morning because I think that 6:00 is kind of unreasonable for kind of neighbors in the
area to have dogs outside and if they were barking at all, to have to call Public Safety all the
time. So I just wanted to get your reaction of that. I thought the hours were a little. —
unreasonable.
Nancy Lee: ...from 7:00 in the morning? —
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
•
Mancino: The'. need to be inside, inside the kennel area. Not outside in their run area from
9:00 at night until 7:00 in the morning. I didn't think that that would be a problem. Earlier
either.
Nancy Lee: When I...
Mancino: Those are kind of our construction hours and where we try and be neighborly and
make sure :hat people aren't out making a lot of noise. Okay, thank you. Thank you very
much. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing, and a second please?
Slaibic moved. Joyce seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission at :his time, please do so. Any comments. Any questions that you have.
Seeing none. may I have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second.
Joyce moved. Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments. Questions. Before we start, Dave. About the road and the paving and
only going par: ,.vay with the paving. Do we run into erosion problems? I mean is that one
—' of the reasons. .pecause it's going to be a commercial driveway and we're going to have big
:rucks and everything on it. Why did we ask for it to be completely paved? What's the
reasoning?
Hempel: One ,f :he reasons for that is that the erosion and maintenance of it. In an all
weather surface like that, you want either to place gravel...and pot holes and so forth.
Another reason :s access from a public safety standpoint. It's a little better year round,
especially :ike during the spring thaw and weight restrictions are on, asphalt surfaces seem to
hold Lie better.
Peterson: What kind of conditions could we put on there that would be reasonable, as far as
maintenance" mean have we ever done that before to any success?
Hemoel: : cant think of any other site that we've got gravel.
Aanenson: In :hat area Sorenson and Halla.
Hempei: Sorenson. We have had erosion problems.
Aanenson: ' at one's got a steep grade.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Hempel: The driveway grades here are much flatter...
Mancino: But we could have a condition about how it has to be maintained with the gravel.
Hempel: I would think you could get another...do a few inspections on it...
Aanenson: Or I was going to say, if it becomes a problem we could say it has to be hard
surface...if there's a problem or something. —
Hempel: Or if the use intensified. The stable riding...if there's traffic through that area which
may warrant it. —
Mancino: So we could put something on it that if the use intensifies, that we could go and
re-evaluate and decide whether.
Aanenson: Or if there's a nuisance problem, yeah. Right now riding academies are
permitted. We have to come back and amend it. When we amended that district. And it
may work in fine. That it fits in with the use and we might decide to amend it but right now
they'd have to come back to intensify that. But I think the direction that you're looking for is
can we put a condition on there, if it's a problem, or even intensify. Let's say there's more —
trips back there and it seems to be wearing on it.
Mancino: Okay. Any comments? Kevin. We have a couple variances here with the pylon —
signs. The architectural standards.
Joyce: That was the only concern I have. I remember Kate referring to this area as the
southern gateway to Chanhassen so I'm sure that's something you guys struggled with and
well, I think weighing it out, I really do think it's a good use. I think it's appropriate. I don't
have any problems with it. I really don't at this point. I think it probably is a pretty good
project for that area. I agree with you. The one thing I was looking at those dog kennels
wondering what time frame they're going to be barking. I'm glad you added that so that's the —
only concern I had. I have no problem with it.
Mancino: Okay. Bob. —
Skubic: Just to clarify the roadway from the Fire Marshal and the engineering would need to
have to approve the deviation in the road. —
Aanenson: Well technically not. The way-the ordinance reads and Dave can comment on
:his too. It says all loading, parking driveways shall be surfaced or asphalt, concrete or an —
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
approved material accepted by the City and that's why we're saying right now, we want some
control :f it gets to be a problem, and that's where Dave's coming from. The durability and
erosion and safety. So if we can find how it's designed to meet that, and I think that's your
objective, if I'm understanding. That's in our subdivision regulations, or zoning ordinance too.
Skubic: Okay On condition 13 where we talk about Fire Marshal conditions. That the fire
road shall meet LTC Section 10-204. Must be submitted to the City Engineer and the Fire
Marsha:.
Aanenson: Right, and that's a weight restriction dealing with fire trucks. How close...can get
so we'll make sure that that still complies with that.
Skubic: That :t still complies with that, okay. Yeah, I like the plan. I think it fits the area.
It's :.ertainly something that, something new for the city. It's unfortunate that we are making
some exceptions here to the bluff grading and building materials, but I think it fits and I'm in
favor of it.
Manciro: Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah sorry I'm late. I like this plan. I like this. This is so much better than other
alternatives that we've looked at down there, and I apologize again for being a little bit late
but noise is not a problem Kate? That's not an issue?
ka.enson: Nancy had made a change on the hours. As far as barking dogs, that's something
:er'air. we're going to have to monitor.
Cznrac: Closest house is how far away?
A:-;af,: Over 400 feet.
C.nrac: Okay. Access Dave. I always had problems with the access on this site. There's
no special turning lanes out there. It's just there and that's the way it is. You expanded the
-width Jf the road going in and it just, well I have nothing to say. It just seems like a very
, if:icuit place to go in, but I don't have an alternative. I have nothing.
Mancino: Do you have any concerns with the variance for...?
nrad: Var.ances are fine with me, yeah. They're okay. I think they're justified here. I do
e about the wetland on site so what the staff report said on wetlands, I really, that you
":1a..-e. 73 follow. The delineation of them and all the ordinances. Those are absolute. You
20 •
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
just have to hang in there 100% on what we say in terms of wetlands but the variances I'm
okay with. I think staff did a good job of rationalizing or justifying them and I buy it. That's
all.
Mancino: And you haven't even been here that long.
Conrad: No.
Mancino: Clear. Focused... Okay, Craig.
Peterson: Sharmin, I need your help in understanding. Will you put up the overhead again,
as to how much of the stable and how much of the kennel will you see in the winter time as
far as, the southern, the exposure.
Mancino: We've got a picture.
Conrad: So imagine that without any leaves. —
Peterson: Well that is the issue that I'm struggling with is that the building materials. We've
got a highly visible area. I like the usage. My only concern is, because of that visibility I'm
not really comfortable with metal there. I think it's, I think as visible as it is, it's going to
come across cold and I hate to say impersonal when you're talking about stable and the
kennel but it's still a building that is at the forefront of the entrance to Chanhassen. I would —
offer as an alternative perhaps the sides of the...exposure of both buildings would be wood,
and I don't think that would be cost prohibitive to do that and I think it'd add a certain, a
great deal more warmth to the construction in the field from the roadway. So I can't support
the variance on that basis because I think that we can compromise and have the areas that are
visual to 169 and 212 be wood. At least I'd like that to be considered.
Aanenson: Craig, can we just show you the pictures? If it helps.
Peterson: I think that the height is probably going to be higher than this, isn't it, as far as
exposure. The roof line's going to be set up higher than these buildings. These are probably
what? To the roof line maybe 15 feet and the construction of these is going to be, at least on
the stable side, significantly higher.
Aanenson: To the pitch? _
Peterson: Yeah.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Yeah. We have 14.
Mancino: 14 to the side wall.
Aanenson: Yeah, side wall. So the pitch side will be higher.
Peterson: So you're going to see a lot more of the metal from the road because it's facing.
This is what I don't want to see from the road.
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I'm not sure those are the best examples as far as looking at what
they're going to put on there facia. yeah. Right, I agree.
Mancino: Can you pass that down? Okay, any other comments?
Peterson: I would support the roadway going to Class V with conditions that would support
:he upkeep and maintenance of it. I don't think I spoke to the sign but I'm comfortable with
the sign variance. Just the issue of the wood being...concerned about, yeah.
Mancino: Okay. Any other? My comments are a couple. I'd just like to wait and see some
of -hese pictures but I have a question on the crematory. What all, I hate to ask, what all is
burned :n :he kennel crematory? And I guess, Nancy I ask you.
Nancy Lee: Animals.
Mancino: Carcasses. Dead carcasses.
Nancy Lee: And animal waste.
Mancino: And animal waste?
Nancy Lee: The crematories are very...pathological waste. ...and I had talked with them
about...
Mancino: Okay. I have some questions on that for staff. Number one, is that permitted?
And secondly, what about odor?
Aanenson: No, it's not. There's separate permitting for that. The carcass thing, they have to
get a :ermit. And medical waste, any of that kind of stuff is not permitted.
Manctco: It's not permitted?
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Yeah. That would be regulated through Carver County so any permitting of any
of that is under the jurisdiction of Carver County. They would need permits from that, is our
understanding as Sharmin has talked to them.
Mancino: Okay. And is that in the condition that the applicant needs to go to Carver County—
and get those permits?
Al-Jaff: What we've stated was, they would have to get any applicable, they would have to —
meet any applicable regulations from State, as well as County agencies. So this will include
PCA, Carver County, Environmental Services, Watershed. I mean any applicable agency that
has ordinances regulating any of these issues, they would have to obtain permits from. —
Mancino: Okay. So that's in.
Aanenson: That's condition number 10.
Mancino: Okay, good. —
Aanenson: So if they can accomplish that and they get the necessary permits, that would be
fine. But again, it's our understanding right now that that can't be done.
Mancino: Okay. My other comments are that I think it's a very good use for the site. I —
think that it's a good service to have in our city. I do agree with the variance on the pylon
sign. I have a harder time with the variance for the metal. You know we've had people in
here before or neighbors in the area come in and say, you know you don't think of us as in
your city. You just kind of leave us out and I'd just like to think that we were fair and have
the same architectural standards for everywhere in the city and I think that this is an
important area and I would like to see more natural materials used as in wood. But I very _
highly support the use, and I also would be in favor of the driveway being paved to the
kennel and then having the gravel the rest of it but making sure that that is addressed
periodically to make sure it's working for public safety and there aren't huge potholes in it. —
So with that, may I have a motion please.
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan _
496-8 for the construction of a 8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot
commercial kennel, and a pylon sign in the BF, Fringe Business District, as shown on the
plans dated July 14, 1996 with the following conditions, and I welcome any friendly, —
amendments to there. Excuse me, is it okay if I read that differently than how it was stated
here and did not include a variance for the metal building. Is that appropriate?
23 _
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
.Aanenson: It's a variance, you should note the variance in your motion.
Mancino: You need to make the motion so that you clearly state the variance including the
pylon sign but not the, allowing the metal building.
Skubic: Okay. It should read to include the variance for the pylon sign but not the variance
for the all metal building.
Mancino: I'd like to add one friendly amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not that one. On this
one, there mould be a friendly amendment on number 6. I think that's it. The drive aisles
shall be a rolled bituminous drive aisles constructed to a 7 ton design to the kennel. Dave,
could you Help us to where the cut-off would be on that?
Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. Maybe one point of clarification. The staff report reads
:he drive aisle should be increased to 24 feet width. Does the commission agree with that?
The plans were proposing a 20 foot wide drive a majority of the way.
Mancino: And what is our ordinance and what is standard?
Hempel: Ordinance I believe is 24 to 26 feet wide... Minimum of 24 in width...
Mancino: Okay. Then the friendly amendment still reads that the 24 foot width, where I'm
not sure is where that ends and where we can start with the gravel.
Hempel: The bituminous surface, all weather surface, I want to clarify within that kennel,
;ravel surface can support a 7 ton axle design would...
Skubic: I accept that friendly amendment.
Mancino: is there a second to the motion?
Joyce: I'll make a second.
Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad: Sure, Just a little bit. The ordinance says on metal buildings, not at all or, not at
ail? So what we're doing is, there's still a variance.
Aanensory We noticed it as a variance for materials, right. Your motion now.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Conrad: But the motion says, what's the motion say?
Aanenson: You're not going to grant the variance.
Skubic: Not for an all metal building. I would make exceptions... —
Mancino: It can be trimmed.
Aanenson: Support materials.
Mancino: It can be support materials. —
Conrad: Craig's comment was, at least wood on one side but I don't think we've given any
clear direction on this. —
Peterson: That was my only discussion point too is that I'm open, and it really is for cost
reasons I would imagine from anything else. I don't know how substantial the wood or —
whatever material they decide to use within the code, would change. My concern's for the
visual aspect of it more than I am the total building required to be wood. So I'm indifferent
to the rest of it, although I prefer the whole thing being within code. I would be open to —
having those exposed to the roads and visual areas to be of code material.
Skubic: The intent of the motion is to comply with code on the sides of the buildings that
front Highway 169.
Peterson: Are you comfortable with that Nancy or not?
Mancino: Well I think a building's pretty weird when one side of it's one material and the
other three sides are something else so to me, no. It doesn't make sense just to have it one
sided...so I would be uncomfortable with it. But is this discussion or did you want to add this
as a friendly amendment?
Peterson: It's discussion at this point. I mean I'm torn between, I know I don't, I'm not
comfortable with ail metal, and you have a valid point. Now I've seen, if the back of the
building is totally obscured from anybody's sight 12 months out of the year, then I'm not
really concerned about that being metal. So I think it can be done. If ifs only one side or
two, yeah. But if it's going to be trees to the back of it or no road to the stable, you've got
probably three sides that are going to have exposure to visitors that are going to be viewing
on the back side, which is on the north side. I suspect there's not going to be any road or any
access to there other than maybe a horse walking around, if he can even do that with the —
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
grade going up pretty steep from there. I doubt that that would be the case. So you've really
tot three sides of both buildings that would have exposure. It's the back side that I'd be less
concerned about. What about the houses? As I look at the plan, I'm assuming that the
houses up towards TH 101 that would overlook the kennel aspect of it. Or am I mis-reading
this? Sharmin''
Al-Jaff: The houses are on Lakota. You have a trail that separates them and really
there s...of the site from up here is very limited.
Peterson: Okay, I'm looking at this and I see a building here and I see a structure here so I
figure, they're riot existing?
Al-Jaff: They'-e not there.
Peterson: I guess I'm not comfortable, I am comfortable with the back being metal if the
applicant desires to do that but I'm not, I wouldn't want to do it.
Mancino: Any other discussion?
_ Conrad: So Bob your request, your motion is to disallow the variance? Or am I putting
words in your mouth?
Mancino: Rigr►t now it stays that it would disallow the variance.
Skuoic: That's what we're working towards here, yes.
Mancino: Is :here a second to the motion?
Peterson: Second.
Slaibic moved. Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan Review =96-8 for the construction of an 8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936
square foot commercial kennel with a variance to allow a pylon sign, and to deny the
variance to allow a metal building, in the BF, Fringe Business District, as shown on the plans
dated June 14. 1996, with the following conditions:
The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing
drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be
abandoned or relocated.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
2. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances
only. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to
maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from
vehicles tracking. Any damage to city streets, curbs, or other public facilities will be
the responsibility of the applicant.
3. Type 3 erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Type 1 shall be
installed on the remainder of the site. Additional silt fence or rock filter dikes shall be —
constructed at the culvert inlets. Erosion control measures shall be in place and
maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored, revegetated and removal is
authorized by the City. —
4. Storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify culverts are
sized correctly. —
5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the Watershed District, MnDot and the Chanhassen Building —
Department.
6. The access drive shall intersect Trunk Highway 101 at a 90 degree angle. All drive —
aisles shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 24 feet wide. The curb
shall be a rolled bituminous and the drive aisles shall be constructed to a 7 ton design
up to the kennel. The gravel portion past the kennel shall also be constructed to a 7 ton —
design and inspected periodically. The maximum grade for the drive aisle shall be 10%.
7. The waste water holding tank and/or proposed drainage swale shall be relocated to avoid —
potential contamination of the storm water runoff.
8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to —
the City for review and formal approval. Type 1 erosion control fence shall be installed
around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type 3 erosion control along
the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and —
maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. —
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
10. The applicant shall provide a storm water runoff plan that does not drain directly to the
wetland. A water quality pond to pretreat stormwater shall be constructed adjacent to
the wetland outside the street right-of-way. The pond shall be designed in accordance
with "NURP" standards. Detailed pond calculations shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native
plants in and around the wetland.
11. The applicant shall retain a professional wetland delineator to determine the wetland
edge and. :f necessary, adjust the development accordingly.
12. Building Official conditions:
a. Install holding tank(s) to directly receive wastewater and toilet room waste, with
tanks sized and monitored in a manner approved by the City.
b. Obtain a feedlot permit from Carver County.
c. Provide covered, containerized onsite storage for animal waste in a manner approved
by the City.
�- d. Provide copies of solid waste disposal contract(s) to the City. Contract(s) must
provide for continuous disposal of all solid animal waste generated.
13. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Pursuant
to UFC Section 10.204(c). Submit radius turns for the west driveway on the stable.
UMW
b. Fire vanes signage in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy J6-1991 shall be installed on the service road starting at the west end of the
kennei to the east end of the stable. This is to assure that fire apparatus will have
access :n the event of a fire.
c. Driving surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support :he imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface as
to provide ail weather driving capabilities pursuant to UFC Section 10-204(b).
Submit road design to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Submit radius turns from the driveway off State Highway 101.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
d. Comply with Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 regarding premise
identification. Additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrance.
Number, size and location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
e. Timing of insulation on fire protection including fire apparatus access roads for fire —
protection is required to be installed. Such access road shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to UFC Section
10-502.
14. The applicant must install tree protection fencing at the grading limits near any existing
trees. Fencing must be installed at the time of the silt fence installation. —
15. A complete sign plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council. —
16. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 38 parking spaces. The City has the
right to require the applicant to provide these additional specs if staff determines that —
additional spaces are needed.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. —
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the variance request.
Mancino: Okay. Now we need another motion for the conditional use permit.
Aanenson: Oh, we kind of figured, I just assumed it was all one motion.
Mancino: No, there are two motions. May I please have a motion for a conditional use
permit.
Skubic: I'd like to make that motion also. The Planning Commission recommends approval —
of Conditional Use Permit 496-3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a
Fringe Business District, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principle
building on a single lot as shown on the plans dated received June 14, 1996 with the
conditions outlined by staff, 1 through 10.
Mancino: Will you accept a friendly amendment, or two please? On number 2(e). That all —
dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight, 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Just a very simple
hour for having dogs out and maybe barking and public safety doesn't get as many calls. And
it really does follow what our noise and construction ordinance is in place right now to those
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
hours. And number, I guess another friendly amendment would just be to add number 11.
That there be perimeter fencing around the area so that when horses are out grazing, etc, that
they won't ao off site.
Aanenson: I think that's in 3(b).
Mlancino: Is it?
Aaronson: Yeah. Unless you wanted to add something there.
Al-Jaff: Page 25.
Mancino: Oh. :hank you. It's here, thanks. Is there a second to the motion?
Joy:e: I'll second the motion.
Mancino: it's peen moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Slarbic moved. Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit 496-3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a
Fringe Business Disnict, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal
building on a single lot; as shown on plans dated received June 14, 1996, with the following
conditions:
I. Ail structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III.
2. The following criteria relates to commercial kennels for dogs and cats:
Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from
any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation.
b. The 7roposed chainlink fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be
sturdy to keep dogs confined.
Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any
yell_ The applicant is showing a waste water holding tank located 180 feet from a
veil vocation however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation.
Such :nformation must be provided.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
d. All accumulation of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to —
become unsightly.
e. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. —
f. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s)
is not present at the subject property. —
g. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as
defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. —
h. Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such
screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt —
planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography.
i. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: —
* Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and
ventilation. —
* Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to
shelter and protect them from sun, rain and snow.
* If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become —
entangled with chains of other dogs.
* Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around
fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition.
* The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degree
Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. —
* Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and disease
hazards.
* Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against —
contamination and deterioration.
3. The following criteria relates to commercial stables for horses:
a. Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres and for three horses
shall be two acres, and additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional —
horse. The site has an area of 13.16 acres allowing a maximum number of 35
horses.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
b. The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or
electrical fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within.
c. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a
harborage for rodents, flies and insects.
d. Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to
the pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste
storage is required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste.
To prevent runoff from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect
it from rain and snow and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a
designated area.
e. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet from any well.
f. All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to
become unsightly.
4. All Boa runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 50
feet from public or private road right-of-way and 200 feet from an adjacent single family
residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater.
5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the
commercial kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code.
6. Both commercial kennel and stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to
prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
7. Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities
at any time.
8. The applicant is showing light fixtures shielded under the roof canopy. All light must
meet ordinance requirements. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall
demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building
permits are requested.
9 No outdoor speakers are allowed.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
10. The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such
as Lower Minnesota Watershed, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion canied.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL —
INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MLXED USE-COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE: PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR —
UP TO 307,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDINGS, 100.000 SQ. FT. OF
INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS. AND 322 DWELLING UNITS: REZONING FROM IOP
AND RSF TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 13 —
LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE; VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY
IGHTOF-
WAY AND EASEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) —
FINDINGS: AND INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT REVIEW FOR THE VILLAGES ON THE
PONDS PROJECT ON 66.12 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 BETWEEN GREAT
PLAINS BLVD. AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. LOTUS —
REALTY SERVICES.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. —
Peterson: I still need help with understanding how, the difference between the code provided
in PUD, how we can variance from code. That's what's confusing me. —
Generous: Because you're creating a shared parking opportunity and in a mixed development
you're going to have different peak requirements and so you can count on that some of the
parking that would be required in your retail could be, and portions of the church school for
instance, or some of the restaurant uses might be within the office space, which might have a
later peak for, at least in the evening.
Peterson: So provided is. —
Mancino: What they showed on their preliminary plat?
Generous: Yes. That master plan that we have.
Mancino: So when we, when two of us said this looks like massive parking. —
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: It's the ulti-parking plan.
Mancino: It's the pre code or it's the provided?
Generous: No. What they showed on it, because they have incorporated some of the
standards. The two prairie unit that we were talking about for the residential, they had
already incorporated that into the plans so we were able to drop it there. Half a story per unit
for the apartments. And the retail about the same. Office, that was just over parked. We
believe the office...
Mancino: So what we see is what we get?
Generous: No. This would be a maximum that they would do.
— Aanenson: Ultimate.
Generous: However it doesn't incorporate all the parking lot landscaping that we would
lam anticipate as the individual sites comes in. It doesn't incorporate the handicap spaces which
take up additional space and would delete other parking spaces.
Aanenson: The other thing too is we're hoping that we get more street furniture, that sort of
thing. Even the backs of buildings and that may push in some of the parking spaces too. In
the back where it seems like more of the back of the building you've got parking. That we
do some more street furniture or public spaces there and that we have...
_ Generous: As well as pedestrian ways within the parking lot areas. One of the other things
that we were just provided this afternoon was a new development data table and I handed that
out. They went in to starting to rearranging the northwest corner of the project and if you
look at, just looking at their development tabulation tables, you'll see they've already dropped
approximately 80 parking stalls through redesigning it and increasing some pedestrian access.
I don't want to get into that too far because Mika is going to explain that a little bit more. So
you can see that basically what it shows on this analysis, they've dropped an additional 120
parking stalls and they would be able to meet those.
Mancino: That's what I wanted to know.
Aanenson: Right. Exactly. We believe that it's over parked. That was the question in the
first place. We believe it can come under. That's what Bob's demonstrating here and as each
individual site comes in, we're going to look at that but we believe that, what Bob's looking
at. really you re looking at a true mixed use where you're sharing parking. That's the intent,
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
and that's the beauty of a PUD. Each project doesn't fly on it's own merits. They all use
each other and not at peak times. And also we're putting the transit component in here, —
remember because of the mass transit component. That may reduce some of the parking,
some of the people in the residential may not even have cars so we believe that there's
enough there that.
Generous: One thing that we should point out is that for the apartment buildings, all the
required parking is shown within garages so the 1.5 would be underground parking. —
Bob Generous and Kate Aanenson continued with the staff report
Mancino: Bob, on page 42, does number 5 need to be there? If we're not going to allow, if
your suggestion, your condition is not to allow the tennis court, why would there be tree
removal for the tennis courts? —
Generous: The first part probably doesn't. We didn't permit plans for parking lot area either.
That's not in this plan. It might happen. One of our concerns about the location of the —
soccer field down on the southern part of the site is where are people going to...long way for
people to walk.
Mancino: Okay.
Bob Generous continued with his staff report.
Mancino: Okay, any questions? Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Joyce: I have one question regarding the soccer field. Access would be with the trail then,
correct? Is that what's been decided? _
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: I'm just curious...voted against the soccer field would have no significant value to the
local soccer associations but then we will have an agreement with St. Hubert's so the CAA
can use the soccer field? Or how's that going to be handled?
Aanenson: I don't know if we can address that. It's really up to the Park and Rec
Commission. —
Generous: And St. Hubert's.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Joyce: So that's just kind of an open ended thing. A joint agreement.
Aanenson: As this moves through the process, they'll all come to terms on exactly what that
negotiation is, sure.
Joyce: Is there any way, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if we're giving up the natural
area over there, I'd like to have, help me with this. Some sort of agreement that the
community can use this soccer field. I guess I'm trying to see if that's.
Aanenson: ...the commission is saying. That they will take the park and trail fees and use
that money to maybe acquire something else or do something else with the money.
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Okay. Any other questions?
Peterson: Is there any discussion regarding the berming between TH 5 and the project?
Generous: There is a condition in there already that requires a 3 to 5 foot berm and also
we've discussed it with the developer what we anticipate doing.
Aanenson: And again when you see the hotel, which will be one of the first ones coming
through, they'll have to have a specific plan showing that.
Mancino: And there are others of us that will add a condition to it that there be something
computer generated from the Highway 5 view. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant
here and do you wish to make a presentation?
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you Madam Chair...vernacular which he has done and...northwest
corner of the PUD...although I'm going to ask you, are you comfortable, we're trying to...and
not go over everything twice. He just explained the parking issues. Will that suffice? Are
there other questions on the parking issue?
Conrad: And you don't have any problems with the recommendation?
Vernelle Clayton: No. No. As you move through, certain ones will be lost for additional
landscaping and certain ones will be lost for, currently the handicap stalls... We needed a little
extra for that...
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Vernelle, could you cover one other thing and that is that I noticed through my
plans that there seems to be, in the church area, the institutional area, dotted lines around the —
church edifice. I mean it seems to go, I mean is there going to be expansion? Is it planned
for expansion or something?
Vernelle Clayton: ...the dotted lines that would indicate their future expansion and they will...
site plan approval.
Mancino: Okay. I was concerned about impervious surface.
Vernelle Clayton: ...adding onto the school, in that area. That's where they're at. —
Aanenson: Can I address that real quickly? This has a maximum threshold based on the
EAW document so if you get from one, you have to take from somewhere else because —
there's only a maximum that this property can hold, unless you want to go back and amend
the document.
Mancino: So what does that need?
Aanenson: You may need additional study as far as some of the environmental impacts, —
because they have to be a cap as far as the, and they're at that.
Mancino: Okay. Does it also mean that we're at impervious surface at a percent? I know
that we have to keep that as we look at the entire site. To make sure that we.
Generous: The proposed, the maximum proposed expansion on that...significant impact on
impervious surface because all their parking would be in place. It would just be the
additional building.
Mancino: But it may go back for another EAW, okay.
Aanenson: Right
Mancino: Thank you. —
Mika Milo: My name is Mika Milo with...and I'm back for the second time to explain a
couple particular items. One is the full revision to the northwest area in response to_staff and —
Planning Commission comments and concerns. And I would... This is the views...it does not
show any embellishment, trees and shadows or anything at this point...It shows that northwest
area. The concern that we had voiced from the staff was that we did not have enough...of a —
•
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
pedestrian situation between the motel and the restaurant, as well as from that northwest
corner to the central area, and also it was sort of thought that maybe a lot of ...parking. In
response to that we have moved...the building all the way here and...just in case that we don't
have...we would need to have also back-up situation from the south.__approaching to the motel
on that site. Right now as you see the property from that building...approach from the south...
to re-work that northwest area and this is what we came up with, and I'd like to use that
projector for a moment. As you see that is the northwest edge where the... Here comes TH
101 along here and then here is TH 5 on the top. North is here on the top. So what we did,
we have allowed that turn to happen here and we form now more of a...parking plaza here
that was not before. Then we move that building further away from that walk. From that
direction towards the hotel and to provide rather a...good connection straight, right through
here and where you've got sight lines straight to the hotel. Once we reach the hotel site, then
we have provided another landscape...and buffer here and...east/west side. This is the
north/south side. That it comes, it actually comes first to the road plaza. Again the road
plaza in the northwest area. From here it goes here to north and then from that point, it goes
east or west towards the motel and east towards the restaurant... So that we have four...kind of
a T. This way and that way for the...circulation. These restaurant use would be here and...
Now the restaurant is now going to be rather surrounded with a walker than a back bone, at
least looking at that east side portion. And as we are doing that we are also...the site area for
there is a motel area and we have this...instead of being just straight. Going straight like we
have...is swinging slightly down and up here, thus allowing the hotel to be a little bit wider
and shorter this way. So shorter here but longer here, thus allowing for that straight shot.
Straight approach from the south into the site. That, at the same time lies out all the
buildings here nicely...so that along that edge we are forming another pedestrian, clear, strong
pedestrian circulation along all these areas. Actually now the people can go all the way from
the southern area with the church and go all along here...pedestrian safe area. Along
this...going to motel and going to the restaurant or going to the northwest downtown. Very
important...and the northwest connection to downtown with the restaurant and with the pier
point and the promenade and the main street, which is coming from that point. So if this is
the strong, actually that...pedestrian circulation that has...pedestrian walkway and trail to
connect from the downtown over there... By shifting that street slightly this way and
rearranging the buildings, opening up that point there and access point from south, making
this pedestrian situation much stronger in...as well as connecting the motel and restaurant, we
believe, and also adding these embellished pavements at the plaza and intersection, we believe
that we have enhanced the design of that northwest corner. We have also, on top of that,
there is...facing TH 101. A storm pond here. All of that may be even will be extended back
one. We are not quite sure. We didn't have much time to organize...incorporate and work
with VFW and...so that is something to work... This is my brief report on the revisions to the
northwest. Any questions at this point?
38
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Mika, it's nice the way it gives you an
alternate main street. I mean not quite the same look but. —
Mika Milo: And I think that's...that you have the small 11 x 17 that has been distributed...
what we are showing is just...the BRW and the landscape portion. —
Mancino: Is the concept still to stay towards TH 101 with the lower height buildings? The
one story buildings and become increasingly taller as you go into. —
Mika Milo: At the square. We are going in keeping materials.... Shall I move to the next
presentation? —
Mancino: Please.
Mika Milo: We spent quite a bit of time trying to prepare really a...not only for the sake
of...what kind of architecture. What kind of additional village character we would like to
have. That was really excellent question that you asked because that put us into work...what —
did we really want and it's... How we assure that the people...tell the people what do you like
to see... One kind of examples and guidance to give them as they go...individual buildings.
That maybe we will not be around all the time but the language will be there and the pictures —
and so on and... So we have prepared...what I thought, initially I thought maybe just a single
page of...saying to that respect but...and so because of the short time we didn't have really a —
chance to distribute that to you...but at least by now I can distribute to you two color copies
and ten black and whites of the text...so maybe you want to share for now the color ones
and...
Mancino: Did everyone get a black and white? Does staff, do you have one?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mika Milo: What we did on the first three pages we went into the discussion and explanation —
of what we would do. What we really mean on traditional...and we explain that traditional...
really means not only the look of the building but we managed to really explain what
everybody's...understand the traditional village character relates to the overall...conceptualize _
and to focus then and understand that they are designed...with the master plan itself and
therefore the village has been designed as...or the street project of the texture. And so those
buildings are not isolated from urban monuments...they are intended to be some self, —
expression but rather more modest so that you should one by one...to create a village, to
create a public feel. This is what we are saying here in the first couple pages. We are
relating to some nice examples that exist... the buildings are there to create the public open —
•
39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
space and as declarations so that we are sharing... Once we explain that on the first page, we
go to second page and explain about architectural design...expressing individual isolated
buildings on the pad. And number two, that we going to find that architectural...as well as
sources we are saying that the architecture may... Another source may be the architectural
example of... However in no case shall the architecture lead to the...expression of the...main
street...all can greatly contribute to what's...traditional European architecture can be also
another source of inspiration...interpretation_ ...but even more so in regard to bad
experiences...for the requirements of more shopping and shared pedestrian oriented streets.
Even though the...the architects must draw upon their own experience...successful examples of
traditional village architecture...so we show the pictures of the villages and then after that we
saw the exhibits of...just some examples that we have from TH 5. One is also...street level
because that's where our focus should be architecturally. That shows very interesting...
landscape, pavers...passages, signage...and the second page, two story. On the second page
_ we have two story examples of retail or office and...of windows are also being used for the
exhibition and show, as much as the first floor. And then we go into the...arcades and then
signage...Then we are showing some pictures about restaurants, arcades, and treatments of the
_ awnings and the outside seating, as well as...shows how the projected signs can be very
interested...and then some passages...interesting and just what we are...we have been doing the
parking...use the front door from the street rather than the street, the shop being... We want
everybody and the conditions I think as Bob has also done some of the conditions that the
shop owners have to have the main door and the street rather than the parking. They may
have additional...but the main entrance is from the street, especially for the small shop
owners. Maybe the big ones can have also additional...passageway and that would be...we do
have these exhibits that...any questions?
— Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one but I think I will wait and ask
that of Vernelle.
Mika Milo: ...Vernelle outlined that I should report...as far as the parking total numbers...so
unless you have any questions, or maybe you have anything Vernelle to say.
Mancino: Thank you very much.
Mika Milo: You're welcome.
Vernelle Clayton: ...number of things that...talk about landscaping.
Mancino: Yeah I just had one for you and maybe Bob can respond. And it has to do with,
some with architecture but when I read on page 2 about the village core, the Sector 1, that
structures may be increased to three stories and a loft, and I don't have a problem with the
40
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
loft. But you know my vision that I keep seeing and keeps being reinforced is that the center
will be three stories and there will be residential up above the retail, office, etc. But when I —
see the word may, there's just this kind of trigger for me. What does that mean?
Vernelle Clayton: ...the plan is that there will be three stories and they may be. Isn't that —
what you were thinking?
Generous: Yes. The thing I wanted to avoid is that if they didn't put the residential on, I —
didn't want them to go higher. That's the limitation. So they have to include residential if
they want to.
Aanenson: To get the height.
Mancino: To get the height, okay. Thank you. That helps me because I could see one story
in here and it'd be more like a strip mall effect than it would be your village so I wanted to
ask that question. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: With that...Dean Olson who is here to talk about the landscaping...so he's
going to talk about that and include in the discussion a little bit about the street furniture...
Dean Olson: Good evening. What I have here is a copy of the revised site landscape portion
of the package and also some examples of some of the...furnishings. A couple of revisions
that we made...on the standards. In Section 1.7, we expanded the statement that says all site
developments, associated plantings which abuts Lake Drive, Main Street and we added and
other prominent drives...additional drive, shall follow up with a landscaping and hard scape —
design established... Down on 1.12 we also added the fact that plant material, the fact that
they should be salt tolerate...as well for plant material. On the following page, 1.17 we added
hedge plantings shall be utilized...and further down where we talk about site lightings. At —
staff s recommendations, we're keeping all of the proposed site lightings at a maximum of 20
foot height. We also added under 1.7, decorative pedestrian scale light fixtures may be used
within individual parking and site developments as well. Also down further on site
furnishings, we mentioned that we wanted to keep this a little bit open and work with the
actual vernacular buildings so we stated the furnishings shall be of the style and color which
is characteristic of the adjacent buildings. A variety of styles and colors is encouraged within
the PUD. And also finally at the bottom, the introduction of public gardens is encouraged as
well. The package of site furnishings that you have show the character of the pedestrian scale
or the decorative fixtures that we were thinking about for the project, which obviously has a —
much nicer character than the standard shoe box fixtures. Then the following is that several
pages of various examples of the types of fences that might be used throughout the complex.
Both more expensive teak benches, metal benches with scroll work and also a combination of —
41 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
wood and metal and then some of the potential site furnishings for cafe areas and then various
embellishments that could be added to the faces of buildings. Also include some things that...
and then some examples of some of the...development. First thing I want to do is talk to the
landscape plan. You saw a little bit of what Mika had proposed quickly in terms of changes
in the northwest portion of the site, and I'll just embellish that a little bit by talking to a
couple things. First, in response to your concern for planting and screening along TH 5.
We're proposing that the pedestrian pathway along...and also fill that with plant material.
That plant material in that area will probably have to be ornamental scale trees, shrubs and at
the very most evergreen trees because there is the NSP right-of-way or easement which runs
through this portion of the site so that plant material height will be limited by that easement.
Although you can see it will be pretty heavily planted in here, we're trying to keep some
views open to the signage on the end of the hotel in here. And also in keeping with that,
we're proposing shorter scale ornamental trees up in this portion with the overstory trees on
the bottom portion of the hotel. Another thing that has been tossed around with staff is the
possibility of making an additional connection around the pond to this side so it can not only
come from the east and move through the site this way, but also possibly from the top edge
of the pond. In talking with Beth Kunkel, the wetland specialist in our office, she suggested
that that would probably need to be in the very most, the boardwalk type of walkway through
there. That would begin obviously somewhere in here. Carry through to here. It would
really be on the edge of that more open water area and the existing wetland and buffer edge
that would be planted through that zone. And that buffer area would carry around this
sedimentation pond, up into this corner and then what we're proposing right now is to do a
little more manicured lawn edge along the bottom 2/3 of the pond.
Mancino: How many white swans will there be in the pond?
Dean Olson: As many as we can attract. Depending upon how many decoys we put out
there. Also we're proposing a berm up in this area to help screen the parking here, although
_ the view would be sensitive to views to the restaurant or retail...from the highway corridor.
We are closing it off a little bit here. This represents that existing group of trees that we're
proposing to save. And of course we need additional buffering along the wetland area. The
overstory trees, Mika had shown them on his plan and I'll just reiterate the fact that we are
looking at trying to provide as strong boulevard entry to the motel/hotel up in this corner and
also that strong pedestrian connection through this area and to the main floor and to main
street there. And then I'll show you also an image actually looking across the pond to some
of the buildings which...elevations that manicured edge around here. Bringing in the hedge
which we had mentioned last time would be desirable along the top of that lawn area to
screen directly behind it. Then coming in with some planter boxes at various areas across the
facades and then down in this area, a series of steps, actually seat steps down here.:.with
plantings within those planted with public flowers, shrubs, that sort of thing. And then vines
42
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
on the actual signage here which starts to close that. And then street trees along this edge at
the front, it will be spaced slightly wider than, we desired a 30 foot spacing so that we get —
more open views to the building in that location. And one more piece in large land of
character of main street. And as we had in our narrative, we talked about two types of accent
paving. One which would be down the center portion of main street, but could actually be
the driving surface through here with parking, bituminous, parking on either side and that
actual drive lane carries through and hits the promenade street at the front of the pond. And
also turns here so really the character of this is so that the accent paving takes over these —
spaces and creates the town square, center portion of the drive lane and this feature element
down here as well. And the curb lines become secondary through this whole area. The
second type of accent paving would be primarily pedestrian circulation through the space and —
along the store fronts and out to this edge and then down out onto here so the...is here, we
have a grade change somewhere through here and also here and we're proposing probably
about 18 inches or 20 inches here. Somebody can sit along those edges. At the pond edge
but then also I would manicure the lawn edge for whatever we need to accommodate the
treatment along the promenade. At the store fronts there's some opportunities that if you look
at the pictures that Mika provided, there are a lot of variations on how the actual shop fronts
can occur in terms of plantings. Little treatments with canopies and so forth but there are
some opportunities with the amount of space that we have in here, of 15 to 16 feet, to come
in and either do plantings at the base of shops, or actually take that planting a little bit further
out and create actual areas for seating for things like restaurants and so forth. There were
some pictures of...tied to the buildings but still had planting at the outer ridge. On these —
areas, depending on what the ends of the buildings are. For instance if these were cafes or
coffee shops, the actual area in here could be open to provide more seating area with tables
and umbrellas and so forth. Really sort of inject some color and some character to that —
simple town square. Or the other option, as I've shown here, is to provide some planter areas.
We need a transit shelter at this location, and then also some benches around the outside
edges there. I foresee this as being an at grade sort of planter...really the edge of that town —
square. And keeping actually the plantings and the trees to the other edges of the square... In
terms of character, do you have any questions?
Mancino: Anybody have any questions?
Dean Olson: One area that was brought to my attention today is the resolution of the —
retaining walls on the eastern side of the site.
Mancino: Is there a way to also bring a narration element into the storm water ponds on TH —
101? I mean those could be just quite nice.
Dean Olson: The edge?
•
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
•
Mancino: Yeah, the edge here that it's a whole other area.
Dean Olson: There are areas that I've worked with...in some of those cases the water quality
created, we are fairly deep so we would have the opportunity to do that. The pond out front
right now, I think we're proposing about 4 foot dredging for that area so it'd be about 4 foot
deep.
Aanenson: We've been talking about that one with him too...revised. We've talked about
making those and get a future. The opportunities...rather than make it just a pond.
Mancino: We kind of reflect that the pond would be another main street.
Aanenson: ...buildings along that edge. Take that water out and make it an enhancement
where you've got the treatment ponds. Not the wetlands but the treatment ponds and if you
see. maybe revise that and put walking out there. It'd be a good place to sit. Again, kind of
bringing the public, the furniture and the open space and art or something like that. Take
advantage of those opportunities.
Dean Olson: I did take some liberties with the pond edges and trying to do some...
Mancino: Thank you Dean.
Vernelle Clayton: ...I have determined that we can talk a little bit about signs at the same
time that we review our response to the conditions of approval. With that...about soccer
fields. From the soccer association... Jay Johnson and Randy Koepsell.
Jay Johnson: I didn't have anything. We're here just to support it.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay...building preparation and...
Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a member of the Building Committee and I'm
actually here in that capacity as opposed to represent Opus. We talked last week about this
bailfield being an important issue to St. Hubert's. I mentioned last week that we had some
plans that we were developing to hopefully alleviate some of the concerns and so on and I
think we've seen from the Park and Rec meeting last night that there has been some
developments in the plans and the Park and Rec supported those plans but I wanted to just
take a couple of minutes to maybe explain to the commission why it's important to St.
Hubert's. St. Hubert's is growing quite rapidly, along with the rest of Chanhassen. I think as
of about the first of year we were over 1,600 families and we were growing by something
like a family a day I think it was. Like 350 families in 1995. So we're growing quite rapidly
44
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
along with the rest of Chanhassen. We anticipate within 10 years we'll be about 3,000
families. If you translate families into parishioners, it might be something like 9,000 —
parishioners and if you translate that into youth, it's maybe 3,000 or 4,000 youth. The school
may have some day up to 700 or 800 kids in the day school. An awful lot of people and an
awful lot of youth. Clearly one of the reasons we're looking to expand is to expand our —
programs here has really been lacking. I think it's fairly clear that we need green space. Yes,
we've got some green space for recess off of the south of the school and we're also planning a
portion of the parking lot be designed and have it used for recess...or a popular basketball —
area that could be used for parking...but I think clearly there's a need for a play area.
Efficient play area besides just the recess. We've got a number of soccer teams, ball teams of
various sorts and we need some space for that. I wanted to talk a little bit about the why —
maybe some other locations we felt didn't work. Just as staff has recommended that we look
at placing the ballfield up north of the trail, that was clearly the churches first choice. In our
first 15-20 plans that we did had the ballfield north of the trail. And I think that one of the —
things that we've clearly seen, and you've talked about at the opening of the meeting tonight.
One of the big benefits of a PUD in this development is the shared parking. And of all the
various plans that we've looked at, placed the ballfield, or a little over 2 acres, a 2 acre —
ballfield north of the trail. It took up parking and building space is what it comes down to. I
think there's been some comment previously that that area north of the trail kind of east of
TH 101 and north of the trail is fairly dense as it is. To try to squeeze that 2 acre ballfield
into that, clearly something's got to give. That something we think is at least 80 to 100
parking stalls. To eliminate 80 to 100 parking stalls and replace them somewhere else, I
think there's several buildings that end up having to drop out. As buildings drop out, again
shared parking drops away and it's almost a domino effect and I think it has a very significant
impact on the overall effect of what the villages concept is all about. If you're going to put
the ballfield in lieu of buildings. So with that we felt that it wasn't viable to place the
ballfield north of the trail, much as we'd like to. We just felt it wasn't viable. We are
reasonably comfortable with the access. It's 400 to 500 feet away from the other parking lot.
Clearly we'd love it to be 2 feet away but we think 500 feet is not an unreasonable distance,
particularly since we do have the space within the main property for recess and those types of
activities. I want to talk just a little bit about some adjustments that we've made around the _
plan. We've made a few adjustments to the plan that have been submitted as part of the PUD
and in order to mitigate some of it, concerns for putting the ballfields in this location. One of
the concerns, one of the bigger concerns has been tree loss and the significant trees and so on
and so forth, that the significant trees have been mapped out and the majority of the
significant trees are actually, the majority of the significant trees on the west side of the knoll
are actually within the Highway 101 right-of-way and will need to be removed in order to —
construction the new TH 101. There is, I believe only one 12 inch ash that is about this
location that this particular plan requires tree removal. What the PUD originally showed is
that the ballfield was located basically right along the east property line here and tucked up —
45
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
against the south property line as well. What that would have done was removed the only
other significant trees on this knoll, which is on this east bank and there are some nice trees
here. There's a tree, if you look at the significant tree survey, something like 90% of them
are box elder and cottonwood and so called weed trees. There are some nice trees along this
bank that we think we can save. We're confident can be saved. This is a 36 inch burr oak
here and a 23 inch burr oak here. A couple of 12 inch red oaks and a number of 12 to 17
inch ask. What we've done is we've moved the ballfield away from this slope and these trees
in order to save them. We've also raised the ballfield up in order to deal with the grade
change, primarily from these significant trees of 36 inch oak. We're locating the ballfield at
approximately the same elevation as this oak tree so we have minimal impact on that oak. In
addition to shifting the ballfield in order to save the remaining significant trees, we're also
proposing that we would construct a landscape buffer by adding additional trees, ornamental
trees and deciduous trees and that type to restore a little bit of that natural feel. I know that
it's not the same kind of feel as leaving that brushy...because I think the bulk of this is brush
and we've talk about that with staff and...
Mancino: Called new growth trees.
Dave Bangasser: What's that?
Mancino: Saplings. New growth, next generation of trees.
Dave Bangasser: Right, that are there now and so on. And again I'm not saying that this is
going to look like it but it is still going to be open space. Either way it's open space and it
won't be exactly the same but maybe there's also some benefits in that I think it may open up
the views now as you drive down TH 101 and not only be able to see Lake Susan to the west
but also see Rice Marsh Lake to the east. That's really all I wanted to indicate. Again it's an
important issue to St. Hubert's and either way it's going to be open space. It's going to be
_ green space. I think there are some benefits, not only to St. Hubert's but also we have I think
a history of cooperating with the city and other organizations within the city for joint use and
things and...talk about that. Clearly the summertime there's no school, whereas we don't
low typically use, we don't anticipate using the ballfield a great deal. I would also think that it's
also time when the neighborhood is, the neighborhood kids are out of school and maybe that's
a time when there's additional demand for parks in these areas so with that I'll stop what I
had to say here, unless you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them.
Mancino: I just have a couple for staff. Bob this is, this space is 100% canopy coverage.
Generous: Yes.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Correct. It's not 80. It's not 70. It's not 60.
Generous: Based on my analysis.
Mancino: Okay. And there would be, I'm assuming complete grading. There's a 30 foot, 25,
20 foot grading that would need to come out to flatten it.
Generous: 20. Of course we haven't seen the revised. They said they had raised this —
elevation so.
Dean Olson: What this plan would do, I think the top of the hill is at 904. What we're —
anticipating is that it would all be at about 10 feet lower than that so we'd end up with about
a 20 foot knoll with closing it. Essentially we'd take the top of the knoll and slide it to the
northwest so we're again about halfway up on the knoll. —
Mancino: My second question is, in the office building that is north of this, right here, is
there underground parking underneath this building at this time?
Generous: Not on the one story design. When Alternate A would have underground parking.
Mancino: This one. If it has residential on the second?
Generous: No, that's an instance where we don't have residential above but they increased the —
office space so they provided some underground parking.
Mancino: Okay, so if it goes from one story to two story, the two story Alternate A would
include some underground parking.
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: For the second story. Otherwise, if it's one story it doesn't have any underground
parking?
Generous: Not as it's shown on the site, master plan.
Mancino: I'm just trying to find options of other parking areas. Okay. Any questions for
Dave at this point? —
Conrad: Just to reiterate. There's only one significant tree?
47
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Dave Bangasser: This plan that we're proposing, we believe it only will eliminate one 12
inch ash tree. Other than the trees that are already being lost by TH 101.
Mancino: Which are the majority of the significant?
Dave Bangasser: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much.
Vernelle Clayton: ...Next I would like to talk...we have the Americlnn folks with us...hour is
moving on I'm going to try and do this in a way that you all can focus on their issues before
us and...and with that I'd like to move to the requested modifications to conditions of approval
and the first item is that we...is delete conditions 4, 7, 14 and the second bullet at Condition
15...soccer field. The next item would be to...are the ones that relate to the soccer field.
Number 2, we want to accept condition number 6 provided a change is made. One of them
was just pointed out by Bob and that was the tying in of the...Another is, we have a couple
others... I wanted to talk a little bit about the Americlnn. The land use that we're proposing
and for that we...The Americlnn is the only building that is proposed to be three stories and
so we're proposing the following language, within Sector II the top of the signs shall not
extend greater than 35 feet above the ground. The reason for that is that the language
previously proposed...that the top of signs throughout could not be higher than 20 feet...after
the last meeting that would work...We also are suggesting that...tenant/logo signs shall be
permitted. That language is already there... There are a lot of reasons why a 30 foot high
sign on the top of 30-35 feet at that location, it is a three story building. It would support
that...This is an important issue for them... We have just committed to putting in some
landscapings in that area in order to screen the cars that are parking in our parking lot... it's
very important to them, and very important to us. And I'd like to...
Truman Howell: My name is Truman Howell. Truman Howell Architects. I'm an architect
for the Americlnn project here, and we have brought forward a design for the building with
signage at 35 feet above grade which we feel...certainly would not be objectionable sign for
this development. We feel that it would be necessary to have the sign in that location, not
only because of the steady stream that will be along the Highway 5 access way but also...we
do need the opportunity to have that exposed to traffic coming both ways on TH 5... If there
are any questions, obviously tonight we're not bringing the site plan for you to review but we
do feel that this is a very important part of our project. If there are any questions I could
answer.
Mancino: So you're asking for just blanket permission for 35 foot signs? Anywhere in this
village development?
48
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Truman Howell: No ma'am. Only on the building that we're talking about, the motel itself.
Mancino: Or in the rest of Section II. Any building that is on the highway.
Vernelle Clayton: That is three stories high.
Generous: Vernelle has some language.
Aanenson: There is a copy of the plan that was passed out. That shows the 35 feet. A
sketch plan they gave us tonight.
Truman Howell: I believe you have a sketch of the...
Aanenson: Just to give you some background of where the staff. —
Truman Howell: ...towards Highway 5... questioning the height for the obvious reasons that
you saw on the landscape plan. That's a fairly heavily treed area, and will continue to be, as
well as the berming which we have not seen...
Mancino: So that decision can also be made at site plan review. —
Aanenson: Well I guess that's the question. There's two issues. First of all we said there
would be no pylon signs. They wanted a pylon sign. The second issue that we said, they
don't have the channelized letters so they came back and said, well that doesn't work for us so
they want to take what would have been the pylon sign to put it on the building. Okay, so
it's not channelized letters so there's kind of two issues that we...
Truman Howell: It's primarily a logo. If you've seen any of...that is the logo for Americlnn. —
Aanenson: As I was saying, the concern that we have is, once you put one on there, whether
it's a logo or not, what's to prevent somebody else? Now beyond the height issue is —
somebody else doing the same, we were trying to go to the channelized letter. So I guess our
concern was when we looked at this is that, if we put it go on this one, then there was
pressure for some of the other uses that may come in under corporate or have the visibility
issue along TH 101 that they want the same. So I guess we need, if it could be integrated
into the, somehow that we felt okay, this would be the one, again along this sector, if it's
integrated. I mean it talks about height here but that doesn't mean you can't have other ones
integrated the same way, and our objective was to have as many channelized, have them all
channelized. So if you are going to do something, we need to be specific on this because this
is the PUD standards for the whole thing, and that's why they're here right now because once _
49
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
you address these as they move their way through, these become the standards for all them so
the way it was written here reflects separate too but if you have issues about that specific
building or buildings within Sector II or how you can be specific as you feel you need to be
regarding that.
Mancino: Well, okay. Any other questions for Truman at this time? Ladd? Any questions
of Truman?
Joyce: Can we take it on a site by site basis or is that what you're saying we can't do, right?
Generous: This is the standards.
Aanenson: Right. Then what have we got? I guess that's what we're trying to say. There's
some architectural uniformity here and that we have kind of put one in place but then we're
saying the first person in the door, it isn't going to meet their needs so here we are.
Mancino: But as we've always discussed, signs have a lot to do with color. Has a lot to do
with the garishness. How big it is, etc, so all of that plays an important part to just do a
master and say yes or no at 20 feet or at 35 feet. A lot of it depends on the design of the
sign and how it works in with the building architecturally. So that's why it's very hard to sit
up here right now and just do a blanket yes or no.
Aanenson: Right. I guess our concern is, if you take this off, right now it doesn't allow for
that anywhere else. There's no, that doesn't allow. We made a special provision for Sector
II. Some other sort of sign treatment because of their needs. So if you don't put that in
there, you'd have to amend the development contract.
Mancino: Is there any other way to have some flexibility here?
Vernelle Clayton: ...Section II...35 feet. Can we say in Sector II the height be determined by
site plan approval?
Aanenson: That's fine but then you're taking, you have to understand they may not give you
35 feet. They may give you 10.
Vernelle Clayton: I know but I think that they're more likely to be comfortable to give them
the 35 feet...than they are tonight, not seeing anything...
50
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Truman Howell: The problem that we have is that visibility, as you know with any motel
operation is very important. It is the, especially...it would be the only sign that we are able to _
use.
Mancino: But it also has to fit within the character of the Villages on the Pond and that's —
what we want to make sure that we don't have an auto related use that sticks out there that
does not fit in with the rest of the character of the Villages on the Pond and there's no way
that we can be, that I could approve it without knowing that. Without seeing the architecture
of the whole building. I don't know, are there any comments?
Peterson: Right now we're discussing the same exact thing. The impression that this rough —
draft gives doesn't fit with the ambience that...has been presenting for the last few months.
So that's my first impression. My first impression. I won't speak for Ladd but my first
impression is that the height doesn't bother me as much as potentially as the sign size and
character fits into, or doesn't fit into it.
Aanenson: If we leave it the way it's written right here, in the before. Within Section II —
architecturally building integrated panel signs may be permitted. If you want to put some
caveat, and I could check with the attorneys...but this says depending on how it architecturally
relates to the building scale, whatever other things we want to put...
Vemelle Clayton: ...without the height because otherwise we will have to...higher signage. —
Mancino: No, you're saying we won't have to. We'll make sure that we have that flexibility.
Truman Howell: Well obviously it's...
Mancino: Well I think you're hearing our reservations.
Truman Howell: Yes I hear them.
Vemelle Clayton: ...The signs, the reference to the sign changes are attached to the list of
requested modifications. It'd probably be a good idea just to move right into them. They
relate to paragraph 2(d). —
Mancino: I'm sorry Vemelle, where are you?
Vemelle Clayton: On the sheet here that says requested modifications to conditions of
approval. I discussed item number 1 and we are...discuss item number 2(d). All the sign
comments attached on the attached page. —
51 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm still, Kate, are you going to look at paragraph...?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're going to take that out and leave it the way it's written in the
development contract And changing the language as per City Attorney.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. Okay. There is one change in that area which, if you look at the
underlined language on the second line from the bottom...we need to have something in there
for your sign. Then in Sector III, one sign for the church and one sign for the school may be
placed on streetscape walls. However, the top of the signs shall not extend greater than 8 feet
above the ground. I thought...probably as high as you would want and what we wanted to
accomplish here was interpretation of what constitutes a wall, when we're talking about wall
signs. Within here...pursuant to the negotiations that we had with them, in an effort to bring
our building closer to the street...it's not flat, although they have made a...so we've
recommended that they have some street walls constructed which...bring it up to the street and
also the... That then would be the wall that we're referring to that we want to fit the definition
of a wall sign.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: We also submit they'll probably put something on there like church service hours
_ and that sort of thing. I mean that's a given...there may be some sort of...changeable copy. I
think that's kind of accepted with... But we want it architecturally.
Mancino: But we need to look at it architecturally...fits in.
Aanenson: Yes... Bulletin board.
Vernelle Clayton: Number two of the existing language. Randy Herman, we talked with
Randy and he said given the look that we want to see and the pictures we've all seen of
signage, the existing language fits what we think we're trying to do and he said I would really
recommend that you...want to do and this is the list that he provided. One would be exposed
neon and then he recommended fibre optics because that's kind of the thing of the future.
Open channel with exposed neon. Channel letters with acrylic face. Reverse channel letters
(halo lighted). Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. Do you want us to, are
you comfortable with that or do you want us to add...We talked about that we didn't.want
spotlights.
•
52
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Generous: Yeah. There might be some instances where you might want it up lit. I think that
would be a function of the site plan review. —
Mancino: Yeah, I was just going to ask, are we getting too specific here?
Generous: Well this is pretty flexible. There's five different choices.
Aanenson: I guess they want to make sure that we're using the correct jargon for the lighting —
industry. I guess that's the direction, that's fine.
Mancino: Okay. So you don't have any problem with that? —
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: Anyone on the commission?
Conrad: I'm getting a little confused.
Mancino: Me too.
Aanenson: These are different types of individual letters. We're saying that they're not all
going to be brass with a light behind it. There's different options. These are the different
ones. Using the correct terminology for lighting.
Conrad: Yeah, and I do like the flexibility but it's terribly difficult. —
Mancino: I don't know what they are.
Aanenson: Right. Well that's part of.
Mancino: I mean I can't say yes to this list. I don't know what they are.
Aanenson: Well that's part of what the design book's going to do. I mean for example.
Were we happy with the, you know instead of having it inset, or excuse me, individual letters.
The inset we had with Capelli. You know the carve into the stone.
Mancino: Yes. - —
53 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Right, exactly. So we're saying there's different approaches to it and this covers
all that. We've gone through it with them. Looked at all the different designs. They've just
got the different terminology on there.
Mancino: Okay. I just, we just want to have flexibility also to say that it architecturally,
design wise has to be right.
Aanenson: And we believe we've got that. Right. We don't want them all to be the same.
We want some variety, depending what the building is.
Vernelle Clayton: I think we're all comfortable...there are other areas...we're comfortable. Do
you want me to go through a, b, c, d and kind of explain what I understand it to be? Or are
you comfortable?
Mancino: No, but I do think that we need to come in for individual site. I mean you will
need to bring examples of what that is.
Generous: You'll get a booklet and have the colors. I mean if it's going to be neon, etc.
Down to detail and that we do have the ability to say, no or smaller or.
Vernelle Clayton: Otherwise...Sector II, that's part of what we're keeping...Any questions on
that?
Aanenson: That's still a maybe, depending on what we work out as far as language.
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Peterson: You're responding to which one Kate?
Aanenson: Right underneath, Sector II. Integrated panels may be permitted. That's going to
say you're going to look at the architecture. How it relates to the building, and we're going to
put some other criteria in there that gives you that flexibility to say yeah, it works here at this
height or it doesn't.
Vernelle Clayton: Well I should point out Kate, that's not new language. What I'm pointing
out here is a change...
Aanenson: But it says shall. Shall be permitted.
Vemelle Clayton: Would be may...?
54
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Yes.
Vernelle Clayton: Oh, okay.
Mancino: So we'll keep it with may. —
Vernelle Clayton: Alright. Number 3. The change that we're recommending there...earlier
when we went through this before and just adding at the end...15% of the sign area, to add —
logos. In some cases the whole sign is their logo and so we had to add unless the logo is the
sign...awning signs...12 inches high and building architecture. I think that...
Mancino: When you say awning signs, you just mean silk screen lettering on the awning.
Vernelle Clayton: Yeah. —
Mancino: On the fabric.
Vemelle Clayton: ...yes.
Mancino: Vernelle, one of my conditions or one of the things I wanted to change in this area
is on (1). Is 1 under signage, excuse me. And that is in the middle, 1, 2, 3. The fourth
sentence on page 22. Or I'm sorry, 1. It's getting late. Number 1 under signage. About the
project identification sign with a maximum height of 28 feet. Again, I think the ordinance is
20 feet and I want to be able to, once the signage comes in, a drawing of it, etc, once we see
it in scale with the other buildings in that Sector II, I don't want to say 28 feet right now, yes.
I want to have the flexibility that when it comes in that we can discuss the height. So I'm not
saying yes or no.
Aanenson: Maximum height of 20 feet. It may be allowed to go higher is architecturally
compatible as approved by the Planning Commission.
Mancino: Exactly. I mean we haven't seen the sign. We don't know what it looks like. We
have no detail.
Vemelle Clayton: ...we need to show that it's compatible with... We may not be able to show
that...
Aanenson: It's just a matter of showing us the materials and how it's going to be done, sure.
•
55 —
Tanning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
"Mg.._. ): And some relationship to the trees and the plantings. Just so we get a realistic. I
mean we've only seen renderings but.
iTernelle Clayton: Do you have any other questions of Truman...? Bob are you?
_7enerous: Yeah, address the window signage.
"ernelle Clayton: No, I didn't address that because we didn't have any.
Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that Vernelle on page 24? The 25%?
_ernelle Clayton: I was a little uncomfortable the first time I read it and I hope that it's not
subject to misinterpretation because I do hope that we can have a whole window that has the
;at lettering like...Amish Quilts start at $19.95... I hope that's the interpretation.
Generous: Yes.
ernelle Clayton: Okay.
ancino: And you're fine with the second about the garishness and the neon paint and,
oaay. Any other questions or comments of Vernelle at this point on the signage? Okay.
!rnelle Clayton: We're now moving away from signage but still in number 2 where it's
Condition number 6. We agree to, this is now we're getting back to, there are standards that
are referenced. On page 19. The highlighted material in paragraph (e)(2). As of the four
r tterials...the intent and concerning vinyl siding for residential, if that would...the residential
Onion above the retail, which we would like to have a wooded kind of look in some cases
hP allowed to use vinyl. That they, not...because it's more expensive than what...but rather on
t. 4...particularly when they end up someplace...so that's the reason for I think the vinyl
swing, the option for vinyl siding. Again, not for all of them but...
Encino: I think that our concerns were two fold. Number one, on the western side of TH
101 where it is all residential, that that not be a three-four story building completely vinyl
'ed. And two, that the upper portions in the core downtown area, core main street area, not
j_those two and three stories, not be completely vinyl sided but have some other materials
smith it. To give it the flavor and the variation that we're looking for.
V__nelle Clayton: ...intent of the materials incorporated...
56
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Hempel: A combination of MnDot jurisdiction and also the results of the traffic study.
Aanenson: So we understand the issue that you want the ability to have it but we're saying
that's contingent upon the City's review of the traffic study and...If you want to enhance it just
say subject to MnDot and City approval. _
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. Alright. Then condition number 41. Again, something that
happened the other night...provided there is in place an agreement that the City will turn back _
the portion of existing 101 which the future 101 will replace. Dedicate...
Hempel: Point of clarification... —
Mancino: As long as we have the right to do it.
Vernelle Clayton: Number 49. We really want that condition deleted. That's pretty scary. A
pretty scary thought for a number of reasons.
Generous: 48?
Vemelle Clayton: 48. You don't have a 49.
Aanenson: That's really scary.
Vernelle Clayton: ...present Council members but I just certainly don't have a clue who might
be on the Council 5 years from now and, or the Wards and St. Hubert's and._.and all the folks
that have...between now and next year there will be many, several million dollars spent on
this and to do that based on a change of heart of a Council in 5 years is really scary. I don't
think that's what you're looking for. I think what you're looking for is probably is a chance to
review...wouldn't have an objection I don't think if you want that language...but if we can get
financing, I don't think we could get people to buy. I don't know if St. Hubert's would want
to be out there if they thought in 5 years the entire concept could change. I don't think _
anybody would buy for example one of these sites up on the pond if they thought, or
certainly not down on the lower portion down in here, if they thought this part was not...could
be changed to office warehouse. I mean it's something that was...and I don't think that's what
was intended.
Mancino: Well one of the discussions that was around this was when we got together, the _
Planning Commission and the City Council, it was about a year ago and we were looking at
subdivisions that had PUD contracts from 10 years ago. That we were kind of stili stuck with
and there were some things that we wanted to add to it that we weren't able to. And so the
58
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
suggestion was brought up, we should have some sort of a sunset so that we can add some
conditions, whether it's in the environmental area because now we're doing wetlands
differently, etc. Some of them have such a long life that 10 or 12 years later you look at
what you thought was a good at that time, and when things weren't built out and it took them
12 years to build out, we didn't want to have, we wanted the options. The city wanted more
options. That's how it came up to a discussion item.
Vernelle Clayton: Without having thought this out however, one of the things we're trying to
accomplish here...to some extent is something that people can depend on. There usually is
something unique about a PUD and we need to be able to depend on the fact that it's not...
Now on the other hand, there are differences between the Market Square PUD or a residential
PUD and this specific. This is a mixed use PUD where there's much more reliance on the
integration of all the parts.
Mancino: And the flexibility.
Vernelle Clayton: Correct. So yes, that flexibility has to be there but also as we heard I
think in, I don't recall...is that predictability of what's going to happen to your property and to
the property next to you is causing the value to be and the investment, contrary to what it
might be on the corner of South Minneapolis...you might end up with a Holiday station down
on the corner. You know here you won't have that but if we say it can be changed in 5
years, suddenly you...and who's to say what might be fun and interesting to people in 5 years
_ that certainly wouldn't fit with... And in addition to that, we'll have lots of covenants and
restrictions...
Mancino: Will they be reviewed and updated?
Vernelle Clayton: You can amend covenants by whatever percentage you put in the By-laws
and usually it goes to...
Mancino: Yeah, I agree with that. Any questions from commissioners on those? Or any
comments.
Conrad: I think it's a tough condition. I wouldn't want to get into a project where you said
the rules are going to change in 5 years. If we can think of something better, more
appropriate, or define what we're talking about. I don't know that I could do it right now.
Aanenson: Bob can.
Mancino: Okay, Bob. You're on.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Generous: I did, well we might make it onerous on the developer that the developer shall 5
years after the final approval of the plat review the development, the status of the
development. Compliance with conditions of approval and the development design standards
and conditions of approval and may, in conjunction with the city revise the standards and
conditions. —
Brad Johnson: I don't think the developer can do that. The owners can. You've got to
remember, it's all...
Generous: Yeah but then, are they assignees? As an association.
Brad Johnson: I think you're into an area that...unless we have some legal document that
would hold them on forever. Think about the townhome project... This is just an association.
The Rottlund project... Are you changing anything in there right now? Everybody's moved in. —
I don't know how we'd do it. I know they...it's multiple buildings...I just don't know how you
can say, let's say the City Council decides somebody owns 5 acres in here and the City
Council says I don't like the plan. I'd like to build a big box...and the City Council at that
time says fine. What does that mean to the other owners? I don't know how to do it.
Aanenson: Well we've got the reverse concern though too. They come in and want to
change something themselves. I mean that can happen too.
Brad Johnson: Yeah we can change. We can always come in to change things.
Mancino: It's one sided.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Mancino: Because that's what we found out with these other PUD contracts. We're about to
get a new tree preservation ordinance.
Aanenson: The development contract is...at any time, it's recorded and the development
contract can be amended at any time. Whether, if they're selling off the property. An owner
comes in, can ask for it to have that piece of property rezoned. The development contract —
amended. That's a rezoning. That can be done at any time. They have that right to do that.
Mancino: They have that right to do that. —
Aanenson: To ask for it, yeah. An amendment to the development contract, you bet.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: And I'm just saying on the other side of the foot, as a business person, I mean the
city needs these options too. As I said, when we had our old PUD ordinance and we have a
new tree preservation and we couldn't put it in because the PUD ordinance, or the PUD
contract was set in place in 1986.
Brad Johnson: What you have to do is go to your law office and say, is this legal? Or is it...
I mean there is an area where you've got property rights and all kinds of stuff. There's a lot
of reasons the city can't...after they approved it the first time. But I don't know.
Aanenson: Sure, you could go back and rezone it. The City could.
Mancino: Okay. Is that something you could have just Roger review and look at? Leave it
out for now and if it needs to come up.
Aanenson: We can talk about it at Council...
Mancino: Yeah, because I know there was one of the Council members who did bring it up.
Okay. Is that it?
Vernelle Clayton: I think so. Oh I'm sorry, Dave asked...
Dave Bangasser: The roof issue came up here earlier and I was asking Mika what it all
meant and part of that...if the church and schools were going to have 50% sloped roof. Is
that the way it's written now?
Mika Milo: ...current design of the church and school...
Dave Bangasser: What our intent is, by the way is that the first...beyond that, the school and
the gymnasium and the office portion, if you know, administration offices would be proposed
to be a flat roof. We do have a number of areas that have an eyebrow along the top of the
roof line that projects out about 4 feet and slopes down as to kind of highlight it but... Our
intent was that I think...
Mika Milo: The slope roof is mainly meant for the residential portion.
Aanenson: And the commercial. It wasn't just for residential. What Sector is that?
Generous: That's Sector III.
Peterson: What page are you on?
61
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Generous: Page 20.
Mancino: Page 20, number 11.
Aanenson: Yeah, the church is in Sector III. —
Mancino: It says a minimum of 50% of the roof area shall be sloped.
Aanenson: Are they attached?
Mancino: The church and the school? —
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Dave, if they're attached, would you say 50% if they're attached?
Mancino: The church and the school. —
Dave Bangasser: Well they are...
Aanenson: I know but...50% if both buildings, if the units are attached.
Dave Bangasser: Sorry, I can't answer that question... We're about a third right now. But
again in addition to that we cannot, the intent of a sloped roof is to provide some___slope roof
on the church has the eyebrow in several locations. —
Vernelle Clayton: Well we're...is there some language we can use here similar to that?
Mancino: What is staffs recommendation?
Aanenson: Do you want to just take everybody... —
Mancino: No, there have to be some guidelines.
Aanenson: Well yeah. That's our point. Yeah.
Dave Bangasser: Can you see what we're looking at...
Aanenson: Sure, yeah. Yeah. I do.
62 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Vemelle Clayton: Why don't we just say that the...in Sector III.
Mancino: And that's the only building?
Generous: That's the only building.
Mancino: Okay. I haven't seen it. I don't know what to say.
Aanenson: We'll call it the St. Hubert's special...
Mancino: Okay. Anything else, because I think this is going to take a while. Any other
comments?
Vernelle Clayton: I have none. Thank you for your time. Oh I guess I should really say
thank you also to staff and all of you and all of the time that you have spent...preparing for
all this and all the time staff has spent. And we're not done. You guys have...but we really
enjoyed all the cooperation. It's a great project to work on. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. I am going to not open this for a public hearing. Well first of all, is
there anyone here who wanted to say something at the public hearing? That wasn't here the
last meeting. Seeing none, I will go ahead for commissioners comments. With the addition,
the comments of adding modification of the conditions of approval. Obviously the comments
for the soccer field, I think is one of the bigger ones. And any other comments that you
would like to make. Craig.
Peterson: Again in reality I think we've hashed through a lot of the issues. I think the
predominant one left is the soccer field. The issues that I had last week, I think have been
adequately addressed and if you recall my comments on the soccer field last time is that I
_ wasn't negative if we could make the transition somewhat reasonable so it's not a stark field.
I think the idea of bringing the elevation up a little bit. Moving the soccer field towards the
road so you save some of the trees. That further alleviates any concerns that I might have
_ had before so I stand in favor of leaving the soccer field there. Ideally I'd like to have that
left a wooded area to fit with the original intent of some transition areas. But I also don't see
that it fits logically anywhere else. At least in my humble opinion. I think all the other
modifications that have been talked about tonight are reasonable. My other big concern about
parking I think Bob has done a great job in really addressing that, and I'm still concerned but
I'm less concerned than I was last week. It still has the feel of a lot of parking but as staff
has reviewed, we need to look at each plan that comes forth and address that. I think we can
do that effectively. So all and all it's been a long and at times tiring road but I think that we
are, in my mind, there and I'm ready to move ahead and say yes.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with most of what Craig just said. A couple quick points. Has staff
reviewed the landscape for the soccer field prior? Have you seen what was presented prior to
tonight? —
Aanenson: No. But we'll see it with the site plan that St. Hubert's has already submitted.
You'll be seeing that on the 26th. 7th. —
Mancino: Of August?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Yeah, we're not meeting again in a couple days are we? —
Mancino: Next month.
Conrad: Over flow from Pond 2000, where does that go?
Hempel: I'll double check with Pond 2000.
Conrad: That's the main one. That's our reflecting pool, as Kate likes to call it.
Hempel: That would flow easterly...along Highway 5...towards Rice Marsh.
Conrad: Okay. That 35 foot standard on signage, height wise. Was that standard set from
the sign ordinance? Is that where we picked that up or did we just make it up?
Generous: We just.
Conrad: Pulled it, okay. —
Generous: Technically it's, for wall signs it's the building height which would be 40 feet...
Conrad: I like a lot of the things I heard tonight. It's terribly confusing. You know you
guys are working with it and for us to come in, even though we worked with it for months,
it's still confusing so it's tough to get really into the nits and vats on this. It's almost, want to —
just say hey, get it out of here. Which we'll hopefully do but a couple issues I think have to
happen, and I guess Kate has just said they will. I've struggled with the soccer field and
both, one way another and once I saw the relocation and the impact of trees being minimized,
64 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
my only concern was putting it down, and also seeing how Highway 101 has just taken care
of the bulk of the real big trees. It makes it a little bit easier to go with what's recommended.
What I really want to do, and we will get that option. We personally, if we approve this, is
when it comes back in, I want to make sure that that is all in sync with the surroundings in
terms of landscaping. I want to see it fit in the area. I don't want to just see it stand out.
I'm still terribly concerned with parking and access. I think we've all identified all the
problems. On the other hand, I'm not sure that we can't make it a place where people can...
and use the natural features down there. So I can structure it so it's agreeable to some degree,
but that does mean that a landscape plan for that area. The other issues, the Park and Rec
comments I think should be incorporated into our motion tonight, if we agree with what they
are. Again, the trail connectivity is something I really believe has got to be there. This is the
right place to have it so that has to be there, and I think that's in the Park and Rec comments.
I like the boardwalk idea. That's cool. That solves my problem with Pond 2000. I think it
will give us a chance to be a little bit more polished around the area where there's more
people and within the...itself. But then also, it's sort of a transition area to the natural, and I
think that's what Kate and Bob have been pushing for and I think it makes some sense to me.
Again I need a good landscape plan for that area. I just have to have those two things. So
landscape plan for that area. Landscape plan for the soccer field are probably taking care of
the needs that I have. Terrific job to reduce the parking Bob, and that's just great. And then
_ I think that's it. That's all my comments. The rest of them are real nitty gritty and they, I get
lost on some of the issues and it's, like I don't know how to deal with number 48. I
understand what we want to do. I also understand the applicant saying hey, I don't want it
_ there and I think it could be a deal killing and so I think 48's got to be ripped out of there.
But on the other hand, I also know that it's such a huge project it would be of interest to
review some of the conditions. I open up my mouth and I don't know where I'm going on
that one so I'm going, I've got to just stop. It's a tough issue to get into. It could kill
something out there and I'm not sure we want to do it with that section.
Mancino: I'm going to take a minute and just challenge you on one thing, being the
environmental, or having concerns about some of the environmental issues and that is, under
the PUD, the intent of the PUD is the preservation of desirable site characteristics and open
space. So where are we doing this on this PUD? And how are you thinking that through?
Conrad: That's a real good point and I think staff has got to battle with that and they've got
to justify this and we do too. To be real honest with you, when we do the PUD, about the
only thing we can ever negotiate is protecting the natural area. Seriously, because we're not
smart enough or visionary enough to do something else. So protecting the natural features is
a real easy one to put into our PUD ordinance and say that's what we're going to do. We're
going to protect an extra 12 square feet of this or that and therefore, in my mind, this is a
classic PUD and I guess I'm not trying to save the natural features with this PUD. That's the
•
65
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
least of my concerns on this project. Therefore, it's a valid question. I'm maybe not living up
to what our ordinance says but I'm also saying that ordinance wasn't wise enough or visionary —
enough to be looking for other elements in the PUD that we want. So on this one what we're
getting is a whole lot of other things. I think we're trying to get affordable housing. We're
trying to get a mix of rental housing. There are a lot of things that are worked in here so, it
was never an issue for me to try to figure out whether this met the PUD ordinance or not.
Mancino: Until this one? —
Conrad: I think we have to justify it Nancy. We have to justify this meeting the intent of the
ordinance but to tell you the truth, in this particular case, the natural features of the land is —
really not what we're getting. We are...
Mancino: Other things are outlined. —
Conrad: We are doing other things and therefore in my mind I'm, I think we have to
document and justify why we're doing stuff so we don't set a precedent for other areas. But
on the other hand to start applying some rules to this one where that's not really what our
intent is. If we wanted to plant natural habitat, this would be not the area that I'd be trying to
focus our attention on. Plus, take a look at, we could talk for a while on this. Take a look at —
what it looks like out there with that pond, my favorite Pond 2000. It's not a very attractive
thing right now. It is, it is less than anything. So I tell you, to justify the improvement —
we're going to get as a holding basin, as an attractive element to the city, real easy for me to
justify that. But again what I challenged everybody to do is say what does it look like and
let's make sure it looks appropriate in the long run, and that's really what I have great —
concerns with. I love natural. I love wetlands. I'm just not sure that they maintain
themselves in a setting with, in a commercial setting. They can look ugly.
Mancino: No, but thank you. I appreciate that because I think that's very important in our
PUD. Whether or not we're following that intent. Thanks. Bob.
Skubic: I was going to discuss the soccer field. I certainly don't favor it south of the trail,
but it seems inevitable that that's where it's going to end up. The Park Commission voted for
it. 4 out of 5 members. St. Hubert's Building Committee favors it... Bob or Kate, is there
any possibility, is there any reason why that all could fit north of the trail? What's your
opinion on that?
Aanenson: We always thought there wasn't, I think at this point...we rest. Let's put it that
way.
66 —
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Skubic: That's what I hear. It seems like everybody is reluctantly say it's going to go south
of the trail. And I think as Dave eluded to, the justification made for that in terms of tree
preservation. I had not heard the same arguments for tennis courts on the other side. Canopy
coverage there, and I wouldn't be in favor of having... Other than that, I think it's been
covered...
Joyce: I don't have much to add. The one thing that bothered me about the development was
that northwest corner, and I couldn't put my finger on it and through the process we got that
resolved and I think it looks great now so I think that was nice. As far as the soccer field, I
could take it or leave it. You know if this landscaping plan is what we can do with that,
that's even better so I'm more in favor of it now than I was last week. And as far as the
condition 48. I see this development being oh, something that's just going to be built on and
I think it has to be left open. I hate getting lawyers involved in everything that we do in life,
and I'll just leave it at that. Good job. Congratulations.
Mancino: Final comments of mine. First of I want to thank everyone for...nights and for
going in and being more specific and making I know me feel much more comfortable with
the design standards and the lighting and the landscaping, etc. so I want to thank you for all
that time and a very good presentation. Personally with the soccer field, I'm still a little on
the fence. I certainly know where the other commissioners are and that is only because I'm
not hung up on the environmental preservation. I do think that in many of the European
settings where you go have a core village like this, the one thing that I have seen time and
time again around them is that they have kept a green open space or a corridor, and especially
when it goes from one lake to the next for not only pedestrian people but for wildlife. And
they do protect that and they do protect it. That's their green corridor and it kind of stops and
_ shows where the development ends and then they have their green space and then where it
starts again. So to me I have a high respect for that. I would love to see it work, a win/win
both ways. Obviously the soccer field could go up north, next closer to the field and the
_ church and I think everybody tonight has said that so. I don't need to say that again but it
would be for me the best location so that it's up for the kids to play near the school, etc.
Other comments. I really, gosh. I think it's going to be hard for us to put a motion together
tonight. I think we're going to be having staff help and asking for a few addendums. The
only changes that I would like to see made is that the 45, that there be an architectural and
landscape review committee. Other than that, great, great job. I know that everybody's
worked very hard and thank you very much. May I have a motion?
Peterson: Madam Chair, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
preliminary approval of PUD 4-'92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment
from Office/Industrial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density,
to Mixed Use Commercial/High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary
67
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Planned Unit Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial/office buildings;
100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and —
RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots and 3
outlots and public right-of-way, Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on
site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) —
findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and
Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to
the conditions 1 through 49, and I'll take a stab at trying walk through some of the additions
and deletions. I would offer that we delete, per staff recommendations items number 4, 7, 14
and I believe the second bullet was agreed to on condition number 15. Is that correct staff?
Aanenson: Yep.
Peterson: That condition number 6. —
Aanenson: Can we just put as modified?
Peterson: As modified by the attached.
Aanenson: We've got those all in writing from Vemelle as we've corrected those. —
Peterson: As modified by the appropriate documents provided by the applicant, including
deletion of item number 48. And item number 45 to include that item be subject to
architectural and landscape committee approval_ I guess Kate if you're comfortable with that
and you've got everything down.
Aanenson: We need 42. Park and Rec. If you want to put 42.
Generous: Revised to incorporate the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations.
Peterson: Item 42 would incorporate the recommendations also submitted by staff. —
Mancino: And on number 40, the first sentence be deleted.
Peterson: Item 40, yeah. Delete the first sentence.
Mancino: And 49, that there be a detailed plan for the wetland alteration. —
Joyce: You had to add 49.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Generous: So you can see that plan.
Aanenson: Landscape plan for the, actually for the soccer field and...
Peterson: Creation of a formal landscape plan for both the wetland alterations and the soccer
field.
Aanenson: We need modification of 43 also. Unless setbacks can be met from current TH
— 101. Number 43. What we're saying is, the new TH 101 is outside of the...TH 101. Until
that's vacated, he can't put a building there so we just need that clarification.
Peterson: Correct. And I think as the applicant presented.
Mancino: And 48 be.
Aanenson: We could delete that one.
Peterson: Also note on item number 4 from the applicant that we accept their revision but it
would be subject to City and MnDot approval.
Mancino: Craig, on point number 15. The second bullet point. To delete the soccer and
tennis courts. Did you mean tennis courts or?
Peterson: We had noted that would be deleted, yes.
Mancino: So it's both, okay?
Skubic: I'd like to retain the tennis courts.
Aanenson: Okay, just soccer.
Peterson: I concur with that.
Mancino: And then did you get Bob's on number 19 about the sanitary sewer should be
extended? I don't know how the rest of it went.
Generous: At the south end of the school to the east property line.
Peterson: And also on page 20, item 11. Section III would be altered from 50 to 30%. Any
other items? I think that covers it.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: I think we got them all. Is there a second?
Joyce: I'll second that.
Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary
approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from —
Office/Industrial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density, to
Mixed Use Commercial/High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary
Planned Unit Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial/office buildings; —
100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and
RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots and 3
outiots and public right-of-way, Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on
site; Vacation of tight-of-way and easements, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and
Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Applicant will be required to provide 208 trees as reforestation plantings. Trees are to
be from the city's Approved Tree List.
2. All future site plans for the Villages on the Pond development will use the conceptual —
landscaping plan as a guide for numbers of placement of landscape plants including
trees and shrubs. No individual uses will be allowed to provide less landscaping for the
site than what has been included on the master landscaping plan.
3. Applicant shall provide a landscaped walkway between individual sites along Highway 5
to allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping if the buildings
are not moved to the foreground of their parking lots.
4. Minimum tree removal will be allowed for the tennis courts to the west of Highway
101. No clearings will be allowed for parking spaces.
5. The development shall comply with the development design standards included in the
staff report and incorporated herein by reference.
6. Grading shall be prohibited in the area between the bluff areas adjacent to Lake Susan.
•
70
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
7. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 foot intervals and fire hydrants shall be located at
major intersections. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are
known and how buildings are positioned on property.
8. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to City Engineer and
Fire Marshal for review and approval.
9. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire
Marshall will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at
that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing.
10. The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street
name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
11. Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed.
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 will be used as basic
criteria for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project numbering
on more than one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional
signage.
12. Final grading plan shall incorporate the following changes:
* Provide compatible site grades for the future upgrade of Grandview Road through
Lots 8 and 10, Block 1.
* Delete tennis courts.
* Relocate NURP Basin No. 4 westerly outside of existing Trunk Highway 101 right-
of-way. Consider consolidation of NURP Basin No. 3 with NURP Basin No. 4 and
oversize NURP Basin No. 4 to accommodate future stormwater runoff south of the
development.
* Adjust grading limits on Lot 2, Block 2 to avoid tree loss.
* Phases of grading the development shall be shown.
* Incorporate fencing with the construction of the 12 foot high retaining wall .on Lot
10, Block 1.
* Rerouting of Riley Creek shall be developed and approved by the DNR.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
* Revise grades along Trunk Highway 101 for a future trail underneath Trunk
Highway 101. —
* All NURP basins shall be constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 inch at
the normal water level for the first one foot of depth or 4:1 side slopes overall. —
* Add high water levels to all NURP basins and wetlands.
* No berming allowed in any public right-of-way.
* Maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over City's watermain along Trunk Highway 101. —
* Include lot lines, lot numbers, block numbers and storm sewers with structure
numbers. —
13. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon clarification of the issues relating to the
vacation of Great Plains Boulevard and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly
of the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor.
14. The lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to ponds and wetlands shall be a —
minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
15. The City shall assume maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities
and wetlands two years after completion of the site improvements. The appropriate
drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over ponding areas
and wetlands. The easements shall encompass the storm ponds and wetlands up to the
100 year flood level. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way
shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or it's successors. —
16. The proposed 8 inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of
proposed St. Hubert's Church shall be extended along the secondary access road to the —
east property line. In addition, sanitary and storm sewer and water service shall be
extended to the east property line of the plat through the northerly access road to
Grandview Road via Lake Drive and sanitary sewer shall be extended south of the —
school to the east property line.
17. All sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building.services
shall be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. As-built construction
plans will be required before the City accepts the utilities.
•
72 _
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
18. The existing house of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat is
recorded and the appropriate demolition permits will be required through the City's
Building Department. Existing wells and septic systems on the site shall be abandoned
per State Health Codes and City ordinance.
19. The final plat shall dedicate right-of-way for future Grandview Road over the easterly 17
feet of Lots 8 and 10, Block 2 paralleling existing Grandview Road.
20. All access points on to Trunk Highway 101 are subject to MnDot and City approval.
21. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm events along with
ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and
post runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to
final plat consideration.
22. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees
based on the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed
-- development would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $159,206.00 and a water
quality fee of $267,323.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for
oversizing of the ponding facilities and oversizing of trunk sewer after review of the
final construction plans and drainage/ponding calculations. The SWMP fees are payable
at time of final plat.
23. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private
and public streets. The applicant and City staff shall work together to prepare a street
lighting plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans.
24. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval.
25. The applicant shall design and construction the street and utility improvements in
accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be
submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction
with final plat approval.
26. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City
and shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps _
of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver County Highway Department.
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found —
during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far
as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile.
29. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing
will be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion —
control fence on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins. Wood fiber blankets shall
be utilized on all slopes in excess of 3:1.
30. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within
the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and
subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in
conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
31. The applicant reduce the impacts to Wetland 2000, create a larger on site mitigation area —
and present a sequencing plan showing reduced impact to affected wetlands.
32. City staff and the applicant shall investigate the origin of Wetland 6000 to determine if —
this area can be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act.
33. Buffer strips shall be provided around Wetland 5000. The buffer strips shall be 10 to 30
feet in width with an average width of 20 feet.
34. The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36 feet
wide face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which accesses
Grandview Road within the plat shall be constructed to 32 feet wide, back-to-back with _
concrete curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac with a 25 foot radius shall be
constructed at the end of the public street for Grandview Road. All private streets shall
be constructed in accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a —
minimum 26 foot wide drive aisles and built to 7 ton design.
•
•
35. Depending on the phasing of the project, Trunk Highway 101 may need to be upgraded —
to four lanes, as well as turn lanes and traffic signals. This will be further evaluated
contingent upon the outcome of the traffic study being reviewed by SRF. The applicant
shall incorporate the necessary traffic improvements as recommended by SRF —
•
74
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
accordingly. Should the traffic signals not be required with the initial phase of
development, the applicant will be required to escrow with the City their fair share of
_ the cost for future installation. Security shall be a means of a letter of credit or a
certificate of deposit. All Trunk Highway 101 improvements shall meet State Aid
standards. The applicants responsibility for the traffic signals along Trunk Highway 101
_ shall be 37% of the total cost. A cost sharing agreement between the applicant and the
City shall be drafted for the installation of any traffic signals.
36. The applicant shall provide cross-access easements and maintenance agreements for use
of the private streets. Cross-access easements should also qualify the secondary access
road for public use to Grandview Road.
37. The applicant shall also convey to the City a trail easement over Lot 9, Block 1 and
Outlots B and C once the trail alignment has been approved and constructed.
38. The applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way with the initial
phase of development in conjunction with an agreement by the city for the vacation of
TH 101.
39. The application be approved as presented with certain conditions regarding parks and
recreation:
a. The south Rice Marsh Lake trail connection be identified on the plan.
b. if the trail along TH 101 south of Rosemount is disturbed during construction, an
agreement for replacement be coordinated with the applicant.
c. There be a joint agreement for future use of the soccer field between the community
and St. Hubert's Church.
d. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
40. Unless setbacks can be maintained for existing TH 101, development of Block 2 is
contingent upon the upgrade of State Highway 101.
41. The developer shall create a schematic booklet depicting development design standards
and definitions.
42. The developer shall create and maintain an Architectural and Landscape Review
Committee to review and approve development and building plans for buildings within
the Villages on the Ponds.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
•
43. The developer shall work with the city to accomplish city goals for housing, including
the provision of "affordable housing". _
44. The developer and future site users shall be required to incorporate street/plaza furniture,
planting boxes, public art, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. within the development _
and on individual site plans.
45. The applicant shall prepare a detailed plan for the design of the wetland alterations. —
46. The applicant shall provide specific landscaping plan for Wetland 2000 and along TH 5.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: They did approve the variance for the Hiway 5 Centre. There was some
discussion on the signage issue. They did approve the Bluff Creek, Phase II. Approved that
wetland alteration permit. And that was it, as far as Planning Commission items.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Peterson: Where are we at with the car dealership?
Aanenson: We get a phone call like once a month. I'm not sure, I haven't talked to them.
Someone picked up...everything along Highway 5 for industrial. We actually thought we'd _
have that in for the 7th. Somebody else has picked up the Legion site and doing a project on
that so we've been busy.
Conrad: What's going on the Legion site?
Aanenson: Pretty much what you suspect, retail... So the next meeting on the 7th. _
Mancino: We have 4 interviews. We had 3 tonight.
Aanenson: Correct, and I'll start those at 7:00 so we've noticed the public hearings to start at
8:00. We've got a small one lot split. A Sinclair station updating. An antenna, ham radio
76
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
kind of thing at Hesse Farm. Creekside plat is back on. And then Minnewashta Parkway •
walk. The church will be on the 21st.
Mancino: What's Creekside?
Generous: Townhomes at Creekside.
Aanenson: It's just north of Stone Creek. The Creekside plat.
Generous: It was tabled.
Aanenson: It was tabled for the flood plain. They're altering the flood plain.
Skubic: The Church at St. Hubert's?
Aanenson: Correct. That will be on the 21st of August.
Mancino: Okay, move to adjourn the meeting?
Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
caned. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
77