PC 1995 04 05CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 5, 1995
Vice Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, and Bob
Skubic
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin
A1-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
Vice Chairman Mancino gave an introduction as to who the Planning Commission is and how
the meeting would be conducted.
ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to move this item until after the public hearings. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.14 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED, RSF, AND LOCATED NORTH OF MELODY HILL AND NORTH OF THE
MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL, 2220 MELODY HILL ROAD, GOLMEN HOFF
GOLMEN ADDITION.
Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Staff was not recommending that we make the decision tonight whether to continue
that road through. Just to acquire the right-of-way at this point.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission? Thank you, and would you please state your name.
Joe Zwak: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Joe Zwak. I'm
representing the applicants here. We have another point that we would like to have the staff
consider as a part of their recommendation offered before the Council. I'd like to address
those. Basically we're not too clear on the one recommendation to acquire 25 feet from the
applicant to expand the right-of-way of Melody Hill. I'm not clear whether that 25 feet is 25
feet of their property or that includes the existing 16 feet that I believe is dedicated as a part
Planning Commission Meeting- /~ori! 5, 1995
of the original plat of that property. In any event, we think that the taking of the land,
whether it be the larger parcel, the 25 foot width and just an additional 9 feet to add on to the
16 feet on the south end of the property. It seems to me that number one, they're paying out
over $12,000.00 in fees for a very simple subdivision and the city is now looking at taking ·
some of their land for purposes of expanding the roadway again without compensation and
that's not that unusual. It happens all the time but I think in this circumstance, if you have
the plat map before you, you'll notice that the dedicated Melody Hill as it presently exists,
there is a, I guess it doesn't show up very well on that but there is a jog. To the west of their
property, the platted Melody Hill is actually 50 feet wide and then it narrows down in the
southwest comer of their property to 30 feet. And it seems to me that if you take an
additional 9 feet or 25 feet on the north side of that road, when you ultimately create the road
you're going to end up having a jog in the road in front of their house and it doesn't seem a
logical way to develop a street. The land to the south of there, I don't know if that's owned
by the school board or whether it's a city park or whatever, but it seems that it'd be more
logical to utilize the additional 25 feet on the south side of the presently dedicated Melody-
Hill for purposes of connecting it to whatever development occurs to the east of this site in
the future. So I'd like to have the staff consider that when they look at this. That that
alternative be given consideration in redoing this. Secondly, in that same vein...there
presently exists a cul-de-sac on Melody Hill and I would like to have you also consider that if
this plat is approved, that that portion of the cul-de-sac from Melody Hill, which is north of
the north line of Melody Hill Road, that that would be vacated to eliminate that half circle in
there. The third point is relative to the removal of the garage. I know that they're
recommending that the garage be relocated to the north and west of the house and utilize a
common driveway, and the applicant is proposing to put the garage on the east side of the
house. There was a concern in putting the garage on the east side of the house on the basis
that it may damage an existing, very large tree in there and so I think what could be
considered here is that there is a dedicated right-of-way and at some point in time that right-
of-way is going to be developed. And it would be easy enough to put a temporary drive
along the existing right-of-way and then put a permanent driveway in at the point in time that
Melody Hill is extended to the east. It seems to me that that would minimize ground cover
much more so than trying to do a common driveway between the two properties. So I'd like
to have that point considered.
Mancino: And when you do that, do you avoid the tree? Take down the tree.
Joe Zwak: You avoid removing the tree, because ultimately the driveway, if the garage is on
the east side of the house, the driveway would be directly off of, it would be in a north/south
direction right off of Melody Hill Road so we would avoid the problem with the tree. The
fourth point with regard to the removal of the garage right away and the posting of a bond on
it. I think we do end up with a non-conforming use on an interim basis here from the point
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
of view that you have a house on one platted lot and the accessory structure on another
platted lot so I think at least for the very near future, the two lots are either going to be
utilized as one common living unit using both the house and the garage as that one common
living unit. I think it would be more appropriate for the removal, for the moving of the
garage would be tied into the issuing of the building permit for the new house. And I don't
know exactly what their timing is on it but I think roughly they're looking at the possibility of
maybe in June getting started on this project so the 30 day limit here might be too narrow.
Maybe it's enough, I don't know but I think if we tie the removal of the garage to the
issuance of the building permit, that would seem to be more appropriate than requiring
removal within a 30 day period. The next point is, there's a provision here relative to
creating additional ground cover in terms of trees. I think the plan or the plat that has been
prepared by the surveyor only sets forth trees that are 6 inches or greater in diameter and the
applicants have, over the last few years, been planting 3 plus trees per year so there are a
number of trees on the property that are I believe greater than 2 1/2 inches in diameter.
Certainly less than the 6 inches and I would like to have the staff look at those trees in the
point of view of l(a) .... set their requirements as to what exactly what additional trees would
have to be planted on the property. That is our statement and if you've got any questions,
we'd be happy to answer them.
Mancino: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Zwak? Thank you. Sharmin, can you
give us some guidance as far as the 16 feet for the roadway? Is the 25 feet, does that include
the 16 feet? Or maybe Mr. Hempel could.
Hempel: Sure, I can address that one for the commission. Currently the underlying plat,
they've already dedicated a total right-of-way of 32 feet. The center line...is the southerly
property line of proposed Lot 2. Now what we are requesting is an additional 9 feet of right-
of-way to create one-half of the 50 foot wide right-of-way, which is typical for that area. So
we're looking at the southerly 25 feet of Lot 2 as it's platted...
Mancino: So the southerly 25. And do you split this with the property on the south side? Is
that how you come up with the amount of right-of-way?
Hempel: Right. Currently there's 16 feet lying south of this property...acquired from the
school when the street is being extended through.
Mancino: And what about the staff, what about the northern part of the cul-de-sac? What
happens to that part?
Hempel: At this time we would not recommend vacating that turn around until the street was
put going through...turn arounds for public safety vehicles and snowplowing purposes and so
Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995
forth. So at the time the road does get extended through past the property to the east, we
would be in favor of vacating the cul-de-sac. If I could touch on another point the applicant
made in regards to relocation of the garage. That was an alternative staff looked at and
possibly setting a temporary driveway east of the cul-de-sac and then having the driveway
extended north to service...garage. That would be acceptable as well.
Mancino: And what about timing? For vacating the garage. Flexibility from staff.
Hempel: In relocating the garage? I guess I'11...
A1-Jaff: What we can do is hold off on recording the plat until the garage has been removed.
This way we're not creating a non-conforming situation.
Aanenson: We'll have to look at, there may be some financial considerations if they're trying
to get financing or whatever but we'll certainly work with...
Mancino: The applicants, thank you. May I have a motion please to open the public
hearing?
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion canied. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to
speak on this item?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion cmxied. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Discussion from the different commissioners. Ladd, do you have a few thoughts
on this?
Conrad: No. I think Dave, it sounds like Dave has thought the roadway through. The
vacation of the vacated half circle on Melody Hill sounds like it's going to happen. Sounds
like a temporary drive, this could be a temporary drive. I don't know what forces it to
become temporary. That's something that I don't know how the motion would be worded if
we really wanted it to be connected to Melody Hill. I don't know how to do that later on.
That sounds like the removal of the garage, based on issuing of a grading permit or
something like that is real possible. So I see some things that we can do to the motion at
hand so I really don't have, other than structuring a motion that would be legal to connect that
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
garage to Melody Hill in the future when the road goes through. I don't know what leverage
we have later on.
Mancino: Ron.
Nutting: In general I agree with Ladd's comments. A question I have for staff is on the
canopy coverage and the applicant's comments about the additional trees that were under 6
inches. Have we verified any of that information?
AI-Jaff: We could do that between now and the time when it appears before City Council.
We will work with the applicant on that.
Nutting: Okay. I guess I agree with staff's recommendation on that point but if there are
already plantings that would meet the requirements that we would put in place so if they
weren't there, that we reduce the overall requirements of meeting the canopy coverage. I
don't have any additional comments.
Mancino: Bob, any comments? Mike? A question, a couple questions that I had was I see a
pump house in the, what is this, the northeastern comer? No, northwestern comer. Is that
their's? Is it private? Public? Is it a city pump?
AI-Jaff: It's a private pump house.
Mancino: Would that be in the right-of-way at all? In the southern 25 feet.
Hempel: No. It'd be outside of the right-of-way.
Mancino: Okay. So it will still be on their property and we don't have a problem?
Joe Zwak: Madam Chair? If I could make a comment. That pump house is proposed to be
removed.
Mancino: Thank you. I don't have any other questions or discussion. May I have a motion?
Conrad: Let me ask. Dave, the vacating the half circle on Melody Hill. You're comfortable
with that, right?
Hempel: Once the permanent street is in place...
Conrad: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Hempel: I'm just going to... That's a scenario if the commission wishes to proceed, condition
number 9 could be deleted because you would not have a shared driveway. You'd have two
separate driveways, one for each lot.
Conrad: Okay.
Nutting: Once the street goes through and the vacation.
Conrad: Staff, or Kate. The rationale for the garage being to the north was really for saving
the tree?
Aanenson: And the excess amount of the impervious surface. It swipes the whole front yard
and we felt it'd be more appropriate to have it come in at a 90 degree or put the garage
behind where you're not taking really the whole front yard out. And we think there's an
alternative, and it sounds like that's the direction you're heading. If you're having problems
with the motion, if I can just interject. The issue with the landscaping. Certainly you can
modify that, that we would work with the applicant. They provide additional information and
we'll certainly visit that issue. When we'll work with the City Attorney regarding the, how
we can work to get the garage removed without recording the plat or whatever we need to do
there. We can modify that. Then as Dave indicated, you could take out 9 if that's the
direction you're leaning, with the driveway. And I think Dave's right. I think we can work
something out for the vacation of the driveway. I understand what your concern is there but I
feel comfortable, and I think Dave does too, that we can get that resolved.
Conrad: Okay. Well, we'll see what happens. It's not as simple as you might think.
Mancino: I'm just waiting.
Conrad: Now what would guarantee? The only what I will let this garage go to the east is if
we have the leverage to get the driveway, the temporary driveway changed.
Aanenson: And that would be part of your motion. To say the driveway has to be within the
existing easement area. It can't go across the front yard. It'd have to be in the existing
easement area.
Hempel: Within the 25 foot...
Aanenson: Correct. That would be the specific language. Within the 25 foot.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Conrad: Right now, to put a temporary driveway in, it would have to be in the existing right-
of-way.
Hempel: That's where we would recommend because that's the future alignment of the street.
Conrad: Okay. And that would still, we wouldn't be cutting down trees and that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Okay. Okay, we've got a lot of thoughts and I'm not sure whether they're going to
be sorted in. Anyway, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision//95-2 for the Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition
for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans received March 10th subject to the conditions
in the staff report with the following changes. I want point number 1 to remain but I want a
footnote in there that would say that staff is to verify the canopy coverage with the applicant
in the coming 2 weeks and make a recommendation to the City Council as to what would
qualify for the reforestation or for their permanent landscaping requirements. Under point
number 2. Dave, help me on this, or Kate, Sharmin. Under building relocation. We're really
saying, we're saying that the removal of the garage, you know the applicant wanted the
removal of the garage based on the issuance of the building permit. Do we need any wording
under (b)? Is that the right direction to take? Under (b) of point 2. Or should we.
Aanenson: I guess what we're saying is we would prefer that it be done before the plat's
recorded so we're not creating a non-conforming situation. So I think what we can maybe
just put a caveat that says, staff will work to insure that.
Conrad: Under (b)?
Aanenson: Yeah, under (b). Mutually acceptable that we're not creating a non-conforming.
Conrad: Okay. So the addition to (b) is that the staff will work to insure that we're not
creating a non-conforming what?
Aanenson: Lot. You can't have an accessory structure without a principle structure.
Conrad: 3 stands. 4 stands. 5 we'd make some modifications to...I'm looking for what
should stay from the point made. The garage shall be relocated. We don't want that. Access
to the garage shall be from the existing, we don't want that. I think from there on stays.
Okay. Point number 5. The access to the garage on the plat with the garage to the east of
the house, can be achieved through a temporary driveway on the easement which will be
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
removed when the permanent Melody Hill road goes through with the applicant putting in a
permanent drive off of Melody Hill at that time. Sentence in the staff report under 5. The
second half of the second sentence all the way to the end of the paragraph will remain. Point
number 6 stands. Point number 7 on the staff report will remain. Point number 8 remains.
Point number 9 is eliminated. Point number 10 remains. That's the end of my motion.
Nutting: Do we have a point 11. It's complicated. Did we cover the vacation of the cul-de-
sac? From the extension of the street.
Mancino: Yes.
Hempel: A footnote to that...petitioning to vacate the cul-de-sac at any time.
Mancino: At any time, okay.
Aanenson: Technically I don't think it was noticed as part of this hearing so we would need
to do that. We can take that up separately.
Mancino: So we feel comfortable with how it's done? Do I hear a second?
Nutting: Second.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
preliminmy plat for Subdivision #95-2 for Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition for 2 single family
lots as shown on the plans received March 10, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. A total of nine (9) trees will be planted, assuming that none of the existing five
trees will be removed. If any of the existing trees are removed, the replacement number
will increase. Tree protection fencing should be placed around all existing trees during
construction. (Note: Staff will verify before going to City Council the tree canopy
coverage as it relates to the reforestation and landscaping plan.)
2. Building Department conditions:
a.
Demolition Permits: Existing structures on the property which will be demolished
or moved will require demolition permits.
b.
Building Relocation: Buildings relocated within the city require building permits
prior to their being moved to the new site. Such moved buildings are required to
Planning Commission Meeting - April ,5, 1995
meet all the provisions of the currently adopted building code except for energy
code requirements. (Note: Staff will wod~ with the applicant to insure that they're
not creating a non-conforming lot.)
c. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to any grading on the property.
3. Fire Marshal conditions:
a.
The house to be built on Lot 1 shall have additional premise identification numbers
at the driveway entrance, which shall comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department
Premises Identification Policy//29-1992. Copy enclosed.
bo
Any trees removed from the site will have to be hauled, chipped or cut up. No
burning permits will be issued due to proximity of surrounding homes.
.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
o
The access to the garage, with the garage to the east of the house, can be achieved
through a temporary driveway on the easement which will be removed when the
permanent Melody Hill road goes through with the applicant putting in a permanent
drive off of Melody Hill at that time. The existing garage and shed shall be removed
within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. Financial guarantees shall be
posted with the city to insure compliance with this condition. The applicant shall apply
for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition/relocation
of the existing shed and garage.
o
The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the
final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents.
.
Lot 1, Block 1 shall be charged at the time of building permit issuance, one sanitary
sewer and water connection and hook-up charge. The connection and hook-up charges
for 1995 have been established at $7,000.00 and $2,425.00 respectively.
.
Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the city a storm water
connection fee for Lot 1, Block 1. The connection fees for water quality and quantity
have been established at $560.00 and $1,386.00 respectively.
Planning Commission Meeting - April §, 1995
.
The southerly 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be dedicated as street right-of-way with the
final plat documents. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reconfigured to arrive at the necessary
square footage with a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried.
(Kate Aanenson excused herself from the meeting at this point due to a personal conflict of
interest for the next item.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 16.34 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RIL RURAL
RFSIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
16.34 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50
FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH ON LAKE LUCY ROAD, (1471),
POINTE LAKE LUCY WEST, MICHAEL BYRNE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Dirks
Al Weingart
Joe & Gayle Morin
Brian Tichy
Jerry Hoffman
Jill Willis
Dale & Gloria Carlson
1205 West Ash, Olivia, MN
5330 St. Albans Bay Road, Shorewood
1441 Lake Lucy Road
1471 Lake Lucy Road
6830 Utica Terrace
1571 Lake Lucy Road
6900 Utica Lane
Shm~nin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on fids item.
Conrad: Just one question of staff. Any applicant has the right to bring a plat in front of us.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: Whether it meets our standards or not. We are obligated to look at that, even
though it's obviously missing some things that we require by ordinance. Correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct. I mean we could have said that this was an incomplete application.
However, we just wanted to get the thoughts of the Planning Commission. We wanted to
10
Planning Commission Meeting- April 5, 1995
make sure we're moving on the same track. And we wanted to get your input on it. But yes,
you do have to review the application.
Mancino: With that, is the applicant here and would you like to make a presentation7
Michael Byrne: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Michael Byrne. I
reside at 5428 Kimberly Road in Minnetonka. Normally under the circumstances...speaking
to his proposal. That is not our intention...We are working with staff and staff has been very
gracious in working with us. We are in mid stream...We met with the neighbors last night
and learned a lot of commentary. Madam Chair was there so she... I don't want to take a lot
of your time since...I wish however to garner as much information from you as possible...
You will hear from the neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Morin...I can only ask that we continue to
have the opportunity to work with staff and working with... I had made plans with Alan
Olson myself but Sharmin from staff has stole my thunder already. To give you an idea of
the... The changes that we're trying to make to this proposal are going to be hard. This is a
very, very difficult subdivision. We have somewhere between 72 to 78 percent coverage of
trees. We have terrain changes. We have ponds...We really do wish for you to listen to
those comments...await for any questions you have.
Mancino: Any questions?
Conrad: Not right now.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please?
Nutting moved, Conlad seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion cm~ied. The public hearing was opened.
A1 Weingart: My name is A1 Weingart. I currently reside at 5320 St. Albans Bay Road over
in Shorewood. I recently purchased the island peninsula out in Lake Lucy and also will be
purchasing the Sanda home which is at 1685 Steller Court. That's the Sanda home. And
relative to my intentions with respect to the island, you guys went through it and the City
Council and they approved a plat of a roadway that goes out there that will only service a
single family home so my intention all along, after that process was over was always to put a
single family home at some point. No immediate plans to do so, but that is why we're buying
the Sanda house is to give us some time to acclimate ourselves to the neighborhood and what
not. It's a fairly big project so it's going to take some time and more importantly money.
General concerns from a personal standpoint are that, the concerns about the economic impact
that such a development, as was originally proposed, will possibly have on my property,
which is a selfish interest. And of course...shared by many people in the neighborhood. And
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
also on the quality and the level of Lake Lucy. I have a real concern about the level of Lake
Lucy, not only from Mike's development but also from the standpoint of some of the other
developments around Lake Lucy because my driveway doesn't sit much above the ordinary
high water mark and I don't want to be using a boat to get to it. So those are the personal
concerns that I have about this particular development. I'm not opposed to development. I
just wanted some sensitivity relative to those kinds of things looked at. Overall I think my
concerns would be to preserve the natural, sort of preserve, nature preserve setting of that
whole area of that north shore. We don't have a lot of lakes in Chanhassen and I think the
city character of the lakes, would surround the lake changes dramatically although I'm not
naive enough to think that it wasn't going to be developed or shouldn't be developed. That's
not our position at all. Just that it be developed responsibly. Also there's, as you may know,
there's some wildlife in that area, both on the island and all along this shore it's heavily
forested. I think Eric Rivkin will talk a little bit later about some of that but that is a
concern. There is a buffer zone that, where this wildlife seems to migrate to and from across
all of that all the way out to the western part of Chanhassen so that is a concern. Again I
want to reiterate we're not opposed to development at all. We had a meeting last night, and
Mike was gracious enough to call with all the homeowners and we have some Minutes put
together that Joe will distribute to you and they can...comments so we're here to kind of give
you those rather than sit here and reiterate what's in that packet. Sharmin, could you put this
up?
A1-Jaff: I sure can.
A1 Weingart: This, again this is a bit preliminary but my point of putting this up here is just
to emphasize, it's backwards. What the initial thrust of this whole development has been and
what we've done. You've got a copy of this in a March 28th letter that I distributed that Joe
and I...distributed to you and basically the second portion is what, at that point in time, was
deemed to be graded to accommodate the home sites. That means all the trees and the slopes
would be impacted by the grading. And this initially of course shocked us because really it
amounts to about 80% or 90% of the lot. What isn't graded, it consists of very steep slopes, a
buffer zone around the wetland and wetlands themselves. And so that kind of caught our
attention and that's what caused us to create a bit of an organization here to just make sure
that what is done here is done with some sensitivity. Some of the points on this are that what
we're concerned about is really four things generally. The areas along the right hand side.
Right along the water front, or the lakeshore if you will. I'll call it lakeshore. Basically it's
very low. There is a proposal to range from 8 foot of fill to be put in there to build up those
lots in order so they can have walkouts and look-outs. That I understand may be being
revised to 3 to 4 feet but nonetheless when you fill that site, basically you've got to get rid of
all vegetation because you fill with dirt on top, so that's a concern. Between the wetland, the
inside wetland. That pond. The big pond and the lake. It's a very sensitive area in there.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
It's very low. That is, and over to the top. That is an area that's particularly I think critical
and I think Eric may be able to speak a little bit to that. This plat here and in subsequent to
the conversation plat I guess, whatever it was, had a lot of variances, or needs a lot of
variances to accommodate the number of homes that are being put in here. Particularly the
private drives that are necessary for that, and I think those should be taken a look at very
carefully to make sure that we're not impacting something by putting too many homesites.
And I know the pads aren't necessarily the...factor of this whole but it still defies my logic a
bit that the more homes that you have in a situation, obviously the more trees that go down
and the more slopes that get graded and so that explanation of the pads aren't really that
important has not really flown with me and I wish somebody would articulate that to me...
That proposal incorporates taking down some very large trees, 24 inch plus in diameter trees
and particular in the cul-de-sac area. I don't know how much concession Mike is going to do
to move that cul-de-sac...to avoid those trees. I haven't heard anything...but that would be
something that we would like to see... Basically the issues we'd like the Planning
Commission to consider would be to, a reduction in the tree loss. A reduction in the grading
of the site. Custom grading of the lot which last night Mike had agreed to. Reduction in the
number of lots. Focus on the retention pond location. There's a retention pond that sits right
next to the wetland. A pond there and we're concerned about it's ability to hold water and not
dump it into the wetland pond which flows directly into Lake Lucy. And probably some of
the most severe concerns of our's happen to be, and these were brought up last night in the
homeowners meeting, were the number of lots that are on the lake, or even the fact that
there's any lots on the lake. To have those things moved back away from the lake. They're
awfully close to filling with a lot of fill there and there's a lot of wildlife and other types of
concerns about what impact it will have, not only on that situation but also on Lake Lucy
itself from...standpoint. And I would encourage any of you who haven't walked the site to do
so because I think you can't really appreciate the undulation of the land and trees and
everything until you've been out there. And I encourage you and whoever else is involved in
the process to do that. That's all I have right now. Any questions?
Mancino: Any questions? Thankyou.
A1 Weingart: Thank you very much.
Mancino: Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Madam Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Joe
Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. Last time I was here about a month ago I spoke to
you, mainly in support of the development going in to the east of my property line. It was
not complete support. I had some concerns. Those concerns have been taken care of by the
developer. Tonight I'm here before you speaking mainly in opposition to the plan proposed
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
on the west of my property. The differences in the developments, although as Mike last night
told the neighbors, he was patterning his development after the Mason Homes development.
The differences are dramatic, notwithstanding the name that he's chosen. Also the character
of the land is quite dramatic. I would like to just kind of show a little overview of some of
the differences. The Mason Homes development is laid out on a ridge. Mason Homes took
great consideration from the recommendations of the staff to reduce some of the grading
originally proposed. They reduced the number of lots which reduced the impact on our
property. The President has agreed to move some pine trees between our property and some
of the adjacent homes to further reduce the impact on us. So our relationship there has been
quite good. The topography is significantly different, as the staff report points out. The
Mason Homes development is on a ridge, whereas the Tichy, Byrne development is located
kind of in more of a ravine area, which is also heavily wooded. Sharmin, if you could put up
that. These are some numbers that I gleaned from the staff report. The bottom line here is
that in the Coey property, buildable acreage, I think I can read that from here. Is 11.1 acres.
And the buildable acreage on the Tichy/Christensen property is 7.97. Now I want to
emphasize and stress here that it's not the number of lots that's my main concern but rather
how the land is treated. I'm only showing this to kind of emphasize the differences in the
two developments. If we use the same ratio and apply it to the Tichy/Christensen property as
the Mason Homes development used in creating their plat. That would suggest that 13 to 14
building sites would be compatible. Not as a compatible development. Not even considering
the more difficult terrain that we have to deal with on that site. The status of the
development to the east of my property is, the neighbors are, I don't plan to speak for all of
them but in large part, most neighbors are well satisfied with what went on there. And to the
west of my property, most neighbors are very unhappy about what's proposed. So, I want to
also emphasize that I'm not opposed to development to the west. In fact, Gayle and I will
benefit from a development to the west greatly but we want to see a good development, and
we would rather have no development than what we see being proposed right now. The
intentions that we have with respect to our property, I want to make that clear. We have 3
potential sites, 3 developable sites on our property, one of which we have already developed.
That's our present home. When we put our home in, we built it, I cleared the area by hand.
There were no significant trees that were removed. There's no grading for the site required
except to put in our driveway. We designed the home with the site in mind and took about 3
years before we actually, after owning the property, before we actually built a home on this
site. The second site is located a little bit southwest of our existing home and in that area, I
have to acknowledge that there is one significant tree. That staff asked us for conceptual plan
potential homesites so we don't know exactly how that, where that tree fits in the site but it is
something that is a concern to us. The third site on our property is south of the slew area,
which is again more south and east of our existing home. And that's in a natural clearing so
the only brush that would need to be removed, I think right now from my walking the site,
although I'm not exactly certain where the boundaries are, it looks like it's mainly...and
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
buckthorn. So the net impact on our 5 acres from any future development plans that we
would have would be removal of basically one significant tree. Possibly removal, but we'll
do our very best to avoid that. Although like I said, we have not platted the property. We
don't know what the implications are for the runoff and so on from that kind of development.
I think 3 homes on 5 acres is something quite reasonable, and in dealing with the character of
the property, we've taken great care to avoid any tree loss or any other...impact to the
environment. Now the main concerns with what's proposed there. Not with the number of
lots, as I said before but rather how the land is treated and A1 has spoke to many of the
concerns that I share with both Al and the rest of our neighbors there. I'm not opposed to
Mike Byrne developing but I do object to the callousness with which the, and the insensitivity
of the design process that's used and the results of the plan that's being proposed. I don't feel
that it does deal sensitively with the environment, and that's of grave concern to me.
Ironically one of my biggest concerns is in the area furthest from my house, and that's in an
area where A1 spoke of where right between these large ponds on our property and on Tichy's
property, and the lake, the plan is to bulldoze the area, putting in up to 8 feet of fill and
erecting a house on top of that 8 feet of fill. Not only is there tremendous destruction to the
local environmental there, and Eric will speak to that later. But it's a major block and
impediment to the wildlife migration path. Sharmin, if you could put up the, well that's a
little bit of a representative drawing but.
A1-Jaff: Like that?
Joe Morin: A little bit. In that proposed Lot 10 there, the end lot. The land is very much
constricted in that area but the wetland area to the east and to the west widens broadly in
those areas and on the Mason...as you travel further west there's a very large wildlife wetland
area. And so I see that as a very constrictive impediment to the free travel of the wildlife.
Not just for this site but for the whole region. The whole area. Not to mention that a home
positioned on top of 8 or 10 of fill would be a tremendous eye sore for the whole area. Now
my other concerns I share with the neighbors. I share with Al. We brought those out in our
meeting with Mike last night. Mike didn't take any notes during that meeting but A1 and I
consolidated our notes and put together the Minutes of the meeting and I'd like to provide
each of you with a copy so that this can also be, and Mike with a copy, so that this
neighborhood input can be considered in the further improvement of the plan. We also have
copies for people who participated in the meeting and any other neighbors who are interested
in obtaining copies of the Minutes, they can call myself or Al. Again, I don't want to take a
whole lot of your time reiterating concerns that are already documented in these Minutes, so
thank you very much.
Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Eric Rivkin: My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court, which is just to the west
of this development about 400 or 500 feet, and I share lakeshore on the other side of the
island. Opposite side... I'm also Co-Chairperson of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association.
I went to the neighborhood meeting last night. I've read some of the concerns that A1 and Joe
have had. I've read the staff report. I used to own Joe's lot, sandwiched inbetween both of
these developments, and I know both pieces of land...very intimately because I had owned it
for a year. Picked lots of raspberries there. Watched a lot of wildlife and meditated out
there. It's really quite a place. I think this is somewhat of an inaccurate depiction of the
lake. That edge right there, that you see between the water and the land is really the edge of
cattails. The actual high water mark goes more around here. You can connect the dots I
guess. It goes around here and goes way up in here. The proposed setbacks from here really
put a strain of the water quality of the development. It's very clear right now. There's a lot
of beavers and muskrats that excavate this area. They depend on a corridor between here and
a pond to be able to traverse. The whole area around here, around Lake Lucy and this side of
the lake primarily is basically a giant wildlife refuge. There's flocks right now of Great Blue
Herons that do nest in there. There is a rookery here. They nest in the large tree canopy that
surrounds this pond. If that integrity of that tree canopy is destroyed, which it will be on this
side of this lot, I talked to wildlife biologists today, who works for the St. Paul Parks System
and she has manages the park at Crosby Farm where they have migratory waterfowl there all
the time. And she said if these are disturbed, they're very sensitive to being disturbed and
they will leave the nesting sites. So we will lose that. It's an environmental impact that is
serious. The other particulars from the environmental issues. There's many water...I'm
concerned about. I saw a plan Michael produced last night that had a Walker Pond or
something next to here. I want to comment that I think is potentially disastrous. We have, I
know that 4 years ago when Willow Ridge was proposed, there was a lot of talk about, it was
an experiment. This Walker Pond concept. There was a pond put right on the edge of this
giant 1.4 acre pond, which is about the same size as this one. And the theory was that the
water would drain into there. Hold the sediment. Hold the nutrients before it would dump
itself into there. Well, the water level was planned to rise. Well the whole thing, including
the Walker Pond, is all underwater as the same continuous lake right now. So there is no
benefit derived from this Walker Pond. The same thing is proposed here. The same
detriment will happen. The water quality will not improve. It will go down. If that is, the
difference between this and the Willow Ridge is they have 3 or 4 Walker Ponds for that
whole development. This has one and it was located right smack in the middle of the most
sensitive part of this development. Or sensitive part of the drainage. Highest impact.
Potential impact it would have on water quality. This pond drains into Lake Lucy with a
running stream right now. There's water flowing in it now? From what I heard.
Joe Morin: Oh yeah.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Gayle Morin: Almost all the time.
Eric Rivkin: Almost all the time. There's springs that feed into this, okay. And there's no
filtration between here and Lake Lucy. You dump high nutrient loading into this storm sewer
system here, it's going to go right into Lake Lucy. Unfiltered where you cannot harvest the
nutrients, the phosphorous away. So it's lacking in design and I need to state that on record
so that Mr. Byrne will take that and hire the appropriate resources to make sure that it meets
ordinances when it comes to water quality interception. There are springs in the area.
There's running springs that come flowing out sprinkled all throughout the Lake Lucy area. I
think there's one here. From what I remember, there was one over on Jill Willis. There's
several on Jill Willis' property. There's one right here...because I saw it coming right through
the snow. I think there's one or two right here. I think engineering wise, Mr. Byrne is going
to discover that if he puts a house there, I don't think he will be able to. There are running
springs that keep the deer, who come and nest there...or bed down every single night in this
region. There also, I don't think that it was very sensitive to put a cul-de-sac right in the
middle of a grove of mature oak trees when 30 feet from there, you could just move it and
terminate it likewise. The impact of putting large amounts of fill on here will destroy the
natural, I guess filtration that would be left between here and there on the development. I
think this would be a good place to have maybe your retention pond and open space that
would be left for wildlife. This was brought up in a neighborhood meeting last night as a
strong suggestion that was agreed upon by all the residents. And I think the economic impact
of doing something like that, reducing the number of lots to maybe 9 or 10 where you have
an amenity that would improve the value of the homes to the point where I don't think he's
really going to lose any money. I developed some land in Minnetonka, 4 acres and put 6 lots
in. It had 90% of the existing tree canopy was preserved because I wrote in the covenants,
and I suggested this to Mike last night. We had covenants that would say the developer,
which is me, would have right of refusal for any builder to come in and cut a tree. I would
say it can be cut or it can't be cut. Or I can approve your design with this house so you can
tuck it in here and there. Whatever. But that kind of environmental sensitivity is lacking
here. If Mr. Byrne doesn't have it himself, I suggest that he retain the services of a developer
and we suggested to him a name that, retain the services of some professional who can satisfy
that type, to design it environmentally properly. Well, let me get back to my sheet here. The
oaks. As you heard, almost all the oaks on this place are red oaks. I had a red oak on my
place when I put my house in. I was trying to be very, very careful not disturbing out to the
tree line and I like the idea of having them report 1 1/2 times the drip line and not disturbing
key trees. Well, destroy all the trees...but in order to, I've seen houses by a sensitive builders
go right up within 10 feet of a dripline and not destroy a tree because they knew how to build
next to it. It's possible to do that here. You just need some talent to make it happen. I'm
concerned about the fact that the trees themselves are home to many species of animals. The
holes and they come in trees...but also the mallard ducks. They eat the acorns and the
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
mallards, and I know I'm right about this, they flock there by the hundreds during migration
and they do nest there. Every single year. They need the food. They need the perch space.
They need the tree canopy. They need those oaks intact as much as possible. And I don't
think that, I would have to believe that there's enough teeth in the ordinances we have to say
no to this level of destruction. Simply saying to the developer it's okay to destroy everything
as long as you replant or, just does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. And I
think that Mr. Byrne can take that and use that as an important thing to preserve. There is
beaver sitting right there on the site, in the lagoon to the south of the property. They've been
cutting down some saplings on the island and on Christensen's property. Byrne's property
right now. And right between the pond and the lake. Now if you put houses in there, some
neighbor's going to get in a house and want to shoot them and they need to live. They need
to, we have to...to the needs of the beavers here and there's a beaver lodge in that lagoon
right now. It's been there for many years and they keep building new ones all the time.
Every year they try to come back. And they need to live so we have to... Well, thank you
very much.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to come up? Thank you. If you could
give your name and address.
Jill Willis: My name is Jill Willis and I own the property adjacent to the...Tichy property and
essentially I just want to say for the record that there are...development as has been proposed
would be pretty tragic...
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? May I have a motion?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion canied. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Thank you. Comments from the commissioners. Ladd?
Conrad: I'm going to speak in a two part. The first part relates to our subdivision ordinance,
and then the second part relates to my personal feelings in how I'd like to see this property
develop. In the subdivision ordinance I think there are, at least there are 7 major points that
the staff has outlined and basically this development, or proposed development, misses the
first 5. From the standpoint of variances. From the standpoint of water quality pond that
should be there. From the standpoint of sensitive to the physical characteristics of the site.
From the standpoint of storm drainage. From the standpoint of environmental damage. And
these are not, I guess I'm not saying that personally, there are not personal comments.
They're just my review of the ordinance versus the project and the project fails in 5 out of 7.
Maybe the reason I started this conversation off with why is this here. In terms of how it
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
should be developed. I'm going to echo a couple things that staff has said. I think staff has
done a good job of reviewing this. I think they've given us good input. I'm pretty
comfortable with that staff is trying to guide this. So I think the developer, the owner, I think
as you work with staff, they're really going to represent a great deal of, at least my
philosophy and I think it's philosophy that's carried out through the ordinance. The
subdivision ordinance. So it's not willy nilly. It's not personal opinion. I think it's
substantial defensible, solid guidelines. In terms of how, what I would recommend. In terms
of my concerns as to how you make this a development that works. We know that
developments can work. We've seen them in the neighborhood. We've seen the
neighborhood actually support them so I don't think the neighbors are out to say, don't
develop. They're not. I didn't hear any of the neighbors say that. I think it's how we do it.
And I've got a couple observations and the first one's going to reflect staffs comment. I
won't approve any variances unless we see an environmental sensitivity. Just flat out, I'll
trade. I'll do some horse trading. But right now it's all one sided. I'm real nervous about the
8 feet of fill on the south part. Regardless. 8 feet next to the lake for so many reasons.
Now maybe it's not 8 feet. Maybe it's 4. So we'll find out. We don't have a real plan in
front of us but even real well designed water quality ponding has problems. And so when we
start hauling in 4 to 8 feet of fill for 4 lots, that's a lot of fill right next to the water. It's just
extremely nervous about that. I don't know how you manage it during the fill. I don't know
how you manage it after the fill, to tell you the truth. Erosion control. The impact on the
natural habitat. It seems abusive to me. But most importantly I don't know how you manage
8 feet of flu going in there to not impact the lake. And Dave will say, engineering we can do
anything. Obviously there has to be some storm water ponding. Storm water ponding on
site. Obviously. I don't like to look at plans that don't even have it. It says hey, it's not a
real plan. This is a game we're playing here. The site, as I saw it, looked like every street
was aimed for a tree over 24 inches. And I say that in jest. I don't want to be perceived as
taking shots here but, I'm not going to force somebody to preserve every tree on this site, and
you don't have to and nobody does. But when I see all the major trees on this site that are
coming down, it's bad design. So that, and I know you can fix that. So I won't even extend
my conversation that I know we can miss those trees. Custom grading has to be done on
every lot. And the cul-de-sac has to be moved. Those are my comments.
Mancino: Thank you. How did you say what I had written down? Ron.
Nutting: Yeah. Very well done Ladd. I guess one initial comment I would like to make is I
do appreciate the developer's comments about, I guess first in holding the neighborhood
meeting. The projects that get to this point without the neighborhood meetings really seem to
not go anywhere. And holding that meeting I think was a good start. As well as the
expression of willingness to work with staff and make revisions to the plan. I'm not a
developer. I rely on staff and I think staff does a good job, for the most part. No, staff does
19
Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995
do a very good job. So when I read the staff report, as well as walk the site, and maybe just
to echo one of Ladd's comments. The area where the cul-de-sac is and the grove of trees at
that location. Without greater sensitivity to tree preservation, as you acknowledged, the site is
heavily wooded. Trees will go down. There's no question about that. We're not here to save
every tree but just to responsibly assist in the responsible development of the site. I would
echo all of Ladd's comments and again I can't comment further because I'm not sure what
we're going to be looking at, and as you acknowledged, but I think the neighbors comments
bear some review and the process but I think staff has done a very good job in trying to
shape the thing, the plan so that as Ladd puts it, variances require some effort towards I guess
sensitivity is really a big issue so those are my comments.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
Meyer: Really just to echo the same thing that Ladd has said already. I can't really add
anything to it but just go on record as saying that I agree with him 100%.
Mancino: Alright. Did you get his comments Mr. Byrne?
Michael Byrne: Yes.
Mancino: Did you get his comments were the same? Thank you. I also echo, would like to
comment on the same concerns that I have. I'd like to add just a few more. One are the
retaining walls that I saw on the plans, knowing that they're not final but if there are going to
be retaining walls in the next version that we see, I'd like to know a little bit more about
them. These were 100 to 400 feet long. So I'd like to see, why are they there? What are
they preserving? How high are they? How are they going to be constructed? From an
engineering point of view, and from an environmental point of view. Because I think that we
had, or what I saw were 8 of them. My other concern is about the accesses to the properties
on the east and on the west, and that would be the Willis' and Morin's. And I would like to
see the developer and staff work with the property owners on both sides as far as where
exactly those access points will be. Not only for roadway but for sewer and water. And I
would like to make sure that all parties, if we get there, are in agreement on where those are.
And that they do take into the environmental concerns that we have. And I have some
concerns about the construction of a private street. Making sure that we do not limit, on
either side of the property that's going to be developed, what the other owners can do. That
means that if there's a limit to 4 houses on private drives, that it comes back to us. If we want
to see 5, that there are very clear illustrations as to how that is preserving that area. I concur
with Ladd that I need a very good explanation, something that I can understand about the
necessity for the amount of fill in the southern portion of this property. Not only having to
do with walkouts but having to do with sewer. And some other options besides that amount
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
of fill. The location and the size of the retention pond I would like to have staff and the
applicant work together to locate it in an area that will not destroy significant tree coverage,
and at the same time will be effective storm water quality treatment pond. And it would be
my recommendation to staff and City Council that maybe you consider conferring with or
getting a second opinion from an outside expert on that. Not only the location but how
effectively it will work. 100% of the time... And I guess just in summary I would like to say
that I would just like to see the plat comply more with the subdivision ordinance 18-60(d).
Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect amenities. Natural amenities such as vegetation,
wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. And I'd like to see this comply with
that ordinance. Those are my comments.
Conrad: I'd like to make a motion Madam Chairman, I'd recommend that the Planning
Commission tables action on Rezoning #95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant
work closely with staff to resolve some of our concerns.
Mancino: Do I have a second?
Nutting: Second.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission tables action on Rezoning
#95-1 and Subdivision #95-3 and to have the applicant work closely with staff to resolve
the issues outlined by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO STORY BUILDING (RICHFIELD BANK AND
TRUST} WITH A TOTAL OF 12,166 SOUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND KERBER
BOULEVARD, LOT 1, BLOCK 3, BURDICK PARK ADDmON, RICHFIELD STATE
AGENCY, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Pflipsen
W. G. Kirchner
Jon Thorstenson
Jan Susee
Steve Kuchner
5410 Vanderwood Lane, Plymouth
6830 Newton Avenue So, Richfield
4 Glen Court, Chaska
6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield
6625 Lyndale Avenue So, Richfield
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Bob Generous p~esented the staff ~epo~ on this item.
Mancino: Any questions of staff?. Okay, would the applicant like to present?
Jan Susee: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Jan Susee. My office
address is 6625 Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. I'm appearing on behalf of Richfield
State Agency Inc. Also in attendance with me is William Kirchner, the President of Richfield
State Agency, and Steven Kirchner, the Chief Operating Officer. We also have with us
members of the architectural staff of HTG Architects, Jon Thorstenson and Jeff Pflipsen.
What we've attempted to do is provide a quality building very important right in the city of
Chanhassen and we've done everything we can to make this the centerpiece of the city,
because I think it really does exactly that. It will be the primary base of the branch for
Richfield Bank and Trust Company on the main floor with the drive up's. We've reviewed all
the staff recommendations. We initially attempted to have a common driveway in order to try
to minimize the amount of blacktop on the site. We understand there are recommendations
and we concur with those and we'll accept those. And the other recommendations that they
made, we also accept. There is some conflict in the number of trees. We may have more
than we need. We want to make the site amenable. We want the fountain in front to kind of
be a centerpiece and something that the city will be proud of. And all of us are available for
any questions that you might have.
Mancino: Thank you.
Jan Susee: Thank you.
Mancino: May I have a motion to open it to a public hearing?
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion cmaied. The public heating was open.
Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to come up and speak on this item?
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? It is so noted that no one came up.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion cmaied. The public heating was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Ron.
Nutting: I don't see anything that jumps out at me as being unacceptable. I support staff's
recommendations.
22
Planning Commission Meeting. April 5, 1995
Mancino: Thank you. Mr. Conrad.
Conrad: Well 3 questions that have absolutely no relevance to what you've given us. You're
the fourth bank in town. What's bringing you here?
Jan Susee: I guess the bank is looking for expanding sites and this area is growing incredibly
rapidly.
Conrad: It's that simple?
Jan Susee: That simple. The population growth I think of all the towns around Chaska is
expected to, or Chanhassen is expected to increase approximately 50% before the year 2000
and we just want to be part of that and take some of that business.
Conrad: If Byerly's wasn't here, would you be here?
Jan Susee: The site actually selected is very important. Actually we had numerous debates
and discussions about the question of whether to be on Highway 5 and get that corridor of
people lined up on the traffic lights down there every morning to bring their checks in, or to
be next to Byerly's and banking won out in the sense that it's always good to be near
Byerly's.
Conrad: Yeah.
proposal here.
Street?
And as I say, these questions have absolutely nothing to do with your
Second question. Did you ever consider moving the building closer to 78th
Jan Susee: We discussed that with some length with staff and that was originally, but
because of the drive-up and such, it's very difficult to put it any closer.
Conrad: That's too bad but I know what you've got to do. Third comment. You have 53
parking stalls. Banking in the future probably won't have people. They're going to do it from
home so...you answered all my questions.
Mancino: Well no wait. In the future could we cover that parking with grass and have it
more of a...
Jan Susee: I think the ordinance requires like 51. We actually I think may have amended
that to have like 52. Take out a couple of spaces so we're trying to exact...because you're
right, you no longer need them. I know the home office in Richfield, although it has other
uses, they have the most drive-ups in the city I think, at Richfield Bank and Trust's main
23
Planning Commission Meeting - Apr4~ 5, 1995
office, and it used to be they had the traffic people to handle those. Because of the ATM
machines, it's changed banking substantially but basically we exactly complied with the
ordinance.
Conrad: Would you like to do less?
Jan Susee: We'd always love to do less because we think the landscaping, in fact as I say, I
think we had too many trees, if I'm not mistaken, on the site that we put on there and we
want to heavily screen behind us the back end of Target.
Conrad: Very seriously, banking is, it's not a car parking deal and I guess, just as a comment
for staff. You call the shots on that one but boy, to force them to meet an ordinance, given
that they don't need 53 spots. Now they may.
Jan Susee: At one point this was, there was substantially because we were having trouble
with the area, the vacated portion of 78th Street. We've since resolved that issue. At one
point it was extremely crucial because we have to pull everything back to avoid that area
because of some title problems. Those have been solved.
Conrad: Again, if you care. I'm not going to make any motion one way or another but if
you care, I'd sure like you to talk to staff about reducing that requirement. That's up to you.
That's your call.
Jan Susee: We want people to come there so green area helps.
Conrad: It would.
Jan Susee: Yeah. And it is a hard decision.
Mancino: Yeah. It would be wonderful and personally as a community bank in the suburb,
or whatever, you have much less frequent trips. I've seen studies, banking studies.
Jan Susee: Although I kept thinking that all those people driving by on Highway 5 with their
checks every morning.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob, any comments?
Skubic: I don't have any questions.
Mancino: Mike?
24
Planning Commission Meeting -~oril 5, 1995
Meyer: Nothing now.
Mancino: I have a few and that is, we usually get to see materials, color rendering of what
the building will look like. Where is that?
Generous: I only have a little one.
Mancino: Okay. And what about the materials Bob? Because that is one of the things that
is in the Highway 5 as a part of accepting of the building is actually seeing the materials and
seeing the color.
Jeff Pflipsen: I'm Jeff Pflipsen with the architectural firm. The color rendering that Bob has
does show colors and what we're looking at is a buff sand brick color for the, earth tone color
for the major portion of the building with a...pale cherry or more of a mahogany brick also...
A majority of the building will be brick and then we'll have some access banding that you see
along the middle of the building that is more of a silvery gray color along with to compliment
the sloping metal roof which is a similar color.
Mancino: Okay. I would like to recommend that prior to the City Council meeting that we
get a sample of the building materials and the real colors...for them to have this plus the
materials and do also, to staff, in the future we always like to have materials.
Generous: We did request that they bring those.
Mancino: Oh! Strong request. Thank you very much. The only, I just have a couple
comments and one was, I don't know if anyone else was concerned but to get to the drive
thru you've got to go through the whole parking lot. There's not a short cut way to get there
and every time somebody parks to get to the drive thru, I certainly don't know how to solve it
but I thought that that was too bad. And that's a configuration of the lot and I know you'd
work with the applicant probably on that Bob.
Generous: Well they did have a shorter route but that put the drive thru on the northeast
corner of the site, and did you want that to be your downtown presentation?
Mancino: You mean I don't have another option? A third one, or a fourth one. No.
Generous: It's tough.
Mancino: Yeah, because every car will have to go through that whole parking lot.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Generous: Or come in through Target.
Mancino: So, that is a concern and hopefully City Council will hear that too. I am an
admirer, very big admirer of Mr. Ernst as a landscape architect. I would, have seen his work
often. And so I would just like to make sure that if there are some changes in design, as far
as deleting a spruce tree, etc, that staff work with the applicant, the landscape architect, to
review that with him. I would appreciate that. And this is one of the better landscape plans
that we will have in our city, and it was very well done. The building architecture will look
great downtown. Do I have a motion?
Nutting: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve Site Plan/395-4 for Richfield Bank and Trust for a 12,166 square foot, two story
office building on property zoned PUD located on Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition,
subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Mancino: May I make a friendly amendment to that?
Nutting: Yes.
Mancino: That on 17 and 18, that we just add the line that staff will consult with the
applicant's landscape architect in discussing these issues...
Nutting: I would accept that.
Conrad: Me too.
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve Site Plan #95-4 for Richfield Bank and Trust for a 12,166 squme foot two
sto~y office building on property zoned PUD, located on Lot 1, Block 3, Burdick Pink
Addition, subject to the following conditions:
The access to the bank off Kerber Boulevard is unacceptable. The current design is
such that responding fire apparatus would have to travel in the opposing lane on Kerber
in order to negotiate the turn. Submit further options to the Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
.
Install one (1) additional fire hydrant at entrance to bank parking lot off Kerber
Boulevard. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - A.~ba~:i:l 5, 1995
o
.
o
o
.
.
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants pursuant to City
Ordinance 9-1.
The driveway access from Kerber Drive shall be revised per staff's recommendations as
shown on Attachment 1.
Sanitary sewer and water service for the building shall be from Kerber Drive.
The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with storm drainage calculations for a 10
year storm event.
The applicant will be responsible for relocating all existing landscape plant materials
that will be in conflict with the site grading.
The applicant will be responsible for adjustment of all city manholes and gate valves
that are affected by the result of site grading.
The City's Building Inspection Department will perform the inspections for all utility
connections. The applicant will need to apply for and obtain the appropriate permits
through the City's Building Department.
The applicant shall install a one-way traffic control sign on Target's employee parking
lot island directly west of the proposed access to Target's parking lot.
Erosion control fence and rock construction entrances need to be included on the
grading plan. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all
access points. Construction access to the site shall be limited to Kerber Drive. A
revised grading plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
The applicant shall install a six foot sidewalk from West 78th Street to the southern
property line within the Kerber Boulevard right-of-way.
Light poles shall be neutral colors. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure
sodium fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the
property line. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off
automatically as activated by yearly conditions. Light poles shall be Coren, shoe box
light standards.
27
Planning Commission Meeting ~ A~x-'i,~ 5, 1995
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The applicant shall provide a bench or other seating system as part of the fountain area
to create a sense of public space.
The applicant shall install aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsula or island type
landscape area less than 10 feet in width.
The applicant shall supply the city with $22,500.00 financial guarantee (letter of credit
or cash escrow) to guarantee landscaping for the project.
Revise the landscaping plan substituting a variety of white oak for the two Greenspire
lindens located on either side of the sidewalk in the northeast comer of the site and
replace the northern most crabapple on the peninsula landscape area at the northwest
corner of the bank with either a Patmore Ash, Imperial Locust, or any other tree from
the city's primary or secondary deciduous tree list.
Remove one of the three Scotch pines on the north side of the site. Staff will consult
with the applicant's landscape architect in making decisions regarding conditions 17 and
18.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
S1TE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 27,750 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
ON 2.68 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED ON LOT 4,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, 2ND ADDITION, POWER SYSTEMS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on fids item.
Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners of staff?. Seeing no questions, or hearing
no questions, would the applicant like to present please.
Bernard Herman: Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, my name is Bernard
Herman and I'm the architect...Also present here tonight is Mr. Gary Bergman, who is the
President of Power System, Mark Steingas who is the President of Benson-Orth, and Mike
Monson. And Mike will be making a few comments towards the end of our presentation
about the project so he'll be assisting me in just a few minutes. There's been a pretty
thorough staff report, as you all know from this packet of information and so we're not going
to try to duplicate all of that information in our comments but we would like to make kind of
a brief overview presentation. It won't take too long. Afterwards we would welcome your
28
Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995
comments and questions. Before we discuss the project, I thought it might be worthwhile for
you to hear from Gary Bergman about Power Systems and I'm just going to ask him to make
a few comments and you might be interested in hearing about the company and what they do
and so on. Gary.
Gary Bergman: Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, my name is Gary
Bergman. I'm President of Power Systems. We're an industrial distributer specializing in the
sale of hydraulics and...primarily to other companies that manufacturer industrial and...
equipment. We have been in business for approximately 29 years. We're currently located in
Eden Prairie. We're expanding. The same problem as everyone else. Running out of space
and we need some place to go where you get more land and build a bigger building. It's
primarily a family owned company, but there are also members of our company, employees
that are also stockholders as well. We are moving primarily for more space and we chose
Chanhassen because it's probably most importantly because we have a lot of employees who
live out in the western suburbs and it was a convenient location for them. We have quite a
few employees that live in Chanhassen and in suburbs surrounding Chanhassen. We're very
excited about moving to Chanhassen and the opportunity to help our company expand in the
future. If you have any questions about our company, I'd be happy to answer them.
Mancino: Any questions? Thank you.
Bernard Herman: We've got a board on the wall that I'm just going to put up for the Council
here. Just in terms of talking about the site development, I think there are a few aspects or
characteristics of the site development that we think are positive. We think the orientation of
the building with respect to Commerce Drive. Having the office structure itself fully facing
the building. We don't have any of these sideways things and so on. We have our office
element of the building with a full flush on face towards the access drive, and that obviously
is in this location and the warehouse area is directly behind. In terms of the loading area,
that is at the far north end of the east wall, and I think that also is a positive. We have our
truck maneuvering, loading area at the far end and at the very, very far north end of the east
wall is the dumpster location, which is screened and connected to the building wall itself.
The parking does an L shape kind of configuration with the predominant amount of parking
in front of the building. We have provided on this drawing 46 spaces. I think the staff report
refers to 49 but I just want to throw this out, and Mike Monson may address this later. We
really have a need for about 28 to 30 spaces. You know this is something you're always
going to face with ordinances when...buildings come in. Some of them have more parking
requirements than others. It becomes an issue. I think in terms of bituminous areas that don't
get used over a period of time, tend to deteriorate so I think sometimes when you over
blacktop, there's a negative result. We do have room to place the necessary parking. This
plan shows 46 stalls. We only need 28. It's something maybe we should talk about when
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April _$, 1995
we...whether or not there are any options. But the parking area, as I mentioned, is an L shape
configuration. The proposed addition is shown on the west end, which...shows approximately
10,000 square feet. There's an area here that shows a little white square off the west end
which is the patio area. We're doing a pretty nice site development built around that outdoor
employee patio area. There's also some future parking expansion that's indicated here at the
far end of this and I think staff mentioned that if there is the addition that is built, if a second
access is provided, it would likely occur somewhere at this end. I think that would be a more
logical consideration. I did mention the loading area. There is one drive thru door, and I
don't know if I had mentioned that. I'm going to leave this up and talk a little bit about the
landscaping because actually we do show quite a bit of the landscaping indicated on this plan
in color. I might just address what we're doing here. Along the boulevard, or the street, on
Commerce Drive, you can see the large overstory trees. These are hackberries...shown at 30
feet on center along the street which is in conformance to the landscape ordinance. What we
tried to do is when we got over to this end, we tried to bring around the hackberry trees to
turn the corner so we just didn't get a straight line in the access drive. So your overstory
hackberries do make a turn. As they come back on this larger boulevard area, it narrows
down and the planting material intensifies to create some kind of screen of the loading area
and we have a combination of coniferous and deciduous plant material, fairly densely located
to create this screening effect on the loading area. In the truck area itself, right adjacent to
the overhead doors, you can see additional rows of coniferous plantings to further enhance the
screening of the loading area. We tried to create a couple of small clusters of trees that
occurred at the east and west comers of the building. This is just a mixture of species that
are intended to give some kind of softening of interest to the comers of the building. The
landscape islands of the parking lot, and consistent with the requirements of the ordinance, are
landscaped. You'll see these islands occurring all along the parking areas and they all have
decorative tree types of landscaping indicated in that location. We have a row of shrubs all
along the office building area, and that's intended to soften the transition of the building itself
to the grade and by putting that continuous dense row of shrubs, we create a nice green hedge
along that area. I think we have a real variety of plant mix, if you look over what the species
are and I think you probably have that in your packet of information, but we cover just a
wide variety of tree types and species, including maples, radiant crabs, Newport plums, I
mentioned the hackberries. We have spruce trees and so on. So if look over the species list,
I think you'll see a wide variety and what that tends to do, is give the overall site a very nice
character. I think you're going to see leaf and foliage changes and colors. You're going to
see some blossoming. You're going to see some very definite differences, as I said, both in
height and in the species and in color. So we think we have a real nice landscaping plan.
Maybe not quite as good as the bank. I haven't seen that one but very nice for an industrial
project. Very high quality. Let me just show you a little diagram of what this landscaping
does on our building elevation. We'll talk about materials in just a minute. These are the
building elevations. And I know this is going to go on backwards. Let me just put this on to
30
Planning Commission Meeting - A~4.~ 5, 1995
give you some idea. Now what you're seeing here in this overlay is if we take the
landscaping plan that we've designed and we superimpose the trees and plant materials at
each of the elevations, and these are not colored so we just have to look at the peripheral
lines of the building. This is what you would see if you were standing just off the property
line. So some of the trees are not, I hope this doesn't mislead you. It's not saying that they're
all along the building. Some of them are out ahead of the other ones but for somebody who's
off site looking at the building, you can see where they're...they're superimposed over each
other and you'll get this level of density of plant material. I think as you can see from what's
indicated here, it's fairly substantial. I should leave that on but I want to get back to the
building elevations and the materials of the building. So I'm going to take this off. If there's
any further questions about it, I can put it back up. Let me just talk briefly about the
building and materials and I think we all have an interest in that. It was mentioned by staff
have we have a pre-cast concrete random rib basic material. That random rib sample, which
is sitting over there, offers a very extensive...so the ribs, as you can see and we'll hold up that
panel in just a minute. As you can see they have a great deal of undulation and projection so
you get a lot of shadow lines and it creates a very nice kind of movement or texture on the
wall so it's really... There is an accent stripe that comes across the top of the building, and
that portion of the pre-cast panel is interrupted by a smooth texture and again, I don't know if
we can start to hold this up but that's the blue area, and maybe we'll do that in a minute, if
there's somebody that's strong enough to do that. The flashing is going to be pre-finished rib
edge flashing. It will be a pre-finished color. Windows are solar gray. Tinted glass.
Window panes are anodized. Clear anodized aluminum. That would include for the window
frames and of course the entrance. One of the things that we've done with the entrance, since
I mentioned that, is we have kind of an arched form here which is recessed about 4 feet and
that is, there's a stucco frame that goes around this arched entrance and that stucco frame sets
back 4 feet into the recess which is what the glass entry area is in frame so it's back. So it's
a strong shadow line and that whole inside arched surface reflects the same material that you
see on the frame itself. Now maybe at this point we can do something to show you what the
colors area. Nobody's jumping to the foreground to lift this up... This is your roof edge,
which is your white color and the, shall we try to lift this up. If this falls, is it going to break
anything? This is the stucco surfacing we had talked about as far as the frame that goes
around the entrance. So you get that texture and that color, and that goes all the way around
the surface and is recessed in. I mentioned the metal. We have the aluminum frame. I think
that's basically the key materials. Here's your smooth blue stripe. The blue stripe comes
around the building and it terminates at the sign, so I think it's an important aspect of the
character of the building because as you can see, the sign there...interrupt the stripe. So that
kind of rhythm when you come around the side, the focal point is the sign.
Mancino: The bottom piece that you're showing us, what, how does that come in now? As a
vertical panel? What's the dimension?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - Ap~"±.i 5, 1995
Bernard Herman: It's an 8 foot wide vertical panel, and we do have the ribs vertically. I
thought maybe they were going sideways. The ribs do go vertically from the ground right up
to the top, within about 8 inches of the top of the building.
Mancino: So 8 foot wide by how tall? 10 feet?
Bemard Herman: 20.
Mancino: All one piece?
Bernard Herman: One piece.
Mancino: I just wanted to make sure. There's no, it doesn't look like blocks.
Bernard Herman: No. There's no blocks. And then of course they're interrupted. The blue
is the same panel. There is no joint between the rib and the smooth panel. All they do is
when they manufacture the panel, they put some kind of an element in the form and it stops
from then forming the ribs. So it's one solid panel again with no joint.
Mancino: And is the color impregnated inside the material or is it painted on top?
Bernard Herman: Well I think a certain proportion of it is absorbed because when you're
putting it on a material that has veracity to it, and the quality of the produce we put in, it's
going to be somewhat absorbed in. To the extent of the depth, I can't tell you. I don't think
it's one of these products that's absorbed a quarter of an inch into the concrete but I think it's
something like 1/16 of an inch that's absorbed into the surface. At this point, before we
conclude our presentation, there were a series of I think 20 staff recommendations and some
of the modifications to those recommendations were eluded to in the staff report. But I think
Mike Monson's has some other items that he wants to bring up relative to the
recommendations so Mike.
Mike Monson: Hello, I'm Mike Monson with Benson-Orth Associates. Just real quickly I
want to say that I'm, it's been really a pleasure working with staff. We met with them twice.
We've talked to them on the phone a dozen times. In fact it's been really a pleasant
experience working with them. We've gotten all these recommendations and understandings
from everyone and I think the developer and the owner understand all of them. Just real
quickly Bob, in regards to one of these where you talked about the paving section. We were
going to attach to that and add language in regards to once the soil report was obtained and
we could look at the recommendation. It's always been our intent in the loading dock area to
provide a geotech fabric in lieu of a thicker Class V mainly because of the, we don't want
32
Planning Commission Meeting - APril. 5, 1995
the...taking place so we would put a geotech fabric in there to separate that... That was all I
had. Everything else...thanks very much.
Bernard Herman: I think that will conclude our remarks...I think the only comment I would
put on the tail of Mike's comments is my reference to the parking requirements. I don't know
how you feel about that but we're looking at a lot of stalls and a lot of portions of our paving
area that's not going to be utilized. If there's any help you can give us in that area, fine. If
not, you've got the proposal as you see before you. That would conclude our presentation and
we'll open it up to any questions you have.
Mancino: Any questions for the applicant?
Conrad: Ah yeah. Mechanicals. I don't see any on the roof.
Bernard Herman: There definitely will be mechanicals. We will have it screened. It will be
screened with metal panels that we'll screen the rooftop equipment that is the same color...so
it will really blend in. It will probably be as inconspicuous as any rooftop screening can be
because it's going to be white, pre-finished metal the same as the building. How many units
we have, Mike maybe you can let me know. I didn't know if we had 4? 6 now? Okay. So
there are 6 units and I don't know if you want to comment how they're distributed over the
building.
Mike Monson: They're basically located in three different areas...
Mancino: Would you like to come up please? Thank you Mike.
Mike Monson: The...units would be located above the office area in basically three locations.
Almost two units back to back. We don't have any units on the roof out here. They're all...
Mancino: And how high, how tall would they be? Approximately.
Mike Monson: They'd be about the height of this podium. And then like Bernie has
mentioned, we'd be using a metal panel to screen them as part of the packet. Also we'd
actually end up with, the ridges would actually end up being similar to the pre-cast panels...
Conrad: So Bob, do you get into reviewing that?
Generous: Yes.
Conrad: It's there?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Generous: Yes. It's sheet 6.
Conrad: Okay.
Mancino: Any other questions? May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion cra,led. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from the commission. Ron.
Nutting: I just, perhaps I fell asleep for a brief moment. I heard your original modification
to recommendation number 6. I did not catch the applicant's commentary as to modification
of that at the end. If I could just get some clarification.
Generous: I believe he was talking about, they intend to, they plan on using a geo, a
synthetic fabric as a base and we're saying, well that would be fine. We just want a soil
engineer's report to say that will work.
Nutting: Okay.
Bernard Herman: And that will involve a reduction in the thickness of the base from 12
inches to 9.
Nutting: The only other comment I have kind of gets to Ladd opening a can of worms on the
bank. But it gets to the parking issue and ordinance requirements versus what makes sense
for the development, and I guess I'm, Kate or Bob, in terms of any comments. Have we ever
made any deviations from that? I mean typically, I'm assuming that we go the opposite
direction. We're fighting to get the parking spaces.
Aanenson: We had this same discussion with Kindercare, if you remember. The last one that
I can recall that we spent a lot of time talking where they felt that they needed more than was
required by code.
Nutting: Right. Mine's just a question, have we ever gone the opposite direction? We're
talking about.
Aanenson: Sure, if they can give us a proof of parking that says this is, based on our
knowledge of our building in similar type uses, this is all we would require, sure. We can do
that on a proof of parking reduction.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - Ap,it, 5, 1995
Nutting: Okay. I guess in terms of my recommendation, I'm in support of the
recommendation and with the modifications and I guess I would just add to that. If we can
have staff work with the developer and if it's determined that there can be an appropriate
reduction of the paving based on what they submit, that I would be supportive of that. No
further comments.
Conrad: Ditto. Ditto. I'm in support of the project. It looks good. I think they made a
good presentation. I think the planning staff has given us good recommendations. I want to
re-echo what Ron just said about parking, and Kate you missed it and Bob and Dave will fill
you in but we talked with the bank. We talked parking requirements. We talked to the bank
about that. We're over requiring. The bank is significant to me because it's downtown. It's
63% impervious surface or whatever and I just know banks don't need that. Well this is
taking us into this issue. I don't want to open a can of worms. I really don't. So I guess
we're looking for your professional judgment to say hey. Let's not play with this one but.
Aanenson: The way we look at it, we're looking at a user going in there now and so they're
demonstrating to us that need and we have to look long term. If this use is vacated and
something else comes in. We do know that the bank has additional lease space on the second
floor. And sometimes a lot of people get in those offices so it's always hard to gauge that so
I guess we try to hit the middle of the road, because we don't always know what the ultimate
tenant's going to be so we've got to balance that.
Conrad: I hear you, yet on the other hand, we could reserve. I know we could reserve space
that could never be.
Aanenson: Landscape it.
Conrad: Absolutely. When, as soon as there's a problem, again. That's an administrative
problem. The bank made sense to me because it's downtown Chan. It's right, it's right in the
middle. Again, when they sell because 4 banks in this community is a whole lot of banks
and Burger King takes it over, yeah. We'll have a problem but again, maybe, I'd just like to
have staff look at that.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: Nothing to add.
Mancino: Bob.
35
Planning Commission Meeting -Ap~-il, 5, 1995
Skubic: I find this to be a very attractive industrial building. Attractive landscaping. I'm
impressed.
Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, what is to the, am I looking at that north/south
direction up there?
Generous: The top of that drawing is east.
Aanenson: Should I turn it north?
Mancino: Thank you. Okay. The south side of the building, where there are 4 trees across
that 176 foot span of building, right?
Aanenson: On the north side?
Mancino: On the south side.
Nutting: North.
Mancino: North is up, oh okay. Can you move that? No, I'm just kidding... Okay, thank
you. What is on the other side of the north side of where I see the 4 trees lining the back of
the building. Is that just the railroad?
Generous: The railroad track's immediately north of this property and then there's additional
industrial land on the north side.
Mancino: And there's a huge slope up to the railroad tracks?
Generous: Yes, it goes up and then down again and then, there's a big wetland complex so
the north side goes way down and then back up to McGlynn's.
Mancino: So you cannot see the north side of that building from anywhere?
Generous: Well, if they built a 3 story building on the north side.
Mancino: Okay. -Or water tower or something. I was concerned with just again, 4 trees on
this long spans of 100, practically 180 feet. From my calculations.
Generous: They did pick good trees though.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Mancino: Those trees are going to take 25 years to get that full so I just was concerned
about that big of an expanse without any sort of landscaping detail of knowing where it is.
Generous: They also get the transmission lines that go there to add visual interest.
Mancino: That's all my comments. Can I have a motion?
Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approves Site Plan #95-5 for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 4, Block
1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, subject to the conditions as contained in the
staff report with the following modifications. The condition number 1 is deleted. Condition
number 4 modified, I need the wording that you provided.
Generous: At the time of future expansion.
Nutting: I'm sorry.
Generous: At the end of the sentence you add, at the time of future expansion.
Nutting: Okay. And with recommendation number 6 modified.
Generous: Again at the end of the sentence, or an alternative based on recommendations
contained in a soil report prepared by a soil engineer.
Nutting: Okay, I had that one. And with no other modifications. Well I guess, I don't know
if it's in the form of a sub point or if it's just a direction to staff to work with the developer
and if there is an appropriate means by which some green space can be created but reserved
for future parking in this site, that that be undertaken. I don't know if I should put that as a
recommendation.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Nutting: So add recommendation number 21 directing that staff work with the developer to
review that.
Conrad: I second.
Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approves Site Plan #95-5 for a 27,750 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot
4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition, subject to the following conditions:
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
1. Indicate location of PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
2. The Fire Department fire sprinkler connection shall be on the south side of the building.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
10.
11.
The applicant incorporate an additional curb cut in the front side of the building for all
visitor parking area off of Commerce Drive at the time of future expansion.
The site plan shall be revised to be compatible with or similar to the grading and
drainage plan with regards to parking stalls, islands, and driveway access points.
Staff suggests increasing the pavement section for the loading dock to a minimum of 12
inches of modified Class V and 4 inches of bituminous, or an alternative based on
recommendations contained in a soil report prepmed by a soil engineer.
All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail
(Plate No. 5207- attached).
No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has
been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center had
executed the development contract.
Temporary access to the site prior to the street being constructed may be permitted as
long as the City Fire Marshal's conditions and concerns are fully met.
The applicant shall pay full park fees as specified by city ordinance. There are no trail
fees required of this project.
The applicant shall revise the parking lot plans to provide a minimum of 49 parking
spaces.
Revise the landscaping plan to incorporate an overstory tree from the "Approved Tree
List" specified as suitable for boulevard and parking lots within each of the parking lot
peninsulas and at the comers of the parking lot. Staff also recommends that two more
hackberries be planted in the northeast comer of the site maintaining the spacing
established by the four hackberries already shown. In addition, these trees shall be
located between the gas easement and drainage and utility easement located to the north
of the building.
12. A separate permit will be required for signage.
38
Planning Commission Meeting -April 5, 1995
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development.
A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square
ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than
1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
All free standing signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eight
(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The
sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality
of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material
throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff
review.
Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the
private site. All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will
be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
20. Staff and the applicant will work together mgmding the parking lot requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADOPT BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Mancino: We were going to adopt the By-laws and elect a Chair and a Vice Chair. I would
move that we wait to do that until we have a full, everyone's here on the Planning
Commission. We'll do that with all of us here. So let's all try to make sure that we're all
here next time and maybe give a call to Jeff and make sure that he'll be here so we can get
that kind of settled and go on with things. I would appreciate that.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL UPDATE.
Aanenson: As you recall, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for the addition of
36 rooms at the Country Suites Hotel. As a part of that though, the Animal Fair building was
to be a restaurant. Plans have changed a little bit. What we are trying to do with that, as you
recall, trying to match the two architectures. They spent a lot of time trying to figure out
how to match that frontier architecture with the existing Country Suites. What they've done,
they've separated the two really out. I think what they're looking at now is possibly this
being, where the Animal Fair building is, being a conference center more instead of a
restaurant. It doesn't seem like the demand is there and what they're needing now is for a
conference, or meeting rooms in conjunction with the hotel. Also that is now broken away.
It's not a part of this project. The hotel wants to go forward without the rest of the
development. What my concern was how do we still make that linkage because we still want
that access, pedestrian access between the two. Maybe I can lay out for you the site plan that
was originally approved for this project.
Mancino: Kate, can you kind of tell us. What are you asking us to do?
Aanenson: I just wanted to let you know, I'm administratively approving this. I just wanted
to let you know what it's going to look like. Originally what the hotel looked like, we had
this walkway in the front. We tried to create that pedestrian linkage. Remember we had the
courtyard in between the hotel and then a restaurant. We had another courtyard walking
through. So what we're trying to do again is create the pedestrian linkage going between the
two and then architecturally tie the two together so there's brick and then the arches and then
there's the widow walk. Now as I indicated, the hotel's ready to go forward and the rest of
the picture is still a question mark. Like I said, we believe it will be meeting rooms but the
hotel wants to go forward and it's ready to pull building permits. It had been approved
through City Council. The final site plan. My concern was that it was supposed to be brick.
We still wanted to see brick on the lower level and we still want to have the walkway. They
have submitted plans, and if you want to look at those, I could show those to you but what
we still have is the walkway. We just took off the, they took off the arch here so this
matches the existing motel and then a widow's walk, which is a little contrived maybe
anyway trying to tie those two in. But we can walk, there's a little courtyard here that has all
the landscaping inside. And there will be another courtyard here when this ties in to the
meeting rooms. So what's different is the arched windows. This is not there but brick goes
up the whole first story, consistent with what's over here. And this will be a walkway.
Interior walkway so you can still walk into the hotel and over to the rest of the Frontier
Center. So when this comes in, the meeting rooms, that's when we'll kind of make our
transition and blend the two. So I just wanted to let you know that I've administratively
approved this, believing it's pretty consistent with what we wanted. The pedestrian linkage
40
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
and when this comes back, if it's substantially different, then I'll let you take a look at it and
see how that matches. But they will be pulling permits here probably in the next week or so
for construction.
Mancino: Is it feasible that if any of us would like to come in and see a little more detail, we
could...
Aanenson: Certainly, and I have the plans here too if you have some more specific questions
about it. There will be another corridor in the back to tie into that too. Interior corridor to
tie into the meeting rooms but this is more intended to be, really if people want to cut
through without kind of room sort of thing...but yeah, if anybody would like to see the plans,
certainly.
Mancino: Either do that now or.
Aanenson: Sure. Or you can make an appointment. But I did want to let you know that it's
going to be underway and it's going to look different than what you saw so I wanted to let
you know that so your expectations were met. That we wanted to get the brick to match the
hotel but it's going to look a little bit different than what you originally approved.
Mancino: And we'd like a restaurant. For downtown Chanhassen.
Aanenson: Well yeah, I think we're going to see a couple other restaurants. We're working
on a couple other sites that the city owns so I think that they feel that maybe that, the
meeting rooms more meet their needs for conferencing. There isn't that availability in
downtown. And for the people that are renting there and there are other needs that have been
met with restaurants and pending restaurants that we're aware of.
Mancino: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to see more detailed plans? Okay. Then
I'd just make a suggestion that if anybody wants to individually can make an appointment
with you. Thank you. Any other old business?
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: Okay, new business? Would the staff report have to do with old business?
Aanenson: Sure, I can do a City Council update too.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - Apri-1 5, 1995
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Aanenson: Because we had just a work session meeting last time, I'm not sure, we had
Council meetings that were kind of conflicting in the same week. I'm not sure that we're all
current on what happened on the 13th so I'll bring you up to date on the last two City
Council meetings. In case you're not aware, the bid was approved for the pedestrian bridge.
Then the rezoning for the Lake Ann Highlands, for the 92 twin homes was approved. The
street will not go through. And there will be a landscaping berm, significant landscaping
berm between the two. And they approved a site plan variance for the radio station and that
transmitter building. In addition they approved the preliminary plat for Pointe Lake Lucy,
and that's been reduced to 19 single family homes. When you looked at it, there was 20 and
the applicant came back and reduced one more. I think that's going to be a good project.
And then on the 27th, there wasn't a, for rezoning or PUD amendment, you need 4/5 and
there was only 3 Council members there so the two rezoning actions for the townhome
project, reallocating the density on the Oaks. So that was tabled. And also the Chan
Business Center, which obviously needs to get approved in order for these projects to go
forward so those were also tabled and they'll be rescheduled for, on the 10th. The Holly
Lane, the Julie Sprau, Ravenswoods, that was approved. A lot split. And the site plan
review for the Century Bank was also approved. We did put into your packet the St. Croix,
Marine on the St. Croix ordinance and probably in the next Planning Commission packet I'll
show you. We did get back from the Met Council a study that they've given to all
communities showing where we rank as far as affordable housing and some of their goals that
they'll be looking at so we'll be preparing for you a summary of that document and show you
where we rank in some of their recommendations. It's a large document so we're going to try
to summarize it for you and give you some of the findings and the directions that they're
going. And we're kind of tied into a plat that we've got coming for, on the 19th, that's
requesting a change from an industrial. Excuse me, on May 3rd. They're requesting change
from an industrial to a residential and it raises, we believe some philosophical issues.
Mancino: Where?
Aanenson: It's south of Trotters. It was guided for industrial and you know, taking away
industrial stock and then getting another traditional subdivision, what's the benefit. We've
already got quite a bit in that market section already. Unless we're getting something
different, so we're going to raise some of those issues for your input. It's kind of a big
philosophical issue so.
Mancino: I'd just like to make a comment on the Marine on the St. Croix. That was
something I had heard on NPR and asked to get the ordinance. And I think the main concept
there that I was interested in was how clustering is done and how they had passed an
42
Planning Commission Meeting - tipril 5, 1995
ordinance trying to encourage more clustering of homes and keeping part of the property for
natural habitat, open space, green areas, etc. It certainly is done in a much, I mean it's much
more of a rural area. It doesn't have the same feel as Chanhassen but the concept is there and
it legitimizes the concept, I think of clustering and to some extent PUD. It brings in some
other things that you can do.
Aanenson: It's a true PUD.
Mancino: Yeah. And it shows the benefits of it. Couple of things. Can you tell us, we
have another vacant seat. Are there any applications? When they're due by? When do we
interview?
Aanenson: I'll have to find out. The Council passed a new kind of a policy for themselves
of how they're going to do that. Whether you're going to interview first or whether they'll
just interview and I'm sorry. I can't remember exactly how that laid out. I'll be happy to put
that in the next packet. I believe it closes next week. If not this Friday, then next week. We
do have one in. I believe we may have 2 other people that may be re-applying but we do
have one in. A good candidate.
Mancino: Okay. And they're thinking of changing the process so that they just interview for
candidates?
Aanenson: Yeah, I'm not sure what that was. I can't remember but I will be happy to put
that in and let you know. What the deadline is and when we'll be getting somebody else but
it has been advertised.
Mancino: Yes, I've seen it. I guess that's it. Any other questions?
Conrad: Madam Chairman, relating to, and I'm not sure which item we're on. But between
the new people and By-laws... What I'd like to have, I think we're going to have, this
interviewing for the last Planning Commission person probably will be a while. Until we get
them on. But I would like to have staff, with our two new members, give a little bit of an
overview of what we do. It will take you a year to figure this thing out. I just guarantee
yOU.
Nutting: Maybe more.
Conrad: Maybe, yeah. Maybe more. And what I'd like to have staff do is kind of, real
briefly. I don't want this to be a long deal but maybe a 20 minute session when it seems
appropriate. I guess I'm going to put that in there. When it seems appropriate. Probably as
43
Planning Commission Meeting - Apr±-1 5, 1995
soon as we can but based on other work loads. But really would like staff to talk to us about
the role of the Planning Commission and the role of the commissioners. How we interact
with the planning staff and the City Council. From their perspective. I just really would like
Kate. Maybe this is you Kate doing this. Yeah.
Mancino: You mean some formal training?
Conrad: I want everybody to know, not only our role but our leverage points. You know, a
lot of stuff you can't impact at all but I'd like staff to tell you how you can impact. How you
can influence and there's 3 or 4 things. Tabling is a great tool. There's some things that I'd
like staff to talk to us about that. I'd also like staff to interview each member of the City
Council and get one point that they would like us to improve from each member of the City
Council. I don't want a group deal. I want one point from each Council member.
Mancino: I've also asked for a meeting.
Nutting: Yeah, I was going to say, I'd like to see a meeting so we can more clearly
understand direction but I think your point is..perhaps prior to that meeting, let's get Ladd's
point.
Aanenson: Yeah. I think their work sessions are booked all the way through May so, or
June.
Mancino: I know it's going to be brought up Monday night at the City Council.
Conrad: I would like Kate to tell us her most significant criticism of, her one pet peeve with
how we interrelate with the staff. And then I'd like to have staff talk to us about really the
procedures that are followed by most communities as to how a meeting is run. It doesn't
mean we have to follow it but I just want to, I'd like staff to say the major metro
communities, Eden Prairie. This is how their meetings are orchestrated and run.
Mancino: Were you talking about tone of the meeting? What are you talking about when
you say that?
Conrad: About administratively how a subject is handled and how motions are made and, I
don't believe we do it the way everybody else does it, from what I'm being told. And again,
that doesn't mean that we have to change. I just want us to know how some other. When I
watch cable TV and I see these other communities doing.
Mancino: You watch it?
44
Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1995
Conrad: I do. Only for a few minutes. I can't stand it too long but I'll watch the City of
Victoria. They'll have a meeting, a Planning Commission meeting and they'll take all the
input and they'll continue the meeting to the next week. You know they do some things that,
if I were a citizen I'd go wild. It's like, I got to come back but again, I'd just like staff to tell
us what the typical way of handling a meeting is. And so we know the typical. And again,
that doesn't mean we have to do it. It just means we have a choice in running. I think that's
it. Does that make sense?
Mancino: Yeah. I guess I'd almost have to see it on a videotape to say that's a typical
meeting.
Conrad: Let me tell you one thing that I believe is different.
Mancino: In all the 12 years you've been on the commission.
Conrad: In all the 12 years. See, a lot of what we do, you know I sort of, well. I've been
part of so maybe I've set the direction going the wrong way. But I think in many
communities they will put a motion out on the floor immediately and then you react to that
motion. See we don't. Then you discuss the motion. I just want to know if that works for
us. If that's the way. We mold decisions here. We kind of interact and probably sort of
illegally do some things. And I think we typically come up with some pretty good things.
Yet on the other hand, if I were the City Council, I might be confused on how we do some of
our things. I'm not sure that the City Council understands how we come to conclusions. So
therefore, this is my little attempt to see if there's a better way.
Mancino: And isn't our process very much like the City Council's process? It is a replication
of how the City Council does things because every City Council meeting that I've gone to, it's
the same thing. Which, I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying that they would
probably understand it because that's the way they do it. But can we do something different?
Sure.
Conrad: Well they're critical of some stuff. They got rid of two people. I guess I'm just sort
of, one, I'm trying to hear what their criticisms are.
Mancino: But overall it's you want to know why.
Conrad: I don't need to talk to them directly. I really don't need to find out a report card. I
personally don't need to get into some of that. But I do, I think it's a good opportunity to
make sure we hear some criticisms as to how we can help or how we hurt what they do. And
I'm not sure I really want a meeting with them to do that. I think if Kate interviews them,
45
Planning Commission Meeting - gprS1 5, 1995
and I don't care if it's personally in a room or if it's at their meeting, I would like individual
comments coming back. Not a consensus. It's a recommendation. I would like the Planning
Commission to do this. Do it this way.
Nutting: Now City Council hasn't asked you to get the same from us?
Mancino: Oh, we have to approve the Minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTF3: Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated March 1, 1995 as presented.
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
cm~ied. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46