PC 2007 12 04
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Kurt Papke and Debbie Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Dillon, Mark Undestad, and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: CHAPTER 2 - LAKE USE ELEMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Wardle 12601 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, ID 83713
Dwight Jellis 7699 Anagram, Eden Prairie
Perry Ryan 434 Lake Street, Excelsior
Rich Ragatz 9820 Sky Lane
Bill Thibault 11712 Wayzata Boulevard
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail
Tom Devine 7640 So. Shore Drive
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jeff Fox Lyman Boulevard
Mark Halla 6055 Highway 212, Chaska
Linda Walton 7018 Sandy Hook Circle
Jeff Dypwick 10300 Great Plains Boulevard
Terry Carlson 821 Creekwood
Tim Voehl 770 Creekwood
Linda & Tim Bloudek 1171 Homestead Lane
Charles Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail
Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle
D. Vienn 901 Homestead Lane
V. Kaul 9875 Delphinium
Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flinklock Trail
Paul & Dave Laurent 1370 Pioneer Trail
Phil DeNucci 9186 Springfield Drive
Larry Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Thank you for coming out on a,
people that are for coming out tonight. This is the final meeting on the public part of the
comprehensive plan process and we are focusing now on the land use section and we divided it
into two meetings to give plenty of, ample opportunity for people to comment on anything itself.
This is the comprehensive plan is on the web site and there are drafts available at the library and
at City Hall if anybody wanted to looking at that. While this meeting tonight is the public part
for comments, there's still an opportunity to provide written or verbal comments to city staff up
until the April, open comment period. As you indicated Mr. Chair, this is a continuation of what
we did last time. We tried to break this into two groups. There's two substantive properties that
are on tonight. The first property commonly called property #14 which Bob will go through on.
th
7750 West 78 Street. Staff is recommending a change in the southern portion to office. I know
the applicant's here tonight are going to ask for a different request for that, including retail. I did
hand out to you, we included in the dialogue that's going back and forth. An additional packet
was delivered late on Friday and so you have that in front of you. We've added the site plan and
they'll be going through that tonight. Again as we've asked in the other applications last time
that, unless you strongly concur, we don't want to do a rezoning here because we haven't
included that as part of the public process that we went through last time. The neighborhood
comment period. The neighbors were notified as to staff's intent to go to office but it was
notified for the retail component. And then the second property that's on for discussion tonight is
the Erhart-Wilson property. Again we're recommending office land use and they are requesting
some additional office which you'll also be hearing from. So when we get through with our
portion tonight we ask Chair that you open it up for public comment. Close the public hearing.
th
And then it's our goal that your January 15 meeting that we'll be coming back with the entire
comprehensive plan with a continuum of the comments that you've given us to date, what your
recommendations were and what we're going to do to resolve those. And then certainly you as
the Planning Commission can add to, subtract from that list as you make your recommendation
up to the City Council. And if you feel like you don't have enough time or want to do some
additional research, and then we'll take that to the next meeting and then make those comments
forward with your recommendations to the City Council. So with that, if it's okay Chair, then
we'll go through kind of where we are to date on this.
McDonald: Sure.
Aanenson: Okay again this is the continuation. I just again for maybe some people that weren't
here last time. Just a reminder that we have done a lot of studies. Again we did notice these
properties, the two significant ones that I talked about. We did notice, which we typically do,
within 500 feet. Again the concern for us is going kind of beyond that. We've done numerous
st
articles and again the comment period is open until April 1 and there's a web site address to
send comments or you can certainly just do those by phone too. I just want to remind again kind
of a comparison of the land use, the most significant change is that we're increasing the amount
of commercial in the city. What we're recommending. Last time we talked about how this tied
back to the McCombs study recommending on the low end up to 112. We're recommending to
increase 116. Again that could be supported, and again a significant portion of that would be in
the mall area, then some additional neighborhood support which we'll go through tonight. And
then the other big change is increasing the amount of just pure office in the city. Those are the
biggest changes. Again the goal here as we've shown you some of the land use changes is to
2
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
identify those properties that are undevelopable or that are now in green space because we want
to be able to clearly reflect what's developable and now when we look at this for Met Council
numbers because that's where we base our household projections and our job growth so we want
those to be accurately reflected. So you can see there is a large percentage of the city that's
undevelopable, whether that be in right-of-way, lakes, flood plains, wetlands or the like. So with
that we put together the list. Again we split those into the November-December, and I know last
time we didn't have air photos so I just wanted to kind of give you a quick overview of the two
that we spent a lot of time on at the last meeting. We'll be going through these specifically. The
blue site tonight, but I just wanted to remind you, the one site we talked about last time that was
noticed, this is Mr. Gowan's property and the Reed Orchard piece, as noticed in the 4A and that's
what we recommended on the southern piece. Mr. Gowan's property is here that we recommend
that go to medium density and that this property be either medium or office, and that was the
transitional, and again for the record we did note that there were people here in this
neighborhood that were opposed to that change so we're tracking that one too as that moves
forward. But I just wanted to show you that in the air because I'm not sure everybody
understood, this is the Seven and Forty One, the strip center here with the Super America gas
station, and the issue there was the access. Right now the State of Minnesota is recommending
access be here at the intersection. They didn't want to offset with the access to the junior high so
it was encumbent upon Mr. Gowan to develop his property. Give access to this piece. As stated
at the meeting Mr. Gowan wasn't interested at this time developing, so the only other option was
to provide access possibly to the mall so those are issues that we're working through. In looking
at that, the access, because it'd probably have to come through this way, that's why we
recommended the office so I just wanted to reiterate that because it was a little bit hard to see
that last time. Then the next piece which there may be people here talking about this one tonight.
I did pass out two additional pieces of information. The Maxfield study which there may be
someone speaking on that but I also wanted to let you know that I did speak to Mrs. Beaujeaux
who wrote the report and wanted to give some additional comments from the staff's perspective
on that too. This is one of the larger commercial piece that we're looking at for the regional
shopping center. And again one of the things I know the Planning Commission had some
concerns with is we will be drafting that ordinance after we get through your, that's a goal. One
of the first things they'll be doing working with, to determine what those uses should be. As
indicated in the Maxfield study, one of the points that they make out is that much of the impact
to downtown, and also relates to the final mix and we understand that and if you look at what we
talked about last time, the difference between the convenience and commercial and downtown,
the regional draw, it's our goal to have that be differentiated. So basically at the end is what
you're seeing, without knowing what the mix is, it's very difficult to assess the impact and
certainly we're cognizant of that and that's going to be the challenge as we move forward on that.
Again we dual guided that. If we don't get the mix or the design that's satisfactory, then we
would recommend the office. So that's where this piece sits, just so it wasn't clear sometimes on
that bigger piece. That'd be 33 and 34 and 36. Those parcels for the regional, potential regional
mall or office park. And again there may be comments Mr. Chair on those parcels tonight. I
believe there's people here that want to speak to that. And then the other piece that we talked
about, to compliment the downtown is to increase or expand the downtown which would include
the existing Ridgeview Market and looking at, Ridgeview Market. Ridgeview Medical, and then
moving across Powers Boulevard to provide some additional, those pieces would be dual guided
there which would mean that it could be full retail or could stay office. The caveat we talked
3
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
about when we did our study with SRF consultants and the City Council, what we talked about
there is making sure that we have reviewed the traffic impacts on that intersection but we felt this
would be compliment to expand that downtown where you've got the Highway 5 visibility and
that would be that new zoning district we're also creating there which would be community
commercial. Again we don't have an opportunity for additional big box in the core of downtown
so that was the goal with that. So those are ones we talked about last time. Again I just wanted
to kind of go through to kind of set kind of a visual picture and then there may be people that
want to speak to those too. So with that I'll turn it over to Bob Generous to kind of go through
the ones that we're discussing tonight.
Generous: Thank you Chairman McDonald, commissioners. Actually it's slightly out of order
but this is, the first one we're going to talk about or we're proposing amendments to residential
low density. These properties are generally down around the golf course area. The golf course
itself is currently guided for residential low density, as well as public, semi-public. However
that's sort of a misnomer because the city truly doesn't have control of that property and we want
to let people know that this could redevelop in there. The land use amendment that we're
proposing would not force the golf course to go away, but it would make it more accurately
reflect that that is a private piece of property and there is redevelopment potential on that.
Additionally there's some larger parcels off of 101 that we would also recommend be amended
from residential large lot to residential low density. These properties will be served by, or will
be able to be served by sewer services beginning in, well west of 101 it would be after 2010.
East of 101 it would be after 2015 but these areas could redevelop and so we wanted to provide
that opportunity. Again the land use change does not change the zoning on the property. They
would be able to maintain their large lot status for those properties that are currently developed
until first, urban services are available and second that someone actually wants to develop their
properties.
Aanenson: I wanted to point out, excuse me Bob for the record, I know the Planning
Commission had asked staff to meet with those neighbors. We did hold an additional meeting. I
didn't point that out. It was on that first slide that we did hold an additional meeting with people
around this area to talk to them also about the MUSA phasing, and some of the concerns that
were received by the staff was, there are some people that want to have municipal services where
they've got systems, septic systems but there's no alternative site so we did get some good
feedback from them and I just wanted to make that. Next slide?
Generous: Well no. On this one, property #40 was, is currently shown as parks and open
spaces. It's within the Bluff Creek primary zone. However we do not have control of that
property as of yet. We will show the primary zone boundaries on our land use map, and as well
as our zoning map to let, make people aware that there are some restrictions but until we get
control of it, we want to show that they are guided for residential low density and they can do
density transfers out of that area. Hopefully the Peterson plat will come back and that will
resolve itself but until then we just want to accurately reflect what we had available. Another
one is item 43 and it's again the Bluff Creek primary zone is on the Klingelhutz property and it
runs actually diagonally through the property. Again we'll be removing the parks and open space
designation and show it as residential low density. And I think that's all of them. And then like I
4
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
said, the first group is everything, that whole bunch of lots along the golf course and the Halla
Nursery site and all that so. With that I don't know if there's any questions.
McDonald: Any questions? No? Why don't we go ahead and proceed then.
Aanenson: This is just an aerial so you can get a better description of kind of the golf course
property. Again there was questions at the open house, is the city going to develop a golf
course? No. That's up to the golf course itself to when they want to come into urban services.
Certainly the biggest issue for the golf course to develop is in order to get adequate access to it.
It'd have to have access off of 101 and off Pioneer Trail so right now the lift station that we're
putting in place on the Erhart property, which is approximately in this, excuse me. This area
right here would service that. So it's just a matter of when someone would approach the city
about developing that, and again it would have to have adequate infrastructure and access for that
to happen, but again we didn't, that was why we notified that bigger area for that change.
Generous: Next one we're residential medium density. There's very few. The first one is 32,
which is the Preserve development. That property is a planned unit development. It was
previously guided for residential low density and residential medium density. It's already
developed at a medium density. We're taking off the low density so there's no questions that
that's what it is. The westerly part is actually going to, within the Bluff Creek primary zone that
we received is going to parks and open space. So that's the only one under the medium density.
Residential high density. This is the Moon Valley site and the land on the south side of the
railroad tracks. It's currently guided for residential medium and residential high density. We
don't believe that that mix is going to work there. The sites are very confined where the
development potential is. As part of the interim use permit for the mining operation at Moon
Valley we determined the developable areas as part of that and so we're just saying when this
develops it will be residential high density. This next one is sort of a misnomer. We're not
actually designating any specific parcels for commercial on the south side of the city. Except for
the regional mall site, but we are looking at two support commercial sites, and it would be at the
time of development that the city would determine the most appropriate location to put those in.
It's up to City Council to say where they want it. There's like four different parcels, and each
area that it potentially could go in. Again this would be a support commercial so it'd be a smaller
scale convenience shopping opportunity rather than a big strip center so.
Aanenson: Again this is just when we talked about, when we had the focus groups that we
talked about there's no gas stations on that south side so it'd be very small, 5 acre. Again we
haven't identified that. I think we'll wait to see what happens with the rest of the mix that
happens out there and see if there's a potential need for those two sites, but we did want to
identify those so people that are looking at the city, making plans, that we've identified some
target areas for those to occur. One certainly being on the 212/101 interchange and the other
one, somewhere along that Pioneer corridor. More than likely somewhere in that new 212
interchange.
Generous: These are properties that the city's proposing to re-guide to parks and open space.
The first one is in part of the Preserve. It's the Bluff Creek primary corridor. The city did
receive these are dedication as part of the plat and so we're taking out the residential component
5
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
and just showing it as parks and open space. The second one is item 49. It's part of the Settler's
West development. The city received this outlot as permanent open space. It contains bluffs and
it's heavily wooded. It's an area that we're preserving and so we want to accurately reflect that
currently it shows it as residential low density but there's no development potential there so again
this is a clean-up so that the Met Council can adequately review our comp plan and see what we
have available so that's what we're proposing for parks and open space. These next 3 parcels, or
actually there's more than 3 parcels but there's 3 areas that we're proposing to re-guide to
agricultural uses. These are areas that are primarily either wetland or flood plain and there are
limited development potential on it. The first one is within the MnDot owns it. It's within the
new 212 corridor. I should point out on the northwest side of the item 35 there is a small area of
upland that the city's looking at a potential fire station site. But the rest of it is either wetland or
storm water ponding or it's areas that are undevelopable. And then on the south side it's mostly
wetland and it slopes down into that wetland area. The city is looking potentially at a trail and a
forcemain going through that area but it has no development potential. There's no access to the
land. Vehicular access. Only pedestrian access that we're looking at. The other property that's
down in the Minnesota flood plain. Basically west of Bluff Creek Drive. All the land that's in
the flood plain would be guided for agricultural uses. The upland area would be guided for
residential low density in that area, and then you have at the Y and east of Bluff Creek Drive,
again the flood plain area we would show as agricultural. It's really undevelopable as anything
but farming use right now and so we don't anticipate that changing. And then on the east side of
101, south of Flying Cloud Drive there's again some farming area that's in the flood plain and so
we show all of that as agricultural. So again that's so the Met Council doesn't count this as either
residential or some other uses. Residential large lots. Now this is part of item 54 and 51. The
first one includes the Harold Hesse property and the Chanhassen Bed and Breakfast that are
down there. They're currently guided for parks and open space and residential large lot.
However again the city does not have control of these properties and so we don't want to give a
false impression that these areas will not redevelop with anything so we're giving them the land
use. For the Bed and Breakfast it has no virtual impact because it's not large enough to subdivide
but for the Hesse property there is some additional land so they remain, after 2015 be able to do a
large lot development up there. So that's what these corrections are for. And then down along
the Flying Cloud Drive and Stoughton. The upland area of those properties we would guide for
residential large lot. There are some homes down there and so we would continue that use, but
we don't perceive that area redeveloping and again it's backing up to the flood plain so you really
don't want, there's not a whole lot of area for any type of development and infrastructure
improvements. So that's those two. The large lots. The next ones are for re-guiding to office
and industrial. The first one is property 31. It's the Dean Degler property on Audubon and
Lyman, southwest corner. Currently that's guided for office industrial and parks and open space.
However, again the city does not have control of that property. The portion that's within the
primary zone at the time of development, we will protect that and preserve it but they would, we
would want to be able to give the property owner the credit against impervious surface on the
industrial site. The other ones are 55 and 56 on the Flying Cloud Drive. They're the small
upland areas where ones where there's the old SA site and then there's a car dealership on the
south side. There's upland areas that is developable. We're recommending that that be guided
from parks and open space and large lot residential to office industrial. The other one is the
salvage yard that's down there. Again this is guided for large lot and parks and open space, but
the city does not have control of it. It's out of the flood plain so we wanted to give it a land use
6
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
that would potentially allow to redevelop in the future when urban services become available.
And residential doesn't generally work on the salvage yards because of the clean-up requirements
to meet the standards to allow housing to go in and so some type of office or warehouse use may
be most appropriate there. So that's the office industrial. Then finally these properties we're
recommending be guided to office uses. The first one is property identified as parcel 14. It's the
th
old driving range on Galpin and Highway 5. It's south of West 78 Street. There is property, it's
approximately 8 acres. I think we have an overhead of that. Again we're looking at this as a
transition property from the highway into the low density development to the north and west of
it. There are some access issues on the property and so we don't, we're concerned that if we go
to a more intensive use, there could be some vehicular congestion issues. The property on the
north side is guided for residential low density. We believe that should remain in effect. It
would permit densities of 1.2 to 4 units an acre. The perfect development scenario would
preserve the northerly parcel and provide all the development potential on the south side. Away
from Bluff Creek. So again the property owner's here to provide their input on this
recommendation. The next one is item 42. Or property 40. These are the properties on the,
within the 212 corridor. South of the Peterson, on the south end of the Peterson property. If the
MnDot and the new river crossing does not go in this area, this may become excess right-of-way
and so we were looking for an appropriate land use for that. It's currently guided for office
industrial and medium density residential and so we think that an office use would be a nice
transition into the low density development to the north of that. And it's just off the highway so
it has good visibility but access off of Pioneer Trail which is arterial roadway so we think that
would be a good use of the property. The next one is on the east side of the 212 on the north side
of Pioneer Trail. Again this property is guided for office industrial and medium density
residential. We believe it's appropriate for an office site. There's actually 3 parcels in there so
we'd wait for the redevelopment of that area and again this is one of the potential areas where
maybe some support commercial may be appropriate to provide as part of any development. The
next property is the property identified as 42. Staff is recommending, there's approximately 10
acres that is adjacent to Powers Boulevard, south of the new 212. There's a natural break in the
property. It's heavily wooded to the east and there's a topographic separation and so we believe
this site would be appropriate to put in some office uses using it's visibility and it's access off of
arterial roadways. The rest of the property is physically separated from this area. We believe
that's the rest of it should remain as residential low density and we did, there's some additional
information. Again the property owner would like to discuss this item further. And then finally
they're looking down at the Seminary Fen site, which is I think it's 50. Between Bluff Creek
Drive and 101 there's an area that is on the south side of the railroad tracks that once urban
services become available, we believe would be appropriate to provide office uses down there.
212 will become County Road 61 and so there will be good access to that area. Lots of visibility.
It's separated from the rest of the development up on top of the bluff area. Again, and also the
Seminary Fen site to the west of that, we think that the non-wetland portion of the property,
would be appropriate for office uses. And the final piece of property 54, it's the upland area of
the golf driving range. Right at the south, on the south side of 101 and Flying Cloud Drive and
once urban services become available we believe that intensification of this property with office
uses would be appropriate down there. And I think that's all of mine. So we are recommending
that the Planning Commission forward these land use amendments to the City Council and with
that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
McDonald: Anyone have any questions at this point? I think we're okay at this time.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair then I would recommend that you open it up for a public hearing.
McDonald: Okay. You're all finished with everything? Then at this point we will open up the
meeting for public hearing and again what I would ask is anyone wishing to speak, come up to
the podium. State your name and address and address your comments to the commissioners.
And with that whoever wants to come up first.
Larry Martin: Are we doing all parcels?
Aanenson: Sure.
McDonald: At this point we're doing everything that staff, plus everything that we discussed at
the last meeting.
Larry Martin: Okay. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail and I'd like to
speak to parcel number 14 tonight, which is adjacent to Vasserman Ridge where we live.
Vasserman Ridge residents would probably be those that would be impacted the most as they are
the closest residential area to this parcel which is called in the staff report an island, and I think
as we looked at a map of this, it is an island. This parcel has come before the Planning
Commission before and the council. Two years ago it was brought forward as one development
and they were going to coordinate things between this. We looked at that and the purpose at that
time was to coordinate the two so that if there were residential on the north side, we could look at
curb cuts and road things and usage and storm sewer issues because the Minnesota Department
of Transportation has…right next to Highway 5. Do we have, Bob do we have a map of that 14
that we can put up?
Generous: Well there's that one and then I think.
Larry Martin: That bigger one you have.
Aanenson: Sure, let me go back to that.
Larry Martin: That's it there. As you can see it is an island there. As you look to the east is
th
Galpin Road and there is a median all the way down from Highway 5 to 78 Street. As we look
on the north side, there's a median, you can see there's a white sliver there from about 1:00 to
12:00. So there's no median there. Of course there's no access on the west side, and there's no
access to the site from the south side. So that leaves basically the northwest corner of that site
for a full access for off Galpin Road there could be a right-in/right-out there. Currently with the
Kwik Trip there and the CVS, there's a large number of U-turns at that intersection. People
leaving Kwik Trip and CVS go up and have to do a U-turn, and it gets pretty hairy there. You
don't know whether they're going to turn left. Whether they're going to go straight. Whether
they're going to do a U-turn. Two years ago when we looked at this, there was going to be a
traffic study done. I don't know if that has been done, and at this time I don't know at what level
the intersection operations but I think that would be a consideration we have to look at. I'm sure
8
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
the State Highway Department has some input on where a, input to that site on the east side
could be being so close to Highway 5 there. And I would imagine that the county would also
have some on the north side as to where the entrance would be to that site. Of all of the uses
we've seen, office probably seems the best. I would say that commercial would put quite a
traffic load on the area there. The residents feel that there needs to be berming on the site at the
northwest corner of the site there. You can see some of the residential areas that back up to that
from the townhouses along Vasserman Trail there. The entire neighborhood around there is very
well developed. We don't think there is need for retail but I guess that would be up to some
developer to come to that conclusion. We will make the observation though that at Century
Boulevard there is retail and those retail sites have not filled up and some of them that have
opened have closed so we wonder if there is need for more retail area in that area. The retail we
think would create some very interesting traffic situations there. The residents want some
development there. They want good development. We'd like to see it coordinated with the
development on the north side of the road, and we're willing to work with any developers that are
there so thank you Mr. Chairman and commissioners for your time.
McDonald: Okay, thank you for your comments. I guess seeing as how we have such a full
house, one of the things that I should mention is that I would like to try to keep comments to
under 10 minutes. If we get into anything that requires further discussion or detail, we will
address it at that time. But because there are such a large number of people here tonight, I want
to give everybody a chance to speak. So whoever else would like to come up next, please do so.
Tim Erhart: Well how ironic that Larry Martin and I would be wanting to talk about office
tonight since Larry in 1976 gave me my first office job. Good to see you Larry. I'm Tim Erhart,
9611 Meadowlark Lane, Chanhassen and I'm here to talk about my property. Property in the
south Chanhassen designated as number 42. Can you get that map up there? While you do that,
here I'll get started. My wife and I bought this property in 1980 so we've had it for almost 30
years now. We lived it the first 15 years, and while we did I think we spent a lot of time planting
trees, clearing brush, removing buckthorn. We created, can you see?
Aanenson: If you can zoom in on that a little bit Nann, if you would.
Tim Erhart: Alright, so it's this area in here. South of new 212 between Powers Boulevard and
101. Okay, and it's been a real joy living in the area. Essentially living in the city yet having an
enclave, essentially is a wilderness and in the country 2 miles from downtown Chanhassen. And
from work. During that whole period we even constructed 3 miles of trails through the area and
always welcomed the neighbors to enjoy those trails, as we enjoy participating and contributing
to other people's joy and use of the land. As we did that through all those years we always kept
thinking well what happens when we move on. Today in particular I was thinking about who
uses this when I move to Florida so, anyway it was always kind of for my own joy and for the
joy of others so during those years with that work we created, I created a vision of someday
having people enjoy the trails and the wilderness and the wildlife and it's really a beautiful,
unique area. I think many, many people on the staff and the city have been down there and will
share and agree that it's unique. When the city bought, at one time the vision of course with
these ponds and trails was a perimeter to the area but when the city bought the Fox Big Woods
next door, just to the north, this area up here, it really, let's see that would be. This area here. It
9
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
really solidified my vision as not only a perimeter place to visit but a place where you can
actually enter an area and escape from the urban order, the disorder and the calmness of the
wilderness. This is about a 250 to 300 acre area right next to a planned freeway that someday
might actually get built. Well now it's built and now we're in the planning and comp plan review
process and I worked hard working with the city. I've been working with the staff for the last 2
years to share my vision for the area and to see that we get through the process and provide the
ground work so we could get people to enjoy this area. Try to make it an amenity for the users
as well as the city. I am pleased, I'm really pleased, staff has taken a lot of time and been very
open and attentive to the ideas I have and made many changes, including I think creating new
zoning districts that allow us to optimize the open areas and the trees and stuff to make it, to
create that vision. This is, coming up with a plan for this is complicated and it's only one small
piece in the big part of this process and not always does everybody share your vision. But I think
they've done a great job coming up with the RLM district and it will allow me someday to make
this, my vision a reality for use of this piece of property. I'm up here not only to thank the staff
for that but there's one other thing I'd like to interject and that is I think we've, from a city
standpoint there's another view and another use for this that we'd like to have the Planning
Commission and the staff consider and that is for office institutional. With this freeway, with the
freeway opening up, it creates demand for office space in our community. Office space that's
low impact and high tax. It also offers a high grade, high salary employment for the community.
In the past we've been able to attract users that have industrial office headquarters in Chanhassen.
Emerson. Young America. IWC. But with 212 we're going to, I believe and we believe that
we're going to have a demand for purely corporate office along that freeway. And we have an
opportunity to bring in some very, very high level users such as Super Valu, Digital River,
banking, insurance and technology companies, and these companies look for amenities. Number
one they look for close freeway access, but they also look for open space, park, trail systems and
environment because it's very difficult to attract good employees today, and I know that
personally as I have a technology company in the industrial park here, and we have a really hard
time hiring engineers, which we need many of, and Chanhassen, the community, the freeway
system that we have now, and this area is ideal for a company who really needs to put out the red
carpet to attract employees and to hold them. We believe that this office, in addition to the RLM
designation that Kate proposed provides a great opportunity for Chanhassen just to bring
additional, substantially better tax base to the company, and a real opportunity to bring a mixed
use and new ideas to the city of Chanhassen. With that introduction I'd like to introduce Dwight
Jellis from Westwood Land Planners to take you through what the sense will look like. A
concept of what this might look like. A mix of office with residential in this area to kind of bring
this picture a little clearer. If you would Dwight.
Dwight Jellis: Thank you Tim. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Dwight
Jellis. President of Westwood Professional Services. Working with Tim has been interesting.
Working with a landowner that is so passionate about his land and so passionate about how he
has cared for his land over the last 20 years or so. Working with him on every individual tree
and marking trees and marking wetlands and looking at site access and looking at opportunities
on his land has been interesting because it's not all about taking down the trees and maximizing
land. It's about taking care of his land and making sure that the land use and the future is really
unique and really well positioned for Chanhassen. When he talks about his piece of land he talks
about we and when we, he talks about the City of Chanhassen. It's refreshing. It's new. It's
10
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
something that's been fun to work with Tim so you've got a unique opportunity I think with this
landowner to come a long ways in making something pretty special for Chanhassen. Tim asked
us to look at his site in kind of a technical way, and we have talked in general with your staff.
We haven't had the opportunity to share this, this study with staff so this will be a little bit of
education overall of what the land parcel is like. This is parcel number 42 right here that has
been talked about earlier, and I think that's coming along nicely. I think the whole process of the
road construction through that area, the wetland permitting, all that stuff has gone extremely
well. But when you move into this site you take a look at the bright green areas, kind of what
we're looking at in general right now. It's got slopes that range from 0 to 10% so it's fairly
gradual sloped area. Most of it is a tree farm right now. There's some undulating topo up here
and some of the bright star areas, and some of our land planning staff looked at it and said that
some of these areas are very natural corporate campus, kind of office complex areas that could
get extremely well with the topography. This part of Tim's land has got a natural custom
wooded, kind of lends itself to high end single family residential use. That makes a lot of sense.
But this whole area, in taking a look at some structure parking opportunities perhaps. Open
space parking opportunities. Looking at a whole variety of different ways on how you could
build a corporate campus in there to make sense on this piece of land was really fascinating to
see once the land planners got into it. Understanding that there's a real important need for buffer
on the south side. Real important need to integrate some of the open space and planting areas
and some of the natural features that Tim has created over the last 20 years. And it was
refreshing to see how that this could have an alternative use if the opportunity came to
Chanhassen to bring a corporate campus here, what a fantastic spot to bring a unique opportunity
to the town to employ people. Daytime use. Weekday use that kind of, so then Tim asked us to
say look, as part of his vision you know he absolutely sees no industrial kind of use on his land at
all. It's just not appropriate. Doesn't fit with the adjacent neighborhood. Doesn't fit with the
topo. Doesn't fit with the natural amenities. All the things we talked about as far as sharing
trails, open space, wooded features. Talks about a unique corporate campus identity where we
could preserve a fair amount of open space. Bring in all kinds of different recreational activities
along both sides of it. So this concept kind of looked at two primary building spots where there
might be what we envisioned may be a 4 story corporate office building and call it a Chanhassen
Class A facility. Maybe some structured parking, depending on the density of the use, and again
this is all concept. We don't have any users in mind. No magic bullets that come later on but it's
an opportunity that Tim looked at, at how much we've learned over the last several years of this
residential slow down about how being flexible with land use is pretty important. In not only
cities but landowners in general. And Tim, Tim's attitude has never been in a hurry to do this. I
want to do this now. That's not what he's been about. He's been about what makes the most
sense for this piece of land in the city of Chanhassen. So it was a pretty interesting study to look
at. What could be an extremely unique corporate campus facility that might handle, we showed
two buildings here. Maybe there's another opportunity for a building there that could build on
this office use. Come into a very nice, secluded, very custom operation that could be similar to,
if you've seen the Super Valu campus on Bryant Lake in Eden Prairie. Most of us haven't seen
that. I've driven back there for about 15 years and never driven in there to actually see that
campus, but looking at it from an aerial standpoint, it's pretty unique how it can be secluded.
Great access from a freeway standpoint. Employees, while they get to participate in all those
natural features. But again, you know looking at the importance of having that buffer. There's
some natural ridge lines in this area that would separate future residential area here. These folks
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
would probably never even see what's happening here from a parking standpoint. Looking off to
the west, and I think there's lots of opportunities from a physical standpoint as well as planting to
make significant buffers for this house so I think it lends itself a really, really unique opportunity
to bring something special to Chanhassen. Potentially when we're looking at the possibility of
losing several, more than 100 acres of potential office land to retail use, if that comes to fruition
in Chanhassen too, so it gives you a really nice option. With that, if you have any questions on
physical features. We spent a fair amount of time working on this… I think Tim wanted to
finish with a summary. Kind of what exactly he's asking for so you can…
Tim Erhart: Thanks Dwight. So quickly to summarize, we're just, we're asking for the Planning
Commission, staff to consider adding office industrial as a secondary designation for this area to
allow us and the city to work together to find that ideal user that would want to use this space in
the optimal manner. Allow us to do a mixed development, which includes that office and some
very nice executive homes in the area to the east. To optimize the tremendous, and then
optimize the use of the area to continue to protect the privacy of the neighbors, yet even expand
the use of the ponds, wilderness and the trails. Again increase the tax potential for the area, as
compared to simply residential, and lastly to, as we've seen, to allow the timely development of
this area. As Dwight said, I'm not in any particular rush. Yet on the other hand we've seen most
recently with the more, the collapse of the residential development market is that things can stall
out in any one area for extended periods of time. They did this in the early 80's and it was many
years before those opportunities arose again so I think this could be added flexibility. It's also an
advantage on, if we can dual designate this area. So again thanks for your time and appreciate
your consideration of that.
McDonald: Before you go, I've got a question for you. You want us to consider office
industrial. What's the advantage of doing that over leaving it as office because what's been
presented is pretty much an office that would seem to fit in the zoning?
Aanenson: No. It's going beyond that. If I can, I've got a better map if I could just, yeah. This
is in your packet if I may Mr. Chair. Just this information was included in your packet on the
Erhart piece. This property is, the entire kind of super boundary here is Lyman Boulevard on the
north. Just to get your bearings. On the south is Pioneer Trail. This is 101 and this is the new
Powers interchange. The piece that we're recommending for reconsideration is this piece right
here. The 10 acre office park. What he's requesting is a larger portion of that being dual guided.
I'm assuming you're not going OI. I just wanted to remind you, we've spent 10 minutes on this
property but I just want to remind you. We did include this in your packet. We did walk this
property with SRF consultants and Mr. Erhart and actually the Wilson property, which is the
nursery site here, to kind of look at the long term. Again just to quickly put this into context, the
city bought this property from the Fox family. This park property so the goal here was to tie in
that amenity for access and we looked at where the road location could be. Again the original
request from MnDot was not to have a through street. That's this issue still needs to be
hammered out. The continuation of a through street. Again hugging, making this amenity to
kind of touching, hugging up against the park to make that visibility. There's a lot of things in
flux here that we're nervous about. You heard last week a developer that wants to consider, be a
neighborhood, or mixed use development on this property. We're not sure what that means yet.
And then we've got these other properties here so we're just saying that we want to take some
12
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
careful consideration, and we concur on this piece. It's the broader pieces here and how that
connects to the neighborhood, and we haven't had all that dialogue but he is asking for the
opportunity to dual guide which gives you a lot of protection so that's something that you'll have
to consider if we come back with the recommendations, but that's kind of the framework. The
big thing here I wanted to just point out again, we tied in trails. We want to get access to that
which we can accommodate, which and then tie in those neighborhoods, also giving access to
these neighborhoods to the underpass to get over to this kind of more passive park. We show
this underpass, so we've kind of laid out the framework issues on how that can be a
neighborhood. Also in that study that's in your packet, we also looked at, as Mr. Erhart
indicated, looking at the RLM. The different zoning options under that residential. What type of
residential mix. What could the ultimate density and then kind of looked at some traffic
projections too on that. And if you look at the ultimate number of units, you're looking
somewhere under the low density, you know 120 to 400 really depending on how it's put
together, so what he's asking for then is just the dual guiding, beyond what we had
recommended, if that makes sense.
Tim Erhart: I want to make sure, it's not industrial.
Aanenson: Pure office.
Tim Erhart: Pure office. We don't feel it's appropriate to have industrial there but something
much higher grade than that.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else have any questions on this particular? Okay. Thank
you Mr. Erhart. Who would like to come up next and address the commission?
Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I guess this evening's a
little bit of a history lesson on my part. As probably some are aware that 25 years ago we started
developing downtown Chanhassen. At the time there was nothing. Literally nothing, and we
formed a company called CHADDA which was the Chanhassen Downtown Development
Associates, and membership in that was the City of Chanhassen, the Bloomberg Companies, and
Lotus Realty, and we started out with relatively no money and the backing of the…Company and
the City and developed a plan that cost us about $100,000 to develop, none of which was built
because what happened between 1985 and 1995 is that everything in this community expanded
because Highway 5 became a 4 lane highway. You could actually get here. That was all that it
took. Today we're blessed with a very good downtown, which possibly over the next 10 years
will be redeveloped into something else as we go through the process. We're blessed with an
east/west road that delivers somewhere currently around 55,000 cars a day. We're blessed with
one of the major north/south. A lot of you don't realize this. There's only two roads that go
north/south very far in the whole western area and one is France Avenue and one is 101 and that
carries a lot of business into our downtown area. We also are about to, I don't know, I was at the
opening yesterday because I had been on the Highway 212 committee for 25 years. Powers
Boulevard and 212 are also going to become rapidly a very high potential area, and the easiest
way for us to have things southwest is to compare downtown Chanhassen to France Avenue and
th
50, and Powers Boulevard and 212 to the Highway 62 through 494, and what's there is a lot of
business. I think I'm basically speaking about the concept. I think Tim brought up probably
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
something that's kind of important in that when I first moved here there were 2 companies that
were primary developers. One was called New Horizon and I believe they owned the Eckankar
site. And another one was called Ecklund-Swedlund who owned most of east, western Eden
Prairie. 1980 the market fell apart. They went bankrupt. There was really no housing
development for another 10 years because those that were capable of doing that disappeared.
Yesterday I read in the paper that Lennar, which is a fairly big developer out here, just sold off
something like 11,000 lots at a 60% reduction in value, and that Centex will be announcing that
here soon. And so it's not doomsday but what's happened is that land values for residential sort
of got out of control. The other more important thing for this particular comp plan is that once
all that infrastructure disappeared, and I asked Dwight one day how many employees, what
percentage of your business was housing in 2005?
Dwight Jellis: 68%.
Brad Johnson: Today what percent is it?
Dwight Jellis: 12%.
Brad Johnson: Did you lay anybody off?
Dwight Jellis: Just a few.
Brad Johnson: How many would you guess?
Dwight Jellis: 20.
Brad Johnson: What happens is, and it's happening internationally. I'm part of a group that does
do stuff all over the world, is that the infrastructure for new housing is going to disappear for a
while, and then it will come back. And when it came back in Chanhassen, it started at the low
entry level and then moved back up again. You know this is over 20 years. I think as you look
at this whole area of 212 and address what I think Mr. Erhart's asking, and I believe what the
Fox's are and the Dorsey's are and other people in this area of 212 and Powers, is to look at some
kind of flexible zoning that allows Chanhassen to meet the market. I've done quite a bit of
development in Chaska. Currently their community is really geared up to do hundreds of acres
of stuff. Chanhassen happens to be closer to the city so we have the opportunity to maybe cherry
pick some very good developments as I believe they just did last week, which will be
announcing soon. And that, because we have 212 and Powers. Everybody is recognizing that
that's a very good place. Why should you do this? It's called tax capacity. I was on the school
board for 8 years and one of the things we always liked was non-voting tax capacity. Because
non-voting tax capacity takes the pain off the residents, like Larry and people like that, and puts
it on them when you want to improve your parks. You've got an $85 million budget coming up
to the council in the next couple weeks, for the next 5 years, which will be spread out over all
your tax capacity. And the more tax capacity you have, the better you are. We're looking at
building on 10 acres a $20 million commercial office building in Chanhassen. That's worth $2
million per acre. But if you look at the tax capacity, it's double that so it's $4 million per acre on
just 10 acres. And that's a very important thing which sometimes I feel the planning… And so I
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
think in summary, it's a very important thing that possibly you ask your staff. Compare yourself
to Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and the soon to be commercial-less Chaska as to what the tax
capacity ultimately will result from your master plan. Because I think that's the most important.
I'm a resident here, and the most important thing is to try to keep my home taxes down and for
years strangely enough Edina is low. Finally Eden Prairie is low. Chaska works hard at being
low. Minnetonka's always had a hard time because they're spread out, but I think those are
things that you should consider and so then guys like Tim or the Fox's or anybody like that come
in and say we'd like to have an opportunity to bring something here, I think you should listen.
The other thing I discovered when I first came here, there was no grocery store. No restaurants
and I always promised myself that I would never have to drive more than 5 miles on a Saturday
or Sunday. Today I don't unless I want to go to lumber. Today I don't unless I want to go buy
some clothing. You know those kinds of things that we don't have here. And then finally the
more we drive, the more gas we absorb. More time we spend away from our family. So as you
build a community, it's very important I think to consider that and I think one of the things you
might do is just say, what is the proper mix as far as tax capacity that you're creating because as a
Planning Commission you, through the council, will create that. Thank you very much.
McDonald: Mr. Johnson? We have a question for you.
Larson: I'm just curious, how long have you lived in Chan?
Brad Johnson: 25 years.
Larson: 25. Beat you by 2 years.
Brad Johnson: Well we did Market Square and a lot of other ones and we've been blessed. I
think the town is blessed as the McComb's study has said. You really have two potential good
locations. One draws from the north. One is going to draw from Jordan, Chaska, and places like
that. I was with Pokorney yesterday. City Manager of Chaska. They really want us to get
something like that. We're competing by the way for the office stuff. We just won one last week
for good old Chanhassen and we'll announce that pretty soon, so that's been kind of exciting, and
we'll lose a few to them but it's going to be, you'll see a real improvement on the quality of
product that's going to be proposed along 212. Tim's concept of a corporate campus could be
just a wonderful thing both for the neighborhood. You know nobody is in an office at night.
Nobody's around on the weekends, and you've got all that wonderful area over there. I'm going
to cross country ski through there this weekend and my grandchild and I are going to cut a tree.
Tom Devine: I'm Tom Devine. I live at 7640 South Shore Drive. Over on Lotus Lake and I
came tonight as a resident, not as a developer or representing a developer. I just wanted to make
a couple comments as you close in on your process here. I participated, owned property here
since 1988. Been a resident here and had a couple observations. I've sat through the planning
process for the comprehensive plan process a little bit through the years and not intimately
involved or participated in great detail but want to make, address really two issues. One is on
water. The issue of water has become very paramount. Next week the City Council will be
voting because we're out of water here in Chanhassen. We have to drill two new wells. One of
those wells, well actually two of those wells, one of them is right by my home. Over in South
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Lotus Lake. They have to take parkland. Tear it up right now. Put a wellhead in to bring the
capacity, or replace the capacity that's being lost and they're doing another wellhead on the other
side, south side of Highway 5. And out of this whole process as I look through it, I think much
more consideration needs to be spent on what we're going to do and where we're going to get
water in the future. I think that that's one issue that I just wanted to bring to your attention.
Second issue is on where the water goes once we build. I've attended a number of watershed
meetings here over the last several years, being a lake resident and I am concerned about what's
going to happen with this water and right now there's almost $19 million of projects in place
right now just to clean up our lakes here in Chanhassen. I guess most of you are aware, we have
impaired status on some of the lakes right now. I think that that's something that as we develop
or as we move through this process we need to be much more comprehensive in terms of what
we're thinking about relative to how we're dealing with that. With that said, last point that I
make which really ties in part with what Brad's saying. I'm very much in support of this concept
of building a regional mall here. I'm looking at the new 212 corridor in terms of what it is. I
went to the dedication on Monday. It was a great landmark to see that piece of road be built as it
can go all the way out to western Minnesota, and I think that that concept of building a shopping
center there will relieve some of what goes on here right in downtown Chanhassen and we'll
have a new type of ability to attract the people that are using that corridor and for the residents
here in terms of what we're talking about there. I look at the, you know I look at the
interchanges that have been built on 101 and on Powers Boulevard. I think they said there was
about $15 million of cost that was used there and that center, as I understand, will be dropped in
somewhere kind of inbetween there. In looking at the connector roads that have been built in
and around the area within the county and what not, and then I guess the other point that I look at
is the city has gone through a process, and I think a very thoughtful process to identify that that
might be a resource that the city really needs. The study that went out and the surveys and that
sort of thing. It was a very thoughtful process and I think everybody's come to some kind of
conclusion, or moving towards a conclusion that it's a resource that we need. And we move from
what is it, a 23 or 24,000 residents right now to I guess 38,000 or whatever the number is, I look
at that and say rather than driving over to Eden Prairie or driving to Southdale or driving
elsewhere, up to Ridgedale, which a lot of us do right now in terms of having that, to have that
resource here in our back yard, I think is a wonderful resource for the community here down the
road. And I think it's probably the highest and best use and I am taking up on Brad's point about
tax capacity and our property taxes. As most of you are aware, taxes are on the high end of the
metro area here in a variety of different ways and I think when we look at what we're doing
relative to development, carefully scaled commercial development is probably what's going to
continue to keep this as a fine residential city also. If we get a balance, or strike a balance
between our residential and with our commercial development and I think we will be able to
cherry pick in years to come what kind of things go in, and I think that that mall will attract and
the discussion about the national developers that are interested in the parcel and what would
happen there, it would bring a different type of a vendor here to the Chanhassen area and allow
us to maintain that for the city here as such. So it makes a lot of sense to me. It looks like we
have an opportunity to do it right, and to get it right and I'm very supportive of that concept.
Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you very much for your comments. Who'd like to speak next?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Jeff Fox: Good evening Chairman, council, commissioners. My name is Jeff Fox. I'm owners
of parcel 34 and 36 in this area and I'll make mine short and sweet. I just want to fully support
staff's recommendation for a mixed guiding of that area.
Rick Dorsey: I'm Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard as well. I have a parcel that's in the
study area. We are very much supportive of mixed use application for the property. Been long
term holders of the property and do want to see good development on the property and we will
work towards that end as property owners to work with the community in making sure that that
can happen. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Fox. Who else would like to come up?
Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla. I'm the 2008 Board Chair for the Chanhassen Area
Chamber of Commerce. This is Linda Walton, our President and she's got something that she's
going to read and I'll take over from there.
Linda Walton: Thank you for having this forum today and I appreciate the opportunity to speak
with you. I'm here to represent the Chamber of Commerce. The Chanhassen Area Chamber of
Commerce is a business advocate organization which represents over 230 area businesses and
supports the economic growth and well being of our community. In 2006 the Chamber partnered
with the City of Chanhassen in the McComb's Retail Market Analysis and Potential
th
Development Study to learn more about our potential growth opportunities. Between May 9
th
and May 11 of 2007 the Chamber did an electronic survey to our members asking the following
questions. Do you think that the development of expanded commercial retail is important to
Chanhassen. 97.8% answered yes. On that same survey we asked our members this question. If
the city were to zone for additional retail commercial in Chanhassen, where would you like
expanded retail commercial shopping and dining facilities to be located? 48.89 responded south
of the downtown near the interchange of Highway 212, Lyman and Powers Boulevard. 28.89%
answered in the existing downtown area, and 22.22% responded indifferent to the location but in
support of expansion. Based on the findings of the McComb's study, coupled with the surveys of
our chamber members, the Chamber Board of Directors drafted a resolution of support to support
the City of Chanhassen's further research into the expansion of additional commercial retail
development within the city limits. Prior to publishing the resolution of support, due diligence
was done by the Chamber Board and staff to connect with our members businesses, to gather
their feedback responding to the possible retail expansion outside of the downtown business
th
district. All chamber members were invited to an open house forum held on June 25 at the
Chanhassen Rec Center. Draft copies of the resolution were available at that time for our
members to review. After collecting comments from chamber members at that forum the final
th
resolution was developed and adopted by the Chamber Board of Directors on June 26 and
published in July of 2007.
Mark Halla: And I have the tough job of reading that resolution. Now therefore it is hereby
resolved that the Chanhassen Area Chamber of Commerce supports efforts by the City of
Chanhassen to conduct further research into the expansion of additional commercial retail
developments within the city limits to provide not only for the daily needs of it's residents, but to
create additional regional commercial retail draw elements to the area without diminishing the
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
viability of the downtown business service center area. I've got copies here and I'll leave them
for each of you to have. I wanted to point out that we represent the business community and as
Linda indicated, 98% of our members, better than that would love to see that regional mall come
into this area. As you just heard from a couple of people who apparently hold the properties,
they agree that it's a good use. On a personal level, I'll say that we've met with city staff. We've
talked over the dual zoning opportunities and we think that is very well protected viability of our
downtown area and I think personally I can say I don't think anyone's more invested in our
downtown than the planning staff here at the city so we would strongly recommend that you
proceed with that and we have full support from our business community. Thank you very
much.
McDonald: Thank you. At this time, because of the number of people and the time that this will
take, what I'd like to do now is take a short break and we will reconvene at 8:30. So we are
adjourned until 8:30.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point.
McDonald: …next to the podium and speak, please do so. Okay I can't believe we have all
these people here and no one else wants to come up and speak. Okay. Thank you sir.
Don Halla: Good evening. Don Halla. I own the parcels which are, I believe #46 and 45 that
you're talking about. On the corner of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 it's always been suggested
that that would be a very good area for a small strip mall or 7-11, or whatever you want to do.
Convenience store. Something you might take into consideration at that point. I know you have
it down on the Chaska/Chanhassen border right now. It's recommended for. It is about 5 miles
from each direction if it was down on the 101/Pioneer Trail. That's something that might be
thought more helpful to the neighborhoods on 101 than it would be if you put it right back on the
border of Chanhassen and Chaska which has immediately to the west some development of that
type. Additionally, my thoughts for the future at least for the, I'll call it the golf course site
which you have as #46, would be possibly to go to a high rise retirement home. Using a small
amount of that acreage that could be used in there, and still probably maintain the golf course as
a function. So it gives the recreation and still would be able to not have, not use the whole parcel
but go to a high rise unit on the corner. Overlooking the Minnesota River. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you Mr. Halla. Next? Who else would like to come up and address the
commission?
Gary Collier: Good evening members of the Planning Commission and city staff. My name is
Gary Collier. I represent Epic Development 16 LLC. I'm also a principal of the Collier Group
Real Estate Development and Brokerage firm, licensed here within Minnesota. Tonight we'd
like to present to you, together with our team, I'd like to introduce the team that we've assembled.
Kathy Anderson from Architectural Consortium, licensed architect. William Thibault from
Thibault Planning and Associates, certified planner. We would like to present to you tonight our
preliminary PUD application and show the relationship that this is.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Aanenson: Point of order Mr. Chairman. Could I just get clarification that you plan to do a
rezoning because you didn't submit an application for rezoning. This wasn't noticed for a
rezoning. I think our understanding is that you wanted to get on the record that you want to
change the zoning. Just as a point of clarification. Is that your?
Gary Collier: That's exactly, I'm sorry.
Aanenson: Just technicality.
Gary Collier: We want to show the relationship between the McComb's study and some of the
other studies that have done within the city to our site and the comprehensive plan that your
formulating. In essence of time, we realize that we want to try to be as brief and concise as
possible. We want you to know that we really try to take a very thoughtful look at developing
property, and in this case, and in every case that we do, we try to look for an equation with the
city, the community and the development team. In this case, as we look at this particular island,
th
we're trying to bring about a balance to this site. The Galpin, Highway 5, West 78 that really
reflects the development that is adjacent to it. CVS and the Kwik Trip, and add to this entire site
a connection with the community showing the berming. Showing the uses that will be able to
bring about I think a fulfillment of the property with commercial office, neighborhood
commercial, convenience. Those components that will probably be able to show itself in further
appearances before the city planning and City Council. With that said I'd like to introduce Kathy
Anderson.
Kathy Anderson: Thank you, good evening. I just wanted to walk through some planning
aspects. I think this is a great opportunity. When I was approached with what could happen and
excitement for this site, I think as you heard this evening from many individuals, the
opportunities that come about when you have such a highly traveled highway number 5 and
some of the success of other commercial developments happening along there, and at a great
intersection like Galpin. In an area that has some commercial established that's neighborhood
commercial such as the drug and the gas station. I think there's a great mixed use opportunity
here and we understand your vision for office on this particular site and what we're kind of
suggesting here is a high percentage of office building, but when you're making transitions and
planning from residential to a highly traffic corner, I think there's some things, some planning
aspect that can be done that makes different transitions. So we're suggesting is that getting some
of, a mix of some good quality office. We're showing some two story buildings. Office
buildings but out on the corner we'd like to see a small percentage of retail incorporated in. We
think that in a mixed use concept that's a good amenity to attract some high quality office uses.
To have a coffee shop. To have some food or some of the neighborhood uses that are also
established there. Opportunities for possibly a two story bank. Planning wise we also see the
th
land that they own on the north side of 78 Street, possibility of that daycare/preschool type of
use, which is a nice passive use in making a transition to the existing residential. We have
ponding needs which we think could be an amenity. Suddenly residential development could be
on a water feature which makes a good transition to a large berm area that would be showing
before we start transitioning to higher density of uses. We purposely put the buildings up on the
edge. Groupings that could encourage maybe some outdoor eating opportunities on a showy
plaza. We've got a trail system that could interconnect around the pond from the residents along
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Bluff Creek and into this development for a safe pedestrian type of connection. Entry type of
landscape features as kind of a gateway to this entire community. We do think this would be a
great zoning type of application for mixed use versus purely office, that again kind of as it
graduates from residential, having office as a nice, as you've heard people mention. It's kind of a
nice, quiet passive use, using buildings to buffer. You know screen headlights from a parking
situation. But also mix in a little bit of retail with that just to kind of make that transition into the
retail you have established. So that's in a nutshell some of the planning aspects, and this would
be a development that the development team would want to make sure has architectural
guidelines, signage guidelines, and a whole master plan landscaped to really set a quality tone for
this entire development. With that, Mr. Thibault.
Bill Thibault: Good evening Chairman McDonald, commissioners. Pleased to be here. My
name is Bill Thibault with Thibault Planning and Development Associates. I was involved in,
was present here during the informational meeting 5 months ago and since that time I've been
doing studies of the areas and analysis synthesis of the information. We've been in contact with
the property owners and with staff. I'm going to briefly cover a couple of points. I think you
have the material that we sent out regarding some of the site characteristics, so I'd like to cover
very briefly several of the more relevant site characteristics, and I'd like to describe a little bit
how we got into the discussion of uses for the site, and then end with the process that you're now
in, namely the comprehensive plan and the relationship of your comprehensive plan study
relative to this site. With regard to the most relevant characteristics, I'm going to focus on the
th
portion that's south of West 78 Street. The 8 acre area approximately. That particular area
seems to be the area of most interest at this point in terms of the land use that's, and the
consideration. First of all it's a very flat site. Not only is the site relatively flat in terms of the
total topography throughout the area, there are a couple of areas where there's a slight depression
but basically it's a flat area. So are the roads basically surrounding it. Very flat, and so is the
property in and around the area going to the east and a little bit to the north, and then there's
some hilly areas in and nearby. And by the way, my focus of study involved everything from
downtown out to the Arboretum, University of Minnesota Arboretum but basically everything on
the north side of Highway 5, between Highway 5 with concentration in that band between
th
Highway 5 and what we call the frontage road or West 78 Street. The second point is that's a
very, fairly small site. Less than 8 acres. Thirdly, it's really pinched in by the roadways, more so
than maybe any other property in the area, and consequently the idea of an island has been
discussed and it looks like there's an agreement, pretty much of an island. Less than basically 8
acres. The depth, relatively shallow. Only about 800 feet at it's greatest point. So how do you
best you know kind of use that land? Well one other thing that's very prominent in that area is
the high voltage electrical line. It's a utility line that's about 70 feet up in the air, and it not only
borders the entire length of the south side of the property, but the entire length of the west side of
the property. So it has that feature on two sides. Then looked at the traffic situation. First of all
of course Highway 5. Highway 5 is an interesting road. It's now up to 32,000 vehicles per day
at this location. So a very significant amount of traffic is going by this particular area. If you
look at Highway 5 now in the year 2006, just west of Highway 101, it's up to 50,000 vehicles a
day. So that's an important element to take into consideration when we get to land uses. The
other thing is that there's a high quality residential area nearby and we know that Galpin
Boulevard goes all the way up to Highway 7 and then to the south. So, when we took these
factors into account we looked at the possibility, could there be some mixed use there? Maybe
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
some convenience retail. We looked at the McComb's report. I'd like to draw your attention to a
couple aspects of the McComb's report. If you have a copy in my report that I just refer you to
page, page 7 for example. Near the bottom of that page, about the third paragraph up it says, and
it's speaking about this area at Galpin and Highway 5. It's likely to fill in with either
convenience or destination retail and services that cannot be accommodated in downtown. Then
on page 9 it mentions, and it's the second paragraph from the top, the northwest quadrant. Again
it's talking about Highway 5 and Galpin. That's the heading in that paragraph. And that last
sentence says, the northwest quadrant has 15 acres that is under developed. This area may attract
future commercial development. And lastly if you look at page 8 at the bottom, you can see this
map which the McComb's Group refers to as Map 1, and they have a circle referring to the
shopping areas at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5, and that's centered right
on Galpin Boulevard. So that was sort of consistent with my analysis of land use. And now very
briefly the third tier of land uses that I looked at that seemed appropriate, basically match the site
plan that Kathy talked about. I suggested that there be sort of a berm and landscaping area along
the north side to buffer from the residential area, but the office uses be in the internal area. And
then at the very southeast corner they consider some retail, and at this point they're looking at
some, maybe mix of retail and office. So where does this bring us? Well we know that you're at
the point of looking, and maybe I can refer to this drawing. You have something similar to this
but we took it one step further. If we can just, right here? You're proposing or looking at 4
different kinds of retail and we think that the neighborhood retail would be the most closely one
that would match with this, and this is basically out of a drawing that the staff did after the
McComb's report. This, these B areas would be the neighborhood retail, and if you look at the
Galpin report, they have of course the items centered right here in the middle. What we're
suggesting is that you center your B right basically where the Galpin has, or where the
McComb's Group has just proposed designation of the commercial shopping area. And what
we're suggesting that, if you look at this particular area, this is about 7.6 acres and we're
suggesting that you lop off about 3.7 acres on the east end and replace it over here with
approximately 2 1/2 acres. So your net difference in acreage between the current version that
you have and what we're proposing would be an acre less, and so with this then would be in
conformance with the McComb's report. And then last, my last point would be in terms of the
process. We're working diligently on the PUD plan that would be submitted on a formal basis
but as you know you want to make sure that as you review a PUD you find that it's not
inconsistent with your comprehensive plan so what we're suggesting seems reasonable. It would
seem that this combination with this very limited amount of retail, neighborhood retail at the
corner, would be basically substantiated by the McComb's report, and basically sound planning
principles. And I'm not going to talk about access…wide and what's happening here is there's a
mirror effect between the east side of Galpin and the west side. Both will have an access point,
approximately opposite each other. There's a median in the middle so you can control traffic,
and as Mr. Martin mentioned, that median on the north side, we'll look at this one. By the way
that MnDot access, if you're interested in that, I think that's on page 11 of the report and it's, it's
designated in there as I think plat number 14. But anyway they have provided for the 60 foot
access point here. As Mr. Martin mentioned, the median island goes across that for a purpose. It
brings it back actually 340 feet to eliminate the congestion problem at an intersection to
minimize that. Those are my overview points which I think essentially you have pretty much
that same information in the report.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
Gary Collier: In conclusion we would like to say that we hope that you see the thoughtfulness of
our planning. In this report and that you hold, and we hope that you will be able to give us a
chance and opportunity to come back and do a formal application. If there's any questions we'd
be more than happy to answer them.
Larson: I have just one brief question. Did you have in mind any particular type of retail? I
mean Kathy mentioned the coffee shops or whatever but is that restaurant or?
Kathy Anderson: Well Gary you're probably easier to speak but you know, they've had great
response from some medical type office users and when most of the retail centers I've been
working on, there's been this kind of, this mixed use aspect happening to even pure retail centers
in that if you're at a clinic or something, you're wanting that coffee shop or you're wanting that
ice cream shop or you're wanting to do some of your other daily services. Dry cleaner or you
know, the salons and just services that are beyond just the drug store and the gas station that are
at this intersection. I do love the fact, I think Mr., somebody mentioned, you know you're all at a
point that you've really developed a great downtown and now that you're growing, this ability
and it's happening around the country because of traffic issues, is the ability to walk or take your
bikes to a neighborhood convenience center. Go to the doctor. Go get your dry cleaning. That's
the type of mix we're looking at so we want the retail aspects added to help reinforce the office
aspect.
Larson: Okay.
Gary Collier: Very simply it's in essence it's a quasi life style center with a convenience,
commercial, all of it into this area that is very strategically located within the city. You'll find by
right-of-way your downtown is here. You have no more commercial development until you
come to Galpin and Highway 5 and we see that in the offering that we've made to commercial
and other uses, the response that we received for the coffee shops. For the medical and dental,
and yes I confess we do have a major nitch in medical and dental clinic development with our
firm and so they are attracted to what we do and the adjacencies, the tenant mix is so important
here. The adjacencies that we do with the tenant mix of for instance a medical or dental use and
a family type of restaurant and a coffee shop and banking and all those uses. We've incorporated
those in major developments as well as very select strategic developments such as this is, and
we're very, very, I have to tell you this. Very thoughtful and very responsive to what
neighborhood wants and what neighborhood seeks because this is in a sense an extension of that
community and we very much, it's free flowing with the community and they support this and we
support them.
Larson: As you know we really need a lot more banks in Chanhassen.
Gary Collier: I have to tell you this. For whatever it is, we've had so many come at us during
this time of this offering.
Larson: They want to be here in Chanhassen.
Gary Collier: And we've put them aside until now.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
McDonald: It's okay. We can never have too much banks in this town. Well thank you very
much for your presentation and again I would caution anyone that this is not a detailed plan of
what they're looking or going there. These are strictly concepts. The same as what we heard last
week. It's a use for this area and I think it makes the point that you're trying to make about us
viewing it as a mixed use so with that in mind we will take that as that way and continue from
there but thank you for your presentation.
Gary Collier: Thank you.
McDonald: Would anyone else care to come forward?
Charles Gelino: My name is Charles Gelino and I live at 7729 Vasserman Trail. Some of the
back yard looks out onto Parcel 14. And the presentation was very good by the way, but retail is
retail and retail brings traffic. Century, the small café and across the road the coffee shop have
both struggled. They had Arboretum Village to draw from. They had the businesses south of 5,
and still those businesses don't thrive. It's a question of whether or not we need more retail out at
the Galpin corner. That's my only comment. Thank you for your attention.
McDonald: Thank you Mr. Delano. Would anyone else like to come forward?
Mike Wardle: Mr. Chairman, commission members. Mike Wardle. Brighton Corporation,
Boise, Idaho. I appreciated the opportunity that you gave me 2 weeks ago to make a brief
presentation, and I didn't intend to speak tonight but I learned a great deal about the community
and some opportunities that have been presented in a very big picture perspective for the area
south of Lyman, between 212 and 101 as presented by Mr. Erhart. The maps that I had seen, that
identified parcels of consideration did not really identify that opportunity and I strongly
encourage the commission to take a broad perspective view of that whole area. I think it
substantiates some of the thoughts that we will be presenting as we form an application to be
submitted at some point in the future. But we support the concept that has been proposed for that
business park, corporate park concept to the south, but it also then suggest that since the property
immediately north of that that we were discussing 2 weeks ago is already approved for
neighborhood commercial but it suggested there needs to be a broad perspective of that whole
area. So that a plan for all of the potential opportunities can be considered. I just simply wanted
to express that and appreciate what I learned here this evening by coming to this banana belt
climate.
McDonald: Thank you so much for your comments. Does anyone else wish to come up and
make comment? This is your opportunity to come up and speak and give us some input as we
deliberate over all of this, so if there's anything else you think we should be made aware of, I
really would encourage you to come up and speak to us.
Brad Johnson: I had one thing I forgot to tell you. When I was at, this is really relative to retail.
When I was at the, I had a big week of dealing with the city. At the transportation planning thing
somebody showed me the budget that was passed to improve our transportation and the tax
sources that they were suggesting, and fourth on the list was a local retail tax, which means that
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
cities would be able to fund their roads through retail taxation. Of course if you don't have any
base and currently if you look at a dollar, 75% of all the dollars I spend leave Chanhassen you
know and that's interesting. That's all. It's something that's coming along when I was at that
meeting.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Well, I'll
give you one last chance. Seeing no one coming out of their chair. Okay.
Jim Sulerud: My name's Jim Sulerud. I live at 730 Vogelsberg Trail. I'd just like to encourage
you to take this opportunity within the comprehensive plan to look at the south end of
Chanhassen which is one of the only gateways that you've got to 101 and 212. It's always been
the back end of town and it really could be I think an opportunity to step up the vision for a new,
it's going to be 61 I guess, and 101 alignment. To step up the planning in that area and that it
could in tying in with the natural areas, some high density housing and office there to really put
together a concept plan for that area that would not just, maybe not just respond to whatever
comes in the door but look at maybe hiring a consultant to do some visioning for down there to
say how that could be a unique opportunity. Like I say it's always been kind of the back end of
town but it's I think it's your opportunity to do something a little different.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if I could just add to that just for everybody's you know, we talked about
advancing the MUSA. That was one of the big shifts that we made. Advancing that a little bit
sooner. The City Engineer did indicate in the transportation plan that we will be studying
corridor access along old 212. As you saw tonight we're trying to provide an opportunity for
some of those parcels to be upgraded and provide service opportunities so we can provide
municipal services for those properties along old 212, soon to be 61, so we are studying that and
those, for example the Moon Valley site, we see the potential for development which I know
we've walked that site, so we are exploring those opportunities but I need to remind you that the
biggest impediment to development in the southern end of the city is the improvements along
101, which we as a staff are fiercely working on. But that's going to be the biggest impediment
as we move south and continue to grow is to get the improvements made on State Highway 101
so.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Does anyone else wish to come up and
address us one last time? Okay, I will close the public meeting and at that point we, as the
commission are still at a point of just looking at the total of the comprehensive plan. We will
hold all of our comments and everything until we get to the end and then we will address those
with the city staff.
th
Aanenson: And that will be at your January 15 meeting. A combination of all to you.
McDonald: And at that point we'll go through and review all the chapters that we've been
through. And with that I guess the next item on the agenda is actually the approval of the
meeting minutes from last week.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 2007
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Thomas moved, Larson seconded to note the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2007 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25