PC 1999 06 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 2, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind, Craig
Peterson, Kevin Joyce, and LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchofl]
Planner I; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACI~ A 3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACI~
AND A BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION, ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6728 LOTUS TRAIL,
TODD FROSTAD.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff'? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission. If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Todd Frostad: Hello. My name is Todd Frostad. It sounds so impersonal when she... Basically
I'm requesting the addition to my property. Anyone who's been down Lotus Trail... up 40
stairs... The stairs that are pointed out here are not the way they're set right now. It actually kind
of stair steps down this way and there's actually 40 stairs between the driveway and the front door
of the house as it sits right now. The objective with putting the addition is two fold. My wife is
now 6 months pregnant with our first child which I guess is a self inflicted hardship, but a
hardship nonetheless. And secondly, I have an 84 year old grandfather. The house right now is a
two bedroom log home and so with one on the way and my grandfather using a second bedroom,
I'm already one bedroom short. So the objective here was to build an addition out which would
do two things. Create a lower entryway to the house and allow for the construction of a lower
level bedroom and bathroom for my grandfather. The objective being that we could, under the
rear addition build a bedroom about here for my grandfather and a bathroom here adjacent to what
is now a laundry room right in here. And have this area, this external area, as I could go through
the other plans if you want and I don't know what the process is here. To have an internal
staircase instead of the external staircase. So 20 stairs inside and 20 stairs outside. And the front
door would actually be right about here. And so if you look, if you can compare it where it sits
on here. This is the proposed addition right here. And this would basically, as we had requested
it, we assumed that, and we didn't know at the time when we wrote the letter up, that this was
actually not, we thought it was 20 feet and in fact it sounds like it's 12 feet and something from
the edge of where the gazebo is. And we'd actually take the gazebo out and give back some
space to the city. You know and so in my mind improving the existing conformity and not
eliminating it and just follow alignment with the deck. And then the back yard, just kind of do
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
whatever we need to. And in her letter back to me it said that you know the staff would consider
approving a 4 foot rear yard setback with easement, or with how you'd phrase it? It had
something to do with the awning. Or the overhang.
Kirchofl) Oh, we have to measure the setback to the overhang. You aren't allowed any
encroachment into a setback that has received a variance.
Todd Frostad: All right so, but in your letter you said that the staff would consider approving it if
it was a foot shorter instead of, this back here is 14 feet. If it was 13 feet it would pass. Is that
kind of, so that's, we could obviously knock a foot off the plans. That would be fairly easy. And
what I'm just trying to find out is what can we do with that front 12 when in reality I'm giving
some footage back because I just want to get that lower entryway. And that's kind of the nuts and
bolts. I'm trying to be flexible and not just have to go back and forth between the city every
month with new letters or new adjustments. I spent $2,000 with an architect and I can give you
the receipts and this is the best plan that we've come up with mutually between myself and the
architects. And I'd hate to keep spending money with him and you know and delays and delays
because you know in September I'll have a baby and she'll be lugging him or her up and down the
stairs, plus my grandfather who spends most of the time in the summers at the lake, which isn't a
big deal but winter will set in and he's back in the house pretty much full time. So I'm just trying
to understand how we go about getting something approved within this commission's findings or
objectives. So and if they say we can approve it based on 13 feet and 12 feet, then great. Then
I'll draw plans for that. Or whatever the plans. Because all I know right now is that what, you
know would I have to request a variance for which would be just about anything on this property.
The limitation in the survey as you see it shows just the one lot, and if you guys remember last
year. I don't know if you were on the planning commission, or actually three years ago now.
The Tommy Byrnes project where he was going to move a property on. I actually own the whole
adjacent lot and have with the county merged both properties. And so with where the garage is
right now, to get the same square footage, I'd actually have to try to build over the garage and the
vertical height would actually make it a four story building so my construction cost would be
pretty outrageous so this is the most economical with the, to achieve the space that I could come
up with. And so help.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant. Based upon what the staff submitted back to you, it sounds
like maybe you didn't have enough time to review that or with the architect so specifically ask the
question. Have you had the appropriate amount of time to respond to staff's recommendations
that are presented here?
Todd Frostad: I was out of town late last week so I basically didn't get a chance to review this
until the end of last week and then with the holiday weekend, no. I haven't even had a chance to
call the architect. Not to mention he charges me $150.00 an hour every time I call so. I know we
can compress it. I mean if it's a foot off the back, piece of cake. All I'm trying to do is get the
front door here and this is, it's a log house. That's one of my other problems is because the way
they construct the comers. I can't put windows and doors right up against the comer. I have to
put it you know a foot and a half or two feet in. Just the way it, just construction limitations. The
way he described it to me.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: Cindy, can you summarize succinctly what he'd have to do on his current plans
presented before us tonight to change that to code?
Kirchofl5 The first thing he'd have to do, like I said in the staff report is reduce the size of the
structure to, from 46 to 33 feet in depth. They do have the 12 foot in the front and then the 1 foot
in the back. So they have to reduce it that size. There's no issue with the width at 20 feet.
Todd Frostad: What you're basically, take it back to the edge of the house, not to the edge of the
deck?
Kirchofl5 Correct.
Todd Frostad: And like I said, there's already structure there and I'm already giving some back
so I'm just hoping because with the internal stairs I use up basically all this interior space, as this
shows. Kind of in getting those stairs in there. And then the front door would be right here. So
that's my limitation is I don't have a place to put a front door and stairs and a bedroom, all on the
lower level, and bathroom. That's what I'm hoping to do here. And I'll tear down the gazebo.
I'm just trying to.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Todd Frostad: How does the process go from here?
Peterson: We'll do a public hearing now and then we'll discuss it among ourselves and make a
recommendation to Council.
Todd Frostad: Okay. Thank you.
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open up to a public hearing please?
Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second
to close the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Any thoughts on this one?
Kind: I'm wondering if staff could speak to the deck versus house structure issue on the
difference.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Kirchofl) A living space is different from a deck in that a deck can encroach 5 feet into a setback
whereas the living space, the addition would have to meet the 30 foot setback.
Kind: The deck appears to be wider than 5 feet so it wouldn't have to be totally even with the
house, is that right?
Kirchofl) I'm not.
Kind: Here's the deck. This appears to be more than 30 feet from the house. The current house.
From the curb. This is more than 5 feet. So the addition would not have to go all the way back.
Blackowiak: I like visuals.
Kind: But the structure would have to come back to about that point, is that right?
Kirchoflk According to that survey, the existing house is about 32 feet from the properly line that
abuts Lotus Trail.
Kind: Okay. So they've got 2 more feet.
Kirchofl) Yes correct.
Joyce: Is the real issue the expansion of the non-conformily? That's what we're really talking
about here. And that's from 1986. The initial variance.
Kirchofl) Well the variance application indicated that that deck is on the plan. The 12 foot deck
would meet the 25 foot setback and the gazebo would not so they essentially got a variance for the
gazebo and the landing portion of that deck. That gazebo could encroach 10 feet into the recorded
setback, when in fact it's at 12 feet from the properly line.
Peterson: Other comments?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I would like to sort of follow up I guess on what you said. I don't think
I personally don't want to say no. We cannot do any kind of an addition. I think we like to be
flexible. However it sounds as if, that he hasn't had a lot of time to talk to his architect and
maybe, I mean I might suggest we table it until he has time to review it with his architect and
maybe come in with an alternate plan or something. Otherwise I don't know if we can support, or
ifI can support furthering a non-conformily. So it's kind of where I'm at right now, and I would
not object to tabling this.
Peterson: ... that Kate?
Aanenson: Well, what you're telling him is that you're willing to look at something.
Blackowiak: If it conforms.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Aanenson: That's the direction you're going. Well he can make it conform. He's just not going
to get his choice. He's agreed he can cut one foot off and make the back end. It's the front end
that's the issue so what you're saying is can he live with 6? Can he live with 8? Because what he
wants is 12 feet additional encroachment into the front yard setback. So that's what I want to
make clear that he's going to be spending some time doing that and you still may not agree to that.
I think if you told him you would give me, say make 6 work. I just want to make sure you're
clear and that's the direction you may be sending. He may be.
Blackowiak: But if it conforms, if he makes a conforming addition, we don't see it again is what
you're saying?
Aanenson: Well to make it conform he can't put the addition on.
Blackowiak: He could put an addition on. Just not this addition.
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: But if the addition that he proposes and brings to the city conforms, then we do not
see it again, is that correct?
Kirchofl5 Correct.
Aanenson: Correct.
Burton: There'd be no variance, right?
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: So we would never see it. Okay.
Todd Frostad: Can I make one additional comment?
Peterson: Sure.
Todd Frostad: The distance from where the house is and 2 feet... My problem is, the edge of the
house is where the stairs would be coming in unless we can plan to keep 20 stairs inside a
basically a... by 20 structure. Get 20 vertical stairs so I would need more than 2 feet to get a door
way.., is my only issue.
Peterson: Good, thank you. Other comments? I'll entertain a motion. We have some discussion
going on so.
Blackowiak: Sorry.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: That's all right.
Blackowiak: I was trying to clarify where the door is.
Peterson: Again, I ask for a motion.
Joyce: Do you want to make a motion?
Blackowiak: No, go ahead.
Joyce: All right, I'll make the motion Planning Commission denies the request for a 12 foot
variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard
setback for the construction of the addition based upon the findings. And is this the same motion,
we just combine the two?
Kirchofl~ There's two motions there.
Joyce: Okay. That's my first motion.
Conrad: I'd second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 12
foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot
side yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in
the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Peterson: Second motion please.
Joyce: Planning Commission approves the request for a variance #99-3 from the bluff protection
setback for the construction of an addition within the required setbacks subject to conditions 1
through 4.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the request for
Variance #99-3 from the bluff protection setback for the construction of an addition within
the required setbacks, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor at the time of
building permit.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
2. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Type III erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored.
4. The foundation shall be designed by a structural engineer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: The appeal from the decisions of this board, a council member, the applicant or any
aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the zoning
administrator within four days after the date of the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed
on the next available City Council meeting which is June 28th. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A 578 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE 1~000 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT
6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD~ CHARLES KLINGELHUTZ.
Public Present:
Name Address
Loren & Deb Sposito
Tom & Judy Newhouse
Kate Wirth
Richard Herr
40 Fox Hollow Drive
6521 Gray Fox Curve
6503 Gray Fox Curve
120 Fox Hollow Drive
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff'? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Charles Klingelhulz: ... probably was originally farm property. I have more than sufficient land
to build a garage and I had it surveyed. The surveyor said you can build a 35 by 37 garage. I
have more than enough.., more than enough space from Highway 101...
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Why can't you build it and attach it to your home?
Charles Klingelhulz: I do not wish to attach it to my home.
Conrad: But why not? It would be legal then and then you could get done what you'd like it.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Charles Klingelhulz: For one reason, I don't want the fumes from the cars coming in the house.
Conrad: Because you're working on the cars or because?
Charles Klingelhulz: Not only that but gas fumes from cars.
Conrad: That's pretty standard though to have an attached garage, and that you way you could
get what you'd like.
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have a question for the applicant. Is it possible you could remove some
of the other structures to get it down to the footage that the staff talked about?
Charles Klingelhulz: It's possible to remove the milk house. Which is right by the house now.
Burton: Which one's the milk house?
Peterson: Removing that wouldn't still bring him into compliance, would it?
Kirchofl2 No it would not.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Kind: Could the applicant build a smaller garage? A typical 3 car garage is about 700 square
feet, is that right? And then combine that with destroying one of the existing buildings to get.
Charles Klingelhulz: Again, even ifI built a 30 by 32, I'm still over not under 1,000 square feet,
which I was told by one.., it would be illegal to do it here.
Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a
motion and a second please.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, a motion to close.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts? Comments?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, there are some real options here to get the applicant what he wants. I
think he just has to come in with a difference proposal. He can get what he likes. It won't be
perfect for him but through destroying one building and whatever. If we were close, I could even,
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
if we were close because he has a lot of property, I think we could consider something. But we're
not close so, and there are several options here. So it's going to be hard to vote favorably for this
Mr. Chairman.
Peterson: Other comments? May I have a motion please.
Sidney: I'll make the motion. Recommend that Planning Commission deny Variance Request
#99-2 for a 577 square foot variance from the 1,000 square foot maximum accessory structure
size based on the findings listed above.
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sidney moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission deny Variance Request
#99-2 for a 577 square foot variance from the 1,000 square foot maxinmm structure size
based upon the findings listed in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Peterson: This also may be appealed by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved
person. They may make such appeal to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning
Administrator within four days after the date of the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed
on the next available City Council meeting on June 28th. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 19+ ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
AND LOCATED AT 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND NORTH OF LAKOTA LANE~
DAVID TEICH.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Norm & Karaline Monroe
Martha & Wally Moroz
David Teich
Claudia Campbell
Jane A. Paul
Yvonne & Russ Barto
565 Lakota
495 Lakota
1217 So. Monroe, Shakopee, MN 55379
415 Lakota Lane
410 Lakota Lane
400 Lakota Lane
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have one question. I'm looking through the conditions. On number 2 it
talks about the building eligibility. It says that no building eligibility remains for the 12 acre
parcel. Should it be clarified do you think to the 20157
Aanenson: That's fine. I think until services are available or we can clarify that. That's a good
point.
Peterson: Cindy could we, or Dave, should we be formally setting in here that.., sewer and water
is there that.., certain period of time or is that automatically into the agreement?
Hempel: City ordinance requires homes within 150 feet of a sewer line be connected within a 12
month period.
Aanenson: IfI can just add to that comment. The applicant did ghost plat this property. It is his
intent to further subdivide the property when urban services are available and he's located his
home as such so I think that that issue will probably go away at such time.
Peterson: ...because it is A2 now.
Aanenson: Correct. And like Dave indicated, until such time that the sewer and water was close,
so even though we bring it in the year 2015, first urban services would have to be within close
proximity so even though we would bring it in, it may be a while before we bring it up Lakota
Lane. Until it's petitioned to be brought up there. He may decide that he wants to stay in that
status until, another five years. This is the property owner that's buying it from Mr. Teich. Mr.
Teich may petition. Some of the people on Lakota may petition so we'd have to, like I say it kind
of goes back to that policy until urban services are, or as Dave indicated, until it's in so many feet.
Peterson: Yeah, I think it's so important to let people know that. Be absolutely sure they are
aware that they have to connect when available. Has to be in here or not probably isn't the issue.
Just a matter of letting them be aware of it.
Aanenson: Right, and this is, I understand what you're saying because this isn't an area that we
intend to leave as large lot. We do intend to see this area develop. Now those on Lakota may not
be able to further subdivide because of the slope and they're on a bluff2 So there's probably not a
lot of potential for additional subdivisions so their desires may not be the same. Although over
time they may have failing systems and may want municipal services. But that is a good point.
We can make sure that we put some language in here.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I think it may be for Dave. We talked about
deferring the SWMP fees. The water quality and water quantity fees. And I have three questions
regarding that. Number one, do we defer them at the current price? Number two, is something
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
attached to the properly in terms of these fees being due? And then three, should it be a condition
of approval that these fees are noted and will be paid at the time of subdivision.
Hempel: ... the amount due at that time. Attach it to the development? With subdivision of the
properly and we noted that the properly should have development contract where it will list out
the conditions of approval and in that document it could be noted that these Surface Water
Management fees will be due and payable upon further subdivision because the development
contract will get recorded at the Counly against the properly. Third question.
Blackowiak: Condition of approval. Should itbe a condition of approval? Or will itbe
addressed in the development contract and would you be comfortable with that?
Hempel: We can certainly add it in the development contract when it goes to the City Council.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Peterson: Does that answer your question?
Blackowiak: Yes.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman. Question for stafl~ Under landscaping you're saying that the
reforestation required for the development is 77 trees but you feel comfortable with 20. Why was
20 selected? It's less than half the required trees.
Kirchofl5 Staff decided that 25% of that total would be appropriate since it is only one lot and
one home.
Sidney: Okay, is it simply because of lot size or what's the reason for that?
Kirchofl5 Basically because there's only one single family home that will be located on that 19
acre parcel.
Aanenson: The rest of it's going to be pasture. He will have horses up there. It's all okay. We
thought that was proportional to what he's going to use it for.
Peterson: Okay, other questions of staff'?
Kind: Kate mentioned that there was a ghosting for this plan. Does that mean that the 30 foot
setback would happen in the future? That the 50 would change to 30 later on?
Aanenson: Yes.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please
come forward please.
David Teich: Hello, I'm David Teich and I live in Shakopee at 1217 South Monroe. I've owned
the property now for 15 years. My family's owned it since 1867, and that's part of it. My intent
here tonight or with the application I made is to sell the property. The home to build and I'm
working with anybody I have to comply with any ordinances that Chanhassen has, and that's fine.
I don't have a problem with any of this. My only intent is to sell the property and having had this
property for sale for some time, not being able to sell all the property at once, subdivision was the
only way I could sell some of it. And the interested parties, we're agreed on a price and
everything's a go ahead. And I'm sure we can work together with anything you need. Other than
that, thank you.
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for public hearing please.
Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission,
please come forward. Seeing none, motion to close public hearing.
Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Your thoughts? You have no thoughts, may we have a motion?
Blackowiak: All right, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approve the preliminary plat request #99-4 SUB to subdivide a 19.68 acre parcel into a 7.68 acre
parcel and a 12 acre outlot as shown on the plans dated received May 4, 1999, subject to
conditions 1 and 3 through 8. With condition 2 being modified to read the applicant shall enter
into a development contract with the City establishing that no building eligibility remains for the
12 acre parcel until such time urban services are available.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Kind: Should the motion read 1 through 8 with 2 being amended?
Blackowiak: Six to one I think.
Kind: But you skipped 2.
Blackowiak: I said 1 through 8 and then 2. I reread the whole thing.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Kind: Okay. That's all right.
Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat request (99-4 SUB) to subdivide a 19.68 acre parcel
into a 7.68 acre parcel and a 12 acre outlot as shown on the plans dated received May 4,
1999, subject to the following conditions:
The proposed 7.68 acre parcel shall be shown in the form of a lot and block legal
description and the 12 acre parcel shall be shown as Outlot A on the preliminary plat with a
subdivision name acceptable to the City and Carver County.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City establishing that no
building eligibility remains for the 12 acre parcel until such thne urban services are
available.
Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing two approved septic site and
well locations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 30 foot wide right-of-way for Lakota Lane
along the southerly 30 feet of the property.
The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees according to city ordinance.
Two individual sewage treatment site (ISTS) must be located and shown on the site plan.
The sites must be evaluated by a licensed ISTS designer and must be submitted for approval
by the City.
Twenty trees will be required for reforestation. Five of the 20 must meet minimum
ordinance requirements (deciduous 2 1/2" diameter). The remaining 15 will be required to
meet a 4' or 3/4" diameter minimum and can be deciduous or evergreen. The deadline for
satisfying the reforestation requirement will be by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is
issued for the proposed home.
8. Park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Motion carries. This goes on to the council on the 28th of June. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW
SCREENED AND/OR ENCLOSED DECKS OR PATIOS, CHAPARRAL 2ND, 3RD, AND
4TM ADDITIONS, CIMARRON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Public Present:
Name
Address
Michael Quinn
Linda Kloman
Esther Eichelberger
Mary Ashley
7105 Pontiac Circle
1015 Pontiac Circle
1035 Pontiac Lane
7024 Pima Lane
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
Kind: Chairman I have one. Does the City have on record that the footings are strong enough to
support the heavier structure?
Kirchofl) That would be addressed at the time of building permit if they wanted to add on a
screened porch.
Aanenson: When we received requests for this there was two approaches taken. Let each one
come individually or obviously amend the PUD so when we could see it wasn't fitting we decided
it'd probably be more prudent to go ahead and amend the PUD. But each, we did receive some
questions from some of the homeowners in reviewing this. The homeowners association is the
applicant. They would be done a case by case basis. If someone wants to come in, they'd still
have to come in. Get a building permit. We would check the setbacks. The same process. What
we're doing is giving them relief from the ordinance requirements so they would still have to
come in and get a permit and all that so we would check that issue at the time of application.
Kind: It's not as simple as just putting a porch, or a roof and.
Peterson: Do we need to address the consistency of materials... I just got back from Florida...
townhouse down there, every other one has a different kind of screened in porch and/or windows.
Kirchofl) The homeowners association will be reviewing all the plans for the screened in porches
or patios before they apply for the building permit. To make sure that they're consistent with the
existing building materials and roof pitch, etc.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, come
forward please.
Conrad Schmidt: Conrad Schmidt, 7251 Pontiac Circle. I'm the Treasurer of the Cimarron
Homeowners Association. Our meeting in February, there were a number of people that came
because of number one, they wanted to, there was about nine homes or nine quads that were going
to be painted and of course they want to look at color schemes and things such as that. But in
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
addition to that we had a number of requests from people that would like to screen in or enclose
their porches and we said that'd be fine. Of course architecturally have to conform. We're also
going to lay down some guidelines too as well which of course would conform to your own
guidelines as according to your building code. And so subsequently we looked into this and there
was a number that came forward and requested this. We took it under advisement here at the last
meeting and then we also approached the, I think Cynthia. You're the other, with our plan and
they brought it to fruition and we want to thank them very much for helping us. Helping us out
with this. As to when this will begin of course, this will only begin of course on consent from you
from, as well as the city which of course after it had gone through the planning commission it will
go to the city I take it, is that the correct procedure? If there's any questions, I'd be willing to
answer them but that's pretty much sums up I think what, we very much welcome this and then
Herald for a number years and we finally felt it was time to make some movement on this...
Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward. State your name and address please. Seeing none.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Comments from commissioners.
Conrad: Chairman, it's a good request.
Joyce: Yeah, I think it's a good request too. I think what you said though about the conformity
of, because I've been Florida this year too and saw the same thing so, just throw that into the
record but I think it's a good point. But otherwise it's a good request.
Peterson: Motion please.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an
amendment to the development contract entitled "Planned Residential Development Contract Plat
for Chaparral and Chaparral 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additions" to allow screened patios and porches on
the four plexes with the conditions 1 through 3 as in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of
an amendment to the development contract entitled "Planned Residential Development
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Contract Plat of Chaparral and Chaparral 2na, 3ra and 4th Additions" to allow screened
patios and porches on the four plexes with the following conditions:
1. The screened patios and porches cannot extend from the building further than la feet.
2. The screened patios and porches much maintain a 20 foot front and rear yard setback.
3. The screened patios and porches may not exceed a la' x 20' dimension.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 11~095 SQ. FT. 1 ½ STORY RETAIL
SHOWROOM AND OFFICE BUILDING ON 0.627 ACRE OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 550 LAKE DRIVE IN THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PUD~ THE PEDDLER
CYCLERY~ VIGIL COMPANIES INC.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Can you point out exactly where in the Villages...
Generous: Here's Highway 5 to the north. This is tat. Market Boulevard and Lake Drive. It's
right south of the Americlnn site. If you go out there you'll see a pond area and a wetland area
adjacent to tat. Down in this comer here.
Peterson: It picks up this whole section.
Generous: Right, but most of this is storm water pond or wetland so it's very, the buildable area
is really on the end. And then this serves as a through road.
Peterson: Okay. Questions of stafl'?
Joyce: Condition number 4 was curious. I didn't think we'd have to do, ask for that but.
Generous: ... street furniture.
Peterson: It's funny but it's also, we were very specific as to what other types of things we're
allowing on the street but yet we just say bicycle racks. Yellow and blue polka dot .... feature in
front of the facility, should we not be more specific?
Aanenson: To match the architectural theme, is that what you're thinking? Sure.
Peterson: Other questions of staflk
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Kind: Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if staff could address the fire hydrant being turned off issue.
How would that affect the hotel and Houlihan's?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The watermain system through that area is what we call
looped so if you shut it off in one location, we still have a water supply coming in from the east or
from the west. What turning off the water does though, and turning it back on, it disrupts the rust
and particles in the mains and we get rusty water calls and we have to go out and flush the
watermains in the area and deal with those type of complaints so. If all possible we'd really like
for them to try and incorporate their patio features around and I know it's probably not the most
desirable to have in our patio but if there's a way they could affect that, then that would be
helpful.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Ed Vigil: I'm Ed Vigil. I live at 11191 Burr Ridge Lane, Eden Prairie. With regards to the
hydrant. We're looking at the situation. It is kind of a, it affects our design mainly because of the
patio. All I can say is that we'll look into the possibility of not having to deal with it. It is an
extra expense too because it's not just free to move a hydrant. But I can't tell you at this time if
it's going to be possible. However, if we decide to change it, is that a problem to flush the water
or whatever is necessary?
Hempel: It's just an added inconvenience and then relocating the hydrant. Additional grading out
in the wetlands and so forth. It's not the first time, put it that way.
Ed Vigil: Well it's for us is just an issue that we want to make sure that it looks right. That it's
appropriate because we do have to have the setbacks for the people within the hydrant, in terms of
the bikes that come in and the people that are going to be around it so it's something that we'll
have to weigh what's less inconvenient and what's best for the look, the City and the people that
are going to be around us.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Joyce: Can we take a closer look at the elevations there? Maybe some of the.
Aanenson: Do you want to pass this around?
Joyce: Yeah. And the materials.
Peterson: Any other questions of the applicant so we don't make him stand up for? All right,
thank you.
Ed Vigil: Thank you.
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Joyce moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none. Motion to close.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Comments.
Conrad: Great plan.
Burton: I think it's one of the nicest plans that I've seen since I've been on.
Blackowiak: Yeah I certainly agree. The only advice I'd have is when, condition 5 talks about
signs on two elevations. I wrote a note to myself, choose wisely because we've had some other
issues where people choose signs on one side of a building or another and then come back and
say, wait. We want it on this side so, just make sure you figure out where you want them but it
looks great. I think it's very well done and it will be a much needed addition to that area.
Peterson: One thing that just triggered when I saw the color rendering going around. It triggered
in my mind that the garage door, if anything looks atypical to the design, the garage door doesn't
seem to. I don't know what the design of that or the texture of that's going to be but it just seems
to be that we've got an extremely architecturally creative design and then you've got a traditional
garage door sticking in one side of it. Prominently.
Ed Vigil: IfI can add, we are working with, the garage itself will be, it appears to be here a
simple garage and they will not. It will be something, custom garage door...
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? I'll entertain a motion.
Blackowiak: Well I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#99-10, plans prepared by the Lampert Architects dated 4/30/99, for an 11,095 square foot 1 1/2
story retail, showroom and office building, Peddler Cyclery, subject to conditions 1 through 18
outlined in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion I'd just like to
close by saying I too like the design a lot. I think it's creative and will add a lot to that, not only
the whole Villages on the Pond but certainly that comer. Nice design.
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan #99-10, plans prepared by Lampert Architects dated 4/30/99 for an
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
11,095 square foot 1 ½ story retail, showroom and office building, The Peddler Cyclery,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Site plan approval is contingent upon the site receiving final plat approval and recording of the
subdivision.
3. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Villages on the
Ponds.
4. The developer shall provide bicycle racks.
5. Provided that signage is only proposed on two building elevations, the applicant may choose
which two elevations will have signage. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Three decorative, pedestrian scale lights must be installed along the sidewalk from Lake Drive
to Pond Promenade. The lighting fixtures shall be designed to provide a 90 degree lighting
cut-ofl~
Fencing adjacent to the storm water pond and wetlands shall be decorative and compatible
with fencing provided elsewhere in the Villages on the Ponds. The applicant shall work with
staff to provide options for decorative fencing around the retaining walls.
8. Two accessible parking spaces will be required for the thirty-four spaces that are provided.
The spaces must be located near the main entrance.
9. Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (post indicator valve). Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be
quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-
1.
11. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy
enclosed.
12. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
13. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant
to city ordinance.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
14. All
15. All
16.
landscaping in planting holes near the building shall be irrigated.
trees in planting holes near the building shall be protected by tree grates.
The grading plan shall be revised as follows:
Denote a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the plans along the north/south street and
eliminate the retaining wall fence and re-grade the pond slopes.
Provide sufficient cover around relocated hydrant with a minimum of 7.5 foot bury depth.
Revise elevation of storm sewer outlet to 940.0 (normal water elevation).
Provide erosion control measures to encompass the north, west and south sides of the site
and protect existing storm sewer inlets. Construction access shall be from the east side of
the properly and not Lake Drive.
Show existing catch basin in the northeast comer of Lake Drive and north/south street.
Provide valley gutter through proposed drive aisle access onto north/south street. Leave
openings in curb for drainage through proposed median to maintain drainage along the
north/south street.
Clarify responsibility for removal of existing bituminous sidewalk/trail along Lake Drive
and installation of 6-foot wide concrete walk in accordance with Villages on the Ponds
hardscape plan.
Show location of relocated street light and street sign.
17. All disturbed areas as a result of construction activity shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks completion in accordance
with the City Best Management Practice Handbook.
18. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for relocation of the
hydrant and installation of storm sewer from the City's Building Department. The applicant
shall give a minimum 48-hour notice to the City to request turn-off or turn-on of City water
for relocation of the hydrant."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 3 STORY 54 UNIT APARTMENT
BUILDINGS (162 TOTAL UNITS) ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
MIXED USE AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 101 AT MAIN STREET
IN VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT~ THE
SHELARD GROUP~ INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Willmsen
Kyle Tidstrom
Gene Klein
Tammy Harris
Jim Jacoby
Jim Amundson
Kathy Holtmeier
Barbara & John S. Jacoby
A1 & Mary Jane Klingelhulz
Milton Bathke
85 t0 Great Plains Blvd.
8679 Chanhassen Hills Drive
8412 Great Plains Blvd.
8408 Great Plains Blvd.
8410 Great Plains Blvd.
8500 Great Plains Blvd.
8524 Great Plains Blvd.
8516 Great Plains Blvd.
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
8404 Great Plains Blvd.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff2
Conrad: What are the heights of the buildings Bob?
Generous: To the top of the parapet?
Conrad: If our standard is 50 in that zone. What... ?
Generous: Yeah, they would be close to the 50 to the middle of the roof. You look at the garage
elevation and add a 4 story to it. We were permitted, as part of the design standards we permitted
that. So it's around 45.
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, this is to Bob. Can you talk a little bit about Highway tOt. And
the upgrade plan and how it fits in and what's going to happen with traffic.
Generous: I think I'd defer to Dave ifI could.
Hempel: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. The latest and greatest we've
heard. Highway tOt is still under jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation or
MnDOT as we call them. It is eventually going to be turned back over to Carver County
Highway Department and they, in a joint effort with the City of Chanhassen, will be upgrading
tOt to a four lane segment down to proposed 212 at some future time between Highway 5 and
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
down to 212. The time line that I guess we're hearing now is a 4 to 5 year period before that
happens. Before the tumback and tumback funds are available to do that. The traffic. A traffic
study was prepared for the Villages on the Ponds which did not indicate full upgrading of 101 all
the way down to that level. All the way down to the 212 but they did recommend mitigation
measures to help ofl~et and alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the intersections of Highway
5, Market Boulevard and Great Plains and Highway 5. Some of the improvements at Great Plains
and Highway 5 have been completed with the initial phase of Villages on the Ponds. With this
proposal before us there was really no mention of mitigation measures along Highway 101 with
this development. Staff has indicated in the staff report that we'd like for the applicant to revisit
that area now that all three apartment buildings will be accessing one singular access point across
the main street at Highway 101. The preliminary plat for Villages on the Pond indicated two
building, two apartment building units to be accessing here with the third or the northerly building
being accessed through the Rosemount driveway across from Lake Drive at Highway 101. That
location there, the traffic study indicated that a future traffic light may be warranted with full
development of Villages on the Pond. We are, or we have required the developer escrow a share
of the cost for future traffic signals at that location. With this submittal here the only requirement
that we see at this point is a right turn lane into the site on southbound Highway 101. We are
cognizant of sight line problems along Highway 101. Speeding vehicles and so forth. A speed
study was done here approximately a year ago by MnDOT and speeds did range, it was a wide
variety of speeds along there. The conclusion was though the 40 mph posting was adequate or
was appropriate given the 85% percentile of cars that drive that road. One of the things that will
occur to help improve sight lines with this project is construction of the regional storm water pond
south of the buildings along and adjacent to the creek there out to existing Highway 101. All
those trees that are in there would be removed and it would improve sight lines for the first home
to the south of this site. But again we did have a condition in the staff report that the applicant
revisit the traffic issues with this development to see what mitigation measures may be required
with this site development. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a couple more questions related to traffic so maybe I'll address
them to you Dave. Second thing. Doesn't the fire department normally want two entrances to a
neighborhood per se. We've got a lot of units here with a single entrance and I don't see any
mention of that at all.
Hempel: Typically yes. We would like to have emergency secondary access whenever feasible
but given the terrain of the site, the elevation difference, and the building layout, that wasn't really
feasible. There's a pretty good access into the site with a loop parking lot area.
Aanenson: Plus the buildings will be sprinklered and there's close proximity to 101 so that was
all taken into consideration.
Blackowiak: Okay. And my final question has to do with the trail. I've heard rumors that with
the upgrade of Highway 101 that there's going to be an underpass there for the trail connection.
Is that true?
Aanenson: With the upgrade of 101.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Blackowiak: So again we're talking then the upgrade of 101, tumback in 4 to 5 years and then
when would construction be? Would it at 4 to 5 years or are you talking after that?
Hempel: The construction that we're hearing would be a 4 to 5 year time table from now. The
tumback should occur within the next year maybe.
Blackowiak: Okay, and you're comfortable with the crosswalk? I mean I cross that area fairly
often and I will not let my kids go near there without me. It's treacherous at best. And I'm
wondering about adding a lot of people and again, we have a real bad area and the crosswalk, is
there anything we can do to upgrade the crosswalk now or can we do the underpass now or
what's? What are our options?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can further research that with MnDOT to see if there's other
measures that can be done. As far as the underpass, at this time I would say no. Because it
requires the elevation of 101 to be elevated I think another couple of feet is the final design or the
preliminary design for new 101. To be elevated up another couple of feet to provide enough
elevation difference to have the underpass for the trail.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: We can do another pedestrian bridge. Let's not go there. Other questions of staff'?
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have a question or two. On the landscaping, I was wondering if staff
could discuss the replanting requirements or the planting requirements to get to the ordinance
requirements. I was looking at the conditions and it talks about overstory trees and then they have
to submit a revised landscape plan. I'm wondering if you can just talk about how you got to those
conditions and where we're at with all that.
Generous: Mr. Chairman. They're meeting with the City Forester tomorrow to review that. To
have their landscape person and our landscape person to come together. The way we get it is by
ordinance. It tells us based on their tree removal plans. How much they have to put in and... So
yeah, that's something we'll work out at the staff level with them. We know the numbers. It's
just the location of things and that's what they'll work with Jill on. In addition with the sewer
alignment we're going to get additional trees down on the Lake Susan side. That's something that
we probably, as part of the tree preservation ordinance, what we tried to do is extend preserved
treed areas so that we create a habitat area with these newer trees.
Burton: When I look at that chart that you put in the report, just for example, it says, it looks to
me like it's required to have say 45 shrubs and they have no shrubs. I mean are those things that
are considered or.
Generous: Right. And that's in the buff'er yard requirement. However there are shrubs in there.
That's a mistake. They showed lots of shrubs and we'll review that again.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Burton: All right. Another question I had was on establishing the new wetlands and it says how
either the developer of Villages or that this site developer has to take care of that and I'm
wondering if we just leave it like that, who determines if they don't, if one of them doesn't go
forward. How do you ever determine who's going to have to do it and by when?
Generous: We should be able to work that by the time of final platting, which is really where the
condition will stick. It was part of the overall PUD determined that we needed this and so that's
where it really belongs. The developer, I assume that the developer of the apartment buildings
will do it and be reimbursed by the owners.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Mr. Chairman. I have a question about parking. Required is 324 and what's proposed is
302. I wonder if staff could speak to that.
Generous: We reviewed their calculations. I think this is one that the applicant would be more
appropriate addressing because it's the market project for them so they need to provide something
that will work. Based on my analysis we reduced the number of parking spaces for one
bedrooms. It's 1.7 parking stalls per one bedroom unit and 2 parking stalls for two bedroom units
so we think that the numbers probably will work. In addition this is, we have the transit facility,
or it will be available for this project over in Villages and that was part of the whole intent to
provide this transit oriented development. But the specific question should be addressed by the
developer. Otherwise we can go in and tear out more trees and provide it.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Chairman I have one more question. Regarding the affordability units. The 20% that
stafl's recommending. Is that something that needs to be checked out with City Council or it's
just sufficient being in the staff report that way or how does that work?
Aanenson: This was a goal that was put into the PUD that is a part of this project. We wanted to
try to make some of the goals of the Livable Communities Act. Obviously it's our objective to
get as high as we can and we had looked at 35%. There needs to be some participation by the city
and the EDA is looking at that but right now I think we've agreed that 35% is not achievable for
this project to go forward. But at this point we're recommending at least 20%. We went for a
grant based on getting affordable housing. It has to have some affordable housing to make it go
forward. We're anticipating that we will still have additional affordable housing on the other side
of 101 as a part of that project.
Kind: Is that that new law that was just passed?
Aanenson: Well the Livable Communities Act is what we signed on for and we're trying to do
our due diligence and this is an area because we're in close proximity to downtown and we've got
the other services there, that this would be the opportunity to put it in this location.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'll take off on that question and that answer. So how do we encourage
affordable housing in that project? How does that work Kate?
Aanenson: Well, Bob and I spent the last two months and so has the EDA trying to work through
those issues. So has the applicant. It's really tough based on land costs, construction costs, and
trying to get market rate rents and how you make that work. Try to get it to market rent and then
go beyond that to subsidize it. It's a very complex issue. 20% is the highest we can go unless
there's some other funding sources available..where we're at. Trying to do a housing district and
that's what we're going forward with. That's the best we can get based on again, construction
costs, land costs. Getting a rate of return.
Joyce: Is there a contract set up? I mean I think that's what everyone's asking. How are we
assured that these rates.
Aanenson: Yes. Yes. They're working with the EDA. Yes, putting together the housing district,
yes.
Joyce: Do they come once a year and, I'm assuming you have a 25 year. So I think it's set so
that there's, you have the Livable Communities Act has some sort of, every year it goes up I
assume with inflation and that. The rents or whatever and it's pegged against that and you've
checked that once a year or something.
Aanenson: Correct. Looking at the life of the district and yes. There's a check and balance.
Joyce: Was that your question?
Kind: Yes.
Joyce: I thought so.
Generous: They would actually have two contracts. One would be the site plan agreement and
the second one would be any redevelopment agreement with the EDA.
Conrad: One more question Mr. Chairman, or at least one. The existing vegetation on the lake
side. Talk to me about the screening on the lake side for the residents before they do.
Generous: This is Lake Susan. I think these two areas are blufl~ as defined by ordinance so no
vegetation... And then as part of their.., so all these trees... Behind that we'll get additional
landscaping. Our intention is to fill in any.., that are created as part of the grading of the site with
the new plants... They do have the storm water pond here.., traditional over story trees, we look at
putting in this area also. They will see the building from here.
Conrad: How high will the existing vegetation? How much will it cover? How much will it
screen in terms of elevation against the 50 foot setback or 50 foot building elevation.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Generous: At least haiti maybe two-thirds.
Conrad: The storm water pond, today that's all vegetation?
Generous: Correct.
Conrad: It's pretty much scrub vegetation there?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: But it's not very high quality.
Aanenson: No.
Generous: Neither on the, the site doesn't have. You don't have oaks savannahs.., you have the
softer woods.
Conrad: So that pond, we're removing all the vegetation in order to build that pond. That's a
smart way to build a pond?
Generous: That's the only way to build it. It's the low point for the entire development.
Aanenson: Upside of the creek.
Generous: And it has to be big enough to handle everything. And this.
Conrad: Have to take down all the trees for buffering as much as I can.
Generous: There should be some left along the lakeshore because they don't grade all the way to
the lake. Their separation. That's also an area that we can look at additional landscaping if it
tums out to be a big issue. We've made them relocate the discharge pipe from the storm water
pond. Initially they had planned that into Lake Susan and so they're revising that to go into Riley
Creek. So you won't have that area being revegetated.
Conrad: So really are we exposing the homeowners to Highway 101 as we take down that
vegetation?
Aanenson: There's two approaches to that. Number one, you're improving the sight line for one I
think which is, and we can go back and relandscape it. So you're looking at noise continuation, is
that kind of what you're saying? Yeah, yeah. I think that's something we can certainly look at.
The pond needs to go there. We always said as far as the environmental assessment, but what I
hear you saying is you're concerned about what's that going to do for what they're seeing. We
can look at that.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Conrad: Right, seeing and hearing. I don't think we're protecting any trees that are, you know
I'm not too worried about cutting down the trees. They're there. I've looked at them. I've
Rollerbladed by them. Alison's right in terms of that intersection. On Rollerblades that's just
awful trying to get across so I don't do that anymore. But I don't know that we have a real good
solution to that but I think we can have some solutions in terms of some screening there.
Something. I think ifI were a lake homeowner there I'd...
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I've got just one more question. Can you talk to us a little bit about the
changes on condition 39. Why they were made. Specifically is it going to be more tree loss?
And if so, why are we doing it? Convince me that it's the best thing that we should be doing
there.
Generous: Well there might be a little bit more tree loss. I don't think it's.., a lot of it. They
haven't expanded their grading limits very much with that change. They just cut through a comer
of the, actually it's the bluff impact zone. Not the.., that they're going through this. It's, I think
what they're looking at a 30 foot wide swath area and only half of that was not devegetated.
Aanenson: Do you understand where it is?
Blackowiak: Well I'm assuming it's kind of on the south end of Building C. Maybe show us on
the.
Generous: On the original plans. This third line runs down here. That's where they're proposing
part of their... Their grading plans originally.., don't have the specific location of the trees in
relationship to that. You could have canopy that over reaches that some.
Blackowiak: Okay, and now wasn't it going to be on the other side before?
Generous: No. The condition that we had in there would make them put it all...highway. At one
time they looked at having it connect over on the west side. That's not feasible with the
topography and the site layout because the buildings are in the way. They would have to come
into this bluff area. They'd lose more trees then... We felt this was an acceptable area... It's open
down at the bottom already along the sewer alignment. There is the metropolitan... It's just a little
triangle piece...
Blackowiak: So what happens to the bluff then in that spot? Just grade it away and we don't
care?
Generous: ... this is going to drop down significantly...
Hempel: The grades would be restored back to original elevations through there.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Blackowiak: Okay, and you feel that that's the better alternative then going back between the
building? It's an acceptable alternative?
Hempel: The other way is much more expensive having to tunnel underneath Highway tat. That
was originally how it was proposed to be served with the preliminary utility plan for Villages on
the Pond.
Blackowiak: Okay, why there? I mean just.
Hempel: They're already creating the disturbance with the watermain being extended underneath
tat. Eventually the storm sewer will be extended underneath tat in that location as well so it
was just economically it was more feasible to extend all three utilities at the same time than one
and then come back and do another later. This option here will be much more economical for the
applicant and much more feasible given the proximity of the buildings than having to mn it up the
drive aisle and then branch off to the building site.
Blackowiak: But they're going to be going under the highway anyway for the water, is that
correct?
Hempel: That's correct.
Blackowiak: So why are we going off in another direction totally?
Hempel: Well as Bob mentioned, the grading. The grading for the building and the site already
will reduce the amount of canopy coverage from that comer and they could realign the sewer
outside of the, or realign the sewer so it's within the grading that they're already doing and then
not have to take down any more trees as well. That's an option too.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: I have one more Mr. Chairman. The lighting that would be visible to the surrounding
neighbors in the area to the south. Would you describe what they might be.
Generous: Well they have to do the 90 degree cutoff lighting for their parking lot area.
Conrad: It could be screened. The parking lot area would be screened.
Generous: Right, so the only openings they have is really on the driveway. They can get some
through the trees in the winter. They'll see the lights from the windows and the general glow of
the parking area. It's not heavily lighted.
Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more crosswalk question. Alison and Ladd spoke to the
treacherousness of the trail crossing. I am wondering with the vision that this apartment complex
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
is a part of Villages on the Pond. Folks wanting to get over to Villages on the Pond. They're not
going to go down the trail connection to get back up to Villages. Should there be a crosswalk at
Main Street? And if so, would that be just as treacherous as the trail connection?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I would strongly, would not recommend additional
crosswalks at that location of Main Street given the close proximity of another crosswalk.
Eventually there may be a crosswalk with the traffic signals at Lake Drive and 101 in the future.
There is a trail along the west side of 101 from this site that takes you up to Rosemount. In that
area. That would be more of an appropriate location for a crosswalk.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions? Kate, my theme in the last few meetings I think I would prior to
going to council again recommend that they do some color renderings and exterior renderings of
the building be actually finished. It's difficult for me to really get a good clear sense of what the
building feel was like. I know it was bullet pointed. How'd you get that?
Kind: It just came this way.
Blackowiak: I thought it was mine. I hogged it.
Peterson: But I think give that in the same packet to council would be very helpful. I assume it
would be helpful. With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission. If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Greg Hollingkamp: Hi, my name's Greg Hollingkamp. I'm with KKE Architects and we can
give you a little bit of a presentation on the development and then answer some of your questions
about the exterior and some of the other questions you had earlier here. First off on the site plan,
if you can put this on the screen I'll point out a couple things. The site plan, well it's pretty
straight forward but a couple things that you had questioned on the required parking. We show
302 cars and if you use that ratio that Bob talked about of the 1.7 cars per one bedroom unit and 2
cars per two bedroom unit, that would calculate out to 300 cars and what we're showing is 302
cars. The Fire Marshal had looked at the plan and had recommended through in this area that we
increase the turning radius and that would eliminate 2 or I think it was 3 cars so we're basically in
the same range as what we had talked about. On the wetland there was a question on the wetland.
We need to increase the wetland by 3.7 acres or mitigate the wetland..37 acres. And currently
there's a wetland on the north portion of the site, over in this area and there's also a wetland that
occurs down in this area where the pond will be in the future. And when we look at that, just one
thing we need to work with you on at the city. If we add .37 acres of wetland up in here it would
basically take away all the woods on that part of the site and it might be a little odd to destroy the
woods to put in wetlands so I think when we look at that, we may want to look at the ponding
area that's going to be developed and look at mitigating wetland around that pond. I think that
might be a more natural environment for that but we can work with staff on that. Also on the
entry to the development. We'd like to have you consider allowing us to put in a median in this
location. We'd like to have a little nicer entry where the turn lane coming in and the turn lanes
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
going out would be split by a landscape entry. When we looked at that early on with staff they
had suggested maybe we eliminate that and I think it maybe had to do more with turning
movements for emergency vehicles but we feel there's enough room there to accommodate both
so we'd like you to consider that. On the lighting, as far as lighting from the neighbors to the
south. Again, all of that should be pretty well screened because we will have the buff'er of the
blufl~ here that Bob was talking about. We will have some wallpak lighting on the building but it
will be limited to the garage entries which are on the ends of the building here. And those have to
be shielded and that's again away from the residential area. The remainder of the lighting through
the development and the parking lot would be a decorative type light that would fit in with the
Village on the Ponds theme. And then also when you were asking about the view to the
development and what the neighbors would see. One of the things we did when we laid out the
development, again if you consider the trees in this area, that's going to screen out a fair amount
of this development to begin with because it can't touch the blufl~. And then this building will be
seen but the building's been turned sideways so really all you're looking at is the narrow view of
that building as opposed to a long view of a building so we tried to minimize any impact there. I
also think that when we look at the landscaping closer with stafl~ when we add more overstory
trees, we may want to look at this area in here. Add additional trees to create that buff'er,
especially at the pond to reduce the amount of trees in this area. On the exterior of the building,
we brought along some renderings and then also a sample board. And let's see here. You won't
be able to see the colors. I can hand this to you here, but essentially what we've got is at each
entry of the building, this would be a typical entry. We picked up on more of the traditional, old
world flavor and then we've introduced a stone which you see here that will be an accent and nice
warm colors to accentuate the entry area. The base material around the entire building is a
textured rock face block that you see here. Again, I'll hand these to you so you can see them a
little closer. Then you can see the roof. It's a heavier shingle style roof. Has a little bit of
shadow to it with, you know staying with the brown tones. And then we have a mix of composite
siding and shakes. The shakes are used in the bay areas again to give a little older world flavor to
it. We also have mixed in balconies in some units. Bay windows in some units. Optional
fireplaces in some units so that you'll have the chimneys breaking up the roof line as well. And
the roof line has a fairly steep pitch to it because we want that old world flavor to kind of carry
through there as well. This, maybe you can see it a little bit better here. These are the colors of
the material. I think a nice blend with color. And I think with that we'll just answer any questions
you have.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Kind: I noticed you spoke of composite. On the plan it talks of vinyl or composite material for
the boarding and the shake. Can you speak to what you're preferring and why?
Greg Hollingkamp: Well, what we're doing right now, frankly we're pricing out the entire
project and we can do a lot with vinyl siding. There are some good products out there now and
it's a nice product. Low maintenance. That would be a preference to go with a vinyl siding.
When you get into the shakes, typically those are cedar shakes and so we'd have a blend of the
two materials.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Kind: My concern is the composite. My experience is that that is not a great long term material
and I'm hearing you agree with that.
Greg Hollingkamp: That's correct.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a question. Talked about the affordable units and we're looking at
20%. Do you plan to spread that 20% out among the buildings or are you going to concentrate it
all in one building? What's your thought on that?
Greg Hollingkamp: Well I think the idea has been to spread that out and Shel Wert can speak to
that.
Sheldon Wert: Hi. My name is Sheldon Wert. I'm the developer of the property. And the units
are going to be spread throughout the buildings. It won't be in one particular area. The affordable
income units are all being built in the same fashion that all of the other units. There's no physical
difference in them. And we have them in our proformas spread out through the entire rental
scheme.
Kind: I have another question. Could the applicant speak to the parking issue? Do you think that
1.7 is adequate for the one bedroom units? What if they have company over? How does that all
work?
Sheldon Wert: Yes, it should be adequate. Number of communities that we do apartments in
actually go down to 1.5 per unit which would be 162 units. It would be 240 some cars. In that
range so we're in excess of that already. One of the big driving factors for us is to make sure we
have one car parking underground for each unit and that's driven primarily by the market and this
achieves that and then we supplement it with the on grade parking.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: One more question for the applicant. You mentioned optional chimneys. What are the
materials that the chimneys would be made of? Is it galvanized?
Greg Hollingkamp: Actually it'd be optional fireplaces. And then the chimneys would go with
that. We haven't picked out a material for the chimneys.
Sidney: Blend in color I presume and everything like that. Okay.
Peterson: Other questions? Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion and a second for a public
hearing please.
Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Jim Amundson: My name's Jim Amundson, 8500 Great Plains Boulevard. I'm concerned about,
from what I see tonight, the holding pond on the south end. Is that going to be completely, is 101
going to be right to the lake then? There's going to be the road, the pond, the lake.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that.
Jim Amundson: The way it looks, we're clearing all those trees out to the creek.
Hempel: The location of the ponding. Existing Highway 101. Future Highway 101. The
corridor through here will be expanded for additional... There's also going to be a holding pond
south of the creek...
Jim Amundson: My concern on that is, I mean that's all trees in there. It's the best, I shouldn't
tell anybody, best fishing spot. And it's all trees and.., and now we're going to tear that down and
build a holding pond which will show 101. Increase our noise levels with cars going through
there and I think as you know 101 is crazy. And when we're looking at this concept, we look at
101 and Market. I live south. That traffic horrendous right now. We always think of that
intersection but we put a crosswalk there for the new trail system and you see people
Rollerblading and running. Literally running with their kids across that street. So from what I see
tonight I think there's a lot of questions to this thing and I don't see how anything can be passed
and sent on to anywhere so I hope you take that in consideration. The properly owners there and
what we go through. I mean that's a beautiful lake and to start clear cutting some of that and
putting in holding ponds, increasing noise, it just destroys the lake.
Peterson: Thank you.
Kathy Holtmeier: I'm Kathy Holtmeier. I live at 8524 Great Plains Boulevard. When I was
listening to this I wrote down four concerns that I had. Number one's with the height of the
apartment buildings. When this was developed before and the city owned the lake properly
around, most of the lake, we had talked about keeping the height of the properties so that the
residents around the lake could not see it. So like right across the lake everything is tree lined.
This sounds as if it's going to be higher than that and I'm concerned that that will, the apartment
buildings will be kind of in our face if you want to say that. The second concern I have was the
sewer that you had mentioned. If they have access to the sewer the way they talked about, they
are going to really be ripping up that part of the lake rather than, and it seems like it would be to
save the applicant money, even though that may not be the best solution for the lake itself. The
third one I had was just the same thing. The amount of traffic that this would generate when we
already know that it's a problem and there doesn't seem to be any kind of solution for that. And
the third I was wondering, we hadn't discussed what kind of lake access this apartment complex
would have. I noticed on page 12, number 7 they talked about development of a beach lot. And
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
my understanding was we already have a public access on the lake with the public, now we have a
public beach. And that that should be sufficient.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Jim Jacoby: My name's Jim Jacoby, 8410 Great Plains Boulevard. I had a couple things and
some I would like to reiterate everything else I've heard from the public. I think those are all
good issues. Another thing I think with the holding pond today, when it rains really hard, that
water's flowing over 101 today even so I don't know how when you get more collection of water
with more asphalt and more mnofl~ it's just going to get worse. I mean we've had a lot of trouble
with the development across the street and the amount of runoff that's now going into the lake and
coming across and how much I have on occasion seen the water going over 101 when it rains hard
so I haven't seen that addressed at all in any of these plans because that culvert they put in when
they redid that 101 there is not sufficient upon a heavy rain day to compensate for the water. And
you know, and I think just everything else. What's the other thing? And also you know like you
talked about parking. If the city has requirements on parking, you told the other people that came
today that they can amend their plans. Well, I heard a kind of flip comment saying well we can
get rid of more trees. Well you can get rid of more units. There's more than one way to solve a
problem so I'll throw that out there that those are my comments, thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Kyle Tidstrom: Hi, Kyle Tidstrom, 8679 Chanhassen Hills and I'd reiterate all that's already
been said. But in addition, when they talk about well we'll take a few trees down there but then
we'll plant some more trees in. Some of those trees may be those big cottonwoods that have all
the canopy down there. And if you cut down a 50 or 60 foot tree, I haven't seen anybody planting
trees that size yet. You've got a 50 foot building and you're going to landscape. At best you're
putting in 15 to 18 foot trees and you put those in and they aren't going to grow for a while.
We're not going to see any canopy or shade or sight line improvement from landscaping while
I'm alive. Maybe while my grand kids are. If you cut that sewer line down there, my
calculations are if the peak of that lot is listed here as 969 feet and the lake is 881, and the sewer
runs below the level of the lake, you're talking about maybe a 100 foot down to get that. You've
got to have a column cut 200 feet wide to get down 100 feet without collapsing and killing those
people putting that sewer down. So it might be a small comer that it runs through when all is said
and done for the pipe but in order to get that pipe down to that length, you're going to have a real
wide aisle cut through there or you're going to risk burying these guys that are putting that pipe
in. And in addition I heard this issue on the beach lot to the dock and I can't talk to the history of
this thing but I think somewhere in the minutes of when Rosemount was developed, when the trail
was developed, when Lake Susan Hills was developed, there must be somewhere in the minutes
there that there's some belief that that existing public access, which is extremely active if you
spend any time around that lake, was providing adequate access and that to me is a big issue as far
as safety on the lake. When you get on there on a weekend, we don't even let our kids on there
because it's already active to the point with that public access that you get more than two boats on
a lake that size, it becomes unsafe. So I think that hits all the issues that I had written on. Other
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
than you said that the zoning for that area was already talked about but is there an overall density
zoning ordinance in town for high density housing?
Aanenson: The entire city has a future land use. There is guiding for different zonings throughout
the community. This was given a PUD zoning as Bob indicated in the item before. An
Environmental Assessment document was done for the entire Villages on the Pond, including how
we're going to handle storm water, tree removal and zoning and specific land use. This area was
guided for higher density and given a total number of units on the site. Which it is consistent with.
Peterson: While you're talking you want to address the beach lot issue also.
Aanenson: Beach lot is a separate permit. They'd have to come back in and get a beach lot
application. It would have to meet the criteria. But they'd have to go through another public
hearing and a process to get that.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, I did a quick review of that based on the ordinance. They have 770
feet of lake frontage. By ordinance they would be permitted up to 3 docks. 9 mooring sites.
Aanenson: They have to have so many dedicated acreage though. I'm not sure they've got that.
They've got to have so many acreage on the lake also. Dedicated for the beach lot. I'm not sure
they meet that criteria. I haven't looked at that, but it is a separate process.
Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Barbara Jacoby: I'm Barbara Jacoby, 8516 Great Plains. You mentioned that you're going to put
322 units across 101. Did you not say that tonight?
Generous: As part of the entire development, up to 322 dwelling units were approved.
Barbara Jacoby: For both sides?
Generous: Total, yes.
Barbara Jacoby: Oh okay. I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
Gene Klein: My name is Gene Klein, 8412 Great Plains Boulevard. I just had a question on the
trail that's existing there now. Is that not a city trail? City parkland?
Aanenson: No.
Gene Klein: How can you put a beach lot in front of, on city parkland?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, it's actually a trail easement 20 foot wide over the property. We do not
own the property. We have the right for a trail across the property only.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Gene Klein: That was my question.
Peterson: Thank you.
Tammy Harris: Hi. Tammy Harris, 8408 Great Plains Boulevard. I support all of the opinions
shared by the others of my neighbors here in this room. Some of my concerns, actually my
primary one deals with the traffic on tat. tat is an extremely unsafe road. And I also have a
question for you Dave. The MnDOT study that you had mentioned earlier. Were the conclusions
of that that 85% of the drivers on tat are driving the speed limit? Because you threw out a 85
percent figure and I invite all of you to my home someday and we'll sit on the lawn and gauge
that. I just have a really hard time believing that. And I would urge the commission not to even
consider this project until the results of an updated traffic impact study are completed. Also I'm
concerned about tree preservation in the area. I find it kind of ironic that the plans are showing the
removal of all these trees and they're talking about well let's tear them down but when we're done
we'll relandscape and put trees back in. Why don't we just leave the existing trees there?
Peterson: Thank you.
A1 Klingelhu~z: A1 Klingelhu~z, 8600 Great Plains Boulevard. I guess a big concern to a lot of
people on the lake is the use of the lake. When the public access was put in, Rosemount
Engineering came in the subdivision west of the lake. It was agreed that there would be no more
dockage on the lake. How many boats do they expect to put on these docks? On this dock off
the lake. A big question. Has there ever been a study done to show how many boats at one time
can be used on the lake? We heard before on weekends, and I live on the lake, and I won't even
go out fishing on the lake. All I've got is a pontoon. But the one end is up as high as your desk
there and the other end is down here. With all the waves on the lake at the present time and if we
get any more boats on there, we won't even have a shoreline left because it's going to wash it all
out. It's only a 90 acre lake and to expect to put much more on it, and I think it was agreed at the
time and I'm sure it was. When Lake Susan Hills came in, they all had to stay back from the
lake. They were above the bluff2 Went into the open fields. No trees were removed. We had all
the big oak trees and all the trees that were there previously. That is the buff'er. Even from my
place and I'm not far from Lake Susan Hills, I can barely see any houses in the whole subdivision
because of all the original trees. I think Rosemount Engineering, that came in when I was Mayor
of Chanhassen. We made them stay above the tree line with their building and that's 300 feet
away from the lake. In the summertime when the trees are leafed out you can hardly see it. In the
wintertime through the trees without any leaves, you can see Rosemount Engineering. 50 foot
building. Somewhere in the ordinance, unless it was changed, we've got a 40 foot height limit in
the city of Chanhassen. And I can remember that distinctly when, I don't know ifI was on the
council or Mayor at the time, but some people wanted to even make it lower. I said well you
can't do it because the farmer's silos are all over 40 feet. So they put in this limit of 4a feet. I
can't quite understand how things can change when the policy has been established on a lake. If
there wouldn't have been any homes on Lake Susan, no one would have had access to the lake.
It'd be just like Lake Ann. Lake Ann has no access on the lake. Now you want to get more
people and 152 units, possibly 350 people with the kids or more, to be able to use that lake with a
dock and they have every right to have a boat and go onto public access. So I definitely would be
35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
against any dockage for this many units on the lake. If you put homes on a, single family homes
along the lake, how many homes would you get? You've got 387 feet and you take 90 to 100
feet for each home. You'd have about 38 homes. Here you're looking at 162 homes. That's
quite a difference. Just where is the open space on this? Can you show me in the map? The
open space on this property. So it's along the side of the lake. You get down to the south end of
the lake where the creek runs. Are you going to put a ponding area on the south side of the
creek?
Aanenson: When 101 gets realigned, correct.
A1 Klingelhulz: I don't know, after all the rains we've had, you have a ponding area there
already because it was all water almost up to Armstrong's house. Was there any consideration on
the traffic problem on 101 after new 212 starts dumping traffic onto it? Plus the fact that there's a
lot of area south of Highway 212. Hundreds of acres yet that have got potential housing
developments on it. Has that been figured into the study on traffic on Highway 1017
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I believe it has been addressed. Pre-212 and Post-212 development
conditions.
Peterson: Chances it will go four lane.., so the road will be upgraded substantially prior to 212.
A1 Klingelhulz: I know the road will be upgraded. There's already a 200 foot alignment with
two lanes on each side with a center island. How much will 101 be raised where the crosswalk
goes underneath?
(There was a tape change during Dave Hempel's answer to A1 Klingelhulz' question.)
A1 Klingelhulz: ... That underground trail, you say the trail only has to be raised 4 to 6 feet or 2
feet? Are the people going to crawl through it? I mean most people are between 5 and 6 feet tall
and you want them to be able to walk through it. The road isn't raised anyplace there at the
present time that I know of.
Hempel: No it's not Mr. Chairman. It's very similar to the Powers Boulevard trail south of
Highway 5. Similar street design I believe and that trail crossing.
Aanenson: Or the one at Coulter.
Hempel: Or the one at Coulter.
Aanenson: ... structure that's under grade. Have them other places in the city.
Peterson: Gradual descent with a path going down. Winding around.
A1 Klingelhulz: The new trail doesn't show on this map.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Aanenson: Not yet.
A1 Klingelhulz: ...
Aanenson: 101's on this side.
A1 Klingelhulz: ... How about the lighting? Is there going to be as much lighting as they made St.
Hubert's put up? Sometimes I look at that as light pollution, not as something that's really pretly
to look at.
Peterson: Bob, do you want to address the lighting issue?
A1 Klingelhulz: What?
Peterson: I'm asking Bob to address the lighting question.
Generous: Where do you start? It was in St. Hubert's proposal for security purposes. They
recommended that lighting. We don't believe that this site will have as much lighting. Their
parking area is very limited. The buildings will frame the lighting if you will, or will corral it all
so it's concentrated in the center of their project. As development in the Villages on the Pond
comes forward, a lot of this spillover lighting will be eliminated. Unfortunately it's vacant now
and so you can see it for miles.
Aanenson: Also we've changed our ordinance to require the cutoff lighting since that has been
approved so...
A1 Klingelhulz: ... every time I look out of the picture window over the lake and I see all the
lights up at Lake Susan... the waste of electricity. I've talked to Father Steve here a while ago and
he says you know what our electric bill is? $3,500.00 a month. That's a lot of money. And a lot
of it is wasted on way too many lights there. On the south end or the southwest end there is no
bluffthere. When we're set back.., where the bluff is.
Peterson: Ask that question again.
Aanenson: Where they're showing it is where they're going to be. I mean there's a topo map that
shows that. We'd be happy to sit down with anybody that wants to go through the topo maps or
look through any of this. We'd be happy to sit down and explain it to them. But we've got the
bluff outline on the topography, the topo map showing where that is and how the buildings relate
to it. They cannot be in the bluff impact zone. They are not in the bluff impact zone. They're
required to stay out of it by ordinance.
Peterson: So Al, if you want to sit down with staff maybe afterwards and go through that, they'd
be...
A1 Klingelhulz: Okay. I guess that's all.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Aanenson: IfI can make one more clarification about the beach lot. They are not applying for a
beach lot at this time. That was brought up during the environmental assessment document. We
know it's a sensitive issue. There's certain criteria they have to meet in order to get a beach lot.
It has to be a separate lot. They'd have to split offa separate lot. Dedicated for the beach lot. It
has to be a minimum of 30,000 square feet with 200 feet of frontage. That gives them one dock
with three boats and then they would need additional square footage and additional frontage to get
that. We're not sure that they've got the property to accomplish it at this time. It's not being
proposed at this time. Does that mean they may not come back and ask it in the future? They
may. But it's not being considered at this time. Make sure everybody's clear on that.
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments?
Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen, 8510 Great Plains Boulevard. You just commented
on that the beach lot is not being proposed right now. But I'd like to address it anyway just to, I'd
like to give my feelings on it. 90 acres is a small lake. It's got to be one of the smallest lakes in
Chanhassen. Right now it's in, being that small, heavy rains the level of that lake goes up and
down very fast so since we had so much rain this spring, with all the activity we have now on that
lake, the shorelines really take a beating a lot because the water levels can be really high quite
often. And if you put that many more people with direct access to the lake and just to me it seems
like that's just too much for that small of a lake. So I just wanted to express that. Thanks.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close the public
hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Anybody want to off'er their, any comments on this one?
Joyce: Could I ask a quick question Mr. Chairman of the. Kate, just so I understand this. Can
you give us right now, I know this isn't an issue but I think there is an issue for everybody here.
Do you feel comfortable telling us right now what would be the maximum amount of docks or
boats that, if they were requested.
Aanenson: First of all they'd have to create a separate lot. A beach lot. I'm not sure how they
could carve out a 30,000 square foot lot. When this originally, the original PUD came forward,
the developer had looked at putting a recreational area down there. A tennis courts and some
other facilities. The staff at that point was adamant against that. We wanted to leave this open.
Certainly with the property being sold, they have a right to come back and request but they do
have to create a separate lot that has to have a minimum square footage just to get one dock of
30,000 square feet. 200 feet of shoreline. To get one dock which would allow 3 boats. I'm not
sure that you'd want to approve that subdivision to create that lot. That's the first issue.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Joyce: So I mean what we're saying is they, even if we were to approve that, you're only talking
about three slips?
Aanenson: Right. You may not choose to approve that subdivision. And then it would be a
conditional use. You can attach any conditions you want to mitigate the impact. Our original
recommendation from the staff was not to. Now if they came back and said we'd like to put a
dock out there for people to go out and sit on, put a bench on the end. You may agree at some
time in the future. Again they're not asking for that tonight but you may in the future decide that
might be something, an amenity that you may want to put there as long as there's no boat
launching or something like that. You could put those kind of conditions in there but we did look
at that at the original proposal.
Joyce: The other question I had, after listening to this and after listening to some of the
commissioners comments is, I'm a little sketchy on what kind of buff'ers we were talking about.
When we were talking about taking down those trees. I know Ladd you questioned how much of
those were going to come down and, again just maybe some feedback from you. Do you have a
good feel for what?
Aanenson: Right, and I think the architect brought up a good point too as far as locating some of
the trees. We want to put those in the area where they're doing the best to buff'er. Obviously the
residents enjoy looking at that treed area. It is a significant stand of trees and making sense to put
them down in that lower end if we're taking down for the ponding. Working and siting them in
the best location to block the buildings and to mitigate the impact of losing those trees where the
pond is. So that's something that we would work at between now and when this goes to City
Council. Try to develop a better landscaping plan.
Joyce: I'm just, I guess I'm on the fence whether we wait to see that. Maybe everyone would be
more comfortable. I think there were three issues here. There's the recreational lot.
Aanenson: Well the recreational lot's not before you.
Joyce: It's not an issue so, as far as I'm concerned it's not an issue for me but I'm just saying it
was an issue with the other people and I think maybe we've addressed that. Secondly is these
trees that are coming down and their view sheds of what's happening with this project. And then
thirdly is the traffic and I don't think that's ever going to be resolved so, where I'm at is just, I'm
concerned about landscape I guess. I'm just throwing those, I don't have an answer. I'm just
saying. I'm a little uncomfortable about it.
Peterson: Kate can you, we can make that a condition prior to going to council that the
landscaping issue be addressed more thoroughly, is the easy way out .... comfortable doing that
as a commission.
Aanenson: Again we go back, our comfort level is there because we worked on the original
environmental. We saw what was going to come out in the replacement. We looked at where the
storm water was going to go and the traffic analysis so while some of you are newer, you're
39
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
looking at it in a narrow time warp. We're looking at this over the life of and there are certain
things that we recognize we would be giving up to be getting on the other side. Preservation of
the bluff was important. We knew we would lose some of the interior trees but we want to
preserve the bluff and the significant trees. And what they're agreed to in working with Jill is to
go back and do a reforestation or replanting. Certainly we understand the concern of what they're
going to look at, the neighbors across the lake and reducing that sight line and making it pleasant
and trying to get it back. Are they going to be tall, some of the tall cottonwoods that are there
now? No. I think we are going to preserve the significant stands. The no touch zones on the
bluff and the north end at Rosemount. But there will be trees coming down.
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: One more tree question that came up with one of the neighbors asked about the holding
pond area. Will any of the trees right along the shoreline be preserved or do they all go away to
create that pond?
Aanenson: They should be preserved.
Generous: Should be preserved. We have a strip that they're not grading into.
Aanenson: I mean there's a buffer between the pond doesn't go right to the lake.
Hempel: As well as along Riley Creek.
Kind: So you won't be able to see Lake Susan from 101 when you're driving by?
Hempel: I'd say there's probably going to be openings in the trees because I mean you've got a
swath of trees out there, 150-200 feet wide now. That may be narrowed up to 20 feet from the
shore with trees left so.
Peterson: Other comments?
Burton: I have a question for staff again. On the, with respect to traffic and the study that they're
being required to do. If the study shows that say they need a light at 101 and Main Street, does
that mean that they can just go ahead and build a light there? Since they have to implement
whatever it shows. Can they go ahead and put a light in if that's what their study shows?
Hempel: If the study recommends that that be installed, then another step has to occur and that's
with MnDOT to go through a traffic signal justification report it's called so it does take some
time. And MnDOT would look to the city and/or developer probably to have that installed.
Blackowiak: But Dave would that be then, before the development's started?
Hempel: Concurrence with the development, yes. It's going to take them many months to build
this out. 120 days. Something like that to build this out.
4O
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Aanenson: 18 months complete.
Blackowiak: 18 months?
Aanenson: To get all the units, yes.
Burton: How long does it take to do a traffic study?
Hempel: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Burton: How long does it take to do a traffic study?
Hempel: I would imagine that the original traffic study can be updated within 30 days.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Just some comments and maybe they're more comments than questions for the people
that are here. I think their concerns were, are addressed in the staff report right now and you're
probably not look at it but the lighting issue is addressed in the staff report. Landscaping issue is
addressed in the staff report. And a third, the traffic study is addressed. It's there so whatever the
motion is, if it's pro or con, it's those things are being looked at. Their concern of the staff and of
us. In my mind it's probably good to send the signal to the developer that there's a concern with
the beach lot so although it's not up tonight, there's a concern. The lake can handle five boats
properly. Based on 20 acres per boat is what the DNR sets as a standard. So it's a tough one Al.
I live with that all the time when I see boats out on lakes but there are standards out there but the
beach lot is, when it comes back, it should be, I would sure like to see it. If it's there, more of a
passive beach lot. I think it's a good project. I like the looks of it personally. I like, I think
there's some really nice things. Underground parking is nice. I think the real issue, and you've
heard it and I'm just going to repeat it because if I make the motion it's going to be there. I think
we do have to look very directly at the ponding and the landscaping around the ponding and the
buffering from 101. I think that's a real imposition on the lake owners right now and we've got to
look at it and I'm going to be recommending, or whoever makes the motion, that we take a certain
look at that and that we get the developer to do some perspectives for us so we can see it. And
I'm not too terribly. I like the building elevations that they've presented there. Good looking
elevations. To me they are so I think you're getting some quality stuff in there. We've known
about this project, or about things happening for a long time so it's sort of probably shocking
when you see it coming in but it's not a surprise to me. And no matter what, you're going to end
up with ponding. No matter what... It's going to happen. But that's, those are the key things.
Again, I just think everybody should know in the staff report are some reviews. Critical reviews
of the things that you brought up. I don't think anything was left out to my knowledge.
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Questions? Hearing none, is there a motion and a
second?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Conrad: I would make that Mr. Chairman. I would move that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within
Villages on the Pond development. Each building will be three stories with 54 units for a total of
162, plans prepared by KKE dated 4/16/99, subject to the conditions of the staff report 1 through
47 with the following changes. On condition 26. That the developer and staff review the
landscaping that would be between or around the new holding pond and Highway 101. And to
present this, a perspective of that to the City Council. With the intent, this doesn't have to be in
the motion. But with the intent that we're trying to buff'er noise and sight from the current
homeowners. Condition 48. I would like to have the applicant show a perspective from the lake
of the building with the tree coverage as, showing the amount of building that is seen from maybe
across the lake. I think that's important to see. Condition number 49. That the staff review the,
with the applicant, the median dividing the entry to the site to see if it adds to character but not at
the expense of congestion or hazard. I'd be open to any other friendly amendments .... thanks
Bob. Would you like me to note condition 39 as to the revision? Is that all I need to do? And
then we would revise condition 39 in the staff report per the handout that we received tonight from
staff on June 2nd.
Joyce: Is there a traffic study in one of these conditions?
Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, there sure is. The traffic study would be done before this got approved.
Joyce: Okay.
Burton: That's 36.
Conrad: Would you like to make any kind of amendment to that? I don't know what I'd do.
Burton: I'm not sure what I would say either.
Peterson: There's a motion on the table.
Conrad: I think you'd better second my motion and then there could be a friendly amendment.
Joyce: I'll second the motion.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Kind: I have an off'er for a friendly amendment. 46(b). Parking spaces must meet city ordinance
of 2 per unit. What do you think? Okay, doesn't work.
Peterson: Is that accepted?
Conrad: No.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: Other discussion points? One thing I'd like to note, the applicant really hasn't locked in
their materials yet and I think prior to Council I really would like to at least have staff work with
them to be sure that the chimney has been picked out and materials and the exact materials are
picked out. It's a sizable enough project that let's be sure we do it right. It's been moved and
seconded, any further discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the
Ponds development on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 6th Addition, each building will
be three stories with 54 units for a total of 162 units, plans prepared by KKE, dated
4/16/99, subject to the following conditions:
The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
Site plan approval is cont'mgent on tile city grant'mg final plat approval for Outlot J,
Villages on tile Ponds, creat'mg a block and lot designation for tile site upon wtficli tile
apartment complex is to be bu'flt.
A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable for a period of not less than 25
years from the date of certification of occupancy for the three buildings.
Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be
greater than five feet in height. A separate sign permit shall be required prior to the
installation of signage.
All rooftop or ground mounted meclianical equipment sliall be screened from public riglit-
of-ways by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend flito tile
bu'fld'mg or background.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to site
construction. Wall pack units must be screened so that they do are not directly visible from
off site.
Development of a beach lot shall require separate Conditional Use Permit approval by the
city.
The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application
pursuant to city ordinance.
An additional two fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location.
10.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
43
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-t.
lt.
Submit radius mm dimensions in parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access.
Submit mm dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
12.
Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with
Sections 90 t and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building, hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction of any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building that is located more than 150
feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility. Exceptions - #2. When access roads cannot be installed due to
location on property, topography, waterways, negotiable grades or other similar
conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in
Section tOOt .9. Because apparatus access roads are not accessible to within 150 feet of
all portions of the building we are requiring the following additional fire protection
features.
a. Fire sprinkler the attic space with an approved NFPA 13 system.
b. Provide fire sprinkler protection in the underground parking garage with an approved
NFPA 13 system.
c. Provide class III standpipes in all stairwells at each floor.
d. Note: The building itself will be required to be fire sprinklered per the building code.
All fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to the Fire Marshal/Inspector for review and
approval.
13. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be
painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
14. The buildings shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992. Copy enclosed.
15. If any trees are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site. Due to close
proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued.
16. Regarding the existing buildings on site to be removed, contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for determination if any buildings can be burned if they prove training value.
17. Install and indicate on utility plans locations for PIV (Post Indicator Valve). Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
18. Timing of installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water
supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Section 901.3,
1997 Uniform Fire Code.
19. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-
1991. Copy enclosed.
20. Demolition permits must be obtained to demolish the existing structures and utilities, wells
and sewage treatment systems must be abandoned.
21. The site utility plan was not reviewed at this time.
22. Access for people with disabilities must be provided to all facilities.
23. The building owner and or designer should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
24. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all areas designated for preservation.
25. The number of overstory trees shall be increased to meet minimum reforestation requirements.
26. Developer and staff shall review landscaping between and around the pond and
Highway 101 to assure adequate buffering.
27. Grading within the bluff and bluff setback areas shall be prohibited. The applicant shall
redesign the site facilities and/or incorporate the use of retaining walls to eliminate grading
into the bluff setback zone.
28. Utility improvements which lie outside of the public right-of-way for drainage and utility
easements shall be privately owned and maintained by the applicant or successors.
29. The existing house and outbuildings on the property shall be razed within 30 days after final
plat is recorded. In addition, the well and septic system shall be abandoned in accordance
with local and state health/building codes.
30. The access point onto Trunk Highway 101 is subject to MnDOT approval. The applicant will
be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for construction of the right-turn lanes and
all work within Highway 101 right-of-way.
31. The applicant shall design and construct the public utility improvements in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review
and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The
45
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat and
provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the public improvements.
32. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any draintile found during
construction. The applicant will comply with the city engineer's direction as far as
abandonment or relocation of the draintile.
33. The applicant shall develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) to control erosion during
construction. Additional Type I erosion control fencing will be required around the grading
limits along Highway 101. Wood fiber blanket and/or sod shall be utilized at all slopes in
excess of 3:l and in the ditches along Highway 101.
34. The driveway access from Highway 101 to the site shall be a minimum of 36 feet wide, back-
to-back with concrete curb and gutter with a left turn lane, shared through right turn drive
aisle. The main driveway aisle width from the garage entrances to the parking lot shall be
28-feet wide, face-to-face. A 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the north side
of the driveway aisle from Highway 101 to the sidewalk proposed for Building A.
35. All private streets/parking lots shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Ordinance
No. 20-1118 which requires a minimum 26-foot wide driveway aisle built to 7-ton design.
36. The applicant shall update the traffic study prepared by SRF for Villages on the Ponds to take
into consideration the additional apartment building gaining access at the intersection of Main
Street and Highway 101 and install any necessary traffic mitigation measures recommended in
the updated traffic study.
37. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an interim trail connection around Lake Susan
to the pedestrian crossing at Highway 101 during construction. This interim trail section may
consist of a class V gravel surface.
38. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate trail easements which will be no longer utilized.
In addition, the applicant shall rededicate to the City a new 20-foot wide trail easement
centered upon the new trail alignment.
39. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended to the connection at the manhole adjacent
to the trail as shown on the plans. A reforestation plan in addition to the landscaping already
required for the project shall be prepared and submitted to the city for approval to replace the
trees removed due to the sewer line extension. The water line shall be jacked underneath
Highway 101. Open cutting on Highway 101 will not be permitted.
40. The applicant shall be responsible for the extension of the trunk storm sewer from the
proposed regional stormwater pond to the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant will be
entitled to credits against the SWMP fees for installation of the trunk storm sewer line in
46
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
accordance the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
41. Plans shall be revised to incorporate an outlet control structure in the regional pond. The
outlet control structure shall be located on the southwesterly comer of the pond to discharge
into the creek versus Lake Susan.
42. The applicant shall re-evaluate the water needs due to the fact that a looped water system is
not available.
43. If material is imported or exported from the site, the applicant will need to provide the City
with a detailed haul route for review and approval. If the material is to be imported or
exported to/from another site in Chanhassen, it should be noted that those other parcels will be
required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City.
44. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Watershed District, Minnesota
DNR, MPCA and MnDOT.
45. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer and pond calculations for post- and pre-
development conditions. The calculations shall be for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm
event. The pond shall be designed in accordance with the Villages on the Ponds storm
drainage plan (NURP standards).
46. The applicant shall redesign the parking lot per staffs alternate parking lot plan dated May 12,
1999.
47. Either the site developer or the Villages on the Ponds developer must establish 0.37 acres of
new wetlands to fulfill the obligation of the Wetland Alteration Permit.
48. The applicant shall provide to City Council a perspective from the lake of the
development with the preserved tree coverage.
49. Staff shall review with the applicant the installation of a median at the entrance with
respect to congestion and traffic hazards."
All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of $ to 2.
Peterson: The lwo people who said nay, would you like to make comments for the same please.
Blackowiak: I have three major comments. First I think the development is premature. We
should not go ahead with this until 101 is upgraded. You're effectively land locking the residents
with no safe crosswalks which I think is contrary to the pedestrian oriented nature of the Villages.
So you're going to set them over there and say, they're in a pedestrian friendly environment but
you take your life in your hands if you cross 101 so hop in your car and drive across the road.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Secondly I think the sewer on the southeast comer is a mistake. I don't think it's in the city's best
interest and we're not getting bluff preservation with that. And finally, I think that the beach lot
will be coming. I don't care that it's not here tonight. I think that the issue needs to be addressed
with the preliminary plat and show some possibilities for a beach lot because it will be coming.
Kind: I echo what Alison said and I also have concern about parking. I've lived in apartment
buildings. They have shortage of parking spots and it's no fun.
Peterson: Okay. This goes on to Council on the 14th of this month. Thank you.
Generous: No, the 28th.
Peterson: The 28th of this month. So noted. Thank you all for coming and your comments.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 9~800 SQ. FT. SWIM SCHOOL TO BE
LOCATED ON OUTLOT G~ VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 6TM ON PROPERTY ZONED
PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE AND LOCATED AT CORNER
OF GRANDVIEW ROAD AND LAKE DRIVE~ JON FOSS SWIM SCHOOL.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff'?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I've got a couple questions. Both have to do with building size.
Building size and lot size. First I see that the lot size is listed at 2.4 acres. I'm wondering where
you're finding those. And then my second question has to do with the sheet that I have, this old
sheet from Villages and it lists all the different lot numbers. And I've kind of kept it. And
according to this, this is Lot 15 or Building 15. It's listed as a one story, 8,825 square foot
building. And I'm wondering if that is the high end. Is the building too large for that piece.
Generous: The 2.4 is actually a mistake. They were showing all ofOutlot G. So it's gotten
smaller. They're revising that plat and that will be going to Council June 14th. Exceeding that
number. Within the Villages we're trading off all over. We have a cap that we cannot exceed and
so we're still under that.
Blackowiak: Okay, so then what is the impervious coverage with the new acreage? So if it's not
2.4, how big is it? What percentage are we at with?
Generous: I don't have that number but this site was all, almost completely impervious as a part
of the Villages concept.
Blackowiak: So you don't care is what you're telling me?
Aanenson: What we're doing is keeping a running balance. We're keeping a running balance.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Generous: Actually they could pave the entire upper part of the development and still meet the
30%.
Aanenson: We've got it in the lower half.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Generous: But we are getting within each site we do get a lot of green areas and we keep
building on that. We get the landscape elements throughout the project. We get the pedestrian
connection. The public realm spaces that are so important to us and... Livable Communities Act.
I don't have the exact square footage of the site. That's something I requested of the developer.
Aanenson: Just for clarification. Final plat, this thing is all under a preliminary plat. You've
approved a preliminary plat. Final plat at this point just goes to City Council. So what they
would do is plat what they needed for this project to go forward so you understand that. At this
point the final plat will just go for a reading at the... So it's been preliminary platted, which
you've approved. The underlying lot...
Blackowiak: I look at the size and I just went no way.
Aanenson: Sure, that's...
Peterson: Other questions of staff'?
Kind: Question Mr. Chairman. Could staff address where on this plan the pedestrian access
points are from the sidewalk. It wasn't really clear to me. I'll point it out here ifI can. What are
these things?
Generous: Benches.
Kind: They're benches. So they're not access points.
Generous: No, the access points...
Kind: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions or comments? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Tim Mcllwain: Tim Mcllwain, I'm an architect with Hagen, Christensen & Mcllwain Architects.
We prepared the structural design. We've reviewed the comments made by staff and I don't
believe we need any more comments. I've just actually just seen the review from.., the first
time.., there was a question about the yellow color and I think that's something we can work with
them on. Although I think we'd still like to keep a fairly strong color on there. The existing
49
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
facility has a very strong yellow along the side that we'd like to bring out and I think in the overall
volume and exterior of the building it's small... We were within the design criteria of an accent
color on the building, but we are willing to discuss it...
Sidney: How about the white roof? Would you be.
Tim Mcllwain: Well the white roofI think we feel pretty strong about. The texture of the
colored white concrete. You can see there's the bone white. You know.., attitude. It's clean.
It's refreshing. It's just crisp. To be frank with you, the owner doesn't have a lot of money to put
into.., materials. It's a simple building that supports basically one activity. We want to represent
that in the architecture of the classic, crisp geometry. And by doing the overall volume in one
color, it has a certain clarity to it. If you start to break, even with the big.., start to break down the
colors, I think you'd start believing it's something else. A simple geometric.., best way to play it.
And we're trying to open the pool to the street because it is a, the existing facility is fun to watch
the kids. It's a place for kids. That's what it's about. It's teaching the kids and we've opened it
up as much as we can to the street and we've played with some of the window forms to create the
animated fun that you'll see at night with the glowing out through. And... and we think the white
is just a simple, clean... We're also going to put a mechanical mezzanine inside the building so to
minimize any protrusions to this clean shape which really...
Peterson: A couple questions for you as it relates to the windows on the upper roof line.
Obviously they're designed to be fun. Creative. Good questions. I guess in my mind...
statement. My first sense is they just don't seem to fit the character of what we're trying to do in
Villages. That's a statement. The question I've got is, are those windows, are they overlooking
the pool? What I'm trying to think of is in the wintertime and the temperatures, do you normally
have windows at that height because the heat's going to go up there and they're going to be
sweating like wild with the high humidity of the pool. I don't know whether that's been thought
through or not.
Tim Mcllwain: To answer your question. Number one, yes. The west end, on the one end yes, it
does overlook the pool. On the other end it overlooks the retail lobby. There's a lobby there. So
there we don't, because that is separated internally from the pool. The other side that has been a
very strong concern. Very first facility is air quality. It all gets down to quality of water in the
pool and the quality of the.., and the air, complete air is turned over in the pool space, I think is it
once or Nvice per hour. It's an unbelievable amount. It's actually exceeds several times the
industry standards so that is the process by which the humidity is extracted out of the air and the
odors are extracted out and it's dumping a lot of fresh air.., so there shouldn't be a problem with
condensation. And in the overall scheme of things it is a fairly small surface area that they're
showing. The biggest problem with pools is putting clear glass skylights into the vaulting and...
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Kind: I'm wondering if the applicant would consider opening up some pedestrian access to those
windows along Lake Drive that overlook the pool. It'd be cool to look in there and see what's
going on. Right now there's no easy way to get through.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Tim Mcllwain: Be able to communicate through physically?
Kind: Not communicate but just to see.
Tim Mcllwain: Yes. This elevation from here...
Kind: I'm not sure I asked the question very well or not. I'm wondering if you can improve the
access from the sidewalk to there because right now the landscaping doesn't allow for anybody
from the sidewalk to enter into that area.
Tim Mcllwain: Frankly we haven't considered it but it's a good point. So people can actually
walk in and view. I mean I think it's what a pool is about. I mean I'll have to ask the owner if
they'll have an issue with that, but I think it's all part of having the community... I think it could
be a nice idea.
Kind: Yeah.
Tim Mcllwain: Frankly we never considered it and now we can.
Kind: I have one other question regarding the roof color .... the white seems pretty bright and
I've done a little coloring that I'd like to submit. I don't know how you go about doing it,
showing an aqua, bluish color of the roof and I'm just wondering if you would consider it. I don't
know how I go about doing that.
Peterson: Other questions and comments while it's going around? Thank you. May I have a
motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please
come forward and state your name and address please. Motion to close?
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Comments. Thoughts. Feelings.
Burton: I guess I have a comment. While I can understand the concerns about the colors and
maybe even the... Milo's comments about the coloring. You know he also points out that, I'll just
read what he wrote. The creative environment with it's human scale and playful form will also be
very suitable for kids. It will be a fun place to come and spend time on healthy activities and I
think if you take that into consideration, I think that the colors make sense. It's a kid attractive
place and I think it's something unique and I think that while it is a little bright, it is something
51
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
that, being unique, it's something that will be fun to have in Villages and I think it's a neat
addition.
Joyce: I think as we get into this, as we've gotten into it, you know we don't want to be too
conservative either. I don't see anything distasteful about this at all. I mean it's just colorful.
And I guess I don't have a problem with it. I didn't see the first, I wasn't here for the first one so
I'm just taking this from what I see here and it's definitely functional and I think it will add a little
pizzazz to it so I'm kind of in favor of it. I really am. I don't see a problem with it.
Blackowiak: I guess I'll have to add, I do kind of like your blue here. Looking at the original
color drawings, I was happy to get color drawings but not as happy with the colors. The yellow's
pretty yellow. I do like the blue a lot better. The blue seems just a little bit more palatable.
Talking about PUD's and higher standards and we have to make sure that we get what we want in
here. We just have to you know, take our time. I certainly like the idea. I like the swim school.
I would really like the school to consider the color and see if you can't tone it down a little bit.
That's a phrase that we use. Tone it down and I think that that is good advice.
Peterson: Comments? I feel the same way. The last meeting we saw a design that just didn't
work. I think this architecturally works. As I stated earlier, I think the windows are a little, I can
live with the windows if it wasn't for the abrupt whiteness of the roof and the side and the
abruptness of the yellow. Pull out those windows being more distinctive. Alison stated that in the
PUD we have higher standards. I think we can have higher standards but I think part of what
we're trying to get is similar standards. Although allowing this sort of creativity but within some
operating parameters I don't think we've met here. So I'm still not comfortable that the colors are
right and wouldn't approve it based upon the colors that are presented this evening.
Architecturally I'd move ahead. Colors I wouldn't. I'd entertain a motion.
Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the proposed site plan #99-8 for Foss Swim School, architectural plans prepared by
Hagen, Christensen & Mcllwain dated 5/25/99, and site plan prepared by John Oliver &
Associates, Inc. dated 4/15/99 subject to conditions 1 through 18.
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussions?
Kind: I have a couple of friendly amendment ideas. 19. Applicant shall consider improving
pedestrian access from sidewalk to plaza area along Lake Drive. And/or 20. Applicant shall
explore option of a teal colored roof or other color.
Peterson:...
Kind: You can add that to that too. To lower, having the window trim match the roof color or
tone it down a bit. Is that an amendment?
52
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Joyce: Well I'd agree with 19 and I would agree with exploring. I guess I wouldn't, then you'll
have to make another motion then. I'll make 19. I think it's a very good point and that should be
on there but definitely... 20, going back to whether we want to approve it or not so that's not my
motion. So my motion stands with 19 and not 20.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Kind: IfI vote for this motion with the white roof, it will go on to council with...
Joyce moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the
proposed site plan #99-8 for Foss Swhn School, Architectural plans prepared by Hagen,
Christensen & McIlwain dated 5/25/99, and site plans prepared by John Oliver &
Associates, Inc. dated 4/15/99, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Site plan approval is contingent upon the site receiving final plat approval and recording of the
subdivision.
3. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Villages on the
Ponds.
Two accessible parking spaces will be required for the twenty-six spaces that are provided.
Access to the building from these spaces must also be provided. Parking lot improvements,
including parking lot landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy.
5. Submit utility plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval. Indicate the location of fire
hydrants and PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes,
shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be
quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-
1.
7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-
1991. Copy enclosed.
9. The pedestrian access from Lake Drive to the Plaza area shall be relocated to the western end
of the site and the access be widened to approximately 10 feet (two squares).
53
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
10. The applicant shall pay park and trail fees at the time of building permit application pursuant
to city ordinance.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for the warranty of the trees if they are planted before the
site is developed. If the 'other' trees are installed after the site is developed, the warranty will
be covered by the Villages developer.
12. Additional landscaping, such as planter boxes, shall be added near the entrance of the building.
13. The overall Villages on the Ponds hardscape plan designates two benches to be located along
the sidewalk adjacent to Lake Drive. These benches and landscaping improvements must be
installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
14. The pedestrian access from Lake Drive to the Plaza area shall be relocated to the western end
of the site.
15. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business district
for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front
and primary parking lot front of each building. All signs require a separate sign permit. The
location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of
which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be
restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising
each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing.
16. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
17. The applicant shall revise the grading plan along the easterly side of the property to maintain
the existing vegetation along Grandview Road.
18. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along Lake Drive until all
disturbed areas are restored.
19. Applicant shall consider improving pedestrian access from sidewalk to plaza area
along Lake Drive.
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of 5 to 2.
Peterson: Ladd, reasons for nay.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Conrad: Well I think the design's getting better. The colors are not right for Village. Mika had
some real good points. I think we should have turned it back, given the applicant some time to
review Mika's points and respond. It's not right.
Peterson: I'll echo those thoughts. It goes on to council on the 14th? On the 14th. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman... new business or not. There was not a sign on this site either.
Aanenson: Yes. We're out of signs. We do, have ask to put the signs out. We honestly do. We
have had so many projects going on all the signs are out. We're trying to relocate signs.
Blackowiak: Well I think you'd better spring for a few more because obviously there were no
residents here and I wonder if that's...
Aanenson: Everyone within 500 feet was notified.
Blackowiak: Yeah, but there's no sign so I mean it would be nice to have a sign up there saying
the proposed development. Call City Hall.
Aanenson: We'll work on that. That's something we try to do above and beyond the notice.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that would be nice.
Kind: IfI could just add on to what Alison's saying. I'm wondering if we should expand that
500 radius to include the neighboring residential areas.
Aanenson: That's something I would defer you talk to the Council about. No matter who you
notice, it's never enough. I'll tell you that. I can promise you that.
Kind: It's just, I mean it's just fellow businesses for anything in Villages and the neighboring
residents I'm sure are interested in what's going on there.
Burton: Kate, don't they pay for a sign when they apply?
Aanenson: Yes. They have to pay for one sign, yes. But if we don't have one to give them, and
the onus is on us. We've got, well we've got a horrendous amount of development happening out
there.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: Yes, I apologize for that.
Peterson: So noted.
OLD BUSINESS:
55
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Aanenson: To remind you of the City Council meeting on Monday, on 7/14. 7:15 on next
Monday night. You're meeting with the City Council. Joint work session. I put that in your
packet before. What I put in there was I put the major work task that we had outlined for you as
part of the budget process.
Peterson: It starts at 7:157
Aanenson: Yeah, this is just to remind you of what we were working on. We were putting
together the meetings with Jill and Phil. I put that memo in there last time. That's what I included
in their packet to talk about and I didn't put all of the water resources, forestry because I kind of
kept it to planning. Updating of the PUD ordinance. All that.
Kind: My notice said 7:30. Did that change?
Aanenson: Is it 7:30?
Blackowiak: I thought it was 7:00.
Aanenson: 7:15.
Peterson: I thought it was 7:00 too.
Aanenson: You know what, I'll e-mail you all. And then just a reminder, on the 16th we also
have a large agenda on that in two weeks.
Joyce: Kate I have a question. Are we going to have a normal summer, are we going through
every other Wednesday in the summer?
Aanenson: Yes we have.
Joyce: We're booked then?
Aanenson: Yeah. Even July 7th. We've got quite a few items in already. Generally we skip the
4th of July week but because it's, the 5 is the holiday actually which is Monday and we were
planning to have a meeting on the 7th just because we have so many items. We had that lag time
in January, February and now it's all come together. Especially when we have variances. We
process those. For people to wait a month it's, and summer time is variance time.
Joyce: They're so much fun.
Burton: I don't think I'll be here on the 7th.
Aanenson: If anybody else knows about, then let me know so ifI know we don't have a quorum.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 1999
Peterson: Did the church rezoning go to council yet or not?
Aanenson: It was tabled. That's on for the 14th. Still working on issues.
Peterson: That's a busy meeting on the 14th too.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated May 19, 1999 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Peterson: Anything ongoing?
Aanenson: Yes, the comprehensive plan. We did get a date on that for June 9th at the Met
Council. Right now it appears that we are getting a hearing to get that approved and then the next
step is to take it back to the City Council for final reading. Mr. Mondale had waited.., two
months before he held any hearings so we're kind of in that backlog. So we'd like to get that out.
Get it reprinted and get it out. We've been told we're getting approval. We've got the letter.
Their memo. So that came over.., this afternoon.
Peterson: Anything else?
Aanenson: Just busy. We've got a lot of projects going on around town and hopefully we can
take a field trip here. We generally plan that fall one where we go out and look. If we get an
opportunity to do that sooner, that'd be great. Go out and look at what's going on. Now Phil has
got an intern and she's putting together a brochure for each neighborhood. Each lake is getting a
separate one and then we're putting together.., for these neighborhood meetings. It's coming
together really nice so we'll be sharing that with you here pretty soon too.
Peterson: Nice to get the new park maps out. Anything else from anybody? Is that a motion to
close?
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57