PC 1997 02 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 1997
Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7; 15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, Allison Blackowiak, JeffFarmakes, Ladd Conrad and
Allyson Brooks
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Bob Skubic
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; Sharmin
A1-Jafl] Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Anita Benson, Project Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING APPROXIMATELY 13.$ ACHES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10
LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS, (AND REVISION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 35
LOTS) LOCATED AT 6730 GALPIN BLVD., WOODRIDGE HEIGHTS (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS SHAMROCK RIDGE), CENTEX HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dwight Jelle
Kathy Faragher
Scott Rickter
Dan Blake
Eden Prairie
Chaska
Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: I would like to see the, and I don't know if it's at this point the previous plat...
Okay, and what has changed?
Generous: In the previous plat there were three lots on the north side. In this plat they're
proposing two lots. The lot lines for the three have been slightly modified. The eastern two-thirds
of the project is basically consistent with the preliminary plat approval that they have. The other
item that changed on this site is previously the lots were being served by a private drive along the
north boundary of the property and that's been eliminated. Instead they'll have a shared driveway
on Lake Lucy Road. And additionally we will have a 30 foot wide conservation easement along
the north side which is the same, but because of the revisions to the plat, we were able to save
trees along the western and northwest comer of this site and thus we're recommending a 50 foot
conservation easement over... On the south side you have two... One with three houses served
by a private street. The third house pad was pushed out into the poor soils area of the site, and
closer to the wetland.., with the rear two lots pushed closer. Where the building pads pushed
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
closer to the lot line. With the proposed replat, all of that is pushed out of the way. Out of the
poor soils area and it allows us to concentrate all our wetland mitigation in one area rather than on
the previous site it was scattered on...
Blackowiak: And a second question. It talks in here about a future site for a city well. I think am
I on the right? Where is that going to be or I mean have you picked a spot for that?
Hempel: No, we have not picked a spot for that yet. We have done some preliminary survey
work to determine a well field in the area. The area is conducive to constructing a well. We're
also looking further south along Galpin Boulevard or south of The Woods at Longacres, the
Lundgren development there as well. We're just keeping the options open at this time.
Blackowiak: Okay. I was just wondering if that would be a factor in this tonight.
Hempel: No, it would not.
Blackowiak: All right, that's it for me.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Conrad: Yeah. Outlot A and B, what can they be used for?
Generous: Nothing unless it's platted as a lot, but this is the potential well field of the well site.
... this is back to that whole question that we thought the western third would be better to develop
with the property to the north and have that walkout lot up on the top. So it's conceivable that it
could be sold to the property to the north in the future when that develops and may be able to be
platted as part of one of those lots. Outlot B, it will be wetlands. It's open space there.
There's... utility easement over it.
Joyce: I do have one question, sorry. On the original plat. How many curb cuts into Lake Lucy
were there?
Generous: On the original plat there were two proposed for driveway access points. On this plat
there are five.
Joyce: Okay, so we're increasing obviously.
Generous: The number by three, yes.
Joyce: Okay. And there is a, if I'm reading correctly, we do have restrictions on that? Is that
something that we have to put into a condition or is that just?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. I believe the code does want to restrict access, driveway accesses
on collector type streets whenever feasible. In this situation, given the topographic constraints, the
environmental sensitivity of the area, we believe it's a reasonable exception to allow these
2
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
additional curb cuts in this location. We have existing driveways east of this development along
Lake Lucy Road and as well west in the new subdivision Brenden Ponds. There will be a few
homes sharing driveway access points as well. We believe that the low speed on the street, with
the sight lines up and down the street will provide adequate safety.
Joyce: We don't have to put that into any of our conditions though then, is that correct?
Hempel: I don't believe so, no.
Joyce: Okay.
Hempel: The condition does state about common driveways along Lake Lucy.
Joyce: It does? Okay. All right, I guess with that, would the applicant like to make a
presentation at this time?
Dan Blake: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Dan Blake. I'm
with Centex Homes. I just want to say that we're happy to be back in Chanhassen. Centex is a
national builder that we've been building homes throughout the Twin Cities, in many of the
southwest suburbs, mostly in Eden Prairie lately. Chanhassen, last time we were here was about
10 years ago in the Curry Farms neighborhood. Just about a mile east of this site. I think Bob
explained everything quite well. There were 10 lots before and there's 10 lots now. We are, the
site's been looked at a number of times. A lot of problems with the development with the
topography on the existing plan, the soil conditions. We think that this is the best scenario. The
development, as the plan is in front of you now. We agree with the staff conditions in the report
as amended here tonight and I guess I'd rather, instead of going on and on, just ask for any
questions that you might have at this time.
Joyce: Any questions from commissioners at this point? Are you going to show us something
there? I hate for you to bring it all the way out here. Same thing, okay.
Dan Blake: ... the one that Bob has. Basically these lots with direct access onto Lake Lucy Road,
with the shared driveways that we talked about. And then the two lots up here...
Joyce: Was that original plat a Centex plat?
Dan Blake: No it's not. It was done by the landowner about 4 years ago, or 2 years ago.
Joyce: Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. With that I guess we'll open it up to the public.
Can I have a motion to open up the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Would anybody like to address the Planning Commission at this time? Seeing no one, can
I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Okay. Jefl~
Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue. Questions have already been asked.
Joyce: Allison.
Blackowiak: My major comment is regarding the traffic on Lake Lucy Road, and I talked to Kate
a little bit about this today. I am concerned about having so many driveway cuts on a collector
type road. And I was not on the commission when the other plat came through. It did seem like it
would be better to have fewer access points onto a main road but I don't know. I'm just not sure
about the traffic pattern here. I like the idea of trying to keep the wetlands in one area. It does
make sense but I don't know that that should be the driving force behind adding additional cuts, if
we don't need them, on Lake Lucy. So that's really what I'm concerned about tonight.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Looks better than the last time we saw it. And staff did a good job. I agree with their
report. Yeah, I don't have any comments.
Joyce: Allyson.
Brooks: No comments.
Joyce: This has such an extensive history, I think maybe Jeff and Ladd are the only two people
who really have been through the whole thing so I don't have a lot of comments. The only thing I
can echo is you know the curb cuts. It's not the most ideal thing, but I'm not going to get into
that. So, can we get a vote on it? Or a motion rather. Excuse me, a motion.
Farmakes: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval ofrezoning the
property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10
lots, 2 outlots, the associated right-of-way as shown on the plat dated January 17, 1997 and
subject to the following conditions. With the proviso that 7, 8, 10 are deleted. 20, second
sentence should be read as, a no parking zone should be designated along the north side of Lake
Lucy Road.
Joyce: Do I hear a second to that?
Conrad: I'd second.
Fannakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval
of rezoning of the property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the
4
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10 lots, 2 outlots, and associated right-of-way as shown on the
plat dated January 17, 1997, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for Phase II to be consistent with Lake Lucy
Road planting design. A landscape buff'er shall be required along both sides of the Lake
Lucy Road extension, Section 18-61(a)(5). This buff'er landscaping shall be developed prior
to final plat submittal for city approval. Berming shall be included south of Lake Lucy
Road.
The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final
plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 50 foot easement along
the western lot line of Outlot A.
Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using
standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be
done prior to final plat approval.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all-weather, year-
round driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(b).
No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$16,810 assuming 8.49 acres of developable land. SWMP fees for water quality will be
waived conditional to the construction of the proposed treatment ponds. Additional credit
will be given for the placement of a control structure at the outlet. The total SWMP fee for
Phase II is then estimated at $14,310. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be
changed prior to final plat.
Wetland buff'er areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The city will install wetland buff'er edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buff'er strip shall be shown on the
grading plan.
Access to Lots 1 through 8, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 along Lake Lucy Road will
be restricted to shared access points shown on the final construction plans.
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
10.
A landscape plan directed towards slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot A
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to final plat. Sumac shall be planted in
groupings within the Outlot to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. The quantity
to be planted shall be calculated based on plantings seven feet on center. This area shall also
be seeded with a seed mixture conducive to the soil and slope conditions. Erosion control
mats shall be used after seeding.
11. The applicant should report to the City Engineer the location of all drain files found during
construction. Drain files should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
12. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot lines of Lots 6
and 7, Block 1 shall be dedicated on the final plat.
13.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the
City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
14.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers, Minnesota DNR, Minnesota Dept. of Health, MPCA and other appropriate
regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
15.
Upon completion of site grading all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket within one week of completing site grading unless the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
16. Upon completion the developer shall dedicate to the City utility and street improvements
within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
17. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical
standards. A no parking zone shall be designed along the north side of Lake Lucy Road.
18.
Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the applicant extending utilities
from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and
approval.
19. The storm water pond south of Lake Lucy Road shall be constructed with the initial phase
of grading.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL; REZONING OF
PROPERTY FROM R-12 TO OI; LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST; AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING~ SCOTT & ASSOCIATES AND RYAN
ENGINEERING~ INC.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Just one. West of the parking lot Sharmin, what's, is that grass?
A1-Jaflk Yes it is.
Conrad: Is it grass now? If it was summer.
A1-Jaflk There's gravel.
Conrad: It's gravel. And they're putting in 12 stalls. They're required to put in 7.
A1-Jaflk Correct.
Conrad: No more questions.
A1-Jaflk They will add some more about allowing maybe St. Hubert's to park there when they
need to on weekends, since they're not going to be using this parking lot.
Joyce: Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and make a presentation?
Joe Scott: I'm Joe Scott with Scott and Associates and we're at 80 West 78th Street here in
Chanhassen. The building that is affectionately known as the old detox center so obviously
moving up to this place is quite a big deal for us. What I've got here, to give you some idea of
the building materials that we're going to be using. You have a black and white rendering. This
is a small color rendering. I'll just pass it around. And you also have a picture of what the
building looks like today, and we took a look at the staff report over this last weekend and what
we did is, there were some suggestions that were made by Sharmin with regard to adding
additional landscaping and an overstory tree and what we've done is attached to that packet that
you have there, we've made all the changes to the site plan to fit in with the suggestions made by
staflk For such a small properly, there's obviously a lot of things that we're asking for with the
rezone and then also there's quite a few variances that we're basically stuck with because of the
nature of the properly. There's also another, the other interesting thing that's happening is that
we'll be required to get a cross access easement from whoever's involved in the shopping center
there but I think they're going to need a cross access easement from us because the properly kind
of cuts the drive in half but I'm sure that's something that we can work out. One other comment
too about de-intensifying the use is that our hours of operation are the standard 9:00 to 5:00 and
7
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
we'll be reducing the hours of operation about 50% and then the trips are going to be reduced by
about 90% so the intensive use of the site as it sits today is going to be reduced quite a bit. If you
have any other questions, Perry Ryan from Ryan Engineering can answer some of the more
technical questions. Here's what we are going to be making the building look like, and you'll
notice that the stacks off the roof are gone and so forth so we're pretty excited about this and I
think what I'll do is I'll end my presentation and if you have any questions or something, I'll be
more than happy to answer and then just let you get on with making your decision. Any
questions?
Joyce: The only one I had was, why do we need the 12 parking?
Joe Scott: Well I think we're required to have 8 I think. Or 7 or 8. And from looking at what it
was going to cost to put the 8 stall parking lot in, we just figured well for the additional, what was
it like an additional $1,500.00 we could get 4 more spaces so we just figured, I mean right now
we've got, there's five of us who work in our company so we figured well we've got five people.
Every once in a while we'll have a customer. Then we have UPS so I'm just thinking, you know
for the incremental dollars you might as well max out the parking lot so we don't end up with an
issue there. And I think you can see from the packet too that we took a lot of time letting the
neighbors know what we wanted to do and we got some of their reaction and people are pretty
excited about what we're doing and so are we so. Any other questions or comments?
Conrad: You're below the impervious surface ratio aren't you?
Joe Scott: Oh yeah. I think we're at 36. 38. And I think it would support 60 or something so
yeah. It's a pretty small building. Actually the parking lot is bigger than the building.
Joyce: Okay. Thank you very much.
Joe Scott: Okay, thanks.
Joyce: At this time we'll open it up for, or make a motion to open it up for public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission on
this item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Commissioners. Allyson.
Brooks: I have no comment. It seems reasonable.
Joyce: Ladd.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Conrad: Nothing. It looks fine to me.
Blackowiak: I'd say it's a big improvement over what's there and it seems like everybody in the
neighborhood is in agreement with it.
Joyce: Jeff]
Farmakes: It's an improvement.
Joyce: Okay. I would agree with that. It's a vast improvement. I think it's a wonderful,
wonderful project. The only thing I said to Kate is, I wish we could have put some of that high
density on top of it somewhere and rented out some space up there. We have those needs. Yeah,
but no. It's a great project. Congratulations. So let's have a motion here.
Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning
of 0.3 acres of R-12, high density residential to OI, Office Institutional. Approve site plan to
renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback and lot depth variances and
comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown in the plans dated
received January 21, 1997 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 11.
Joyce: Do I have a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Fannakes moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends
approval of rezoning 0.3 acres of R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional,
approve site plan to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback, and
lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to
office as shown in plans dated received January 21, 1997, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Rezoning approval from R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional.
2. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide financial security to
guarantee improvements.
The applicant must provide 3 overstory boulevard trees along Chan View street frontage and
one overstory tree with the parking lot landscaping. Also, parking lot landscaping will be
increased to 264 sq. feet.
The applicant shall provide to the City a $2,000 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the sidewalk, curb and gutter and boulevard restoration. The boulevard area
between the property line and the street shall be sodded.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Provide a cross access easement belween Colonial Center and the proposed development for
shared access from Great Plains Boulevard.
During construction, the streets shall be kept clean daily in order to prevent erosion from
washing off site. Erosion control measures may be implemented later as the need arises.
One accessible parking space shall be provided. The space must be eight feet wide with a
five foot wide access aisle. In addition, an accessible route must be provided from the
parking lot to the building along with approved signage.
9. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the properly line.
10. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit
will be required prior to installation of the sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 24~285 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT
PLAINS BLVD, CHANHASSEN COMMONS~ OPPIDAN INVESTMENT CO.
Public Present:
Name Address
Pat Hallasee Blue Circle Investment Company
George Beniek American Legion
Tom Lander M.A. Mortenson Company
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Okay. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Yeah. This is a site plan for the whole area. The whole site.
A1-Jaflk It is for the.
Conrad: Not just the strip mall. This is the whole site.
Aanenson: Well that's one way of looking at it. If you want to have a comprehensive look to the
site, that may be an issue. That was part of the discussion why the restaurant got pulled off
because we wanted some complimentary features in the design. But you're right.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Conrad: But it's one lot.
Al-Jarl) Correct.
Aanenson: Correct. So you're going to have to take that into consideration when the other uses
come in and that's kind of where Sharmin was going with this. Trying to make sure that we had
some unifying themes in this and consistent with the Highway 5 standards. And we believe we're
moving in the right direction and I think that's why the other was taken ofl~ They want to make
sure that they can meet those same issues.
Joyce: So we have to come back with a conditional use if we want to put some more buildings on
here obviously?
Aanenson: That's correct. And a site plan, that's correct.
Conrad: They wouldn't need a conditional use with one building on this site. But we're giving it
site plan approval.
Aanenson: We did the same thing with Byerly's when they came in with additional uses on one
lot. We gave them a conditional use permit. It's handled the same way. Again they matched the,
kind of the theme as far as design.
Joyce: How'd you do it with Byerly's? I'm trying to follow this.
Aanenson: There was an existing shopping center and other uses came on without separate lots.
More than one building on the same lot, which you'll have here, which you can do under
conditional use. You still have the review of the site plan authority to review what the
architecture's going to look like. Now they may not be the same. I guess that's the issue that we
were struggling with and Sharmin spent some time on, but we want to make sure that they
compliment each other.
Brooks: So you will have some say over whether the restaurant is of the same sort of architectural
style as the strip mall so that it's not a jarring feel to it?
Aanenson: That's what, that's kind of where we're at right now.
Joyce: Well the restaurant's out so I mean right now we're not talking, you know, it could be
anything.
Aanenson: Right, but when it comes in, I think that's what Ladd...
Brooks: Yeah that's, so... completely different from.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Conrad: So, but again I, we're approving, we're not approving or we're not looking at the
restaurant or the out building but we are looking, we are giving approval for landscaping for the
entire site?
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Basically.
Blackowiak: Following up I think where Ladd is going. Are we being premature since, as I look
at this to me, I see that that restaurant, a potential restaurant location as probably being a dominant
feature in this site plan. Is that a valid assumption? It closest to Highway 5. Probably the most
visible? Are we putting the cart before the horse in approving the strip mall before having a little
bit more of it?
Aanenson: Well I guess everybody that's looked at that site has envisioned a restaurant there so in
our mind that's probably what it's going to be. If you look at the marketability of that site. It's
going to be a restaurant. And we've always intended for that to be pulled towards the front.
That's what the Highway 5 dictates. So whether it's today or tomorrow, we believe pretty much
that's going to probably be the use. If this one doesn't land there we believe something else along
that caliber, based on what we know the market forces are out there.
Joyce: Kate, we could potentially have a strip mall with 250 or whatever it is parking spaces for a
while though too, correct? Or how are we going to do the parking of this?
Aanenson: Well I believe, and you can check with the applicant, but they'd like to be in as soon
as possible on the other use, with possibly your next agenda in two weeks. We just got hung up
on the architecture and I'm not sure if the applicant was seeing the same issues that we saw, or the
changes that were made so. Just to come forward with their best presentation and we want to
make sure that everything is where we want it and they want it so it was pulled ofl~ I think that's
the best thing to do at this time.
Farmakes: To me it's going to be interesting to see how you resolve the architectural issue
between a fairly common strip mall approach here, and Famous Dave's which is more of a repro
feel bar-be-que shack look. I don't think concrete wainscoting is probably going to do it.
Aanenson: Herein lies the problem.
Farmakes: But their operation has a lot of character. I don't know if we should.
Aanenson: The direction we gave them is some unifying themes. We felt it at themes. They
came back with color. I'm not sure we want all the same colors that's, we're trying to give them
license there to work with that and that's kind of where Sharmin's left it so.
Farmakes: But again, if you're talking about issues of what the strip mall looks like, as an
evaluation, do you want to make everything look like that? I mean you use the word unifying.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
We've gotten into this before. Defining the word unifying. It doesn't mean the same as. That's
an important corridor and I think strip mall less so on the two buildings that are adjacent to the
highway. But still, all three of them are, it's a pretty important four comer area of Chanhassen.
So the quality of those buildings I think are going to say a lot and it doesn't necessarily mean they
have to high end. Just the character of them and how they look should be unique and... These
other buildings on here, I don't, it worries me a little bit. I'll just make a general comment that we
see a lot of these and I know we can't make comments on who these tenants are but it seems to
me there's a tremendous pent up demand for coffee and bagels in Chanhassen.
Joyce: Coffee and bagel capital of Minnesota. A lot of wired people in Chanhassen.
Conrad: Let me make sure I know what we're doing. We are approving this site, which basically
says there will be a restaurant on the comer. There will be another building on the northeast
comer. But we're approving the parking configuration, landscaping. That's absolute.
Aanenson: Let's say it wasn't a restaurant and for some reason that went away and an office user
came in. We would still push it toward the comer. That would still be our criteria. I guess what
we're saying is, if we hadn't seen this other stufl~ we'd still go forward with this plat because they
have a right, they've got a lot to build that on there. But I think the point you're getting at, which
is a valid point, is this is kind of setting some of the design framework and I think you need to be
comfortable with that for the rest of the development in the site.
Farmakes: But we are then approving, if we approve that section of the mall, that's one lot, we're
approving the architecture of that mall? Strip mall?
Aanenson: In a sense a style, correct. I mean I don't think we want it to exactly match the other
thing but you're setting some colors, just like we did on, does everything match across the street
at Market Square? No.
Farmakes: But it looks fairly conforming...
Aanenson: There are some things correct that tie it together and I guess that's what we're trying
to do here.
Conrad: What if we decided, they decided to put another bank in town?
Aanenson: It's been discussed atthatplace.
Conrad: No you're kidding. We need more banks.
Joyce: As long as it had a coffee shop in it.
Conrad: Well yeah, at the drive thru.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Farmakes: I'm somewhat concerned because we know that the builders coming into town, we
recommended that they change the architecture and the City Council in their wisdom decided not
to. There's an established group of buildings that are going to be similar in architectural style and
then you come to this four comers area and it still concerns me because we're dealing with
buildings we haven't seen yet. The exterior, the restaurant and the other retail building. That
there are going to be tie ins to this architecture which I think is pretty basic. Retail architecture so
it concerns me somewhat that we're approving a part of it without seeing how the others are
integrated into it.
Conrad: Yeah, that's what I'm having a problem with too. I know what staff's feeling.
Aanenson: I guess I'd just go back to Market Square. We didn't know what Wendy's was going
to look like when it came in. We didn't know what Capelli was going to look like or Einstein.
Conrad: And that's okay. But we're approving the overall configuration of traffic and.
Aanenson: Some framework issues, yes.
Conrad: You're saying don't worry?
Aanenson: I don't know if I'd go that far. We need to address them and make sure you're
comfortable with them but I'm saying at the staff we are. Otherwise we wouldn't have
recommended approval.
Conrad: Okay.
Joyce: Should we go forward? Is the applicant here and like to make a presentation?
Keith Alsted: Good evening. Hi. My name is Keith Alsted. I'm a principle in Oppidan
Investment Company. We're a relatively small retail and industrial developer in the five state
area, compared to some of the giants in our market anyway. We've had, this is our first
experience in Chanhassen. We've had a very, I think a very good working relationship with stafl~
We think the report is fair and they've actually they've given us some corrective guidance through
the process that I think has actually made this development better. I heard you wrestling a little bit
with us being out of sync a little bit with Famous Dave's. We expected them to be here with us
tonight. Kind of working in parallel. I know that staff is working, kind of bridging the gaps
between, you've referred to it as traditional, ordinary retail architecture which hopefully with
some embellishments I guess we are undertaking here and Famous Dave's, which is a little more
ascerteric concept. We're both, I believe both uses have been asked kind of mutually to come
towards a middle ground and not to look alike but to look complimentary. We have assembled a
team of experts here to help us work with stafl~ RSP Architects of Minneapolis and HKS
Associates, land planners and civil engineers from St. Paul. I guess I'd like to defer to the experts
here in each of their categories. I'd like to have Jeremy Mayberg, who is the lead architect in the
project from RSP Architects come up and walk you through the physical buildings and the project
14
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
and then have Alan Krepman from HKS come up and talk about some of the site issues and some
of the other issues that were brought out in the report and make some clarification on it.
Jeremy Mayberg: My name is Jeremy Mayberg and I'm an associate with RSP Architects in
Minneapolis and we're the architects of record for Chanhassen Commons... we're talking about is
the building located on the south edge of the site, and it's actually only 17,000 and some change
in square footage. The other square footage that makes up the 25 is the restaurant and the
proposed retail building on the northeast comer. When we presented the building initially as three
buildings we envisioned that second building, just as a piece of information for you, to be
identical in design to the one you're looking at here. More of a campus plan. In working with
Sharmin it was determined that it can be very similar but not identical so where you see on the
main plan the curved entries, if you will, at each of the retail units, in the other building it might
take on a different form. Same materials but that expression of entrance at the shops in the
smaller building would be different in form but not in material. We see the building as primarily
stucco from about 4 feet up and a concrete block base. That concrete block is integrally colored
which means that it's a concrete material with the color all the way through it. If it chips off} you
will still see the same color. It's not a painted material. The awnings are provided, once again to
provide both sunscreen as well as to provide a certain amount of animation to the facade. The
driveway that's located at, the store fronts which are located to the north would have equal
amounts of landscaping.
Joyce: Jeremy, excuse me. You might want to pull that back. I'm sorry that we don't, yeah. I
can't see what you're doing over there. We don't have our TV's on right now and I want to make
sure that if anyone wants to see it, I don't know. If anyone's interested, maybe you can move up
here. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Jeremy Mayberg: That's fine. No problem. We're proposing landscaping in the comers of each
of the setbacks. The building setback in four modulars and they're set back along the site 10 feet,
10 feet, 4 feet.., and at each of the setbacks we envision landscaping. So it's a way of both
breaking up the storefront and provides some... There's also going to be a fairly large paved area
where you can put outdoor seating for people who want to sit down and drink their coffee and
read the paper, etc. The material all the way around the building is the same so the back of the
building looks just like the front of the building. The same stucco and block material. These
raised elements provide rooftop screening of the rooftop units. The rooftop units are below that
height so you'd have to be above the building to see the rooftop units. And that's pretty much it
in terms of the architecture. If anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Conrad: Can you take me through the site plan at all?
JeremyMayberg: I sure can.
Conrad: Would you? Wherever it is. Show me where the sidewalks are. Show me how all the
different buildings connect sidewalk wise.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Jeremy Mayberg: The bike path, walk path that was talked about earlier, comes up the south side
of the site. Carries on through to whatever development should occur on this site.., to the store
fronts that I talked about. These larger areas to provide places for seating... There's landscape at
the far east comer. There's an entry into the site is off of Great Plains Boulevard. Service behind
the building. A driveway that moves through the center of it. Of the site.., working out with the
development in this site. Parking. The layout here is... to the required parking for a restaurant in
this zone. The parking layout here with the required parking for retail in this zone so this could be
essentially, each of these are I would say stand alone in terms of their parking requirements.
There is the ability to circulate between the two at this point...
Conrad: So the major pedestrian is the bike way basically?
Jeremy Mayberg: This is one. Yes, there is a crossing that can occur and come down here.
Conrad: Near the sidewalk. Okay, so that leads you into the shopping center. Without crossing
traffic?
Jeremy Mayberg: Without crossing, well there's this parking lot here. We're not crossing actual
traffic. The traffic is in this area. You'd have to cross the service drive.
Joyce: Pretty minor.
Conrad: Tell me why you oriented the building on the northeast comer the way you did, just out
of curiosity. Why angle it that? Why, what are you doing?
Jeremy Mayberg: Well there's a need here. There's a change in elevation that we have to deal
with and that's sort of what's going on there. We're trying to close a little bit on the site and still
providing a right angle to Highway 5. If we pull the building over this way...
Joyce: You have someone coming up talking about landscaping then, correct?
Jeremy Mayberg: Yes.
Joyce: Okay.
Jeremy Mayberg: Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you.
Alan Krepman: Good evening. My name is Alan Krepman with HKS Associates and we are the
land planners and landscape architects and civil engineers on the project. To go through the
project I guess there's a number of things I'd like to cover but in general, as Jeremy has stated, the
general layout of the plan is pretty well organized. Just to give you a little reminder of what's out
there right now. You've got the Legion building.., and there are some significant trees that staff
16
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
has talked about. Some oak trees that are down in here, also some elm trees. We have had
discussions with staff regarding the issues of the roadway alignment and have.., oak trees down in
this particular area in here and we've agreed that we can make some adjustments in there to
possibly save one or iwo of those oak trees. Specifically the trees that are in these iwo locations
right here. And we feel that of those iwo trees, the one.., down south about 25 feet. So that's
what we're going to try and do with that tree. In addition to that, that also has other affects on the
properly. In the staff report they also talked about other issues in terms of site design regarding
closing off this driveway entrance here and we have.., to line up with this driveway on this site
plan so that both sites will work together.., turning movement there and we want to make it as safe
as possible. Staff has also commented about the landscaping and berming out on TH 5. We have
prepared cross sections which illustrates how that works. I guess I would point out one thing
before I get at the cross section. The cross sections are, these areas of the site right here. One
section comes through the berm, through the building. The second section comes through from
the Great Plans back to the structure here. And I think it's important that you know where the
location is. Parts of the issues that staff has talked about are the elevation of Highway 5 in
relationship to the back of the berm and I think when you talked about this for Americinn, because
we were planners on that.., making that work is the relationship of the berm height to the height of
the road. If you look at the grading plans you'll find that Highway 5 down by the comer is at
about 54 and as you progress to the east, the elevation of the road comes up higher.
Joyce: Excuse me Alan. You folks can see that on the TV, right? Could you move that easel
over so we can get. It seems like everybody's craning their necks. Can you see that Jeff'? I want
to make sure. Move the easel that way. Can you catch that on the camera? Can you folks see
that? Maybe you can move up a little bit and get in some of these seats. I'd hate to have you
losing out here. Okay. Are you okay?
Alan Krepman: Is that better?
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Alan Krepman: The key in making berms work, with the elevation of the road is, the relationship
of the berm to the road. So I think it's very important that we note the elevation of Highway 5 out
here rises from the intersection.., it needs to be about 15 here and I think that's very important
because as you're coming across the site you try to get the back berm, which would be about
961.5. So that's high enough so when a person looks out there.., looks across the site, you're
going to take out and hide the parking. Now in order to make that work towards the west...
we've agreed to do. We don't have a problem with that because it's really the berm that's going
to make that work. If you put landscaping in, it will filter the view and I think that obviously we
want to have some landscaping in there to enhance the view of the site but the berming is really
going to be the key to that and if you look, you know there's other examples on TH 5... parking
lot in relationship to TH 5 and the berming where it really doesn't work and I think we're all
aware of those sites in the city. But in the spirit of trying to make this thing work as good as
possible we do want to have some berming that will screen out the parking and yet still allow the
view of the building. I think that's a real key thing. Especially with the elevation of the site.
Other issues brought up by staff are issues regarding facilities and connections. And there's some
17
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
discussion in there about providing water service to the restaurant. We do have cross connections
with the water trying to come through underneath TH 5 over to the site. Looping around their
building and providing a connection up to the restaurant. There was a question about fire hydrant
locations. We've got one here that, it appears that the Fire Chief wants us to move that closer to
the building. We don't have a problem with that. We'll definitely work with him to make that
work to the best of his ability for taking care of any emergencies on this property. Now there's
some of the issues that we would like to discuss a little further and one of those is in regards to the
road access at Great Plains Boulevard and I think that there's been things that have been done in
the past in the city that have kind of led us to believe that we would have a full access on that road
and specifically I can look at the Highway 101 realignment that occurred back in 1989. Those
plans were, when Highway 101 was located in this specific corridor, called for a full access to
this property. Considering with the traffic volumes, the involvement of MnDOT and other
agencies, that they had thought that the distances could accommodate a full access into the
property. Then you can look at other things that have happened over time and I guess the
development of the Villages on the Pond. That obviously does impact on this roadway, but at the
same time you've got Highway 101 moving further to the west. The level of service on this road
is changing from a State Highway down to a city collector street. In fact even TH 101, as you are
aware, is going to become a County highway versus MnDOT. So there's some dropping in status
of these roadways and we feel that, that coupled with the fact that there are other alternatives to
address the issues, and that can provide us full access, that's an important issue to us and we'd
like to maintain that property right of full access that we have. In your traffic engineers staff
report to the staff back in July regarding Villages on the Ponds development traffic, they talked
about a number of difl'erent ways to mitigate the traffic concerns on Great Plains Boulevard in this
general area to provide access to the property. Obviously one of the comments was to have right-
in/right-out. That is what the stafl~s recommendation is, but there are also four other
recommendations or alternatives that can be utilized. One of those was to have a second lane on
the southbound side of Great Plains which could accommodate a left turn movement into the
property and allow for by-passing of that traffic so that there wouldn't be a stacking problem.
People could come down and turn off TH 5 and take a left into the property. And if the traffic
stacks, people could go around it and go down a ways and you know maneuver around so... they
could use the Lake Drive East access. And that is our preferred alternative of how to deal with it.
There are two other recommendations in that staff report. One was to provide a northbound lane
on Great Plains and another was to provide a free right coming through from Great Plains to
eastbound TH 5. And we feel that of those solutions, the best solution would be dealing with the
southbound traffic because that's really the issue. We really want to have access to our site from
traffic coming from TH 5 and I think that's real critical. That's real key for the development of
this property. And we'd like to again, preserve that property right. Now one comment that I've
typically gotten from engineering staff in situations like this is that times and conditions change
and that's why recommendations change over time. I understand that and I think that the times
and conditions that have changed are the development of the Villages on the Pond. And with this
development over here, it becomes the responsibility to... the property rights of the adjacent
property owners. We have full access. We'd like to maintain that. There's a solution provided in
the staff report that was given to the city staff from the traffic engineer and we'd like to follow
through and let that recommendation carry the answer for us on this. The other thing that comes
with that is the responsibility for payment of that. It's not our responsibility to make that
18
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
improvement since it's the traffic from the other development that's affecting our properly and I
think that's very succinct. It's very clear in the staff report that was written back in July regarding
Villages and I think that that needs to be addressed by staff with the other developer. Other,
there's only one other thing that we noticed in the staff report that we would like to discuss a little
bit more and that would be issues regarding the storm water. Obviously we've been working with
stafl~ We've been working with the existing storm water system trying to accommodate and to
work with that... In looking at that we have storm water calculations prepared and we're going to
be sharing those with stafl~ But one of the issues that we see is the issue of fees regarding how
that is, how there's some assessments that are applied to our properly and the water quality
connection charge and the water quantity fee charges are typically associated with plats and not
with conditional use permits. In fact we don't even have a conditional use permit now. We have
a site plan review and so we questioned the validity, the authority as to whether or not an
assessment like this can be attached to our project. If we were having a subdivision of properly,
yes. And we know that's the appropriate time ordinances require that and we wouldn't contest it
at that point but at this point we do question that and we would like to have the chance to have
that removed from our requirements. Other than that, again we're very glad that staff has come
up with some excellent recommendations. We've tried to work with them as much as possible
and enjoyed that and we're looking forward to being under construction this spring. Anything else
Keith? Okay. Do you have any questions specific to what I've presented?
Joyce: Any questions for Alan? I have a question Alan. There's about 20, I think I counted 21
elms and oaks on that comer right there and you're saying that you'll be able to save 2 of them?
Alan Krepman: Well, we are going to be saving a handful of.
Joyce: I thought I saw 5 on the list and then I heard you say 2 so now I'm.
Alan Krepman: Oh there's, staff had asked about saving a number of elm trees and I have an
overlay here that shows those locations in relationship to the design. There are some elm trees
over here.
Joyce: Can we put that on the overhead or would that work possibly?
Alan Krepman: Yeah, we could do that. When you look at the driveway location coming
through here and this is the parking lot for Total. What we have out here are some cottonwoods
in this location, elm trees across the southern part and the proposed driveway connection to, well
up to our driveway is in the vicinity of this elm tree right here, so that will be coming out. The
trees that we are looking at trying to preserve are an oak tree right here and another one right in
here. There are some other oak trees. They are located in our service drive that provides access
to the back side of our building. I don't know how we could avoid those. We've looked at some
alternatives of moving our access location for the service drive but then you get into a conflict
between the drive coming up from Total and the drive going back behind the building. We want
to have a separation with that and that was something that is shared with staff2 In fact staff shared
with us and we made those adjustments before. And in essence there's a couple of oak trees in
here that we're trying to preserve and if we can, we'll sneak our road down through here and
19
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
preserve those, we will do that. With oak trees, oak trees are very sensitive. Or their root
systems, and the best way to preserve an oak tree is to not build even near it. So the real solution
when you look at these two trees is to, again pull that road to the south and since we have a 34
inch oak tree out here, and I'd like to kind of key on that one to save it and the one back here is,
granted it's 20 inches but even if you look in the context of the plan, the only way that we could
preserve that would be to move the road to the north. And the other thing that moving the road to
the south does is that it makes the whole issue of the access road out to Great Plains work even
better because you'll have another car lane for stacking from the southbound lane that would be
turning into the site. But this is the one we're trying to key in on.
Joyce: That actually brings up my other question. Let's just assume that we're leaving the road
the way it is. How many car lengths, talking about that left hand turn, how many car lengths are
you talking about would be available?
Alan Krepman: Available out in Great Plains?
Joyce: Right. To turn left on there.
Alan Krepman: I'd have to look at that. I'm not quite sure.
Joyce: My concern is there isn't enough room there to do it and that's why I wonder.
Alan Krepman: We've got about 170 feet. And you figure approximately 20 feet per car so
you're looking at about 9 cars from TH 5 south.
Joyce: And that's with this plan right here rather than changing it, right?
Alan Krepman: Correct. And we shift it to the south 25 feet, that adds another car. It gets us up
to about 20 vehicles. Or excuse me, 180. Yeah, you're looking at about 9 vehicles then.
Joyce: Okay. Anything else? Thank you very much.
Alan Krepman: Great, thank you.
Joyce: I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: The public hearing is open. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission,
please step forward and state your name and address. Yes sir.
Pat Hallasee: I'm Pat Hallasee. I'm the managing partner of Blue Circle Investment Company
and we're the owner of the Total Mart shopping center just to the south of this property. I'd like
to enhance a little bit on what A1 just addressed to you about some of the history that's gone on
with the road planning in this area. At the time we built our project, and if we go back to the city
20
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
notes you'll find that as a part of our project, the approval of our project, there was a specific
condition attached to that regarding the access to these properties. When we built we were
originally allowed a right-in/right-out from what was then Highway 101, now Great Plains
Boulevard. That was not a condition attached by the City of Chanhassen. It was a condition
attached by MnDOT. It was also part of a joint planning effort with the city staff and ourselves
and MnDOT. When we first approached the city, everybody recognized a problem. That at some
point in time that roadway was going to be upgraded tremendously and we were told it would be
Highway 101 being upgraded. And that the access, that the people at the Legion Club had rights
ofaccess. So atthattime MnDOT recommended, and their recommendations was for approval of
our development with aright-in/right-outto our development. Subsequently when TH 101 went
away MnDOT took our right-in/right-out access away. We know have a full blown curb cut with
two lanes in and one lane out. That wasn't, you know it wasn't our idea. It was MnDOT's idea
and they did it and they have their crews do it. Another part of that was that we agreed that the
best long term solution to this traffic situation for both of us was to share an access at the point of
you know the need arose for it, which at that time was envisioned to be the upgrading of TH 101.
In fact the approval, the Minutes of approval for our project state that when the American Legion
property is developed the access will be moved to our north lot line, their south lot line, and we
will share that. There was one small mistake that in retrospect now we can see, and that the word
access has been pointed out to us by staff2 It does not say full or limited access and I'd like to just
address that a little bit. We always envisioned it to be full access. We drew sketches for the city
and for MnDOT showing full access at that north lot line. From the time we went from Planning
Commission with that recommendation to the City Council meeting and we were in, you know as
most developments are under the gun to get started, we had never seen a copy of an agreement
until we got into the Council chambers that evening and at that point in time the city engineer was
writing out the agreement that we agreed to on a legal pad. So we're sitting here under the gun
looking at what went into the record and I guess nobody really bothered to, you know with good
faith said access. Bing, that's access. Because we had always envisioned and planned in all of
our sketches, had looked at full access at that point. At that place, right on our north lot line. As
you can see from the plot plans that was envisioned that that roadway between our parking spaces
on the west side of Total would go right up and connect into the access coming into the Legion
property. I guess I point out that although it doesn't say full access, it also does not limited
access. It does say access and you know I just give you the background of the benefit of the
meetings that I was at and what we went through when we agreed to that. And in response to Mr.
Joyce's concerns about how many cars can stack making a left hand turn in, I would just invite
you to go to look at the north side of this intersection where you turn off Highway 5 going north.
There's left tums, and I believe the city engineering department told me it's 65 feet closer to the
intersection than what we would be if they moved a full access to our lot line. To our north lot
line. So it can and it will work and I guess you know that's what always was envisioned. And
it's a better situation than what's on the north side of the road. Those were some of the very
important things that we decided, took into consideration when making an investment decision in
the city of Chanhassen. And we certainly expect that those agreements will be honored. Thank
you.
Joyce: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
George Beniek: Yes Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is George
Beniek and I'm President of the Chanhassen American Legion Housing Corporation. Our job of
the Housing Corporation, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, there's a commander that
runs the Legion operations and there is a Housing Corporation that manages, sells, leases,
upgrades the properly, the physical properly and that's who I'm representing here tonight. I'd just
like to comment on some of the issues. Most of them regarding the access to the properly.
Should that access not be granted, or as it now is, it will severely hamper our desire to sell the
properly. It's going to diminish it's value considerably. That's our feeling. The site is naturally
zoned for retail establishments and if people can't get in or out of it easily, I don't think it takes a
rocket scientist to figure out that the people are not going to patronize that establishment. I guess
that's all I have at the moment. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Tom Lander: My name is Tom Lander. I'm Director of Development for M.A. Mortenson. We
are the owner of the properly that is directly east of this parcel. Basically sitting between the
development and the pedestrian bridge head. And I guess I would like to speak in support of the
development in that we're very pleased with the way the development has been planned, the
buildings have been placed and the parking's been laid out because of the way it begins to lend
itself to a future development, joint development of the total parcel and we think that the planning
does lend itself towards making this whole area into a nice statement for the community. And
you'll notice that the access right here labeled Lake Drive North basically straddles the properly
line between both properties and we have agreed to this because again we feel that it is beneficial
as far as the land planning of the overall site. The only concern to date has been that the grading
within this area is accomplished so that this road does provide access to our parcel as well, and
we've received letters from the developer that grading is going to be resolved in a manner that will
be beneficial to both parcels. So I'd just like to speak in support of it. Also as a retail developer I
would just like to reinforce the comments about the value and importance of the access drive here
being a full access drive and the fact that if it isn't, it will have an impact on the economics of the
proposed development as we would view it and I guess as a neighboring properly, one of the
things that we feel is important is that this is a viable and successful shopping center and that it
draw strong tenants and it serves the community. And a change in the access will impact that and
I guess we'd just like to speak in favor of as successful a developer here as possible so thank you.
Joyce: Is there any comments from anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Well I like the shopping center generally. I think it's just fine. I think that's a good
looking strip center. The three issues that, maybe they're not three. I'll have to think about it. I
think the screening off of TH 5 is an important issue. In the staff report Sharmin, it says we'll
22
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
work with, have you seen the materials yet that say this is what you want? In other words, has the
applicant given you what you're looking for?
Al-Jarl) We haven't seen. We know they're willing to work with us but no, we haven't seen...
Conrad: So we don't have that right now. The access is just sort of a, I'm not sure what to do
about the access because the applicant's right. You'd like to give them the full access there. I
have a tough time integrating everything. I do have to trust staff in terms of engineering on this.
All I have is, I wish we would have a full access for this location and for the Total site. We need,
but that's a wish and at this point in time all I can say is, I want to make sure that staff has
analyzed this to the utmost degree because these are important sites. It's an important access and
it's just without, other than saying that I have to go along with what the staff has recommended.
They're the engineers and I'm not. They've done the traffic studies and I haven't. But on the
other hand I guess I have this wish that says, is there a solution to the problem to give these sites
the access that we should give them to make them viable in the city. I think those are my only
two comments. Again, I'm a little bit nervous about the whole site when staff hasn't been given
some of the things that we need. Especially for landscaping. It's a huge spanse of cars that are
facing Highway 5 right now and we don't really have a mark on what the applicant's proposing
there so that makes me a little bit nervous. But staff is telling us also that they're willing to work
with it so I guess I'll wait and hear what somebody wants to do for a motion.
Joyce: Well we closed the public hearing. Is there something.
Alan Krepman: I guess I just wanted to reinforce the fact that we'll work with staff just as we
worked with them on Americinn.
Aanenson: Well, I wouldn't bring that issue up.
Conrad: Well it's just nice that we know what we're talking about and the staff report says we
will work and we want, but it's not concrete and so we're not sure what we're approving.
Joyce: Okay. Allison.
Blackowiak: Well I'd echo what Ladd said. Screening is definitely an issue. I know from the
Villages, for the tail end that I was in on, that that is a major concern of the Highway 5 corridor.
Access is also a big issue because if they do not have that full access off of Great Plains,
everything's going to reroute from that I think. A large majority of the traffic will be going
through the Lake Drive to the east and going right next to a residential area and I worry about the
high volume of traffic in a residential area. But then again I understand. I mean ifBRW account
and recommended right-in/right-out, I've got to almost defer to their knowledge on the subject
because I have very little knowledge of traffic counts but I worry about a lot of traffic through the
neighborhood because if there's not a good south access from Great Plains, it is going to come
down Dakota Avenue and west on Lake Drive and that's going to be a lot of traffic in the
neighborhood and I don't think that the neighbors, the people with lots of small children are going
to want to see all those cars come down that street. Mr. Krepman talked about the water quality
23
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
and water quantity fee and I really feel that that's something they need to work out with the city. I
don't think we need to even talk about that tonight. My reservation is with giving approval to a
site where I don't feel it's completed. I don't have the feeling that we've got a complete site. We
have a strip mall. We have another little strip mall that's probably going to be fairly similar to the
one that we've seen, but what I would consider to be the anchor tenant spot, whether it's a
Famous Dave's or a bank or whatever it happens to be. An office building. I almost feel that I
need to see that before I can approve the entire site because we're right now approving a strip mall
and a whole lot of parking spaces and that scares me so those are my comments.
Joyce: Thank you. Jefl~
Farmakes: I agree. I don't think this site is... different elements. I'm more concerned actually
with the two buildings that are aware from the strip mall, and how they relate. How the parking is
shielded between those two buildings. The issue with the building, and I think of some of the
other unsuccessful buildings that we've had screen parking here at Chanhassen and we haven't
done a terribly good job with berms and cutting out parking. Berms seem to be too small and the
parking lot's too big. The only successful one I can think of is over on TH 41 over there and it
covers the residential development and those are mountains. The issue of architecture, it does not
have to be the same I think. I think it's more important these two out buildings and how their
architecture relates and that would be the perception of somebody who's driving through TH 5
other than looking through the cars and onto the other side. Now those store fronts are going to
want to be seen. The only question is, is how many degree of sight lines is acceptable to them
where they have some visibility from the highway but not, but the area's not diluted of any kind of
foliage or landscaping. The berming seems to be carrying the entire side from what we see on the
landscaping issue. Shielding that parking. There's some small plantings and so on along TH 5
but it seems to be that the berming is taking the brunt of that and it concerns me based on the
examples of the other berming areas that we've had. I get the feeling that we should be seeing
how these other buildings are related in this area just because of the confined space. I'll leave it at
that.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: Well I agree with the other Allison that we probably want to keep cars away from the
residential areas as much as possible. Along with everybody else I also agree that it is kind of
piece meal. It's hard to envision the other two buildings and I think I read somewhere, they're
talking about the restaurant being Frontier style and boy. Coming from South Dakota that brings
in all sorts of connotations of what that can look like so, I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with
approving a plan without seeing what the other two buildings are going to be. That's really about
it.
Joyce: Okay. I don't have a lot to add on that. I guess I'm as uncomfortable as the rest of the
Commissioners sending this forward to the City Council. I have to agree with Jeff that I don't
think that these buildings even have to be uniform. I would like to see something a little more
diverse in that area. You know if you want to put a Famous Dave's and it looks, I though the
Famous Dave's looked nice. That would be fine. Whatever. I don't think it has to look like the
24
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
strip mall. I don't see the urgency of getting this moved forward without the other two buildings.
I don't see the urgency of another strip mall here. I just, I don't see why we have to move this
forward. I'd kind of like to see it come back. You know as mentioned before, there's a lot of
parking there and no buildings. I'm also concerned, I see that you're going to lose a lot of those
trees but boy, it'd be nice to say a couple more of them. Those are a pretty important part of that
development. I think they're being kind of knocked down in, not in a cavalier way but just, I
think there might be some way of saving a couple more of them and I'd really like the applicant to
look at possibly saving some more of those trees, particularly the oak trees. As far as the access
goes, I'd have to agree with the applicant. I think to make any sense of this, you'd probably need
the access but I think I'll leave it at that. So out of that can we get a motion here?
Conrad: Can I just ask a question of staff'?
Joyce: Sure.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Dave, access is a real issue from their standpoint and they're not happy
with your recommendation, and we understand that. I don't really get at all, it's hard for me to
sink it in with Villages. Sink it in with the properly to the south. Are you pretty confident in what
you recommended?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. Let me expand maybe where we're coming
from. The traffic study that was generated with the Villages on the Pond did take this site into
consideration. It's land use. It's trip generations. It's turning movements and that's where the
results of that study came from so they did take this site into consideration. Currently what's out
there is a painted median. Technically you should not be turning across a painted median, and
that I believe left the access open because of the existing Legion facility there. The Total Mart
station didn't receive a site plan approval with a right-in/right-out only. MnDOT plans for
upgrading of Highway 5 which also upgraded that segment of Great Plains Boulevard. Also had
a right-in/right-out only for the Total Mart station. They did leave the Legion access alone. They
did however put a concrete median down part way then painted the rest. Trunk Highway 101 was
turned back to the City of Chanhassen. Again the City redesignated it over to the west to Market,
consistent with our comp plan and the land uses in the area. We had the same issue with the full
access come up with Americinn. Trunk Highway 101/Market Boulevard. They also said that
they needed a full access and we recommended right-in/right-out only based on traffic studies as
well as jurisdiction from MnDOT on that situation which would prohibit a full access that close to
Trunk Highway 5. I guess I'm not a traffic engineer myself. That's why we rely on other traffic
engineering firms to prepare these reports. The City did hire though an independent traffic
consultant, SRF to also review BRW's considerations and they also concurred with that staff
report. One remark about adding traffic to Lake Drive against a residential neighborhood. It's
very valid. That is a purpose though of a collector road is to act as a frontage road to service the
businesses, retail adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 so we can control access points. Make safe
intersections. Certainly... with this during peak hours is a stacking of traffic. Not only north or
backing up north into the intersection but the right turn lane northbound Great Plains onto Trunk
Highway 5. The traffic report also indicated that that would back up past this intersection to the
Legion and that would prohibit those left turn movements until the light would change so there's
25
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
give and take. There was some mitigation measures pointed out in the traffic study. We
considered some of them. However, you have an intersection that's just north of Trunk Highway
5 that would have to be a mirror image or reciprocate the type of lanes that are there and so you're
talking quite a major renovation to that intersection to make that work. And also then you get
MnDOT involved in this as well. They're another agency that would have to be consulted in any
type of improvements to be made at this intersection so it kind of snowballs as you go. I have to
agree with the applicant. A full access is really going to help support the site. However, we have
to keep traffic safety in mind here as well.
Joyce: The public hearing's closed but I don't do this normally so if you want to say something,
come up Alan. What's up?
Alan Krepman: I appreciate that very much. I guess there's two things I'd just like to help you
with. One is, just from a pure land planning standpoint. Looking at the uses. Locations of the
buildings. I think that, what Kate said I think is very true. That there will be a building up in this
comer. I think it's beneficial to the city to have a structure in that area because that will prevent
parking from keying in on this intersection. You'd rather have somebody looking at a structure
than parking. And you place the parking between the buildings, you're going to have access from
the parking.., dealing with the issue of parking is, number one. If you don't have any parking up
against TH 5, this drive lane. Number two, we will put a berm in there that will screen it. I think
you said before that you trust your staff on those issues and I think that we, as design
professionals can achieve the goal that you put in place through the approval whereas if you say
you want this to be screened, and giving that authority to the staff} we can work with them to
make that work. I think that that.., was just the land planning issues and the framework that we're
setting up with the design I think is a good framework. We don't know what's going to come of
this building but before that building comes to you, we will look at it and make sure it works with
our architecture even before they can come in and apply because that's on our property. It's not
being bought by Famous Dave's. They're going to be leasing that space. So we need to approve
it before you get it and we'll look at that same capability issue. We'll expect that they'll meet
with staff before it even comes forward and that we will work together in a harmonious solution.
The second thing would be regarding the access issue. You know we appreciate the support and
the comments from the other landowners that are adjacent to us and I think that you know, staff is
right. We do want to have a safe and workable solution in this location and I think it's really
important to think and consider that the status, the traffic counts that you'll find on Great Plains
versus Market are considerably different since Market is a MnDOT highway and goes through.
Whereas Great Plains will connect to TH 101 and because of that, because of the lack, or not the
lack but the less intensity of traffic, we feel that this thing can work and the solutions are pointed
out in that same memo from BRW, the City's traffic engineer, as far as alternative solutions. And
those solutions don't have to come up into the intersection. What we want to do is deal with the
taper area down in here and move that over so it's a full two lane road going southbound. That
will achieve it. That will achieve the safety issue. And then just the idea of Lake Drive as a
frontage road. I guess I consider that to be a local road that provides access to our property. It's
not a frontage road. It's not a road that fronts on Highway 5. You have to go through
intersections and other streets to get to that so, and that may be just a philosophical difference but
26
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
nevertheless, we want to make it work. We want to make it safe. We want it accessible and if
you can work with us on that, we will do the best that we can. Thank you.
Joyce: Okay, thanks. With that do we have a motion?
Conrad: I'll make a motion that we table this item for two issues. One for a landscape plan to
come back so we can view it at one point in time that has staff approval. And two, that staff
reviews the access one more time, even though I've heard you very clearly Dave but I'd like to
see, I'd like to be real firm. You know I'm hearing the applicant ask for some, there are other
solutions out there and I just want to give the applicant one more chance to persuade you Dave
that there's a solution. And we want to see it here. I think if it's the same, that's fine. But I want
the applicant to have your ear one more time. It would be nice if Famous Dave's was included
when it came back. It would be nice. I think I can deal with it not being there and I think
listening to Jeff} I don't know that we're all feeling there's got to be consistency of design.
Famous Dave's is a different operation and I think, I stay out of design issues as much as I can but
I think Jeff} your comment was they should be complimentary but certainly not.
Farmakes: I think the issue of complimentary is that they're not the same but in that area, that
they project some uniqueness. That it's not just another strip mall. In other words we can drive to
any other comer in the suburbs and see the same thing.
Conrad: But by that comment, and boy this is getting, this is not a motion but or it's turning into a
narrative. You're basically not saying change the strip mall?
Farmakes: For that type of situation, I think that's fairly high quality strip mall. The issue also is
that it's not predominant. It's a ways back from the highway. The issue of more predominance,
and this is where it comes in to what you're talking about. Maybe it's an issue we can deal with
separately but obviously those two out buildings have to be integrated in some way in relationship
not only to the strip mall but into Highway 5 as to how it projects.
Conrad: Okay. I think that helps us communicate. So my motion was basically to table.
Blackowiak: I second.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review #97-1 for a
strip mall for Chanhassen Conunons to review landscaping and access issues. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING:
U.S. WEST NE~WECTOR GROUP~ INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 78 WEST 78T}~
STREET AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 76 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER~ 12' X
24' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Questions? Why was it tabled, the other site at City Council?
Generous: Council requested that the applicant provide additional documentation on their search
area that they were looking for. Whether or not they could locate their tower on specific sites.
One was in the Villages on the Ponds. Another was on the water tower at Eden Prairie and so the
applicant has addressed that and they will be addressing that for City Council.
Joyce: Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Jay Littlejohn: My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been here before a few times. The microphone is
way out so I'll try to stand away from the podium. Oh good. I have some photo simulations that
we had done, but I just want to limit my comments to the staff's recommended findings and the
suggestions. First of all one of the suggestions that, Bob would you mind putting up the
landscape plan. I faxed this to stafl~ Bob didn't have a mylar of it. One of the suggestions staff
has that we submit a landscaping plan. In light of the fact that this is a landscape center, it's kind
of a difficult thing to do. This building is generally screened by the existing inventory that's
maintained on the site. Those are depicted specifically on the front. We recognize though that
that landscaping fluctuates and if the Commission and the Council would like us to put additional
screening that would not move, that's certainly an option to us. Screening to the right is, there's a
berm there between the Redmond site. To the right would be to the east. There's a berm on the
Redmond site that's between the existing drive for Redmond and this site and there are trees all up
and down there. And that would provide the majority of screening to people entering Chanhassen
from this site. If you wouldn't mind putting up the view on the, what would be the view from the,
looking to the east from the west. Along the road. Thank you very much. We respectfully
disagree with staff's recommendation that the character of the site is changed. There are two 90
foot high line poles that flank this property. This photo simulation shows where those poles are in
relationship to where our proposal is. Our proposal is a 78 foot structure. It's 12 feet shorter than
what's there. You can see that the last, the pole that is depicted as farthest away here, that's
actually the last pole on the site and I don't know, does the video get this drawing? That is this
high tension standard on the video. That's the last one in line. Now the next site over, 80 West
78th Street and I'll come to the status of that in a minute. There are no more high tension lines.
There's no other 90 foot structures between this one, well on this side of the street. At that point
the electric transmission lines cross the road, and Bob you can put that back. The other view and I
can show you what I mean. The other photo sim, yeah. This is a shot from, I think there's a
school or a church and a residence that's across the road and you can see that the power lines
cross the road so that over where the other building is, where the 80 West 78th Street is, there are
28
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
no longer any more of these high tension lines. That part is relatively clear except for the street
lights and traffic lights. So we respectfully disagree with the stafl~s conclusion that our pole is out
of character with the neighborhood. It's right in character. In fact it's probably more in character
than the site that you already recommended for approval. I'd like to talk about that site. Right
now the City Council has tabled that. We don't know whether it's going to be approved or not.
It's up for consideration. Certainly with your recommendation and with stafl~s recommendation,
we have tried to get a lease with APT. We have been advised that it's in the works. We don't
have a lease with APT. I understand you've imposed that condition on them. But we don't have
a site right now and the ordinance requires that we go on other sites that have been approved.
There have are none. And that's why we have to pursue this site as well. We've been mindful of
some of your comments in the earlier applications about what you want to see in these sites and
we've tried to incorporate them. One is the comment that the chain link fence should have the top
rail on it. Ours has barb wire which we can easily remove but the chain link fence that we have
proposed does have that top rail. We're not wedded to that barb wire. If you feel it's out of
character for the neighborhood, we certainly can remove it. Although I should note that the only
part of fencing that we have, it doesn't encompass the whole area as is the proposal for the 80
West 78th tower. Instead we only have the back of the building has chain link fence on it. That is
the back side, as you look at it from Highway 5. It'd be the north end of the building. The chain
link is only there to protect our air conditioning units and to further inhibit the climbing of the
pole, or to inhibit climbing of the pole, which you really need to be determined to do in the first
place because there's no climbing fence on the bottom 20 feet of it. Let's see. I would like to
answer questions that you have about this site because I was kind of taken aback by stafl~s
determination that this considerably shorter pole was not consistent with the ordinance that I stood
here and testified on before. I mean we're talking about a much shorter structure. Consistent with
what's existing there. There's no other approved sites. I don't understand why staff would
disapprove this other than the hope that Council would approve the much taller site next door.
Any questions?
Joyce: When is that tabled and when does that come up before the Council?
Aanenson: Monday night.
Joyce: In five days, right?
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: Do you have a problem co-locating with them if it gets approved?
Jay Littlejohn: As long as they let us, no. We would go on their site. In fact we've talked to
them about it. We just haven't seen any agreements from anybody.
Joyce: So you're saying we have to wait 5 days and then you can go to them and find out if you
can co-locate or not.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Jay Littlejohn: No, we've talked to them already and they said they will but we don't have any
agreement. So I don't know whether they'll let us co-locate or not. What I would prefer to do is
to have the Council choose. There is no reason why that tower couldn't be located on this site
where there are those two high tension lines. We didn't apply for a 135 foot pole. We don't need
one.
Aanenson: But they do. That's the issue. So if it goes on this site, it is going to be higher. It's
not going to be 78 feet. That's the evaluation we went through and we feel strongly that the other
site is better. If this tower would be approved, we would put the co-location here so it would be
taller so that kind of mitigates your argument.
Jay Littlejohn: Well respectfully, that tower is still available for others to co-locate if they can do
a deal with APT and if there is an approved site. The problem is that right now there is no
approved site and I don't know whether Council will approve a 135 foot tower so we don't.
Joyce: We have 5 days to find out.
Jay Littlejohn: Absolutely, and if you'll send me to Council I'll go ask them in 5 days.
Aanenson: Or we can table it and wait, that's an option too.
Joyce: Any other questions? No? Thank you. Motion to open for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, motion to close
the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Jefl~
Farmakes: ... stafl's recommendations over. I have a problem... It seems to me it will be
resolved one way or the other in a few days.
Joyce: Allison.
Blackowiak: Again, I'll defer to stafl~ I would not have a problem either tabling it or just waiting
5 days. Since we're talking such a short time frame. I don't really feel that we need to act on this
tonight.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Staff report is right on. The last thing we need to do is add another tower here. That's
dumb. That's just dumb. It should be turned down. If the applicant, if it tums out that this is the
30
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
site because the other site gets turned down, then we can entertain this again but tonight this
should be turned down.
Brooks: Yeah I agree. We should try to avoid two towers as much as possible and wait and see
what happens with the other one.
Joyce: I wouldn't have any problem tabling it. I mean if this site doesn't get approved, then it
would come in front of us again and see if we can approve your site. I have no problem with that
so that's my comment. So then I guess we need a motion on this.
Blackowiak: Do we want to table? Okay, I'll make the motion to table the conditional use permit
to build a 76 or 78 foot cellular communication tower and 288 square foot equipment building.
Joyce: Do I have a second?
Brooks: Second.
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #97-1 for a personal
conununication service wireless teleconununications facility located at 78 West 78th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO CITY
CODE~ SECTION 20-415~ IN REGARD TO EXTENSIONS OF WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMITS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions for staff'? Do we need to open this for a public hearing and all that Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: Okay. Can we make a motion to open this for a public hearing?
Fannakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Public hearing open. Seeing no one interested in talking, make a motion to close the
public hearing.
Fannakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing.
Joyce: Okay, and we're going to vote on this too, right Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
Joyce: Okay, comments. Allyson?
Brooks: None.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Looks fine.
Joyce: Allison.
Blackowiak: Pretty straight forward.
Joyce: Jefl~
Farmakes: Let's do it.
Joyce: All those in favor. Oh, we forgot to make a motion right. Someone make a motion.
Conrad: I'd make the motion that Planning Commission approve the amendment to the City Code
for Section 20-415, condition C as stated in the staff report.
Joyce: Second?
Farmakes: Second.
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
City Code Amendment to Section 20-415 in regards to extensions of Wetland Alteration
Permits as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I received a letter from Jeff today that says based on other time commitments, instead
of April 1st resignation, as soon as the Council permits LuAnn who has been appointed to start in
April, to succeed that...
Conrad: What are these pressing time things?
Farmakes: What's that?
Conrad: What's pressing?
Farmakes: Well you see my tan. I hope to retire by February...
Aanenson: That's all I have for new business.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated January 15, 1997 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, the Highlands. The property on Galpin and State
Highway 5 was tabled. The one tower we just talked about tonight was tabled. The other one
located off the industrial park was approved. Those were the only planning items on. So the
Highlands will be back on next Monday.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: Yes, I just wanted to let you know what will be on the next agenda. It looks like
we'll this antenna back on and then also the Legion site. In addition we thought we'd take an
opportunity to go through some comp plan items, specifically looking at population projections.
Ultimate build up in the city and then how that relates to the land uses that we have. The process
again that we're going to try to undertake is to educate everybody on the different components
and then as we're going through and then taking neighborhood input and then drafting the
documents. So try to get everybody up to speed on where we're going...
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33