PC 1996 07 24CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, and Ladd
Conrad who arrived during discussion of Paws, Claws and Hooves Pet Boarding.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl~ Planner II; Bob
Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, and Steve Kirchman, Building
Official
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.57 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED TO THE EAST OF
HWY 41 AND ADJACENT TO MELODY HILL ROAD, MELODY HILLS,
SPRINGBROOK CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Howard Kyllo
Tom Murray
Gary Druysvold
Rich & Linda Nicoli
Susan & Phil Bonthius
Karen Peterson
10640 Lyndale, Bloomington
10640 Lyndale, Bloomington
6287 Chaska Road
2280 Melody Hill
2300 Melody Hill
2240 Melody Hill
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
(The recording was poor quality of this portion of the discussion.)
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
Peterson: Is the only reason for the setback variance is the trees?
A1-Jaflk Correct. They could use the setback with the variance but it will result in losing
additional trees.
Peterson: More trees. Fortunately I did get a chance to drive by it. The only trees...are those
substantial trees or.
Al-Jarl) Ifs a cluster of trees actually. They're not...they're not as nice as the ones that you find in
the center of the properly, but still there is a large cluster of them.
Mancino: Excuse me, ifI can add to that. They're not like old growth trees but they certainly are
our next generation of trees that will come. Can we make sure that if we do a variance...the
reason why we would do the variance is to allow that canopy coverage to stay and so that we have
an easement, a conservation easement or something over that area so that somebody doesn't go in
there and cut them down because that's the whole reason why the city is giving a variance to the
applicant.
A1-Jafl~ Definitely you can require that.
Skubic: There are also some significant trees...
A1-Jafl~ Those that are within the grading limits will be removed. There are a few what is on Lot
3. There are some trees that will be preserved in this area.
Mancino: Sharmin, don't we usually see or ask the applicant to show us which trees will remain
after the grading so that we can see which significant trees we'll save?
A1-Jafl~ Correct. Jill calculated, the City Forester, calculated all the tree canopy that will be
removed as well as those that will remain. The applicant also gives us a tree canopy coverage
detailed plan.
Mancino: So that we will know prior to any grading that's started, which trees are to be saved and
which trees are to be removed? Any other questions at this time? Is the applicant and wish to
address the Planning Commission?
Howard Kyllo: Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Howard Kyllo,
Springbrook Corporation. First of all I want to say that it's good to be here. This is the first time
we've ever been in Chanhassen. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the
staff for all of the help they've given us to bring us up to speed and what it takes to build in
Chanhassen. I'd like to thank Kate Aanenson, Sharmin A1-Jafl} Dave Hempel, Bob Generous.
They've all helped us through several meetings to understand what the parameters are for
development in Chanhassen... We also appreciate the fact... For this site we feel very strongly
about we have developed an affinity for it in more ways than developers usually do. It's been
lovingly cared for over the past 70 years...As Sharmin said, there are mature trees. Flower
gardens that probably won't survive but we are going to make a special effort to...to preserve as
many trees as possible. Even in light of getting a mass grading plan. We would like to evaluate
almost on an individual basis... Try to design houses for the site rather than shape the site to, or
force the site to accept houses. We've been working with a builder now that is especially sensitive
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
to...and he has shown a willingness to...so Sharmin's done a good job of presenting the plan. It's
pretty straight forward and I would like to answer any questions you might have...the one issue of
Lot 8. We will be addressing that...by addressing the...
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Number one, allowing a
variance. You had figured a driveway. On my plat, I don't see how you get in and out of Lot 1.
Is that all...off of Chaska Road?... some back up area...location of the driveway be from the
dedicated public road, the cul-de-sac that's going to go in...
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. The lots you're referring to are located on
Chaska Road... Given the grades of Melody Hill, the majority of the time...
Howard Kyllo: That's correct...
Mancino: I would think you'd want to keep that buff'er for Chaska Road and... My only other
question has to do right now with the cul-de-sac. It seems huge.
Howard Kyllo: Well our first vision for the site was a village green...and that turned out not to be
possible... First of all it helps the frontages on the lot rather than taking them all down to a little
narrow, 50 foot frontage.., and this would allow us a little larger center island which is...
Mancino: Any other questions?
Joyce: I have a quick question for Dave. I'm trying to find where it is. The storm sewer line. I
think...put it between Lot 4 and 5 and you're suggesting it go through 5 and 6. I'm curious why.
Hempel: Based on the area topography...drainage ditch along Trunk Highway 41...
Joyce: It looked more natural to me between 4 and 5 and I was just curious why.
Hempel: ...
Joyce: Okay.
Mancino: Thank you very much.
Howard Kyllo: In anticipation of any of the audience questions, our lot prices are going to be low
70's to high 80's. Houses to be built in there will probably, at the very minimum be $250 to $400.
Not being builders we can't...
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion and a second to open this for a public
hearing.
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time. If you
have any questions or if you have any comments. If you would direct all questions to me. Thank
you.
Rich Nicoli: Hi. My name's Rich Nicoli. I live on Melody Hill, 2280. I have a number of
concerns and... Right now there's 7 houses on Melody Hill... 10 house in the development is a
tremendous...that's number one. Number two, I...about the trees...increase in traffic in that area.
Adding 10 homes, most people have two cars...so that's a significant increase for that area. Also
concerned about the...
Mancino: Dave, can you comment for a minute...upgrade Chaska Road in the future and when
Lake Lucy Road goes all the way through you'll have less traffic on Chaska Road.
Hempel: That's correct. There some possibility to improve Chaska Road in the future...
Mancino: It's not a priority for the City at this point so it would be probably a few years before
that's done.
Hempel: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Hempel: To touch base a little bit more on the traffic...
Joyce: Dave, is there a sign out there? I can't remember now. Is there a sign on Melody Hill and
Chaska? A stop sign there.
Audience: No...bottom of Melody Hill.
Joyce: But there's not one.
Mancino: But there's not a stop sign on Chaska Road so when you turn off TH 41 from...
Joyce: You can go directly west, or east on Chaska Road without stopping?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Without stopping there, yes.
Joyce: Would that be something that we'd look at that...? Or is that too small a spot for a stop
sign?
Mancino: You would be off on TH 41.
Joyce: Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...
Mancino: ...if we put a stop sign there so I don't think that's going to happen...it would just be
horrendous. Trying to get it and out of TH 41 ... Anyone else wishing to address the Planning
commission on this issue, please come forward. I'd like to hear your comments. Questions.
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and second please.
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Any other comments, questions from the commissioners.
Peterson: Question for stafl2 Based upon this being zoned...for single family, what is the
maximum number of lots we could put in here logically on 4.5 acres...?
A1-Jafl) They have to have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet, which they meet. Density
of 2 to 4 per acre. No, 0 to 4, I'm sorry, per acre. And they meet that as well.
Peterson: I mean the point of my question is, another developer coming in couldn't really get any
more in there. Maybe one more lot.
Aanenson: I don't think so. I don't think you could get any more .... generally we look at plats at
1.9...some larger lots but yeah. I mean they're basically...
Mancino: The hard part that's in this area is...they all have... 1 1/2 acres and those may even
subdivided in the future also which makes it very hard when you have some people who are
subdividing and some who aren't. Any other comments?
Peterson: No. I think as we look at the development itself, I think the applicant has worked with
staff and provided a nice neighborhood feel...cul-de-sac being that large is unique and add some
ambiance to the area and the development. I want to emphasize to the residents, as you said
Nancy, it is going to change the feel but it is going to be developed and is this a good
development and I think yeah. The applicant meets everything that I look for anyway in a
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
development...I'm a little concerned about Chaska Road. That area has always scared me.
There's a lot of traflic in there and it's not a natural feel to drive through that going one way or the
other. It just doesn't feel like you should be turning or there's ability to turn so people get
confused. I don't know what the accident ratio out there is but I suspect it's relatively high.
There's nothing we can do about that but all and all, I would be supportive of the development.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: ...everything is altered but...In looking over the grading plan here, there's...large trees that
are quite close to the area that you're grading so we'd appreciate...
Mancino: Okay, Kevin.
Joyce: Not much else besides what the other commissioners have said. I think it fits nicely into
that piece, that property. I think the development looks like nice...best thing that they can come
up with for that particular parcel of land and I think it's pretty well thought out and planned
properly. The only real question I would echo is that traffic. I was out there at rush hour. Bad
time to be out there...something the City just keeps an eye on and you know, if you
have...accidents out there or something, we might have to rethink what's going on out there but I
agree with Nancy...stop sign there. I don't know. I'd just like to keep an eye on it.
Mancino: ...does go through, all the way to Galpin...I have a couple of questions. Sharmin I had
one. On page 6, the compliance with the ordinance. The lot width, the ordinance is 90. 90 feet.
And yet Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 aren't 90. Can you explain to us what that means?
A1-Jafl5 Yes. The ordinance allows the lots that are on the bubble of the cul-de-sac to have a
reduced frontage, but at the 30 foot setback they have to meet that 90 foot. These lots, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 are on the bubble on the cul-de-sac. And at the setback they do meet the 90 foot setback,
and I should have put a note underneath that...
Mancino: Thank you. Good. Dave, question for you on the downstream settlement pond off
Highway 41. Where is that, and my other question is, is you know that the Middle School is
going to be adding on to it and they'll have more impervious surface, etc. so we'll have more into
this downstream settlement pond. Is this pond built there ready for all this added runoff'? And by
the way, just because I live in the area, where is it?
Hempel: Madam Chair, the existing storm water pond is actually south of the property... It's
approximately 400 feet west of Trunk Highway 41 ...Development at this time, or the additional
runoff generated from this will be minimal.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Minimal?
Hempel: ...any future expansion to the school however will have to be further evaluated...
Mancino: And that's what they have to figure out when they do the school, okay. Great. My
only comments are...development, I would like to add some more language to the tree
preservation condition and that would be that on condition l(a), so the applicant hear too that in
the second sentence, installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a minimum at least
15 feet from the trunk. (b) is fine. (c) is fine. (d), I would, the landscape buff'er plan along
Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for review and approval. Landscape buff'er
plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees. So that the 24 trees are within
the subdivision be Highway 5 or arterial plantings that are done along TH 41 are in addition. That
plan is in addition to the 24 trees. I just want to make that clear. And I'd like to also, (e). That all
significant trees must be shown on the building permits so that we make sure that we preserve
those. And (f). I am in favor of the front yard variance. The reason why I am in favor of the
front yard variance is so that we can save those trees so I would like to also put down that for (f),
the vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement so that we do make sure that we are saving, and I'm sure that the applicant
wants to save these buff'er areas too. Those are my comments. May I please, I'd like to entertain
a motion.
Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision #96-4) for 10 single family lots with a 10 foot
variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received June 14th with
conditions 1 through 19 and to add onto condition l(a). Installed fencing must be approved by
staff and placed at a minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree. On l(d). Landscape buff'er
plantings are in addition to the replacement plantings of 24 trees required, l(e). All significant
trees must be shown on the building permit surveys, l(f). The vegetated areas which will not be
affected by development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall
provide the City with a legal description of these easements.
Mancino: May I have a second please?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Peterson: The only question I'd have is, is the conservation easement the most appropriate way to
handle that issue?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
A1-Jafl5 Ifs the only way that we can require the applicant not to take down any vegetation within
a given area.
Peterson: Okay.
Mancino: Any other discussion?
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Melody Hill Addition (Subdivision #96-4) for 10 single family lots
with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown on the plans received
June 14, 1996 with the following conditions:
1. Tree preservation conditions:
Applicant to install tree preservation fencing at grading limits prior to any grading or
construction activities. Installed fencing must be approved by staff and placed at a
minimum of 15 feet from the trunk of the tree.
b. Applicant must submit tree removal plan for the development as a condition of approval.
c. Applicant will be required to preserve any trees not scheduled for removal. Trees
removed in excess will be replaced at a rate of 2 times the diameter.
d. A landscape buff'er plan along Highway 41 shall be submitted to the City Forester for
review and approval.
e. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys.
f.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by development will be protected by
a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the City with a legal
description of these easements.
2. Building Official conditions:
a. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review
prior to final plat approval.
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.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
c. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the properly.
3. Fire Marshal conditions:
10.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. the street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable tv, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
City ordinance 9-1.
b. Install one additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Melody Hill Road and the new
planned road.
c. Submit street name to Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances.
The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in
accordance with the City and/or State codes.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, MnDOT, and comply with their conditions of
approval.
Neighborhood identification monument signs require a permit.
The frontage on Lot 8 shall be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements of 90 feet lot
frontage.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side
of the construction limits. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at
all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface.
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.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's
SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The
applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations
for 100 year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin
segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
The proposed single family residential development of 4.50 net developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,600 and a water quantity fee of
$8,910. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
Lots 2 through 10 should be mass graded prior to utility installation. Lot 1 may be custom
graded when the building permit has been obtained through the City.
The applicant shall consider installing retaining walls in the rear of Lots 8, 9 and 10 in an
effort to reduce grading and tree loss.
The applicant shall obtain the appropriate demolition permits for removal of the existing
house. Sewer and water services shall be abandoned and disconnected the right-of-way line
at Melody Hill Road. The dwelling shall be removed within 30 days after the final plat has
been recorded.
Staff and the applicant shall evaluate the location of the proposed storm sewer line between
Lots 4 and 5 to see if this is the most feasible location. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement shall be dedicated to the final plat and centered over the storm sewer line.
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit detailed construction plans and
specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates for staff review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final
plat approval. As-built construction drawings will be required upon completion of the utility
and street improvements.
The cul-de-sac island shall be reviewed by city staff to ensure a proper turning radius for
Public Safety vehicles and the cul-de-sac reduced accordingly.
All lots with the exception of Lot 1 shall access the interior proposed street. No direct
access will be permitted from State Highway 41 or Chaska Road. Lot 1 shall access from
Melody Hill Road.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL
KENNEL~ COMMERCIAL STABLE~ TWO BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE LOT; SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL AND STABLE~ A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A METAL BUILDING AND A PYLON SIGN IN A BF~ FRINGE
BUSINESS DISTRICT~ LOCATED ON THE NE CORNER OF HWY 212/169 AND TH
101~ PAWS~ CLAWS~ AND HOOVES PET BOARDING~ NANCY LEE AND PATRICK
BLOOD.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point?
Skubic: I have one. Were there any neighbors that were close enough to require notification for a
public hearing? I didn't see the list in the packet here.
A1-Jaflk It's in the file. There was one and it was mailed on July 1 lth.
Mancino: And they have to be what, 500 feet?
A1-Jafl~ Correct.
Aanenson: It went to 17 people.
Mancino: 17 people it went out to, okay. Any other questions?
Joyce: Who does all the periodic inspections?
Aanenson: As far as compliance?
Joyce: Yeah.
Aanenson: The staff does that.
Joyce: The staff'?
Aanenson: Yep. That's what John does is work with compliance.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Joyce: Okay, thanks.
Peterson: In going by this, one of the issues is, that I'm struggling with is the building materials,
as you can probably imagine. I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time on. One of the key
things...driving by I really can't get a sense in the winter time, if you truly won't be able to see the
structure from the highway. I think that my biggest concern is that you can't. We have an
opportunity, it's a highly visible, obviously the road isn't as highly traffic so if during the winter
whenever the vegetation is obviously diminished, you can see the buildings. It's a lost opportunity.
As you perceive the site, and if you've walked it, how much of the building are you going to see
during the winter?
Al-Jarl2 The building is going to sit on higher elevation than the highway. Significantly higher so
you will be able to see quite a bit of it. The applicant brought, and they will be able to share more
of what the building is going to look like. They have some renderings and some material samples.
One of the samples that they will show will give you an idea of what the building is going to look
like.
Aanenson: Just on that same note. When we discussed this, as far as screening it, that was one of
the questions that Sharmin and I spent some time discussing and the visibility, so one of the
recommendations that we had as far as landscaping replacement was to put more trees, conifer
type trees to help as far as the replacement. I think that's in the protection. To try to put some of
that back in when you're screening more of the building.
Peterson: So when you look under signage and I think the narrative talks about the fact that the
buildings will be screened with the topography and existing vegetation. That's what I'm struggling
with is. I'm getting mixed.
Al-Jarl2 There is existing vegetation. In some areas it's very thick and quite mature. And there's
only one way to go. I mean it will only get larger.
Peterson: Because of the bluff aspect...
Mancino: I have a couple more questions along those lines. Is there any other road, arterial road
in Chanhassen where we allow metal siding? Corrugated metal siding. Is there Highway 5? Is
there TH 1017 Is there any other area? So not allowing it stays fair to everything else that we're
doing in the city. And as we see our city changing quite a bit from rural to urban, more and more,
and we're going to be looking at this area in the next couple years, it certainly won't stay the same.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: That was the concern had. There's existing buildings on there...Does that mean we
continue to put those type of buildings on there. On this was a big discussion we spent internally
trying to resolve that issue because at what point do you say now you have to become more up to
the standards of the rest of the city. I guess the reason why we supported this type of building,
and it's really specifically the use. We looked at this use as.
Mancino: It's a good use.
Aanenson: Well we looked at the use as, it's kind of a rural type use. You don't see a dog run, a
horse stable in an urban setting. That's the only way we came to the conclusion that we could
accept this type of construction. If this was something, a retail, we wouldn't be supporting that
type of materials. But we said because it's a horse barn and animal shelter that really is rural in
character and we felt, and I think that they can show you the types of materials, because we
struggled with this too. We said it felt it met that rural kind of character. And that's the only way
that we could say, well it does seem to fit that type of character.
Mancino: I mean we have a...and in this more natural, it goes in with that whole area down there
by the river.
Aanenson: Sure.
Mancino: Yeah, okay. I mean I, obviously we're all struggling. What's the difference between a,
I mean a pylon sign and a monument sign? Can't you just have a taller monument sign that's?
Aanenson: They cap at 8 feet.
Mancino: They cap at 8 feet, okay. From there on they're called pylon signs.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: Okay. Regardless of architecturally design wise, what it looks like. Any other
questions? We can ask more specific things as, I'd like to give the applicant a chance to come up.
Is the applicant here and do you wish to present? Thank you.
Nancy Lee: Do you want to start with the metal buildings, as long as we're discussing that right
now?
Mancino: Wherever you would like to start. That'd be fine.
Nancy Lee: The reason there's different colors is because I can't decide yet. What we're looking
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
at is...that's the actual metal pieces...actual color chips and what we're looking to do, that was as
close a coloring job as I could do. We did have...and light color walls and one ofthe...those walls
will actually be 12 foot back because we're going to have a foot long...and it's going to be... We
want it to look nice, as much as you do. We're trying to use the colors...as you can see on these
panels. The only things you're really going to be able to see on this side...and as you're
coming...You won't be able to see the sides of the building. One faces 212 and the other faces the
hill. The stable goes back even further on the property which we're able to see...so it's not
something that's going to be...but it still has a lot of coverage...
Mancino: Explain the columns to me. What are the columns? That's that part, okay. And that's
going to be painted?
Nancy Lee: That's the same...just of the accordion metal. The little chips there, those are the
actual color samples on the metal of the building...
Mancino: Nancy, my concern is, one of the concerns that I have with metal is rusting. I mean
after so many years, I mean it always looks.
Nancy Lee: There's a 20 year warranty on it.
Mancino: There's a 20 year warranty.
Nancy Lee: ...on a building. Any building has to be kept up, whether it's metal or wood or
anything else. And that was one of my concerns too, the 20 year warranty. It has a 10 year
warranty on any type of fading. Up to 20 year warranty on the paint itself. It's not like the old
buildings that you used to have all the red rust...and that's exactly what it was. All the red rust...
They've taken care of that problem... IfI get red rust in 20 years, they'll come out and take care of
it for me.
Mancino: Okay, and you don't mind us putting some sort of a condition in here that says you
know, any rust will be taken care of or maintenance of the building in particular with the metal if
that's the way the commission goes.
Nancy Lee: ...with the business so we're already...
Mancino: And I'm assuming it runs vertically like this?
Nancy Lee: Yeah. The ridges are for strength. There is, underneath those chips if you take that
clip off} there is a...
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Oh, okay.
Kirchman: What's the height on the sides?
Nancy Lee: ...on this it's going to be 8 foot...and then 10 foot vertical...
Mancino: So what's the overall height of the kennel? And what's the overall highest of the stable?
Nancy Lee: The sight lines...
Mancino: No, but I mean with the roof too. The peak.
Nancy Lee: I don't know. I can't give you those answers. This was done by...and it's in
proportion to this...
Mancino: So that's 10, the roofs got to 8 to 10 because it looks almost 50%.
Nancy Lee: ...This is the stable. There's a small one here and here's where the horses will be.
And then here's where the indoor riding arena will be and so it's a 14 foot height right here. The
roof will be a 4:12 pitch.
Mancino: Okay.
Peterson: Not that steep.
Mancino: Not that steep, okay.
Nancy Lee: Yeah we didn't...
Mancino: Okay.
Nancy Lee: Okay. And then I would like to touch base on the driveway. We have proposed to
pave the driveway to the kennel...and propose to put...Class V driveway up to the horse stable.
And it was...put on our plans 20 foot wide... The only people utilizing the horse stable will be the
people who have horses in the stable, and of course ourselves and our employees. So I guess what
I'm requesting is that we ask to pave only... To us it's a driveway. It's not a road. It's a private
roadway... To be quite honest, the additional paving would be approximately $30,000.00 to do
that additional part because it's... The other request I have is in reference to the recommendation of
the wetland delineation. We're as conscientious about the wetlands...and what we did is we
purchased the aerial topography from the City itself, assuming that that would be...and what we
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
have been requested... 142 feet from the wetland. We're required to have a 60 foot setback...one
foot setback and a 20 foot buff'er strip...asking to do a wetland delineation, I don't think...
Mancino: I must tell you that we ask everyone, absolutely nobody has a preliminary plat approval
without doing that.
Nancy Lee: Okay. That was the first we learned about it. We just heard about it a week ago.
Okay. I think that really covers...answer any questions that you may have.
Mancino: I have a few. Does anybody have? Can you explain a little bit about the stable. Are
you going to be doing, is there going to be outside grazing of the horses in the area around it? Are
you going to have, I know you're going to have an inside arena obviously, but won't people want
to ride their horses outside around or have a jumping ring or whatever?
Nancy Lee: What we plan...
Mancino: Oh good. Is there in the conditions a perimeter fencing around the whole other area,
because we need to put that in. Maybe someone who's had a couple horses and having them get
through down Galpin Boulevard, it's important. We wouldn't want them.
Nancy Lee's answer could not be heard on the tape.
Mancino: Okay. Because you're on 212 and 101.
Nancy Lee: We don't want them lose...so we do have that perimeter fencing.
Mancino: And I think the other reason why ifs important is that, so that people who have their
horses out and they're riding around, don't go into other people's properly. They know the
boundary delineations so they can't get on other people's properly. Are you going to be teaching
lessons, obviously for people who come and board their horses and teaching some riding lessons?
Nancy Lee: ...at the start, no. But I guess that's not in our plans right now...
Mancino: Okay. IfI want to come and I don't have a horse there, can I come and will you have a
couple horses so ifI want to ride around a little bit on a Saturday afternoon, I can do that, and I'm
an accomplished horsewoman?
Nancy Lee: Somebody else asked if we're going to have a lease a horse program. We haven't set
one up...
16
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Skubic: ...access to parking in those areas, there will be congestion. There won't be any parking
area where...?
Nancy Lee: ...as you're coming down...
Skubic: Will there be room adjacent to the stables for more parking?
Nancy Lee: Actually there's a lot of...but obviously any additional parking will probably be up
closer to TH 101. As you come in down the driveway, it goes through...Do you see that on
there?
Skubic: Is that the existing concrete foundation?
Nancy Lee: Yeah. That would be...
Mancino: Any other questions?
Peterson: None of the applicant, no. A couple for stafl~
Mancino: Okay. One of the recommendation I'm going to make is that the dogs in the dog kennel
be inside, not from 10:00 to 6:00 but from 9:00 to 7:00. 9:00 at night until 7:00 in the morning
because I think that 6:00 is kind of unreasonable for kind of neighbors in the area to have dogs
outside and if they were barking at all, to have to call Public Safety all the time. So I just wanted
to get your reaction of that. I thought the hours were a little unreasonable.
Nancy Lee: ...from 7:00 in the morning?
Mancino: They need to be inside, inside the kennel area. Not outside in their run area from 9:00
at night until 7:00 in the morning. I didn't think that that would be a problem. Earlier either.
Nancy Lee: When I...
Mancino: Those are kind of our construction hours and where we try and be neighborly and make
sure that people aren't out making a lot of noise. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. May I
have a motion to open this for a public hearing, and a second please?
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission
at this time, please do so. Any comments. Any questions that you have. Seeing none, may I
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
have a motion to close the public hearing, and a second.
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments. Questions. Before we start, Dave. About the road and the paving and
only going part way with the paving. Do we run into erosion problems? I mean is that one of the
reasons, because it's going to be a commercial driveway and we're going to have big trucks and
everything on it. Why did we ask for it to be completely paved? What's the reasoning?
Hempel: One of the reasons for that is that the erosion and maintenance of it. In an all weather
surface like that, you want either to place gravel...and pot holes and so forth. Another reason is
access from a public safety standpoint. It's a little better year round, especially like during the
spring thaw and weight restrictions are on, asphalt surfaces seem to hold up better.
Peterson: What kind of conditions could we put on there that would be reasonable, as far as
maintenance? I mean have we ever done that before to any success?
Hempel: I can't think of any other site that we've got gravel.
Aanenson: In that area Sorenson and Halla.
Hempel: Sorenson. We have had erosion problems.
Aanenson: That one's got a steep grade.
Hempel: The driveway grades here are much flatter...
Mancino: But we could have a condition about how it has to be maintained with the gravel.
Hempel: I would think you could get another...do a few inspections on it...
Aanenson: Or I was going to say, if it becomes a problem we could say it has to be hard
surface...ifthere's a problem or something.
Hempel: Or if the use intensified. The stable riding...ifthere's traffic through that area which may
warrant it.
Mancino: So we could put something on it that if the use intensifies, that we could go and re-
evaluate and decide whether.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Or if there's a nuisance problem, yeah. Right now riding academies are permitted.
We have to come back and amend it. When we amended that district. And it may work in fine.
That it fits in with the use and we might decide to amend it but right now they'd have to come
back to intensify that. But I think the direction that you're looking for is can we put a condition on
there, if it's a problem, or even intensify. Let's say there's more trips back there and it seems to be
wearing on it.
Mancino: Okay. Any comments? Kevin. We have a couple variances here with the pylon signs.
The architectural standards.
Joyce: That was the only concern I have. I remember Kate referring to this area as the southern
gateway to Chanhassen so I'm sure that's something you guys struggled with and well, I think
weighing it out, I really do think it's a good use. I think it's appropriate. I don't have any
problems with it. I really don't at this point. I think it probably is a pretty good project for that
area. I agree with you. The one thing I was looking at those dog kennels wondering what time
frame they're going to be barking. I'm glad you added that so that's the only concern I had. I have
no problem with it.
Mancino: Okay. Bob.
Skubic: Just to clarify the roadway from the Fire Marshal and the engineering would need to have
to approve the deviation in the road.
Aanenson: Well technically not. The way the ordinance reads and Dave can comment on this
too. It says all loading, parking driveways shall be surfaced or asphalt, concrete or an approved
material accepted by the City and that's why we're saying right now, we want some control if it
gets to be a problem, and that's where Dave's coming from. The durability and erosion and safety.
So if we can find how it's designed to meet that, and I think that's your objective, if I'm
understanding. That's in our subdivision regulations, or zoning ordinance too.
Skubic: Okay. On condition 13 where we talk about Fire Marshal conditions. That the fire road
shall meet UFC Section 10-204. Must be submitted to the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal.
Aanenson: Right, and that's a weight restriction dealing with fire trucks. How close...can get so
we'll make sure that that still complies with that.
Skubic: That it still complies with that, okay. Yeah, I like the plan. I think it fits the area. It's
certainly something that, something new for the city. It's unfortunate that we are making some
exceptions here to the bluff grading and building materials, but I think it fits and I'm in favor of it.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah sorry I'm late. I like this plan. I like this. This is so much better than other
alternatives that we've looked at down there, and I apologize again for being a little bit late but
noise is not a problem Kate? That's not an issue?
Aanenson: Nancy had made a change on the hours. As far as barking dogs, that's something
certainly we're going to have to monitor.
Conrad: Closest house is how far away?
A1-Jafl~ Over 400 feet.
Conrad: Okay. Access Dave. I always had problems with the access on this site. There's no
special turning lanes out there. It's just there and that's the way it is. You expanded the width of
the road going in and it just, well I have nothing to say. It just seems like a very difficult place to
go in, but I don't have an alternative. I have nothing.
Mancino: Do you have any concerns with the variance for...?
Conrad: Variances are fine with me, yeah. They're okay. I think they're justified here. I do care
about the wetland on site so what the staff report said on wetlands, I really, that you have to
follow. The delineation of them and all the ordinances. Those are absolute. You just have to
hang in there 100% on what we say in terms of wetlands but the variances I'm okay with. I think
staff did a good job of rationalizing or justifying them and I buy it. That's all.
Mancino: And you haven't even been here that long.
Conrad: No.
Mancino: Clear. Focused... Okay, Craig.
Peterson: Sharmin, I need your help in understanding. Will you put up the overhead again, as to
how much of the stable and how much of the kennel will you see in the winter time as far as, the
southern, the exposure.
Mancino: We've got a picture.
Conrad: So imagine that without any leaves.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Peterson: Well that is the issue that I'm struggling with is that the building materials. We've got a
highly visible area. I like the usage. My only concern is, because of that visibility I'm not really
comfortable with metal there. I think it's, I think as visible as it is, it's going to come across cold
and I hate to say impersonal when you're talking about stable and the kennel but it's still a building
that is at the forefront of the entrance to Chanhassen. I would off'er as an alternative perhaps the
sides ofthe...exposure of both buildings would be wood, and I don't think that would be cost
prohibitive to do that and I think it'd add a certain, a great deal more warmth to the construction in
the field from the roadway. So I can't support the variance on that basis because I think that we
can compromise and have the areas that are visual to 169 and 212 be wood. At least I'd like that
to be considered.
Aanenson: Craig, can we just show you the pictures? If it helps.
Peterson: I think that the height is probably going to be higher than this, isn't it, as far as exposure.
The roof line's going to be set up higher than these buildings. These are probably what? To the
roof line maybe 15 feet and the construction of these is going to be, at least on the stable side,
significantly higher.
Aanenson: To the pitch?
Peterson: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah. We have 14.
Mancino: 14 to the side wall.
Aanenson: Yeah, side wall. So the pitch side will be higher.
Peterson: So you're going to see a lot more of the metal from the road because it's facing. This is
what I don't want to see from the road.
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, I'm not sure those are the best examples as far as looking at what they're
going to put on there facia, yeah. Right, I agree.
Mancino: Can you pass that down? Okay, any other comments?
Peterson: I would support the roadway going to Class V with conditions that would support the
upkeep and maintenance of it. I don't think I spoke to the sign but I'm comfortable with the sign
variance. Just the issue of the wood being...concemed about, yeah.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay. Any other? My comments are a couple. I'd just like to wait and see some of
these pictures but I have a question on the crematory. What all, I hate to ask, what all is burned in
the kennel crematory? And I guess, Nancy I ask you.
Nancy Lee: Animals.
Mancino: Carcasses. Dead carcasses.
Nancy Lee: And animal waste.
Mancino: And animal waste?
Nancy Lee: The crematories are very...pathological waste .... and I had talked with them about...
Mancino: Okay. I have some questions on that for stafl~ Number one, is that permitted? And
secondly, what about odor?
Aanenson: No, it's not. There's separate permitting for that. The carcass thing, they have to get a
permit. And medical waste, any of that kind of stuff is not permitted.
Mancino: It's not permitted?
Aanenson: Yeah. That would be regulated through Carver County so any permitting of any of
that is under the jurisdiction of Carver County. They would need permits from that, is our
understanding as Sharmin has talked to them.
Mancino: Okay. And is that in the condition that the applicant needs to go to Carver County and
get those permits?
A1-Jafl5 What we've stated was, they would have to get any applicable, they would have to meet
any applicable regulations from State, as well as County agencies. So this will include PCA,
Carver County, Environmental Services, Watershed. I mean any applicable agency that has
ordinances regulating any of these issues, they would have to obtain permits from.
Mancino: Okay. So that's in.
Aanenson: That's condition number 10.
Mancino: Okay, good.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: So if they can accomplish that and they get the necessary permits, that would be fine.
But again, it's our understanding right now that that can't be done.
Mancino: Okay. My other comments are that I think it's a very good use for the site. I think that
it's a good service to have in our city. I do agree with the variance on the pylon sign. I have a
harder time with the variance for the metal. You know we've had people in here before or
neighbors in the area come in and say, you know you don't think of us as in your city. You just
kind of leave us out and I'd just like to think that we were fair and have the same architectural
standards for everywhere in the city and I think that this is an important area and I would like to
see more natural materials used as in wood. But I very highly support the use, and I also would
be in favor of the driveway being paved to the kennel and then having the gravel the rest of it but
making sure that that is addressed periodically to make sure it's working for public safety and
there aren't huge potholes in it. So with that, may I have a motion please.
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96-
8 for the construction of a 8,152 square foot commercial stable and 12,936 square foot
commercial kennel, and a pylon sign in the BF, Fringe Business District, as shown on the plans
dated July 14, 1996 with the following conditions, and I welcome any friendly amendments to
there. Excuse me, is it okay ifI read that differently than how it was stated here and did not
include a variance for the metal building. Is that appropriate?
Aanenson: It's a variance, you should note the variance in your motion.
Mancino: You need to make the motion so that you clearly state the variance including the pylon
sign but not the, allowing the metal building.
Skubic: Okay. It should read to include the variance for the pylon sign but not the variance for
the all metal building.
Mancino: I'd like to add one friendly amendment. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not that one. On this one,
there should be a friendly amendment on number 6. I think that's it. The drive aisles shall be a
rolled bituminous drive aisles constructed to a 7 ton design to the kennel. Dave, could you help
us to where the cut-off would be on that?
Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. Maybe one point of clarification. The staff report reads the
drive aisle should be increased to 24 feet width. Does the commission agree with that? The plans
were proposing a 20 foot wide drive a majority of the way.
Mancino: And what is our ordinance and what is standard?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Hempel: Ordinance I believe is 24 to 26 feet wide... Minimum of 24 in width...
Mancino: Okay. Then the friendly amendment still reads that the 24 foot width, where I'm not
sure is where that ends and where we can start with the gravel.
Hempel: The bituminous surface, all weather surface, I want to clarify within that kennel, gravel
surface can support a 7 ton axle design would...
Skubic: I accept that friendly amendment.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Joyce: I'll make a second.
Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad: Sure, just a little bit. The ordinance says on metal buildings, not at all or, not at all? So
what we're doing is, there's still a variance.
Aanenson: We noticed it as a variance for materials, right. Your motion now.
Conrad: But the motion says, what's the motion say?
Aanenson: You're not going to grant the variance.
Skubic: Not for an all metal building. I would make exceptions...
Mancino: It can be trimmed.
Aanenson: Support materials.
Mancino: It can be support materials.
Conrad: Craig's comment was, at least wood on one side but I don't think we've given any clear
direction on this.
Peterson: That was my only discussion point too is that I'm open, and it really is for cost reasons I
would imagine from anything else. I don't know how substantial the wood or whatever material
they decide to use within the code, would change. My concem's for the visual aspect of it more
than I am the total building required to be wood. So I'm indifferent to the rest of it, although I
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
prefer the whole thing being within code. I would be open to having those exposed to the roads
and visual areas to be of code material.
Skubic: The intent of the motion is to comply with code on the sides of the buildings that front
Highway 169.
Peterson: Are you comfortable with that Nancy or not?
Mancino: Well I think a building's pretty weird when one side of it's one material and the other
three sides are something else so to me, no. It doesn't make sense just to have it one sided...so I
would be uncomfortable with it. But is this discussion or did you want to add this as a friendly
amendment?
Peterson: It's discussion at this point. I mean I'm tom between, I know I don't, I'm not
comfortable with all metal, and you have a valid point. Now I've seen, if the back of the building
is totally obscured from anybody's sight 12 months out of the year, then I'm not really concerned
about that being metal. So I think it can be done. If it's only one side or two, yeah. But if it's
going to be trees to the back of it or no road to the stable, you've got probably three sides that are
going to have exposure to visitors that are going to be viewing on the back side, which is on the
north side. I suspect there's not going to be any road or any access to there other than maybe a
horse walking around, if he can even do that with the grade going up pretty steep from there. I
doubt that that would be the case. So you've really got three sides of both buildings that would
have exposure. It's the back side that I'd be less concerned about. What about the houses? As I
look at the plan, I'm assuming that the houses up towards TH 101 that would overlook the kennel
aspect of it. Or am I mis-reading this? Sharmin?
Al-Jarl2 The houses are on Lakota. You have a trail that separates them and really there's...ofthe
site from up here is very limited.
Peterson: Okay, I'm looking at this and I see a building here and I see a structure here so I figure,
they're not existing?
Al-Jarl2 They're not there.
Peterson: I guess I'm not comfortable, I am comfortable with the back being metal if the applicant
desires to do that but I'm not, I wouldn't want to do it.
Mancino: Any other discussion?
Conrad: So Bob your request, your motion is to disallow the variance? Or am I putting words in
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
your mouth?
Mancino: Right now it stays that it would disallow the variance.
Skubic: That's what we're working towards here, yes.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Peterson: Second.
Skubic moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission reconnnends approval of
Site Plan Review #96-8 for the construction of an 8,152 square foot conunercial stable and
12,936 square foot conunercial kennel with a variance to allow a pylon sign, and to deny
the variance to allow a metal building, in the BF, Fringe Business District, as shown on the
plans dated June 14, 1996, with the following conditions:
The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain
tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or
relocated.
All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only.
Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain
haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking.
Any damage to city streets, curbs, or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
Type 3 erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Type 1 shall be
installed on the remainder of the site. Additional silt fence or rock filter dikes shall be
constructed at the culvert inlets. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained
at all times until the site has been fully restored, revegetated and removal is authorized by
the City.
Storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer to verify culverts are
sized correctly.
The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies
such as the Watershed District, MnDOT and the Chanhassen Building Department.
The access drive shall intersect Trunk Highway 101 at a 90 degree angle. All drive aisles
shall be paved with a bituminous surface a minimum of 24 feet wide. The curb shall be a
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
10.
11.
rolled bituminous and the drive aisles shall be constructed to a 7 ton design up to the
kennel. The gravel portion past the kennel shall also be constructed to a 7 ton design
and inspected periodically. The maximum grade for the drive aisle shall be 10%.
The waste water holding tank and/or proposed drainage swale shall be relocated to avoid
potential contamination of the storm water runofl~
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval. Type 1 erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side
of the construction limits and Type 3 erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands.
Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the
street has been paved with a bituminous surface.
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.
The applicant shall provide a storm water runoff plan that does not drain directly to the
wetland. A water quality pond to pretreat stormwater shall be constructed adjacent to the
wetland outside the street right-of-way. The pond shall be designed in accordance with
"NURP" standards. Detailed pond calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around
the wetland.
The applicant shall retain a professional wetland delineator to determine the wetland edge
and, if necessary, adjust the development accordingly.
12. Building Official conditions:
a. Install holding tank(s) to directly receive wastewater and toilet room waste, with tanks
sized and monitored in a manner approved by the City.
b. Obtain a feedlot permit from Carver County.
c. Provide covered, containerized onsite storage for animal waste in a manner approved by
the City.
d. Provide copies of solid waste disposal contract(s) to the City. Contract(s) must provide
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
for continuous disposal of all solid animal waste generated.
13. Fire Marshal conditions:
Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Pursuant to UFC
Section 10.204(c). Submit radius tums for the west driveway on the stable.
Fire lanes signage in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy 06-1991 shall be installed on the service road starting at the west end of the
kennel to the east end of the stable. This is to assure that fire apparatus will have access
in the event of a fire.
Driving surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface as to
provide all weather driving capabilities pursuant to UFC Section 10-204(b). Submit
road design to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Submit radius
tums from the driveway off State Highway 101.
Comply with Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 regarding premise
identification. Additional numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Number,
size and location must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
Timing of insulation on fire protection including fire apparatus access roads for fire
protection is required to be installed. Such access road shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to UFC Section 10-
502.
14. The applicant must install tree protection fencing at the grading limits near any existing
trees. Fencing must be installed at the time of the silt fence installation.
15. A complete sign plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
16.
The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 38 parking spaces. The City has the right to
require the applicant to provide these additional specs if staff determines that additional
spaces are needed.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the variance request.
Mancino: Okay. Now we need another motion for the conditional use permit.
Aanenson: Oh, we kind of figured, I just assumed it was all one motion.
Mancino: No, there are two motions. May I please have a motion for a conditional use permit.
Skubic: I'd like to make that motion also. The Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #96-3 to allow a commercial kennel and commercial stable in a Fringe
Business District, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principle building on a
single lot as shown on the plans dated received June 14, 1996 with the conditions outlined by
stafl~ 1 through 10.
Mancino: Will you accept a friendly amendment, or two please? On number 2(e). That all dogs
and cats shall be housed indoors overnight, 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Just a very simple hour for
having dogs out and maybe barking and public safety doesn't get as many calls. And it really does
follow what our noise and construction ordinance is in place right now to those hours. And
number, I guess another friendly amendment would just be to add number 11. That there be
perimeter fencing around the area so that when horses are out grazing, etc., that they won't go off
site.
Aanenson: I think that's in 3(b).
Mancino: Is it?
Aanenson: Yeah. Unless you wanted to add something there.
A1-Jafl~ Page 25.
Mancino: Oh, thank you. It's here, thanks. Is there a second to the motion?
Joyce: I'll second the motion.
Mancino: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #96-3 to allow a conunercial kennel and conunercial stable in a
Fringe Business District, and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
building on a single lot; as shown on plans dated received June 14, 1996, with the following
conditions:
1. All structures on the site must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III.
2. The following criteria relates to commercial kennels for dogs and cats:
a. Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any
neighboring residential structure used for human habitation.
b. The proposed chain link fence which will surround each dog compartment shall be
sturdy to keep dogs confined.
Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well.
The applicant is showing a waste water holding tank located 180 feet from a well
location however, they have not shown the location of feces accumulation. Such
information must be provided.
All accumulation of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become
unsightly.
e. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
f. All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel employee(s) is
not present at the subject properly.
g. Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by
the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance.
Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such
screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt
planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography.
i. The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters:
* Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and
ventilation.
* Animals kept outside must have continual access so animals can get in and out to
shelter and protect them from sun, rain and snow.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
* If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become
entangled with chains of other dogs.
* Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to mm around
fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition.
* The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degree
Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures.
* Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and disease
hazards.
* Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against
contamination and deterioration.
3. The following criteria relates to commercial stables for horses:
Minimum acreage for two horses shall be one and one-half acres and for three horses
shall be two acres, and additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional
horse. The site has an area of 13.16 acres allowing a maximum number of 35 horses.
b. The area where horses are kept shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electrical
fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within.
c. The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a
harborage for rodents, flies and insects.
Keeping, storing, stabling, or maintenance of horses shall not directly contribute to the
pollution of any public body of water. Covered, containerized solid waste storage is
required. The operation will be generating large amounts of solid waste. To prevent
runoff from the site, waste awaiting disposal should be covered to protect it from rain
and snow and contained within barriers to keep it consolidated in a designated area.
e. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet from any well.
All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no
leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become
unsightly.
All dog runs must maintain a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 50 feet
from public or private road right-of-way and 200 feet from an adjacent single family
residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line, whichever is greater.
5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the City to maintain and operate the commercial
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
kennel and stable as regulated by the City Code.
Both commercial kennel and stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such a manner as to
prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein.
Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at
any time.
The applicant is showing light fixtures shielded under the roof canopy. All light must meet
ordinance requirements. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall
demonstrate that there is no more than 1/2 foot candles of light at the property line as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted when building permits
are requested.
9. No outdoor speakers are allowed.
10.
The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such as
Lower Minnesota Watershed, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL,
INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE-COMMERCIAL, HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND OFFICE; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR UP TO 307,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
BUILDINGS, 100,000 SQ. FT. OF INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS, AND 322
DWELLING UNITS; REZONING FROM IOP AND RSF TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 13 LOTS AND 30UTLOTS AND
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND
EXCAVATE WETLANDS ON SITE; VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
EASEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA~V) FINDINGS;
AND INDIRECT SOURCE PERMIT REVIEW FOR THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS
PROJECT ON 66.12 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 BETWEEN GREAT
PLAINS BLVD. AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. LOTUS
REALTY SERVICES.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Peterson: I still need help with understanding how, the difference between the code provided in
PUD, how we can variance from code. That's what's confusing me.
Generous: Because you're creating a shared parking opportunity and in a mixed development
you're going to have different peak requirements and so you can count on that some of the parking
that would be required in your retail could be, and portions of the church school for instance, or
some of the restaurant uses might be within the office space, which might have a later peak for, at
least in the evening.
Peterson: So provided is.
Mancino: What they showed on their preliminary plat?
Generous: Yes. That master plan that we have.
Mancino: So when we, when two of us said this looks like massive parking.
Aanenson: It's the ulti-parking plan.
Mancino: It's the pre code or it's the provided?
Generous: No. What they showed on it, because they have incorporated some of the standards.
The two prairie unit that we were talking about for the residential, they had already incorporated
that into the plans so we were able to drop it there. Half a story per unit for the apartments. And
the retail about the same. Office, that was just over parked. We believe the office...
Mancino: So what we see is what we get?
Generous: No. This would be a maximum that they would do.
Aanenson: Ultimate.
Generous: However it doesn't incorporate all the parking lot landscaping that we would anticipate
as the individual sites comes in. It doesn't incorporate the handicap spaces which take up
additional space and would delete other parking spaces.
Aanenson: The other thing too is we're hoping that we get more street furniture, that sort of thing.
Even the backs of buildings and that may push in some of the parking spaces too. In the back
where it seems like more of the back of the building you've got parking. That we do some more
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
street furniture or public spaces there and that we have...
Generous: As well as pedestrian ways within the parking lot areas. One of the other things that
we were just provided this afternoon was a new development data table and I handed that out.
They went in to starting to rearranging the northwest comer of the project and if you look at, just
looking at their development tabulation tables, you'll see they've already dropped approximately
80 parking stalls through redesigning it and increasing some pedestrian access. I don't want to get
into that too far because Mika is going to explain that a little bit more. So you can see that
basically what it shows on this analysis, they've dropped an additional 120 parking stalls and they
would be able to meet those.
Mancino: That's what I wanted to know.
Aanenson: Right. Exactly. We believe that it's over parked. That was the question in the first
place. We believe it can come under. That's what Bob's demonstrating here and as each
individual site comes in, we're going to look at that but we believe that, what Bob's looking at,
really you're looking at a true mixed use where you're sharing parking. That's the intent, and that's
the beauty of a PUD. Each project doesn't fly on it's own merits. They all use each other and not
at peak times. And also we're putting the transit component in here, remember because of the
mass transit component. That may reduce some of the parking, some of the people in the
residential may not even have cars so we believe that there's enough there that.
Generous: One thing that we should point out is that for the apartment buildings, all the required
parking is shown within garages so the 1.5 would be underground parking.
Bob Generous and Kate Aanenson continued with the staff report.
Mancino: Bob, on page 42, does number 5 need to be there? If we're not going to allow, if your
suggestion, your condition is not to allow the tennis court, why would there be tree removal for
the tennis courts?
Generous: The first part probably doesn't. We didn't permit plans for parking lot area either.
That's not in this plan. It might happen. One of our concerns about the location of the soccer field
down on the southern part of the site is where are people going to...long way for people to walk.
Mancino: Okay.
Bob Generous continued with his staff report.
Mancino: Okay, any questions? Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Joyce: I have one question regarding the soccer field. Access would be with the trail then,
correct? Is that what's been decided?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: I'm just curious...voted against the soccer field would have no significant value to the local
soccer associations but then we will have an agreement with St. Hubert's so the CAA can use the
soccer field? Or how's that going to be handled?
Aanenson: I don't know if we can address that. It's really up to the Park and Rec Commission.
Generous: And St. Hubert's.
Joyce: Sothat'sjustkindofanopenendedthing. Ajointagreement.
Aanenson: As this moves through the process, they'll all come to terms on exactly what that
negotiation is, sure.
Joyce: Is there any way, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if we're giving up the natural area
over there, I'd like to have, help me with this. Some sort of agreement that the community can use
this soccer field. I guess I'm trying to see if that's.
Aanenson: ...the commission is saying. That they will take the park and trail fees and use that
money to maybe acquire something else or do something else with the money.
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Okay. Any other questions?
Peterson: Is there any discussion regarding the berming between TH 5 and the project?
Generous: There is a condition in there already that requires a 3 to 5 foot berm and also we've
discussed it with the developer what we anticipate doing.
Aanenson: And again when you see the hotel, which will be one of the first ones coming through,
they'll have to have a specific plan showing that.
Mancino: And there are others of us that will add a condition to it that there be something
computer generated from the Highway 5 view. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
and do you wish to make a presentation?
Vemelle Clayton: Thank you Madam Chair...vemacular which he has done and...northwest
comer of the PUD...although I'm going to ask you, are you comfortable, we're trying to...and not
go over everything twice. He just explained the parking issues. Will that suffice? Are there other
questions on the parking issue?
Conrad: And you don't have any problems with the recommendation?
Vemelle Clayton: No. No. As you move through, certain ones will be lost for additional
landscaping and certain ones will be lost for, currently the handicap stalls... We needed a little
extra for that...
Mancino: Vemelle, could you cover one other thing and that is that I noticed through my plans
that there seems to be, in the church area, the institutional area, dotted lines around the church
edifice. I mean it seems to go, I mean is there going to be expansion? Is it planned for expansion
or something?
Vemelle Clayton: ...the dotted lines that would indicate their future expansion and they will.., site
plan approval.
Mancino: Okay. I was concerned about impervious surface.
Vemelle Clayton: ...adding onto the school, in that area. That's where they're at.
Aanenson: Can I address that real quickly? This has a maximum threshold based on the EAW
document so if you get from one, you have to take from somewhere else because there's only a
maximum that this property can hold, unless you want to go back and amend the document.
Mancino: So what does that need?
Aanenson: You may need additional study as far as some of the environmental impacts, because
they have to be a cap as far as the, and they're at that.
Mancino: Okay. Does it also mean that we're at impervious surface at a percent? I know that we
have to keep that as we look at the entire site. To make sure that we.
Generous: The proposed, the maximum proposed expansion on that...significant impact on
impervious surface because all their parking would be in place. It would just be the additional
building.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: But it may go back for another EAW, okay.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Thank you.
Mika Milo: My name is Mika Milo with...and I'm back for the second time to explain a couple
particular items. One is the full revision to the northwest area in response to staff and Planning
Commission comments and concerns. And I would... This is the views...it does not show any
embellishment, trees and shadows or anything at this point...It shows that northwest area. The
concern that we had voiced from the staff was that we did not have enough...of a pedestrian
situation between the motel and the restaurant, as well as from that northwest comer to the central
area, and also it was sort of thought that maybe a lot of...parking. In response to that we have
moved...the building all the way here and...just in case that we don't have...we would need to have
also back-up situation from the south...approaching to the motel on that site. Right now as you
see the properly from that building...approach from the south.., to re-work that northwest area and
this is what we came up with, and I'd like to use that projector for a moment. As you see that is
the northwest edge where the... Here comes TH 101 along here and then here is TH 5 on the top.
North is here on the top. So what we did, we have allowed that turn to happen here and we form
now more of a...parking plaza here that was not before. Then we move that building further away
from that walk. From that direction towards the hotel and to provide rather a...good connection
straight, right through here and where you've got sight lines straight to the hotel. Once we reach
the hotel site, then we have provided another landscape...and buffer here and...east/west side.
This is the north/south side. That it comes, it actually comes first to the road plaza. Again the
road plaza in the northwest area. From here it goes here to north and then from that point, it goes
east or west towards the motel and east towards the restaurant... So that we have four...kind of a
T. This way and that way for the...circulation. These restaurant use would be here and... Now
the restaurant is now going to be rather surrounded with a walker than a back bone, at least
looking at that east side portion. And as we are doing that we are also...the site area for there is a
motel area and we have this...instead of being just straight. Going straight like we have...is
swinging slightly down and up here, thus allowing the hotel to be a little bit wider and shorter this
way. So shorter here but longer here, thus allowing for that straight shot. Straight approach from
the south into the site. That, at the same time lies out all the buildings here nicely...so that along
that edge we are forming another pedestrian, clear, strong pedestrian circulation along all these
areas. Actually now the people can go all the way from the southern area with the church and go
all along here...pedestrian safe area. Along this...going to motel and going to the restaurant or
going to the northwest downtown. Very important...and the northwest connection to downtown
with the restaurant and with the pier point and the promenade and the main street, which is coming
from that point. So if this is the strong, actually that...pedestrian circulation that has...pedestrian
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
walkway and trail to connect from the downtown over there... By shifting that street slightly this
way and rearranging the buildings, opening up that point there and access point from south,
making this pedestrian situation much stronger in...as well as connecting the motel and restaurant,
we believe, and also adding these embellished pavements at the plaza and intersection, we believe
that we have enhanced the design of that northwest comer. We have also, on top of that, there
is...facing TH 101. A storm pond here. All of that may be even will be extended back one. We
are not quite sure. We didn't have much time to organize...incorporate and work with VFW
and...so that is something to work... This is my brief report on the revisions to the northwest. Any
questions at this point?
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Mika, it's nice the way it gives you an alternate
main street. I mean not quite the same look but.
Mika Milo: And I think that's...that you have the small 11 x 17 that has been distributed.., what
we are showing is just...the BRW and the landscape portion.
Mancino: Is the concept still to stay towards TH 101 with the lower height buildings? The one
story buildings and become increasingly taller as you go into.
Mika Milo: At the square. We are going in keeping materials.... Shall I move to the next
presentation?
Mancino: Please.
Mika Milo: We spent quite a bit of time trying to prepare really a...not only for the sake of...what
kind of architecture. What kind of additional village character we would like to have. That was
really excellent question that you asked because that put us into work...what did we really want
and it's... How we assure that the people...tell the people what do you like to see... One kind of
examples and guidance to give them as they go...individual buildings. That maybe we will not be
around all the time but the language will be there and the pictures and so on and... So we have
prepared...what I thought, initially I thought maybe just a single page of...saying to that respect
but...and so because of the short time we didn't have really a chance to distribute that to you...but
at least by now I can distribute to you two color copies and ten black and whites of the text...so
maybe you want to share for now the color ones and...
Mancino: Did everyone get a black and white? Does stafl} do you have one?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mika Milo: What we did on the first three pages we went into the discussion and explanation of
38
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
what we would do. What we really mean on traditional...and we explain that traditional.., really
means not only the look of the building but we managed to really explain what
everybody's...understand the traditional village character relates to the overall...conceptualize and
to focus then and understand that they are designed...with the master plan itself and therefore the
village has been designed as...or the street project of the texture. And so those buildings are not
isolated from urban monuments...they are intended to be some self expression but rather more
modest so that you should one by one...to create a village, to create a public feel. This is what we
are saying here in the first couple pages. We are relating to some nice examples that exist.., the
buildings are there to create the public open space and as declarations so that we are sharing...
Once we explain that on the first page, we go to second page and explain about architectural
design...expressing individual isolated buildings on the pad. And number two, that we going to
find that architectural...as well as sources we are saying that the architecture may... Another
source may be the architectural example of... However in no case shall the architecture lead to
the...expression ofthe...main street...all can greatly contribute to what's...traditional European
architecture can be also another source of inspiration...interpretation .... but even more so in regard
to bad experiences...for the requirements of more shopping and shared pedestrian oriented streets.
Even though the...the architects must draw upon their own experience...successful examples of
traditional village architecture...so we show the pictures of the villages and then after that we saw
the exhibits of...just some examples that we have from TH 5. One is also...street level because
that's where our focus should be architecturally. That shows very interesting.., landscape,
pavers...passages, signage...and the second page, two story. On the second page we have two
story examples of retail or office and...of windows are also being used for the exhibition and
show, as much as the first floor. And then we go into the...arcades and then signage...Then we
are showing some pictures about restaurants, arcades, and treatments of the awnings and the
outside seating, as well as...shows how the projected signs can be very interested...and then some
passages...interesting and just what we are...we have been doing the parking...use the front door
from the street rather than the street, the shop being... We want everybody and the conditions I
think as Bob has also done some of the conditions that the shop owners have to have the main
door and the street rather than the parking. They may have additional...but the main entrance is
from the street, especially for the small shop owners. Maybe the big ones can have also
additional...passageway and that would be...we do have these exhibits that...any questions?
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I just have one but I think I will wait and ask that
of Vemelle.
Mika Milo: ...Vemelle outlined that I should report...as far as the parking total numbers...so
unless you have any questions, or maybe you have anything Vemelle to say.
Mancino: Thank you very much.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mika Milo: You're welcome.
Vemelle Clayton: ...number of things that...talk about landscaping.
Mancino: Yeah I just had one for you and maybe Bob can respond. And it has to do with, some
with architecture but when I read on page 2 about the village core, the Sector 1, that structures
may be increased to three stories and a loft, and I don't have a problem with the loft. But you
know my vision that I keep seeing and keeps being reinforced is that the center will be three
stories and there will be residential up above the retail, office, etc. But when I see the word may,
there's just this kind of trigger for me. What does that mean?
Vemelle Clayton: ...the plan is that there will be three stories and they may be. Isn't that what
you were thinking?
Generous: Yes. The thing I wanted to avoid is that if they didn't put the residential on, I didn't
want them to go higher. That's the limitation. So they have to include residential if they want to.
Aanenson: To get the height.
Mancino: To get the height, okay. Thank you. That helps me because I could see one story in
here and it'd be more like a strip mall effect than it would be your village so I wanted to ask that
question. Thank you.
Vemelle Clayton: With that...Dean Olson who is here to talk about the landscaping...so he's going
to talk about that and include in the discussion a little bit about the street furniture...
Dean Olson: Good evening. What I have here is a copy of the revised site landscape portion of
the package and also some examples of some ofthe...fumishings. A couple of revisions that we
made...on the standards. In Section 1.7, we expanded the statement that says all site
developments, associated plantings which abuts Lake Drive, Main Street and we added and other
prominent drives...additional drive, shall follow up with a landscaping and hard scape design
established... Down on 1.12 we also added the fact that plant material, the fact that they should be
salt tolerate...as well for plant material. On the following page, 1.17 we added hedge plantings
shall be utilized...and further down where we talk about site lightings. At staffs
recommendations, we're keeping all of the proposed site lightings at a maximum of 20 foot height.
We also added under 1.7, decorative pedestrian scale light fixtures may be used within individual
parking and site developments as well. Also down further on site furnishings, we mentioned that
we wanted to keep this a little bit open and work with the actual vernacular buildings so we stated
the furnishings shall be of the style and color which is characteristic of the adjacent buildings. A
variety of styles and colors is encouraged within the PUD. And also finally at the bottom, the
40
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
introduction of public gardens is encouraged as well. The package of site furnishings that you
have show the character of the pedestrian scale or the decorative fixtures that we were thinking
about for the project, which obviously has a much nicer character than the standard shoe box
fixtures. Then the following is that several pages of various examples of the types offences that
might be used throughout the complex. Both more expensive teak benches, metal benches with
scroll work and also a combination of wood and metal and then some of the potential site
furnishings for cafe areas and then various embellishments that could be added to the faces of
buildings. Also include some things that.., and then some examples of some ofthe...development.
First thing I want to do is talk to the landscape plan. You saw a little bit of what Mika had
proposed quickly in terms of changes in the northwest portion of the site, and I'll just embellish
that a little bit by talking to a couple things. First, in response to your concern for planting and
screening along TH 5. We're proposing that the pedestrian pathway along...and also fill that with
plant material. That plant material in that area will probably have to be ornamental scale trees,
shrubs and at the very most evergreen trees because there is the NSP right-of-way or easement
which runs through this portion of the site so that plant material height will be limited by that
easement. Although you can see it will be pretty heavily planted in here, we're trying to keep
some views open to the signage on the end of the hotel in here. And also in keeping with that,
we're proposing shorter scale ornamental trees up in this portion with the overstory trees on the
bottom portion of the hotel. Another thing that has been tossed around with staff is the possibility
of making an additional connection around the pond to this side so it can not only come from the
east and move through the site this way, but also possibly from the top edge of the pond. In
talking with Beth Kunkel, the wetland specialist in our office, she suggested that that would
probably need to be in the very most, the boardwalk type of walkway through there. That would
begin obviously somewhere in here. Carry through to here. It would really be on the edge of that
more open water area and the existing wetland and buff'er edge that would be planted through that
zone. And that buff'er area would carry around this sedimentation pond, up into this comer and
then what we're proposing right now is to do a little more manicured lawn edge along the bottom
2/3 of the pond.
Mancino: How many white swans will there be in the pond?
Dean Olson: As many as we can attract. Depending upon how many decoys we put out there.
Also we're proposing a berm up in this area to help screen the parking here, although the view
would be sensitive to views to the restaurant or retail...from the highway corridor. We are closing
it offa little bit here. This represents that existing group of trees that we're proposing to save.
And of course we need additional buffering along the wetland area. The overstory trees, Mika
had shown them on his plan and I'll just reiterate the fact that we are looking at trying to provide
as strong boulevard entry to the motel/hotel up in this comer and also that strong pedestrian
connection through this area and to the main floor and to main street there. And then I'll show you
also an image actually looking across the pond to some of the buildings which...elevations that
41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
manicured edge around here. Bringing in the hedge which we had mentioned last time would be
desirable along the top of that lawn area to screen directly behind it. Then coming in with some
planter boxes at various areas across the facades and then down in this area, a series of steps,
actually seat steps down here...with plantings within those planted with public flowers, shrubs,
that sort of thing. And then vines on the actual signage here which starts to close that. And then
street trees along this edge at the front, it will be spaced slightly wider than, we desired a 30 foot
spacing so that we get more open views to the building in that location. And one more piece in
large land of character of main street. And as we had in our narrative, we talked about two types
of accent paving. One which would be down the center portion of main street, but could actually
be the driving surface through here with parking, bituminous, parking on either side and that
actual drive lane carries through and hits the promenade street at the front of the pond. And also
tums here so really the character of this is so that the accent paving takes over these spaces and
creates the town square, center portion of the drive lane and this feature element down here as
well. And the curb lines become secondary through this whole area. The second type of accent
paving would be primarily pedestrian circulation through the space and along the store fronts and
out to this edge and then down out onto here so the...is here, we have a grade change somewhere
through here and also here and we're proposing probably about 18 inches or 20 inches here.
Somebody can sit along those edges. At the pond edge but then also I would manicure the lawn
edge for whatever we need to accommodate the treatment along the promenade. At the store
fronts there's some opportunities that if you look at the pictures that Mika provided, there are a lot
of variations on how the actual shop fronts can occur in terms of plantings. Little treatments with
canopies and so forth but there are some opportunities with the amount of space that we have in
here, of 15 to 16 feet, to come in and either do plantings at the base of shops, or actually take that
planting a little bit further out and create actual areas for seating for things like restaurants and so
forth. There were some pictures of...fled to the buildings but still had planting at the outer ridge.
On these areas, depending on what the ends of the buildings are. For instance if these were cafes
or coffee shops, the actual area in here could be open to provide more seating area with tables and
umbrellas and so forth. Really sort of inject some color and some character to that simple town
square. Or the other option, as I've shown here, is to provide some planter areas. We need a
transit shelter at this location, and then also some benches around the outside edges there. I
foresee this as being an at grade sort of planter...really the edge of that town square. And keeping
actually the plantings and the trees to the other edges of the square... In terms of character, do you
have any questions?
Mancino: Anybody have any questions?
Dean Olson: One area that was brought to my attention today is the resolution of the retaining
walls on the eastern side of the site.
Mancino: Is there a way to also bring a narration element into the storm water ponds on TH 1017
42
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
I mean those could be just quite nice.
Dean Olson: The edge?
Mancino: Yeah, the edge here that it's a whole other area.
Dean Olson: There are areas that I've worked with...in some of those cases the water quality
created, we are fairly deep so we would have the opportunity to do that. The pond out front right
now, I think we're proposing about 4 foot dredging for that area so it'd be about 4 foot deep.
Aanenson: We've been talking about that one with him too...revised. We've talked about making
those and get a future. The opportunities...rather than make it just a pond.
Mancino: We kind of reflect that the pond would be another main street.
Aanenson: ...buildings along that edge. Take that water out and make it an enhancement where
you've got the treatment ponds. Not the wetlands but the treatment ponds and if you see, maybe
revise that and put walking out there. It'd be a good place to sit. Again, kind of bringing the
public, the furniture and the open space and art or something like that. Take advantage of those
opportunities.
Dean Olson: I did take some liberties with the pond edges and trying to do some...
Mancino: Thank you Dean.
Vemelle Clayton: ...I have determined that we can talk a little bit about signs at the same time
that we review our response to the conditions of approval. With that...about soccer fields. From
the soccer association... Jay Johnson and Randy Koepsell.
Jay Johnson: I didn't have anything. We're here just to support it.
Vemelle Clayton: Okay...building preparation and...
Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a member of the Building Committee and I'm actually
here in that capacity as opposed to represent Opus. We talked last week about this ballfield being
an important issue to St. Hubert's. I mentioned last week that we had some plans that we were
developing to hopefully alleviate some of the concerns and so on and I think we've seen from the
Park and Rec meeting last night that there has been some developments in the plans and the Park
and Rec supported those plans but I wanted to just take a couple of minutes to maybe explain to
the commission why it's important to St. Hubert's. St. Hubert's is growing quite rapidly, along
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
with the rest of Chanhassen. I think as of about the first of year we were over 1,600 families and
we were growing by something like a family a day I think it was. Like 350 families in 1995. So
we're growing quite rapidly along with the rest of Chanhassen. We anticipate within 10 years
we'll be about 3,000 families. If you translate families into parishioners, it might be something
like 9,000 parishioners and if you translate that into youth, it's maybe 3,000 or 4,000 youth. The
school may have some day up to 700 or 800 kids in the day school. An awful lot of people and
an awful lot of youth. Clearly one of the reasons we're looking to expand is to expand our
programs here has really been lacking. I think it's fairly clear that we need green space. Yes,
we've got some green space for recess off of the south of the school and we're also planning a
portion of the parking lot be designed and have it used for recess...or a popular basketball area
that could be used for parking...but I think clearly there's a need for a play area. Efficient play
area besides just the recess. We've got a number of soccer teams, ball teams of various sorts and
we need some space for that. I wanted to talk a little bit about the why maybe some other
locations we felt didn't work. Just as staff has recommended that we look at placing the ballfield
up north of the trail, that was clearly the churches first choice. In our first 15-20 plans that we did
had the ballfield north of the trail. And I think that one of the things that we've clearly seen, and
you've talked about at the opening of the meeting tonight. One of the big benefits of a PUD in this
development is the shared parking. And of all the various plans that we've looked at, placed the
ballfield, or a little over 2 acres, a 2 acre ballfield north of the trail. It took up parking and
building space is what it comes down to. I think there's been some comment previously that that
area north of the trail kind of east of TH 101 and north of the trail is fairly dense as it is. To try to
squeeze that 2 acre ballfield into that, clearly something's got to give. That something we think is
at least 80 to 100 parking stalls. To eliminate 80 to 100 parking stalls and replace them
somewhere else, I think there's several buildings that end up having to drop out. As buildings
drop out, again shared parking drops away and it's almost a domino effect and I think it has a very
significant impact on the overall effect of what the villages concept is all about. If you're going to
put the ballfield in lieu of buildings. So with that we felt that it wasn't viable to place the ballfield
north of the trail, much as we'd like to. We just felt it wasn't viable. We are reasonably
comfortable with the access. It's 400 to 500 feet away from the other parking lot. Clearly we'd
love it to be 2 feet away but we think 500 feet is not an unreasonable distance, particularly since
we do have the space within the main properly for recess and those types of activities. I want to
talk just a little bit about some adjustments that we've made around the plan. We've made a few
adjustments to the plan that have been submitted as part of the PUD and in order to mitigate some
of it, concerns for putting the ballfields in this location. One of the concerns, one of the bigger
concerns has been tree loss and the significant trees and so on and so forth, that the significant
trees have been mapped out and the majority of the significant trees are actually, the majority of
the significant trees on the west side of the knoll are actually within the Highway 101 right-of-way
and will need to be removed in order to construction the new TH 101. There is, I believe only
one 12 inch ash that is about this location that this particular plan requires tree removal. What the
PUD originally showed is that the ballfield was located basically right along the east properly line
44
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
here and tucked up against the south properly line as well. What that would have done was
removed the only other significant trees on this knoll, which is on this east bank and there are
some nice trees here. There's a tree, if you look at the significant tree survey, something like 90%
of them are box elder and cottonwood and so called weed trees. There are some nice trees along
this bank that we think we can save. We're confident can be saved. This is a 36 inch burr oak
here and a 23 inch burr oak here. A couple of 12 inch red oaks and a number of 12 to 17 inch
ask. What we've done is we've moved the ballfield away from this slope and these trees in order
to save them. We've also raised the ballfield up in order to deal with the grade change, primarily
from these significant trees of 36 inch oak. We're locating the ballfield at approximately the same
elevation as this oak tree so we have minimal impact on that oak. In addition to shifting the
ballfield in order to save the remaining significant trees, we're also proposing that we would
construct a landscape buffer by adding additional trees, ornamental trees and deciduous trees and
that type to restore a little bit of that natural feel. I know that it's not the same kind of feel as
leaving that brushy...because I think the bulk of this is brush and we've talk about that with staff
and...
Mancino: Called new growth trees.
Dave Bangasser: What's that?
Mancino: Saplings. New growth, next generation of trees.
Dave Bangasser: Right, that are there now and so on. And again I'm not saying that this is going
to look like it but it is still going to be open space. Either way it's open space and it won't be
exactly the same but maybe there's also some benefits in that I think it may open up the views now
as you drive down TH 101 and not only be able to see Lake Susan to the west but also see Rice
Marsh Lake to the east. That's really all I wanted to indicate. Again it's an important issue to St.
Hubert's and either way it's going to be open space. It's going to be green space. I think there are
some benefits, not only to St. Hubert's but also we have I think a history of cooperating with the
city and other organizations within the city for joint use and things and...talk about that. Clearly
the summertime there's no school, whereas we don't typically use, we don't anticipate using the
ballfield a great deal. I would also think that it's also time when the neighborhood is, the
neighborhood kids are out of school and maybe that's a time when there's additional demand for
parks in these areas so with that I'll stop what I had to say here, unless you have any questions, I'll
be happy to address them.
Mancino: I just have a couple for staff2 Bob this is, this space is 100% canopy coverage.
Generous: Yes.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Correct. Ifs not 80. Ifs not 70. Ifs not 60.
Generous: Based on my analysis.
Mancino: Okay. And there would be, I'm assuming complete grading. There's a 30 foot, 25, 20
foot grading that would need to come out to flatten it.
Generous: 20. Of course we haven't seen the revised. They said they had raised this elevation so.
Dean Olson: What this plan would do, I think the top of the hill is at 904. What we're
anticipating is that it would all be at about 10 feet lower than that so we'd end up with about a 20
foot knoll with closing it. Essentially we'd take the top of the knoll and slide it to the northwest so
we're again about halfway up on the knoll.
Mancino: My second question is, in the office building that is north of this, right here, is there
underground parking underneath this building at this time?
Generous: Not on the one story design. When Alternate A would have underground parking.
Mancino: This one. If it has residential on the second?
Generous: No, that's an instance where we don't have residential above but they increased the
office space so they provided some underground parking.
Mancino: Okay, so if it goes from one story to two story, the two story Alternate A would
include some underground parking.
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: For the second story. Otherwise, if it's one story it doesn't have any underground
parking?
Generous: Not as it's shown on the site, master plan.
Mancino: I'm just trying to find options of other parking areas. Okay. Any questions for Dave at
this point?
Conrad: Just to reiterate. There's only one significant tree?
Dave Bangasser: This plan that we're proposing, we believe it only will eliminate one 12 inch ash
46
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
tree. Other than the trees that are already being lost by TH 101.
Mancino: Which are the majority of the significant?
Dave Bangasser: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much.
Vemelle Clayton: ...Next I would like to talk...we have the Americlnn folks with us...hour is
moving on I'm going to try and do this in a way that you all can focus on their issues before us
and...and with that I'd like to move to the requested modifications to conditions of approval and
the first item is that we...is delete conditions 4, 7, 14 and the second bullet at Condition
15...soccer field. The next item would be to...are the ones that relate to the soccer field. Number
2, we want to accept condition number 6 provided a change is made. One of them was just
pointed out by Bob and that was the tying in ofthe...Another is, we have a couple others... I
wanted to talk a little bit about the Americlnn. The land use that we're proposing and for that
we...The Americlnn is the only building that is proposed to be three stories and so we're proposing
the following language, within Sector II the top of the signs shall not extend greater than 35 feet
above the ground. The reason for that is that the language previously proposed...that the top of
signs throughout could not be higher than 20 feet...after the last meeting that would work...We
also are suggesting that...tenant/logo signs shall be permitted. That language is already there...
There are a lot of reasons why a 30 foot high sign on the top of 30-35 feet at that location, it is a
three story building. It would support that...This is an important issue for them... We have just
committed to putting in some landscapings in that area in order to screen the cars that are parking
in our parking lot.., it's very important to them, and very important to us. And I'd like to...
Truman Howell: My name is Truman Howell. Truman Howell Architects. I'm an architect for
the Americlnn project here, and we have brought forward a design for the building with signage at
35 feet above grade which we feel...certainly would not be objectionable sign for this
development. We feel that it would be necessary to have the sign in that location, not only
because of the steady stream that will be along the Highway 5 access way but also...we do need
the opportunity to have that exposed to traffic coming both ways on TH 5... If there are any
questions, obviously tonight we're not bringing the site plan for you to review but we do feel that
this is a very important part of our project. If there are any questions I could answer.
Mancino: So you're asking for just blanket permission for 35 foot signs? Anywhere in this village
development?
Truman Howell: No ma'am. Only on the building that we're talking about, the motel itself.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Or in the rest of Section II. Any building that is on the highway.
Vemelle Clayton: That is three stories high.
Generous: Vemelle has some language.
Aanenson: There is a copy of the plan that was passed out. That shows the 35 feet. A sketch
plan they gave us tonight.
Truman Howell: I believe you have a sketch of the...
Aanenson: Just to give you some background of where the stafl~
Truman Howell: ...towards Highway 5... questioning the height for the obvious reasons that you
saw on the landscape plan. That's a fairly heavily treed area, and will continue to be, as well as
the berming which we have not seen...
Mancino: So that decision can also be made at site plan review.
Aanenson: Well I guess that's the question. There's two issues. First of all we said there would
be no pylon signs. They wanted a pylon sign. The second issue that we said, they don't have the
channelized letters so they came back and said, well that doesn't work for us so they want to take
what would have been the pylon sign to put it on the building. Okay, so it's not channelized letters
so there's kind of two issues that we...
Truman Howell: It's primarily a logo. If you've seen any of...that is the logo for Americlnn.
Aanenson: As I was saying, the concern that we have is, once you put one on there, whether it's a
logo or not, what's to prevent somebody else? Now beyond the height issue is somebody else
doing the same, we were trying to go to the channelized letter. So I guess our concern was when
we looked at this is that, if we put it go on this one, then there was pressure for some of the other
uses that may come in under corporate or have the visibility issue along TH 101 that they want the
same. So I guess we need, if it could be integrated into the, somehow that we felt okay, this
would be the one, again along this sector, if it's integrated. I mean it talks about height here but
that doesn't mean you can't have other ones integrated the same way, and our objective was to
have as many channelized, have them all channelized. So if you are going to do something, we
need to be specific on this because this is the PUD standards for the whole thing, and that's why
they're here right now because once you address these as they move their way through, these
become the standards for all them so the way it was written here reflects separate too but if you
have issues about that specific building or buildings within Sector II or how you can be specific as
you feel you need to be regarding that.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Well, okay. Any other questions for Truman at this time? Ladd? Any questions of
Truman?
Joyce: Can we take it on a site by site basis or is that what you're saying we can't do, right?
Generous: This is the standards.
Aanenson: Right. Then what have we got? I guess that's what we're trying to say. There's some
architectural uniformity here and that we have kind of put one in place but then we're saying the
first person in the door, it isn't going to meet their needs so here we are.
Mancino: But as we've always discussed, signs have a lot to do with color. Has a lot to do with
the garishness. How big it is, etc., so all of that plays an important part to just do a master and
say yes or no at 20 feet or at 35 feet. A lot of it depends on the design of the sign and how it
works in with the building architecturally. So that's why it's very hard to sit up here right now and
just do a blanket yes or no.
Aanenson: Right. I guess our concern is, if you take this ofl} right now it doesn't allow for that
anywhere else. There's no, that doesn't allow. We made a special provision for Sector II. Some
other sort of sign treatment because of their needs. So if you don't put that in there, you'd have to
amend the development contract.
Mancino: Is there any other way to have some flexibility here?
Vemelle Clayton: ...Section II...35 feet. Can we say in Sector II the height be determined by site
plan approval?
Aanenson: That's fine but then you're taking, you have to understand they may not give you 35
feet. They may give you 10.
Vemelle Clayton: I know but I think that they're more likely to be comfortable to give them the
35 feet...than they are tonight, not seeing anything...
Truman Howell: The problem that we have is that visibility, as you know with any motel
operation is very important. It is the, especially...it would be the only sign that we are able to use.
Mancino: But it also has to fit within the character of the Villages on the Pond and that's what we
want to make sure that we don't have an auto related use that sticks out there that does not fit in
with the rest of the character of the Villages on the Pond and there's no way that we can be, that I
49
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
could approve it without knowing that. Without seeing the architecture of the whole building. I
don't know, are there any comments?
Peterson: Right now we're discussing the same exact thing. The impression that this rough draft
gives doesn't fit with the ambiance that...has been presenting for the last few months. So that's my
first impression. My first impression. I won't speak for Ladd but my first impression is that the
height doesn't bother me as much as potentially as the sign size and character fits into, or doesn't
fit into it.
Aanenson: If we leave it the way it's written right here, in the before. Within Section II
architecturally building integrated panel signs may be permitted. If you want to put some caveat,
and I could check with the attomeys...but this says depending on how it architecturally relates to
the building scale, whatever other things we want to put...
Vemelle Clayton: ...without the height because otherwise we will have to...higher signage.
Mancino: No, you're saying we won't have to. We'll make sure that we have that flexibility.
Truman Howell: Well obviously it's...
Mancino: Well I think you're hearing our reservations.
Truman Howell: Yes I hear them.
Vemelle Clayton: ...The signs, the reference to the sign changes are attached to the list of
requested modifications. It'd probably be a good idea just to move right into them. They relate to
paragraph 2(d).
Mancino: I'm sorry Vemelle, where are you?
Vemelle Clayton: On the sheet here that says requested modifications to conditions of approval.
I discussed item number 1 and we are...discuss item number 2(d). All the sign comments attached
on the attached page.
Mancino: Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: I'm still, Kate, are you going to look at paragraph...?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're going to take that out and leave it the way it's written in the development
contract. And changing the language as per City Attorney.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Vemelle Clayton: Right. Okay. There is one change in that area which, if you look at the
underlined language on the second line from the bottom...we need to have something in there for
your sign. Then in Sector III, one sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed
on streetscape walls. However, the top of the signs shall not extend greater than 8 feet above the
ground. I thought...probably as high as you would want and what we wanted to accomplish here
was interpretation of what constitutes a wall, when we're talking about wall signs. Within
here...pursuant to the negotiations that we had with them, in an effort to bring our building closer
to the street...it's not flat, although they have made a...so we've recommended that they have some
street walls constructed which...bring it up to the street and also the... That then would be the wall
that we're referring to that we want to fit the definition of a wall sign.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: We also submit they'll probably put something on there like church service hours and
that sort of thing. I mean that's a given...there may be some sort of...changeable copy. I think
that's kind of accepted with... But we want it architecturally.
Mancino: But we need to look at it architecturally...fits in.
Aanenson: Yes... Bulletin board.
Vemelle Clayton: Number two of the existing language. Randy Herman, we talked with Randy
and he said given the look that we want to see and the pictures we've all seen of signage, the
existing language fits what we think we're trying to do and he said I would really recommend that
you...want to do and this is the list that he provided. One would be exposed neon and then he
recommended fiber optics because that's kind of the thing of the future. Open channel with
exposed neon. Channel letters with acrylic face. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted).
Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. Do you want us to, are you comfortable with
that or do you want us to add...We talked about that we didn't want spotlights.
Generous: Yeah. There might be some instances where you might want it up lit. I think that
would be a function of the site plan review.
Mancino: Yeah, I was just going to ask, are we getting too specific here?
Generous: Well this is pretty flexible. There's five different choices.
Aanenson: I guess they want to make sure that we're using the correct jargon for the lighting
industry. I guess that's the direction, that's fine.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Okay. So you don't have any problem with that?
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: Anyone on the commission?
Conrad: I'm getting a little confused.
Mancino: Me too.
Aanenson: These are different types of individual letters. We're saying that they're not all going
to be brass with a light behind it. There's different options. These are the different ones. Using
the correct terminology for lighting.
Conrad: Yeah, and I do like the flexibility but it's terribly difficult.
Mancino: I don't know what they are.
Aanenson: Right. Well that's part of.
Mancino: I mean I can't say yes to this list. I don't know what they are.
Aanenson: Well that's part of what the design book's going to do. I mean for example. Were we
happy with the, you know instead of having it inset, or excuse me, individual letters. The inset we
had with Capelli. You know the carve into the stone.
Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: Right, exactly. So we're saying there's different approaches to it and this covers all
that. We've gone through it with them. Looked at all the different designs. They've just got the
different terminology on there.
Mancino: Okay. I just, we just want to have flexibility also to say that it architecturally, design
wise has to be right.
Aanenson: And we believe we've got that. Right. We don't want them all to be the same. We
want some variety, depending what the building is.
Vemelle Clayton: I think we're all comfortable...there are other areas...we're comfortable. Do
52
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
you want me to go through a, b, c, d and kind of explain what I understand it to be? Or are you
comfortable?
Mancino: No, but I do think that we need to come in for individual site. I mean you will need to
bring examples of what that is.
Generous: You'll get a booklet and have the colors. I mean if it's going to be neon, etc. Down to
detail and that we do have the ability to say, no or smaller or.
Vemelle Clayton: Otherwise...Sector II, that's part of what we're keeping...Any questions on that?
Aanenson: That's still a maybe, depending on what we work out as far as language.
Vemelle Clayton: Right.
Peterson: You're responding to which one Kate?
Aanenson: Right underneath, Sector II. Integrated panels may be permitted. That's going to say
you're going to look at the architecture. How it relates to the building, and we're going to put
some other criteria in there that gives you that flexibility to say yeah, it works here at this height or
it doesn't.
Vemelle Clayton: Well I should point out Kate, that's not new language. What I'm pointing out
here is a change...
Aanenson: But it says shall. Shall be permitted.
Vemelle Clayton: Would be may...?
Aanenson: Yes.
Vemelle Clayton: Oh, okay.
Mancino: So we'll keep it with may.
Vemelle Clayton: Alright. Number 3. The change that we're recommending there...earlier when
we went through this before and just adding at the end... 15% of the sign area, to add logos. In
some cases the whole sign is their logo and so we had to add unless the logo is the sign...awning
signs... 12 inches high and building architecture. I think that...
Mancino: When you say awning signs, you just mean silk screen lettering on the awning.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Vemelle Clayton: Yeah.
Mancino: On the fabric.
Vemelle Clayton: ...yes.
Mancino: Vemelle, one of my conditions or one of the things I wanted to change in this area is on
(1). Is 1 under signage, excuse me. And that is in the middle, 1, 2, 3. The fourth sentence on
page 22. Or I'm sorry, 1. It's getting late. Number 1 under signage. About the project
identification sign with a maximum height of 28 feet. Again, I think the ordinance is 20 feet and I
want to be able to, once the signage comes in, a drawing of it, etc., once we see it in scale with
the other buildings in that Sector II, I don't want to say 28 feet right now, yes. I want to have the
flexibility that when it comes in that we can discuss the height. So I'm not saying yes or no.
Aanenson: Maximum height of 20 feet. It may be allowed to go higher is architecturally
compatible as approved by the Planning Commission.
Mancino: Exactly. I mean we haven't seen the sign. We don't know what it looks like. We have
no detail.
Vemelle Clayton: ...we need to show that it's compatible with... We may not be able to show
that...
Aanenson: It's just a matter of showing us the materials and how it's going to be done, sure.
Mancino: And some relationship to the trees and the plantings. Just so we get a realistic. I mean
we've only seen renderings but.
Vemelle Clayton: Do you have any other questions of Truman...? Bob are you?
Generous: Yeah, address the window signage.
Vemelle Clayton: No, I didn't address that because we didn't have any.
Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that Vemelle on page 24? The 25%?
Vemelle Clayton: I was a little uncomfortable the first time I read it and I hope that it's not subject
to misinterpretation because I do hope that we can have a whole window that has the neat lettering
like...Amish Quilts start at $19.95... I hope that's the interpretation.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Generous: Yes.
Vemelle Clayton: Okay.
Mancino: And you're fine with the second about the garishness and the neon paint and, okay.
Any other questions or comments of Vemelle at this point on the signage? Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: We're now moving away from signage but still in number 2 where it's condition
number 6. We agree to, this is now we're getting back to, there are standards that are referenced.
On page 19. The highlighted material in paragraph (e)(2). As of the four materials...the intent
and concerning vinyl siding for residential, if that would...the residential portion above the retail,
which we would like to have a wooded kind of look in some cases be allowed to use vinyl. That
they, not...because it's more expensive than what...but rather on that...particularly when they end
up someplace...so that's the reason for I think the vinyl siding, the option for vinyl siding. Again,
not for all of them but...
Mancino: I think that our concerns were two fold. Number one, on the western side of TH 101
where it is all residential, that that not be a three-four story building completely vinyl sided. And
two, that the upper portions in the core downtown area, core main street area, not be, those two
and three stories, not be completely vinyl sided but have some other materials with it. To give it
the flavor and the variation that we're looking for.
Vemelle Clayton: ...intent of the materials incorporated...
Brad Johnson: I think we're saying the same thing... Our real concern has been...It's just that we're
now seeing that it really holds up. It is cheaper. A lot of cheaper this way...
Aanenson: To just change that, vinyl siding in the residential instead of as a support, or with
support materials.
Brad Johnson: Yeah...
Vemelle Clayton: Any discussion on that before we go onto something else?
Mancino: No.
Vemelle Clayton: On page 21, under roof accents...it would be our interpretation that we be
permitted to adding...not a bad idea to add, and that is that in the area of roof accents, add the
following. Accent elements on roofs such as towers, turrets, spires, and that's supposed to be etc.,
55
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
may be higher than the roof heights prescribed.
Aanenson: That's already in the code. We just want to make sure it's clear because of the PUD.
Those architectural features can go higher.
Vemelle Clayton: And condition number 16. This is something I mentioned the other night and
took... Final plat approval shall be contingent upon, clarification of the issues relating to the
vacation of Great Plains Boulevard, and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the
future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. We know there are some...to resolve those problems and
add as much flexibility...
Mancino: Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: And condition number 23...the other night. While we re-designed the
northwest comer...that we might not be able to provide a right-in and right-out...and we want to
put that. That is also something...
Aanenson: We can't put that in there though I don't think. Can we?
Vemelle Clayton: Well we put it's up to MnDOT.
Hempel: Could you repeat that?
Aanenson: It's up to the traffic study.
Hempel: A combination of MnDOT jurisdiction and also the results of the traffic study.
Aanenson: So we understand the issue that you want the ability to have it but we're saying that's
contingent upon the City's review of the traffic study and...Ifyou want to enhance it just say
subject to MnDOT and City approval.
Vemelle Clayton: Okay. Alright. Then conditionnumber 41. Again, something thathappened
the other night...provided there is in place an agreement that the City will turn back the portion of
existing 101 which the future 101 will replace. Dedicate...
Hempel: Point of clarification...
Mancino: As long as we have the right to do it.
Vemelle Clayton: Number 49. We really want that condition deleted. That's pretty scary. A
56
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
pretty scary thought for a number of reasons.
Generous: 48?
Vemelle Clayton: 48. You don't have a 49.
Aanenson: That's really scary.
Vemelle Clayton: ...present Council members but I just certainly don't have a clue who might be
on the Council 5 years from now and, or the Wards and St. Hubert's and...and all the folks that
have...between now and next year there will be many, several million dollars spent on this and to
do that based on a change of heart of a Council in 5 years is really scary. I don't think that's what
you're looking for. I think what you're looking for is probably is a chance to review...wouldn't
have an objection I don't think if you want that language...but if we can get financing, I don't think
we could get people to buy. I don't know if St. Hubert's would want to be out there if they
thought in 5 years the entire concept could change. I don't think anybody would buy for example
one of these sites up on the pond if they thought, or certainly not down on the lower portion down
in here, if they thought this part was not...could be changed to office warehouse. I mean it's
something that was...and I don't think that's what was intended.
Mancino: Well one of the discussions that was around this was when we got together, the
Planning Commission and the City Council, it was about a year ago and we were looking at
subdivisions that had PUD contracts from 10 years ago. That we were kind of still stuck with and
there were some things that we wanted to add to it that we weren't able to. And so the suggestion
was brought up, we should have some sort of a sunset so that we can add some conditions,
whether it's in the environmental area because now we're doing wetlands differently, etc. Some of
them have such a long life that 10 or 12 years later you look at what you thought was a good at
that time, and when things weren't built out and it took them 12 years to build out, we didn't want
to have, we wanted the options. The city wanted more options. That's how it came up to a
discussion item.
Vemelle Clayton: Without having thought this out however, one of the things we're trying to
accomplish here...to some extent is something that people can depend on. There usually is
something unique about a PUD and we need to be able to depend on the fact that it's not... Now
on the other hand, there are differences between the Market Square PUD or a residential PUD and
this specific. This is a mixed use PUD where there's much more reliance on the integration of all
the parts.
Mancino: And the flexibility.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Vemelle Clayton: Correct. So yes, that flexibility has to be there but also as we heard I think in, I
don't recall...is that predictability of what's going to happen to your property and to the property
next to you is causing the value to be and the investment, contrary to what it might be on the
comer of South Minneapolis...you might end up with a Holiday station down on the comer. You
know here you won't have that but if we say it can be changed in 5 years, suddenly you...and
who's to say what might be fun and interesting to people in 5 years that certainly wouldn't fit
with... And in addition to that, we'll have lots of covenants and restrictions...
Mancino: Will they be reviewed and updated?
Vemelle Clayton: You can amend covenants by whatever percentage you put in the By-laws and
usually it goes to...
Mancino: Yeah, I agree with that. Any questions from commissioners on those? Or any
comments.
Conrad: I think it's a tough condition. I wouldn't want to get into a project where you said the
roles are going to change in 5 years. If we can think of something better, more appropriate, or
define what we're talking about. I don't know that I could do it right now.
Aanenson: Bob can.
Mancino: Okay, Bob. You're on.
Generous: I did, well we might make it onerous on the developer that the developer shall 5 years
after the final approval of the plat review the development, the status of the development.
Compliance with conditions of approval and the development design standards and conditions of
approval and may, in conjunction with the city revise the standards and conditions.
Brad Johnson: I don't think the developer can do that. The owners can. You've got to remember,
it's all...
Generous: Yeah but then, are they assignees? As an association.
Brad Johnson: I think you're into an area that...unless we have some legal document that would
hold them on forever. Think about the townhome project... This is just an association. The
Rottlund project... Are you changing anything in there right now? Everybody's moved in. I don't
know how we'd do it. I know they...it's multiple buildings...I just don't know how you can say,
let's say the City Council decides somebody owns 5 acres in here and the City Council says I don't
like the plan. I'd like to build a big box...and the City Council at that time says fine. What does
that mean to the other owners? I don't know how to do it.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: Well we've got the reverse concern though too. They come in and want to change
something themselves. I mean that can happen too.
Brad Johnson: Yeah we can change. We can always come in to change things.
Mancino: It's one sided.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Mancino: Because that's what we found out with these other PUD contracts. We're about to get a
new tree preservation ordinance.
Aanenson: The development contract is...at any time, it's recorded and the development contract
can be amended at any time. Whether, if they're selling off the properly. An owner comes in, can
ask for it to have that piece of properly rezoned. The development contract amended. That's a
rezoning. That can be done at any time. They have that right to do that.
Mancino: They have that right to do that.
Aanenson: To ask for it, yeah. An amendment to the development contract, you bet.
Mancino: And I'm just saying on the other side of the foot, as a business person, I mean the city
needs these options too. As I said, when we had our old PUD ordinance and we have a new tree
preservation and we couldn't put it in because the PUD ordinance, or the PUD contract was set in
place in 1986.
Brad Johnson: What you have to do is go to your law office and say, is this legal? Or is it... I
mean there is an area where you've got properly rights and all kinds of stuff2 There's a lot of
reasons the city can't...after they approved it the first time. But I don't know.
Aanenson: Sure, you could go back and rezone it. The City could.
Mancino: Okay. Is that something you could have just Roger review and look at? Leave it out
for now and if it needs to come up.
Aanenson: We can talk about it at Council...
Mancino: Yeah, because I know there was one of the Council members who did bring it up.
Okay. Is that it?
59
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Vemelle Clayton: I think so. Oh I'm sorry, Dave asked...
Dave Bangasser: The roof issue came up here earlier and I was asking Mika what it all meant and
part ofthat...ifthe church and schools were going to have 50% sloped roof. Is that the way it's
written now?
Mika Milo: ...current design of the church and school...
Dave Bangasser: What our intent is, by the way is that the first...beyond that, the school and the
gymnasium and the office portion, if you know, administration offices would be proposed to be a
flat roof. We do have a number of areas that have an eyebrow along the top of the roof line that
projects out about 4 feet and slopes down as to kind of highlight it but... Our intent was that I
think...
Mika Milo: The slope roof is mainly meant for the residential portion.
Aanenson: And the commercial. It wasn't just for residential. What Sector is that?
Generous: That's Sector III.
Peterson: What page are you on?
Generous: Page 20.
Mancino: Page 20, number 11.
Aanenson: Yeah, the church is in Sector III.
Mancino: It says a minimum of 50% of the roof area shall be sloped.
Aanenson: Are they attached?
Mancino: The church and the school?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Dave, if they're attached, would you say 50% if they're attached?
Mancino: The church and the school.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Dave Bangasser: Well they are...
Aanenson: I know but...50% if both buildings, if the units are attached.
Dave Bangasser: Sorry, I can't answer that question... We're about a third right now. But again
in addition to that we cannot, the intent of a sloped roof is to provide some...slope roof on the
church has the eyebrow in several locations.
Vemelle Clayton: Well we're...is there some language we can use here similar to that?
Mancino: What is staffs recommendation?
Aanenson: Do you want to just take everybody...
Mancino: No, there have to be some guidelines.
Aanenson: Well yeah. That's our point. Yeah.
Dave Bangasser: Can you see what we're looking at...
Aanenson: Sure, yeah. Yeah, I do.
Vemelle Clayton: Why don't we just say that the...in Sector III.
Mancino: And that's the only building?
Generous: That's the only building.
Mancino: Okay. I haven't seen it. I don't know what to say.
Aanenson: We'll call it the St. Hubert's special...
Mancino: Okay. Anything else, because I think this is going to take a while. Any other
comments?
Vemelle Clayton: I have none. Thank you for your time. Oh I guess I should really say thank
you also to staff and all of you and all of the time that you have spent...preparing for all this and
all the time staff has spent. And we're not done. You guys have...but we really enjoyed all the
cooperation. It's a great project to work on. Thank you.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. I am going to not open this for a public hearing. Well first of all, is there
anyone here who wanted to say something at the public hearing? That wasn't here the last
meeting. Seeing none, I will go ahead for commissioners comments. With the addition, the
comments of adding modification of the conditions of approval. Obviously the comments for the
soccer field, I think is one of the bigger ones. And any other comments that you would like to
make. Craig.
Peterson: Again in reality I think we've hashed through a lot of the issues. I think the
predominant one left is the soccer field. The issues that I had last week, I think have been
adequately addressed and if you recall my comments on the soccer field last time is that I wasn't
negative if we could make the transition somewhat reasonable so it's not a stark field. I think the
idea of bringing the elevation up a little bit. Moving the soccer field towards the road so you save
some of the trees. That further alleviates any concerns that I might have had before so I stand in
favor of leaving the soccer field there. Ideally I'd like to have that left a wooded area to fit with
the original intent of some transition areas. But I also don't see that it fits logically anywhere else.
At least in my humble opinion. I think all the other modifications that have been talked about
tonight are reasonable. My other big concern about parking I think Bob has done a great job in
really addressing that, and I'm still concerned but I'm less concerned than I was last week. It still
has the feel of a lot of parking but as staff has reviewed, we need to look at each plan that comes
forth and address that. I think we can do that effectively. So all and all it's been a long and at
times tiring road but I think that we are, in my mind, there and I'm ready to move ahead and say
yes.
Mancino: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with most of what Craig just said. A couple quick points. Has staff reviewed
the landscape for the soccer field prior? Have you seen what was presented prior to tonight?
Aanenson: No. But we'll see it with the site plan that St. Hubert's has already submitted. You'll
be seeing that on the 26th. 7th.
Mancino: Of August?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Yeah, we're not meeting again in a couple days are we?
Mancino: Next month.
Conrad: Over flow from Pond 2000, where does that go?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Hempel: I'll double check with Pond 2000.
Conrad: That's the main one. That's our reflecting pool, as Kate likes to call it.
Hempel: That would flow easterly...along Highway 5...towards Rice Marsh.
Conrad: Okay. That 35 foot standard on signage, height wise. Was that standard set from the
sign ordinance? Is that where we picked that up or did we just make it up?
Generous: We just.
Conrad: Pulled it, okay.
Generous: Technically it's, for wall signs it's the building height which would be 40 feet...
Conrad: I like a lot of the things I heard tonight. It's terribly confusing. You know you guys are
working with it and for us to come in, even though we worked with it for months, it's still
confusing so it's tough to get really into the nits and nats on this. It's almost, want to just say hey,
get it out of here. Which we'll hopefully do but a couple issues I think have to happen, and I
guess Kate has just said they will. I've struggled with the soccer field and both, one way another
and once I saw the relocation and the impact of trees being minimized, my only concern was
putting it down, and also seeing how Highway 101 has just taken care of the bulk of the real big
trees. It makes it a little bit easier to go with what's recommended. What I really want to do, and
we will get that option. We personally, if we approve this, is when it comes back in, I want to
make sure that that is all in sync with the surroundings in terms of landscaping. I want to see it fit
in the area. I don't want to just see it stand out. I'm still terribly concerned with parking and
access. I think we've all identified all the problems. On the other hand, I'm not sure that we can't
make it a place where people can.., and use the natural features down there. So I can structure it
so it's agreeable to some degree, but that does mean that a landscape plan for that area. The other
issues, the Park and Rec comments I think should be incorporated into our motion tonight, if we
agree with what they are. Again, the trail connectivity is something I really believe has got to be
there. This is the right place to have it so that has to be there, and I think that's in the Park and
Rec comments. I like the boardwalk idea. That's cool. That solves my problem with Pond 2000.
I think it will give us a chance to be a little bit more polished around the area where there's more
people and within the...itself. But then also, it's sort of a transition area to the natural, and I think
that's what Kate and Bob have been pushing for and I think it makes some sense to me. Again I
need a good landscape plan for that area. I just have to have those lwo things. So landscape plan
for that area. Landscape plan for the soccer field are probably taking care of the needs that I have.
Terrific job to reduce the parking Bob, and that's just great. And then I think that's it. That's all
63
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
my comments. The rest of them are real nitty gritty and they, I get lost on some of the issues and
it's, like I don't know how to deal with number 48. I understand what we want to do. I also
understand the applicant saying hey, I don't want it there and I think it could be a deal killing and
so I think 48's got to be ripped out of there. But on the other hand, I also know that it's such a
huge project it would be of interest to review some of the conditions. I open up my mouth and I
don't know where I'm going on that one so I'm going, I've got to just stop. It's a tough issue to get
into. It could kill something out there and I'm not sure we want to do it with that section.
Mancino: I'm going to take a minute and just challenge you on one thing, being the
environmental, or having concerns about some of the environmental issues and that is, under the
PUD, the intent of the PUD is the preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space. So
where are we doing this on this PUD? And how are you thinking that through?
Conrad: That's a real good point and I think staffhas got to battle with that and they've got to
justify this and we do too. To be real honest with you, when we do the PUD, about the only thing
we can ever negotiate is protecting the natural area. Seriously, because we're not smart enough or
visionary enough to do something else. So protecting the natural features is a real easy one to put
into our PUD ordinance and say that's what we're going to do. We're going to protect an extra 12
square feet of this or that and therefore, in my mind, this is a classic PUD and I guess I'm not
trying to save the natural features with this PUD. That's the least of my concerns on this project.
Therefore, it's a valid question. I'm maybe not living up to what our ordinance says but I'm also
saying that ordinance wasn't wise enough or visionary enough to be looking for other elements in
the PUD that we want. So on this one what we're getting is a whole lot of other things. I think
we're trying to get affordable housing. We're trying to get a mix of rental housing. There are a lot
of things that are worked in here so, it was never an issue for me to try to figure out whether this
met the PUD ordinance or not.
Mancino: Until this one?
Conrad: I think we have to justify it Nancy. We have to justify this meeting the intent of the
ordinance but to tell you the truth, in this particular case, the natural features of the land is really
not what we're getting. We are...
Mancino: Other things are outlined.
Conrad: We are doing other things and therefore in my mind I'm, I think we have to document
and justify why we're doing stuff so we don't set a precedent for other areas. But on the other
hand to start applying some rules to this one where that's not really what our intent is. If we
wanted to plant natural habitat, this would be not the area that I'd be trying to focus our attention
on. Plus, take a look at, we could talk for a while on this. Take a look at what it looks like out
64
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
there with that pond, my favorite Pond 2000. It's not a very attractive thing right now. It is, it is
less than anything. So I tell you, to justify the improvement we're going to get as a holding basin,
as an attractive element to the city, real easy for me to justify that. But again what I challenged
everybody to do is say what does it look like and let's make sure it looks appropriate in the long
mn, and that's really what I have great concerns with. I love natural. I love wetlands. I'm just not
sure that they maintain themselves in a setting with, in a commercial setting. They can look ugly.
Mancino: No, but thank you. I appreciate that because I think that's very important in our PUD.
Whether or not we're following that intent. Thanks. Bob.
Skubic: I was going to discuss the soccer field. I certainly don't favor it south of the trail, but it
seems inevitable that that's where it's going to end up. The Park Commission voted for it. 4 out
of 5 members. St. Hubert's Building Committee favors it... Bob or Kate, is there any possibility,
is there any reason why that all could fit north of the trail? What's your opinion on that?
Aanenson: We always thought there wasn't, I think at this point...we rest. Let's put it that way.
Skubic: That's what I hear. It seems like everybody is reluctantly say it's going to go south of the
trail. And I think as Dave eluded to, the justification made for that in terms of tree preservation. I
had not heard the same arguments for tennis courts on the other side. Canopy coverage there, and
I wouldn't be in favor of having... Other than that, I think it's been covered...
Joyce: I don't have much to add. The one thing that bothered me about the development was that
northwest comer, and I couldn't put my finger on it and through the process we got that resolved
and I think it looks great now so I think that was nice. As far as the soccer field, I could take it or
leave it. You know if this landscaping plan is what we can do with that, that's even better so I'm
more in favor of it now than I was last week. And as far as the condition 48. I see this
development being oh, something that's just going to be built on and I think it has to be left open.
I hate getting lawyers involved in everything that we do in life, and I'll just leave it at that. Good
job. Congratulations.
Mancino: Final comments of mine. First of I want to thank everyone for...nights and for going in
and being more specific and making I know me feel much more comfortable with the design
standards and the lighting and the landscaping, etc. so I want to thank you for all that time and a
very good presentation. Personally with the soccer field, I'm still a little on the fence. I certainly
know where the other commissioners are and that is only because I'm not hung up on the
environmental preservation. I do think that in many of the European settings where you go have a
core village like this, the one thing that I have seen time and time again around them is that they
have kept a green open space or a corridor, and especially when it goes from one lake to the next
for not only pedestrian people but for wildlife. And they do protect that and they do protect it.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
That's their green corridor and it kind of stops and shows where the development ends and then
they have their green space and then where it starts again. So to me I have a high respect for that.
I would love to see it work, a win/win both ways. Obviously the soccer field could go up north,
next closer to the field and the church and I think everybody tonight has said that so. I don't need
to say that again but it would be for me the best location so that it's up for the kids to play near the
school, etc. Other comments. I really, gosh. I think it's going to be hard for us to put a motion
together tonight. I think we're going to be having staff help and asking for a few addendums. The
only changes that I would like to see made is that the 45, that there be an architectural and
landscape review committee. Other than that, great, great job. I know that everybody's worked
very hard and thank you very much. May I have a motion?
Peterson: Madam Chair, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
preliminary approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from
Office/Industrial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density, to Mixed
Use Commercial/High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary Planned Unit
Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial/office buildings; 100,000 square feet of
institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned
Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-
way, Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way
and easements, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of
the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the
Villages on the Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to the conditions 1 through 49, and I'll take a
stab at trying walk through some of the additions and deletions. I would off'er that we delete, per
staff recommendations items number 4, 7, 14 and I believe the second bullet was agreed to on
condition number 15. Is that correct stafl'?
Aanenson: Yep.
Peterson: That condition number 6.
Aanenson: Can we just put as modified?
Peterson: As modified by the attached.
Aanenson: We've got those all in writing from Vemelle as we've corrected those.
Peterson: As modified by the appropriate documents provided by the applicant, including deletion
of item number 48. And item number 45 to include that item be subject to architectural and
landscape committee approval. I guess Kate if you're comfortable with that and you've got
everything down.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Aanenson: We need 42. Park and Rec. If you want to put 42.
Generous: Revised to incorporate the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations.
Peterson: Item 42 would incorporate the recommendations also submitted by stafl~
Mancino: And on number 40, the first sentence be deleted.
Peterson: Item 40, yeah. Delete the first sentence.
Mancino: And 49, that there be a detailed plan for the wetland alteration.
Joyce: You had to add 49.
Generous: So you can see that plan.
Aanenson: Landscape plan for the, actually for the soccer field and...
Peterson: Creation of a formal landscape plan for both the wetland alterations and the soccer
field.
Aanenson: We need modification of 43 also. Unless setbacks can be met from current TH tat.
Number 43. What we're saying is, the new TH tat is outside ofthe...TH tat. Until that's
vacated, he can't put a building there so we just need that clarification.
Peterson: Correct. And I think as the applicant presented.
Mancino: And 48 be.
Aanenson: We could delete that one.
Peterson: Also note on item number 4 from the applicant that we accept their revision but it
would be subject to City and MnDOT approval.
Mancino: Craig, on point number 15. The second bullet point. To delete the soccer and tennis
courts. Did you mean tennis courts or?
Peterson: We had noted that would be deleted, yes.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
Mancino: So it's both, okay?
Skubic: I'd like to retain the tennis courts.
Aanenson: Okay, just soccer.
Peterson: I concur with that.
Mancino: And then did you get Bob's on number 19 about the sanitary sewer should be extended?
I don't know how the rest of it went.
Generous: At the south end of the school to the east properly line.
Peterson: And also on page 20, item 11. Section III would be altered from 50 to 30%. Any
other items? I think that covers it.
Mancino: I think we got them all. Is there a second?
Joyce: I'll second that.
Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary
approval of PUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from
Office/Industrial Institutional to Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density, to
Mixed Use Commercial/High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary
Planned Unit Development of up to 291,000 square feet of commercial/office buildings;
100,000 square feet of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP
and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary Plat for 13 lots
and 3 outlots and public right-of-way, Wetland Alteration Permit to f'fll and excavate
wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements, Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) f'mdings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional
environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the
Ponds project on 66.12 acres, subject to
the following conditions:
Applicant will be required to provide 208 trees as reforestation plantings. Trees are to be
from the city's Approved Tree List.
2. All future site plans for the Villages on the Pond development will use the conceptual
68
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
10.
11.
landscaping plan as a guide for numbers of placement of landscape plants including trees
and shrubs. No individual uses will be allowed to provide less landscaping for the site than
what has been included on the master landscaping plan.
Applicant shall provide a landscaped walkway between individual sites along Highway 5 to
allow for greater pedestrian accessibility and continuity of landscaping if the buildings are
not moved to the foreground of their parking lots.
Minimum tree removal will be allowed for the tennis courts to the west of Highway 101.
No clearings will be allowed for parking spaces.
The development shall comply with the development design standards included in the staff
report and incorporated herein by reference.
Grading shall be prohibited in the area between the bluff areas adjacent to Lake Susan.
Fire hydrants shall be spaced at 300 foot intervals and fire hydrants shall be located at major
intersections. Final hydrant approval will be given when exact street locations are known
and how buildings are positioned on property.
Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Fire
Marshall will determine fire lanes upon review of plans and final access routes and at that
point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing.
The road or driveway access directly east of the existing Lake Drive must have a street
name. The street name must be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Premises identification will be reviewed as specific buildings are being proposed.
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 will be used as basic criteria
for numbering the buildings. Due to the complexity of this project numbering on more than
one side will be necessary as well as additional monument or directional signage.
12. Final grading plan shall incorporate the following changes:
* Provide compatible site grades for the future upgrade of Grandview Road through Lots
8 and 10, Block 1.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
13.
14.
15.
* Delete tennis courts.
* Relocate NURP Basin No. 4 westerly outside of existing Trunk Highway 101 right-of-
way. Consider consolidation of NURP Basin No. 3 with NURP Basin No. 4 and
oversize NURP Basin No. 4 to accommodate future stormwater runoff south of the
development.
* Adjust grading limits on Lot 2, Block 2 to avoid tree loss.
* Phases of grading the development shall be shown.
* Incorporate fencing with the construction of the 12 foot high retaining wall on Lot 10,
Block 1.
* Rerouting of Riley Creek shall be developed and approved by the DNR.
* Revise grades along Trunk Highway 101 for a future trail underneath Trunk Highway
101.
* All NURP basins shall be constructed with either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 inch at the
normal water level for the first one foot of depth or 4:1 side slopes overall.
* Add high water levels to all NURP basins and wetlands.
* No berming allowed in any public right-of-way.
* Maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over City's watermain along Trunk Highway 101.
* Include lot lines, lot numbers, block numbers and storm sewers with structure numbers.
Final plat approval shall be contingent upon clarification of the issues relating to the vacation
of Great Plains Boulevard and portions of Trunk Highway 101 lying westerly of the future
Trunk Highway 101 corridor.
The lowest floor elevation of buildings adjacent to ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum
of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
The City shall assume maintenance and ownership of the stormwater ponding facilities and
wetlands two years after completion of the site improvements. The appropriate drainage
and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over ponding areas and wetlands.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
The easements shall encompass the storm ponds and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level.
Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained by the applicant or it's successors.
The proposed 8 inch water line through Lot 10, Block 1 along the northerly side of proposed
St. Hubert's Church shall be extended along the secondary access road to the east properly
line. In addition, sanitary and storm sewer and water service shall be extended to the east
properly line of the plat through the northerly access road to Grandview Road via Lake
Drive and sanitary sewer shall be extended south of the school to the east properly line.
All sanitary sewer and water lines with the exception of the individual building services shall
be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. As-built construction plans will be
required before the City accepts the utilities.
The existing house of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat is
recorded and the appropriate demolition permits will be required through the City's Building
Department. Existing wells and septic systems on the site shall be abandoned per State
Health Codes and City ordinance.
The final plat shall dedicate right-of-way for future Grandview Road over the easterly 17
feet of Lots 8 and 10, Block 2 paralleling existing Grandview Road.
All access points on to Trunk Highway 101 are subject to MnDOT and City approval.
Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm events along with
ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post
runoff conditions shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval prior to final plat
consideration.
The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on
the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed development
would be responsible for a water quantity fee of $159,206.00 and a water quality fee of
$267,323.00. Credits may be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing of the
ponding facilities and oversizing of trunk sewer after review of the final construction plans
and drainage/ponding calculations. The SWMP fees are payable at time of final plat.
The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private and
public streets. The applicant and City staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting
plan to be incorporated into the street construction plans.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance
with the conditions of approval.
The applicant shall design and construction the street and utility improvements in accordance
to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be submitted to City
staff for review and formal approval by City Council in conjunction with final plat approval.
The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and
shall be filed at the County with the final plat documents.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies
such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, MnDOT, and Carver County Highway Department.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during
construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as
abandonment or relocation of the drain file.
The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will
be required around the wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion control fence
on the slopes and/or temporary sediment basins. Wood fiber blankets shall be utilized on all
slopes in excess of 3:l.
Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the
subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject
to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the
site grading and restoration.
The applicant reduce the impacts to Wetland 2000, create a larger on site mitigation area
and present a sequencing plan showing reduced impact to affected wetlands.
City staff and the applicant shall investigate the origin of Wetland 6000 to determine if this
area can be exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act.
BuffEr strips shall be provided around Wetland 5000. The buffer strips shall be 10 to 30 feet
in width with an average width of 20 feet.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
The street section for the public portion of Lake Drive shall be constructed to 36 feet wide
face-to-face with concrete curb and gutter. The street section which accesses Grandview
Road within the plat shall be constructed to 32 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curb
and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac with a 25 foot radius shall be constructed at the end of
the public street for Grandview Road. All private streets shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum 26 foot wide drive aisles
and built to 7 ton design.
Depending on the phasing of the project, Trunk Highway 101 may need to be upgraded to
four lanes, as well as turn lanes and traffic signals. This will be further evaluated contingent
upon the outcome of the traffic study being reviewed by SRF. The applicant shall
incorporate the necessary traffic improvements as recommended by SRF accordingly.
Should the traffic signals not be required with the initial phase of development, the applicant
will be required to escrow with the City their fair share of the cost for future installation.
Security shall be a means of a letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. All Trunk Highway
101 improvements shall meet State Aid standards. The applicants responsibility for the
traffic signals along Trunk Highway 101 shall be 37% of the total cost. A cost sharing
agreement between the applicant and the City shall be drafted for the installation of any
traffic signals.
The applicant shall provide cross-access easements and maintenance agreements for use of
the private streets. Cross-access easements should also qualify the secondary access road
for public use to Grandview Road.
The applicant shall also convey to the City a trail easement over Lot 9, Block 1 and Outlots
B and C once the trail alignment has been approved and constructed.
The applicant shall dedicate the future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way with the initial
phase of development in conjunction with an agreement by the city for the vacation of TH
101.
The application be approved as presented with certain conditions regarding parks and
recreation:
a. The south Rice Marsh Lake trail connection be identified on the plan.
b. if the trail along TH 101 south of Rosemount is disturbed during construction, an
agreement for replacement be coordinated with the applicant.
c. There be a joint agreement for future use of the soccer field between the community and
St. Hubert's Church.
d. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
40. Unless setbacks can be maintained for existing TH 101, development of Block 2 is
contingent upon the upgrade of State Highway 101.
41. The developer shall create a schematic booklet depicting development design standards and
definitions.
42.
The developer shall create and maintain an Architectural and Landscape Review Committee
to review and approve development and building plans for buildings within the Villages on
the Ponds.
43. The developer shall work with the city to accomplish city goals for housing, including the
provision of "affordable housing".
44.
The developer and future site users shall be required to incorporate street/plaza furniture,
planting boxes, public art, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc. within the development and
on individual site plans.
45. The applicant shall prepare a detailed plan for the design of the wetland alterations.
46. The applicant shall provide specific landscaping plan for Wetland 2000 and along TH 5.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: They did approve the variance for the Hiway 5 Centre. There was some discussion on
the signage issue. They did approve the Bluff Creek, Phase II. Approved that wetland alteration
permit. And that was it, as far as Planning Commission items.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Peterson: Where are we at with the car dealership?
Aanenson: We get a phone call like once a month. I'm not sure, I haven't talked to them.
Someone picked up...everything along Highway 5 for industrial. We actually thought we'd have
that in for the 7th. Somebody else has picked up the Legion site and doing a project on that so
74
Planning Commission Meeting - July 24, 1996
we've been busy.
Conrad: What's going on the Legion site?
Aanenson: Pretty much what you suspect, retail... So the next meeting on the 7th.
Mancino: We have 4 interviews. We had 3 tonight.
Aanenson: Correct, and I'll start those at 7:00 so we've noticed the public hearings to start at 8:00.
We've got a small one lot split. A Sinclair station updating. An antenna, ham radio kind of thing
at Hesse Farm. Creekside plat is back on. And then Minnewashta Parkway walk. The church
will be on the 21st.
Mancino: What's Creekside?
Generous: Townhomes at Creekside.
Aanenson: It's just north of Stone Creek. The Creekside plat.
Generous: It was tabled.
Aanenson: It was tabled for the flood plain. They're altering the flood plain.
Skubic: The Church at St. Hubert's?
Aanenson: Correct. That will be on the 21st of August.
Mancino: Okay, move to adjourn the meeting?
Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
75