PC 2009 11 03
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 3, 2009
Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Dan
Keefe, and Tom Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Denny Laufenburger
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Angie Kairies, Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
GLEASON VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES ON
PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED AT 2111
ND
PINEHURST DRIVE (LOT 22, BLOCK 1, PINEHURST 2 ADDITION). APPLICANT:
U.S. HOME CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO. 09-17.
Angie Kairies presented the staff report on this item.
Larson: I’ll start with you Mark.
Undestad: That one, we had this once before but the neighbors ended up buying more land? Or
they were able to buy more?
Kairies: Not this particular property but in the subdivision.
Undestad: And this was a subdivision we went way back to take the two lots off because we
knew we’d have some issues coming up?
Kairies: Correct.
Undestad: And we do. Nothing else.
Larson: Kathleen.
Thomas: Can you go into more of what they’re trying to accomplish with their variance. I mean
I understand the patio, they want to construct a driveway?
Kairies: The driveway is already constructed.
Thomas: Constructed, correct?
Kairies: Right. Wider than what was shown.
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Thomas: Okay.
Kairies: So they want to maintain the driveway that’s there.
Thomas: That’s there and then they want to add the patio as well by 100, okay. I just wanted to
make sure. Thank you.
Larson: Tom.
Doll: Were the homeowners aware of this when they purchased the house? Was this a model
home or?
Kairies: It’s my understanding that the home was constructed prior to them purchasing it. The
driveway, it was their belief that it was constructed within the code. However it did not meet the
building permit plan.
Doll: Is there any you know take out the 100 square foot patio you’re still .8% over.
Kairies: Right.
Doll: And you would, the City would like them to remove part of the driveway?
Kairies: It’s staff’s belief that they could meet the 25% hard surface coverage by reducing the
driveway.
Doll: And has there been any alternative you know things they could do to their property to
reduce storm water runoff? Could they create rain gardens or, I mean.
Kairies: At this time in the City Code there aren’t any mechanisms that would allow for
crediting to do that so it’s a 25% with what’s on the property.
Doll: Okay. And does the City know how much it costs to take out 240 square feet of?
Aanenson: Let’s back up. I’m not sure we’re answering the question correctly. They want to
put the patio in the back so they’re already over. So the question comes in to put the patio in.
Kairies: They’re already over 148 square feet.
Aanenson: Right, right.
Kairies: So that’s what would need to be removed.
Doll: You sent out a letter that said they would consider not having the patio I thought. Maybe I
misread that.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Kairies: Right.
Doll: In a letter that they sent that you kind of a supplementary.
Kairies: Yep, and what they did. So they’re currently over 148. They want to do an additional
100 that would bring them to 248.
Aanenson: That’s the point I want to make sure that you understood. They want to, they still
want more. They’re already over and they still want more.
Doll: Okay. Do you have that letter or am I?
Kairies: Yep.
Doll: I thought they were considering that they didn’t want to add.
Larson: It’s on. I think it says it in that last.
Kairies: Yep. They stated in their letter that they would just not do.
Doll: Okay, they would not install the patio.
Kairies: Right.
Doll: Okay.
Kairies: They’re still over.
Doll: That’s all.
Larson: Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, just a couple of things. You know the ill fated Pinehurst neighborhood. Is there
anything sort of on a broader basis that we’ve been able to do in terms of these lot sizes? I know
they’ve tried to max out the home sizes. You know the lots were expensive. We’ve got to build
a really expensive house. Max it out. Is there anything on a global basis that we’ve been able to
kind of come up with here?
Aanenson: Maybe I could just give some background on that.
Keefe: Yeah.
Aanenson: If you recall, at one time the staff asked for a code amendment to require larger
frontages on these types of lots. And at that time as, when the subdivision came through,
obviously the goal is to get the most number of lots you can on that. While they are above the
15,000 square foot minimum, I think the average in here was 20 something.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Kairies: Almost 21,000.
Aanenson: But that’s after we dropped them down because there was, they lost 2 lots to make
them work. After this application, shortly after this subdivision was approved the developer of
the subdivision actually looked at asking for variances to do 4 car garages, which we were
shocked because we actually moved to where we asked them to show what type of house they’re
going to put on that lot. So never under a 90 foot frontage did we anticipate a 4 car garage. We
didn’t feel like there was enough frontage on those so you know it’s, it always leads to the
situation we have now where someone feels you know not welcome to the city because, through
no fault of their own, bought this house. It’s already in and now they want to put their patio out
the back. Rightly so. But it’s already over the top as far as the hard cover. So we tried to catch
it on the front end and you know they submitted a survey that met the ordinance. Unfortunately
through the construction of the driveway they chose to take, not follow that and the sidewalks
and now that pushed them over the top because they’re at, and we pointed out most of these are
at close to the 25%, so. So it’s not the homeowner’s fault. It’s, you know they.
Keefe: Well and this neighborhood’s particularly sensitive given the 100 year events that we’ve
had you know.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: And as it relates to you know directly adjacent neighborhoods so, you know this one’s
particularly sensitive in terms of that hard surface coverage.
Aanenson: Right.
Keefe: You know, I think it was on 2101 that we had a fairly lengthy discussion around you
know alternative drainage systems. Have we gotten anywhere on that? I mean are we you know
looking at doing anything along those lines? Is there you know anything that we would want to
do along those lines?
Aanenson: I’m not sure just based on our clay soils we haven’t had the, it’s also a maintenance
and it’s construction issue too.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. And then in regards to the patio request, I mean there are alternative
you know materials that can be used for patios these days aren’t there that allow for you know,
seep through. Is there anything approved within the city for patios or?
Kairies: No, that goes along with the maintenance issues and inspecting and how do you make
sure that it gets done properly and maintained and so there is not a mechanism at this time.
Keefe: What about, as far as something like a you know deck, you know that’s a grade level
deck?
Kairies: They could do a grade level deck.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Keefe: Yeah, right.
Aanenson: And there is a deck on the property.
Kairies: Right on the second story.
Keefe: But sort of they’re talking like a paver type of you know patio right? Okay. That’s all I
have.
Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: If this variance is denied then what? What happens next?
Kairies: That would be removal of the 148 square feet that’s addition on the site currently.
Dillon: So they’d take a, they’d wreck out part of the driveway?
Kairies: Correct.
Dillon: Okay. What were the, I do recall a couple previous variances and what was the amount
of extra coverage they were seeking in those because 1.3%, I can’t believe I’m here tonight
talking about that almost. Really…
Aanenson: Well you can split this though. You can say, well.
Keefe: But you weren’t here for the person that had 5 feet of water in their basement.
Aanenson: Right, we’ve had water in the basement of neighbors of this area, correct.
Keefe: Directly below this.
Aanenson: They’re asking for an additional, they’re asking for an additional 100 square feet.
Dillon: I get that.
Aanenson: Okay, so you could leave what they have today. You don’t have to rip anything out.
You could.
Dillon: But that’s what she just said I thought.
Aanenson: No, you could grant them a variance on what they have in place today without giving
additional or you can give them the entire thing. But if you go back to this entire subdivision
there’s only a few houses built up there. And you’ve denied 2 other variances up there so.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Dillon: So let me ask my question again. If we deny this variance then what happens to the
property?
Kairies: The additional would need to be removed if it’s denied.
Dillon: That’s not what you said.
Aanenson: No, you have choices within that. You can leave what’s there today and not give
them the additional 100 feet. You can change the recommendation. You can add to, subtract
from the recommendation.
Larson: Keep the driveway.
Aanenson: Right.
Larson: But not being able to add on there.
Aanenson: Right.
Dillon: And so do we know what the percentage for the previous ones were?
Kairies: That I don’t have on hand.
Dillon: Because there are matters of degrees in these things too.
Aanenson: Correct.
Dillon: I think we should get that. If we could get that before we vote tonight that’d be great.
For me.
Kairies: Sure.
Aanenson: Sure.
Dillon: The other material is a question I was going to ask that one too. So also do we know
like the survey’s like accurate here? I mean because you could be off a couple inches one way
and there’s your 1.3%.
Aanenson: That’s quite a bit of square footage. Yeah.
Dillon: Okay, so we don’t know the answer to that question or?
Aanenson: Well if you go to the slide that shows what it was designed and that was built, clearly
it’s significant. It’s different.
Undestad: They had a certified.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Aanenson: Certified survey, as built as it was done so there’s the approved one.
Generous: Had a professional calculate it.
Aanenson: And again if you go to what the original survey is, they bumped up tight to that 25%
so there wasn’t a lot of flexibility in that, the original survey.
Dillon: Alright. And then you know I kind of, I looked at the letter that the homeowner sent to
the City trying to justify the kind of the litmus test that we have for a variance and I you know I
think their logic makes sense to me in just about all of those counts so I mean, you know I don’t
know. It is, so I mean we can take time to read it if you want but it’s, I read through that and it
seemed to me like they make some good points. I’m done with my questions.
Larson: Okay. I have a question for you. When was the driveway put in? After they purchased
the house correct? So they were the ones that ordered this?
Aanenson: I don’t believe so.
Larson: It was put in before they purchased the house?
Aanenson: Correct.
Larson: Well I wouldn’t consider that their fault then.
Aanenson: No. It’s the fact that they wanted the additional 100 square feet is what we’re saying.
Larson: I know but she’s saying that.
Dillon: It gets ripped out.
Larson: It has to get ripped out if we don’t change it so maybe our recommendation for the city,
the city wasn’t willing to put that in a recommendation that they wouldn’t have to rip it out to
make it the 25%.
Aanenson: But you can certainly modify that.
Larson; But we can?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Larson: Well that to me makes.
Keefe: I think you bring up a good point though. It’s sort of like when do you find out there are
violations and you find out one, when there’s something that’s brought to them. I mean they
7
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
were sort of out there doing aerial surveys saying oh well, this developer put in too much. It’s
only because they’re coming in and asking for an addition that now it becomes an issue.
Larson: So that’s where they came in.
Keefe: Yeah. Is that correct?
Aanenson: I’m not sure.
Generous: Well no, when we got the as built survey we saw that they were over the 25% and at
that point.
Larson: And then when did you get the as built survey?
Generous: It’s after their, I don’t know the exact date but it’s usually after.
Larson: I mean in conjunction from when they bought it. When they purchased the property or
when they closed on it. I thought I saw something in here, in their letter that said it was
something like 10 months after.
Doll: It’s my understanding that you do an as built survey after the house is built and the sod is
in the ground. And that landscaping is in.
Larson: Okay.
Doll: This house may have been there and then these people purchased it from the builder.
Larson: So the grass might not have been in yet?
Doll: Well no. This was an already built home.
Larson: Okay, but nobody lived there yet.
Doll: I don’t believe, but I don’t know if that’s true.
Larson: The fact that they had certificate of occupancy. Okay. Have you got some news?
Kairies: Yep. For 2101 the request is for a 3.3% which equaled 648 square feet, and for 2081 it
was 2.6% which equaled 538.25 square feet.
Larson: One other thing I wanted to bring up. Kind of referring back to the letter that they sent
us. They’re talking about a retaining wall in the back that’s been a problem it looks like. Has
holes in it and when it rains real hard, holes exist. Does that not kind of cover the reason why
we’re so strict on the hard surface?
8
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Kairies: The retaining wall is built as part of the subdivision. It was inspected as part of the
subdivision.
Larson: Well I think my point being is they’re sort of bringing this up and it’s something that
needs to be repaired. It’s got an 8 foot in diameter hole. No corrective action’s been made but
my point being if they have too much hard surface coverage already, they’re getting too much
water already.
Kairies: Right.
Larson: That’s running there. So it’s sort of like thanks for bringing that up.
Dillon: Or there’s some fault with that wall. I mean there could be other things.
Larson: Well right and I understand that’s not the issue at hand but the fact that they brought it
up sort of solidifies the reason for the City being strict on that. And I suppose that’s not even an
issue for us to go into as far as whether or not that needs to be fixed because that’s.
Aanenson: It’s on the docket.
Larson: Okay. I think that’s all I’ve got. Have we got an applicant? State your name and
address please.
Carol Toohey: Hello. My name’s Carol Toohey with Lennar Corporation. We’re representing
the builder and the homeowner because the homeowner could not make it this evening. We look
like, it sounds based on your conversation that there’s kind of, we can look at this two separate
requests. We can look at it as a request to accept the driveway as it was actually built, and then a
second request to have the back patio built as an extra 100 square feet. To address the driveway,
we found that there was an error in the proposed survey is that the driveway, as you can see is
actually, the stall in front of the third stall is actually quite narrow for the proper use of the third
stall. At it’s widest points it’s only 18 feet long. When you’ve got SUV’s that run an average 16
feet long. A boat and a trailer, easily 19 feet long. You know it doesn’t give you the adequate
use of that stall or that area of the driveway. If you can go to that aerial picture that you actually
have. The aerial. That one.
Kairies: This one here?
Carol Toohey: Yep, that’s perfect. If you see the red truck on the north side of the picture,
second house in. That is a perfect example of you see the vehicle’s actually at a slant and kind of
covering up the other 2 stalls. That’s what it would be like for the homeowner to use it if we had
built it as proposed. That is why the driveway installer installed the driveway as wide as he did
so that they could have adequate use and adequate access to their garage. So that’s why it was
built the way it was. And then to address the runoff, the driveway, the water would actually be
running toward the street and into the catch basin and the storm sewer system that runs in the
street. If you look at the patio situation, that one would run off into the back yard and potentially
impact the existing wall issue so those two separate impervious surface areas do go to separate
9
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
areas and impact it differently. So just you know to keep it in a two separate request kind of
outlook on it.
Larson: Except that’s not how it was presented.
Carol Toohey: Well originally.
Larson: And we have to go with what was presented.
Carol Toohey: No, and I understand that and originally we were going forward as a whole
request and then the homeowners decided you know what? If I can’t get that patio, as he stated
in the letter basically. He’s like I’m willing to give up the patio but he just you know wants that
driveway as it was built because obviously they’ve built their life around it.
Aanenson: Can I just ask a question then? So when you do a 3 car garage should we be
expecting those types of driveways because our concern with this was that we’re close to, and so
there’s a way to kind of fudge it to get the permit and then we do what we want after? So I’m
just you know, should we be expecting when there’s a third stall that all of them should be that
length?
Carol Toohey: Well I honestly I can’t answer exactly what happened between the…
Aanenson: But you’re saying a driveway that length doesn’t work for a homeowner because we
have other ones. I’m just trying to figure that out.
Carol Toohey: Well I’m just saying you’ll get situations you know where they can’t use that
stall. It’s not, it becomes more of an inconvenience than you know a useful third stall. And I
can’t say what happened between.
Aanenson: I just think it’d be helpful for us to know that. If that’s how it should work then we
should expect them to be wider at the beginning and not try to taper it down because then that
wouldn’t be successful so maybe our expectation should be that they should always be wider and
come in that way. Do you know what I’m saying? I think it would just make it smoother on
both sides.
Carol Toohey: I understand the concern. Yep.
Aanenson: Just so we’re you know, we don’t have this problem down the road.
Carol Toohey: No, and I understand the concern and it should be addressed in the future and
properly handled and.
Aanenson: No, I’m just saying that maybe it should be wider all the way down if that’s the goal.
To make it more useable.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Carol Toohey: Well and the initial permit survey should be more accurate on where the
driveway would be, correct.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Carol Toohey: And unfortunately we found an error occurred and unfortunately our
homeowner’s stuck in a difficult situation which of course we don’t want and.
Larson: I’ve got a question for you, just looking at this picture and referring back to your
comment about the red truck.
Carol Toohey: Correct.
Larson: If I were looking at this in the same way you were looking at that picture I would make
the assumption that the red truck would be, say if you’re looking at the as built survey, it would
be more towards where it says driveway is where you’d be parking that truck.
Carol Toohey: Well if you see where it bumps in a little bit right there. That’s that third single
stall.
Larson: That’s a bigger stall?
Carol Toohey: It’s, because you’ve got the typical 2 car garage. You’ve got the 2 car stall with
a double door and then you’ve got the single stall.
Larson: Is it taller?
Carol Toohey: Nope. Same. Same height.
Larson: So why would you pull your truck in right there if you had a big truck and you probably
couldn’t fit it in there anyway? You know why would you put that vehicle right in front of the
front door? I’m just being you know I’m looking at logic here.
Carol Toohey: Well you know and different homeowners have different use. Maybe they’ve got
3 cars and you know maybe they’ve got 3 trucks or you know.
Larson: But I can see your point if we had gone with that original thing. If a truck were in fact
being parked closer to the front door. My inkling is to think that that wouldn’t be the case but.
Carol Toohey: What we find what they typically use a third car stall for is an extra vehicle or
sporting equipment or a trailer and a boat and that kind of stuff and that you also need the
driveway in that area to accommodate such a use. That’s why I was using the truck as an
example.
Larson: Okay. I was just playing devil’s advocate.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Carol Toohey: Nope, I understand. I can understand completely.
Larson: Guys have any questions for her? Mark does.
Undestad: I just have one. Just to say clarify this but from the building permit survey, which is
what was proposed, then the builder made the change for all the hard surface coverage on his
own? While they were trying to sell the house and then the homeowners came in and bought it
after the builder increased all that or, who made the decision?
Carol Toohey: The homeowner did buy it as is. With the driveway and everything in. The
homeowner didn’t say I want the driveway to look like this or anything.
Undestad: And the builder sold that home to the homeowner? The builder who increased all the
hard surface, is that right?
Carol Toohey: I don’t know who makes the decision. Was it just the driveway installer just put
it in?
Jim Weaver: No, we make the decision. We have…Asphalt put it in and they should have done
it off the original plot.
Larson: Sir could you maybe step up to the podium and give your name and address so we know
who’s talking. Thank you.
Carol Toohey: Sorry about this.
Jim Weaver: My name’s Jim Weaver. I’m with Lennar also. I’m an Area Manager in
construction service. Normally our contractor would take the initial plat and go ahead and put in
the driveway like that. Why they didn’t, we don’t know. We didn’t do it intentionally but we
did make the mistake of putting the driveway in as it is to the right, as I’m looking at the picture.
So it wasn’t the homeowner’s fault. It was builder error. Now did the builder do it
intentionally? No, we didn’t. Our contractor did it that way. Took it on his own to lay it out
that way. Unfortunately our supervisor on site didn’t catch it. If he would have caught it on site
the day they were doing it, we probably would have had it removed. The customer moves in.
Uses it for 7 to 8 months. That’s the reason we’re here. Wants his driveway to stay as is.
Undestad: So just one more while you’re up there.
Jim Weaver: Sure.
Undestad: You’re with Lennar then. Between building it this way and getting the as built survey
and then again selling it to the homeowner, no flags were raised inbetween there that you guys
knew that this was overbuilt?
Carol Toohey: We actually got the as built completed after it was sold to the homeowner due to
the timing.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Dillon: So who’s in the hook to pay if this gets like the death penalty?
Jim Weaver: Oh we’ll pay. Lennar will. Not the customer. And we’ve already told the
customer that.
Carol Toohey: They just lose the use of that part of their driveway.
Jim Weaver: We’re not here on behalf of us. We’re here on behalf of the homeowner.
Larson: Anyone else?
Thomas: No, I don’t have a question.
Larson: Okay. Well I’ll open it up to public hearing. Does anybody in the audience who would
like to address this issue? No? You guys are for the next issue. Okay I will close the public
hearing. Let’s discuss guys. What do you think? We’ll start with you.
Keefe: Well I’m sort of in denial on both counts. You know I think that runoff in this particular
neighborhood is a very real issue. I mean we’ve had people in here who’ve had serious water in
their basement due to the mega events adjacent to this neighborhood and you know we’ve got the
ordinance in there for a reason you know and so I think we really need to enforce it. The other
reason is you know I think they have reasonable use. And then thirdly to be consistent. We’ve
already made the ruling on a couple of other homes in this neighborhood. Now we’re all of a
sudden going to change our stance and be inconsistent I think, I think it’s a problem.
Larson: Thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: I am not in favor of what the staff is recommending here. I would be in favor of an
alternate resolution or whatever you call these things to say that they can keep the driveway but
not add the extra hard surface coverage for the patio. I was here and voted for the two previous.
I don’t even remember what I voted but I do remember the two previous discussions and so this
was a little bit different from that from our recollection because this was you know the
homeowner here is kind of like in a tight spot because they didn’t know when they bought it and
they’re the ones that are going to have you know the problem and you know they’ve gone
through the heartache of all the stuff so far. So you just I would say I’d be fine with you know
letting the driveway keep where it is. It’s in the front of the yard. It doesn’t have a super
material impact on the footings issue in the back so just let it go.
Larson: Tom.
Doll: I feel the same way.
Larson: Kathleen.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Thomas: I’m a little disappointed first off in the whole building of the driveway. It was what it
was versus what it is now. It just, especially since we approve things and we do our best to
ensure that we aren’t creating runoff issues and things like that by having the hard surface
coverage met on the property and not going over. With that said I understand the homeowner’s
position. You know they bought a house that they thought was just, was right. You know
there’s nothing that they knew that was wrong with it so I mean it’s very unfortunately for them
that they’re in this position. Because of that I would be in favor of leaving the driveway and the
sidewalk alone and not granting the patio. Just for something. I mean I just, I hate to see that
they have to completely rip back out everything to ensure they meet their requirements but I
don’t know how everyone else feels regarding it.
Larson: How about you Mark?
Undestad: I, you know I mean again I feel bad for the homeowner getting it that way and bottom
line yeah, I don’t want to see them tear their driveway up. But I don’t want to come up with is 3
lots down the road just build it this way and then we can do it later and not have to deal with it so
you know the fact that we have Lennar kind of standing in their place saying yeah we did it.
We’re sorry and we’ll make it right. You know that’s I guess where I’m kind of torn up too is, I
hate to see them lose their driveway but on the other hand I don’t want to set this up where
somebody comes in. It wasn’t me. It was built this way and we leave it so.
Larson: Okay. Well I kind of feel the same way as you guys. The fact of the matter is it was
built differently than what the City expected. The fact that they want to add to it. The only way,
in my opinion that they would be able to do that is if they cut back the driveway to the point
where the 200 extra feet for the patio would still stay within the 25% hard surface coverage. My
thoughts, golly I hate to see them pull it out but again Lennar has admitted to the fact that you
know they’d be willing to correct it and because of the fact that she, or let’s see the homeowner,
I don’t know if Todd or Amy wrote this but the fact that they’ve got trouble in their back yard
with that retaining wall and the hole and the water and the whole issue of all that, I’d be willing
to you know deny it so at that I’ll take a motion. Anyone?
Keefe: I’ll go ahead and make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an
existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the Findings of
Fact and Action.
Larson: Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments denies an after the fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance
for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case number 09-17 and adoption of the
Findings of Fact and Action. All voted in favor, except for Commissioners Dillon and Doll,
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Dillon: So just, I don’t know the rules of the road here but so could we put forth an alternate
thing at this time or are we done?
Aanenson: Well actually it goes to City Council because you need a 75% so you don’t have that
so it automatically gets appealed to the City Council so they’ll make the final decision. And
they’ll take all the consideration of the different options into consideration.
Dillon: Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING, COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Chair and commissioners. Actually we’ve been working at
this process for a long time. We did a lot of preference survey. We looked at a lot of pictures
and so now hopefully we have an ordinance that will allow us to move forward and provide the
opportunity for future development and redevelopment in the community. Little background on
the community commercial and regional commercial. The city in 2006, in conjunction with the
Chamber of Commerce worked to have a retail market study performed. As part of this market
study it showed that the city could support additional commercial lands as we continue to build
out and we don’t have enough land available. In the downtown area we’re looking for an
additional 12 acres that could be supported and then as part of a regional center at 212 and
Powers Boulevard they looked at from 88 to 113 acres of additional commercial land that could
be developed. As part of the comprehensive plan update that the city did in 2008 we
incorporated some land use amendments to designate land specifically to allow for these types of
commercial developments. Adjacent to 212 we made a land use amendment from residential to
office and commercial to permit a lifestyle or regional commercial center. Just to the southwest
of downtown area in some commercial area that has some vacancies and vacant land we’ve
designated the land for office industrial and commercial uses to permit a community commercial
type use. So let’s go first with the community commercial. Again this is the area just to the
southwest of downtown. The idea would be to expand our downtown area with uses that would
compliment or enhance the existing downtown but provide for different shopping opportunities
that currently aren’t available in here. It would permit, the idea was to permit a medium scale,
bigger box user to develop here, but not to allow multi tenant, strip malls to go into this area. So
we’re really trying to target it for uses that could, would not necessarily compete directly with all
our smaller businesses in the downtown. The big issues that we have in creating these districts
were a minimum business size. The lower end of this development that we would permit and
also a maximum business. And also we wanted to try to make sure that the list of uses that
would be in this district would actually enhance the downtown area. And if you look at the
attached ordinance at the back of your staff report we have the newly commercial district and
what we did as part of this was to have, propose a minimum business size of 15,000 square feet
and a maximum business size of 65,000 square feet. This permits a full range of shopping
opportunities that aren’t available here such as electronic stores, furniture stores, things that we
don’t have in our downtown area right now. However it’s big enough so that you’re not going to
get a bunch of multi tenant users because 15,000 square feet’s just too big. That’s usually the
15
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
size of the building. The permitted uses are listed in here and we’re looking at things that would
provide shopping opportunities that aren’t available to the residents, such as arts and crafts
supply store. Automotive parts. Book stores. Building supply center and that would be a small
Lowe’s center would potentially be able to go in there. …grocery store. Health and dental
clinics. Hobby and toy, game stores. Offices. Office equipment and supply. Personal services.
Sewing and fabrics stores and sporting goods. The only conditional use we have here would be
to permit outdoor storage if it was screened in conjunction with one of those uses. The actual
district regulations are based on those in the IOP district so the building setback, height, site
coverage are all the same as that are currently there under the IOP zoning so from a physical
standpoint they wouldn’t really change that. And we believe that the way that the ordinance was
drafted for the community commercial does permit that. Here’s some examples, some of the
uses that could potentially go in there. Electronics store. A furniture store. Another furniture
store. Now this, because of it’s size would be beyond the scope of that would be permitted in the
district. 116,000 square feet is just too big. That’s a distribution center. It needs to go in an
industrial zone. Lowe’s, while they average 75 to 85,000, an average says that there’s some
smaller and some larger and something is pulling it up so there have been stores that are in the
60-65,000 square foot range so that’s why that’s in there. However these warehouse clubs would
be too large to go into this district and it would not be permitted as part of this zoning. So that’s
the community commercial. We’re requesting that the Planning Commission forward this to
council for approval and adoption. Now we go to the regional and community, or lifestyle center
commercial. This area was designated as part of the comprehensive plan for office or
commercial uses. The area’s approximately 112 acres in size. There are only a few things that
were known about the development potential of this area and those are the touch down points for
Bluff Creek Drive on the west side and on the east side. That there needs to be a connection to
Lyman Boulevard which was pointed out as part of the Alternate Urban Area Wide Review that
was done for this 2005 MUSA area. And that wooded area in the southwest corner of the site
would be preserved. However the rest of it would be, we have saved for the development
potential and with the advent of Highway 212 great access and visibility for a regional type
center. I did hand out tonight some, a letter from Rick Dorsey regarding some issues that he had
with the draft ordinances. There were 3 main areas that he pointed out. Building type is
restricted under the draft that the city has and that, we’re proposing that there be a range of
heights for the different uses and this is something that came out of the survey that we presented
to the Planning Commission. That there be some type of limitation. Two stories for
commercial. Three stories for services and then five residential or office uses in there. The other
thing is to leave or adjust the language for the perimeter height adjacent to the single family
residential on the west side. And then thirdly they had an issue with the timing of the residential
development. As drafted residential development would be limited to 20% of the development
area and also would be required to be built either concurrent or after development of the office or
commercial segments of the development proposal, and they say, Rick is saying basically why
put this restriction in there. Allow the development to be approved as it’s approved and go
forward with that. Again the regional lifestyle center looks at a mix of uses to provide a vibrant
area. The PUD standards provide parameters for that development. We’re looking at again
building height. Building height adjacent to residential on the west side which is we’re limited at
35 feet, and within the development that the, and then building setbacks. And again we’re
looking as part of that, that we want to create internally a sense of place and so we have smaller
setbacks and a public road improvement but allow you know flexibility and some design that
16
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
would allow them to go higher with some changes in their setback to allow light to come in. The
reason we’re looking at providing it within the PUD framework is we provide sufficient guiding
to get, guidance to get the develop, type of development that the City has a vision and desire for,
but provide the controls that let the developers know what their limitations are. And also the
PUD process is an established process so people and developers are used to that in the city and
that allows us to go through a concept review and then a preliminary development review and
then in a final plat review and you can put that all in conjunction with subdivision, site plan.
What ultimately comes out is a development contract with a PUD agreement that rezones a
property the standards that the city agrees on with the developer. This is just a concept that we
put together to show an idea of, we wanted to do like a balloon development to show
proportionately the different uses could be in there. In no way does it show how it’s all going to
lay out as part of the project. It’s just to give you an example of the scale, potential scale of the
project. It also provides some of the setback requirements that are built within the PUD
standards. To the west, adjacent to the single family homes in the preserve there’s a proposed 50
foot setback requirement. On the north and east and south perimeters is a 30 foot perimeter
setback requirement. And then adjacent to the wooded hill in the southwest corner which is part
of the Bluff Creek primary zone, there would be a 40 foot setback. Again we knew that there
would be an east/west road connection provided in this and some connection out to Lyman
Boulevard and we’re just trying to show that there’d have to be internal circulation of that. In
that. There are some, a wetland on the property that would have to be incorporated into the
design and we’d also look at a connection to the property to the south. Again this is just an
example. This mix had a 60% retail, 30% office, 10% residential. It could be 100% office
development. It could be some other mix. We just, the only limitation we have in a PUD
standard would be the maximum 20% residential. Otherwise the mix would be as someone came
in and said that the market could support. And then it says a local example of a mixed use
development in Edina. It’s Centennial Lakes. It has retail and offices and residential. It has a
nice central concept with the water features. What we’d like as part of this project is to create a
vibrant atmosphere to provide street life and activity and again that would be part of the design
with the public realm improvements and requirements for seating areas and outdoor seating for
restaurants and all the things that make a development visually interesting. We’d require that
it’d be a mixed use development, and again this will be a regional destination so we’d get, bring
people from outside of the community into the city of Chanhassen. Again the idea was to
provide a compliment to our existing downtown because it’s very important and we want to
make sure that that remains healthy but provide another opportunity to meet those shopping
demands that we don’t have. What we’re looking at as far as a shopping opportunity would be
that comparison shopping. People could go, a department store or clothing store. Things like
that. Or maybe an additional boutique so. And then that again just shows how the mix of uses
that could be within a development. Again this doesn’t represent how this actual site will
develop but just an idea of the flavor of the mixes and use. It can mixed vertically as well as
horizontally on the site. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
adoption of the community commercial and the PUD amendments for a residential, or regional
lifestyle center commercial district. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aanenson: If I could just add something to what Bob said. Again this was creation of that
regional commercial zoning district. So what this is is a blend of a lot of different uses so we
tried to show illustratively how those mixes could happen. We also dual guided that property so
17
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
it could come in as pure office. It wouldn’t have to go through this process. If someone was to
acquire the property. Come in and do a pure office, it could be consistent with the zoning and
wouldn’t have to do this. But by creating this zone it allows that mixed use concept so we’re
trying to put some parameters on there because certainly the City’s goal wasn’t to make that
residential, all residential. We’ve got plenty of other property for residential. It was to see either
office use or regional commercial, and if it was to go regional commercial, we saw the
opportunity to mix some of those uses to provide some of that residential and some of that office
with that as a part of that. That still could be, and we don’t know what that market is today. It
still could be a pure office park too, which we have other places in the city. And not office
industrial but office park so this just provides the regional lifestyle, which we don’t have and
while, as Bob explained to you, while we put it into the PUD, it allows us to create that
framework as we look at it. We’re not going to see a project today. That’s going to come in in
the future. This just provides a framework for when it does come in. For us to discuss how it
should be set up but just give some parameters to the developer of what our expectations are.
Larson: Any questions?
Thomas: No.
Doll: I have a question. Page 1. There’s more than one page 1. It says the creation of a multi
tenant, small user, strip center is prohibited for.
Aanenson: The community commercial?
Doll: I guess I don’t quite understand what the big picture is.
Aanenson: Sure. You’re talking about the community commercial right?
Doll: Yes, I am talking about that…
Aanenson: Yep, no we had those discussions with the City Council and the Planning
Commission in the past. There isn’t a desire, we’ve got those opportunities. When we talked
about the regional commercial, it wasn’t, understood that there’s probably some ancillary uses
that may want to go next to that but if you look at the perimeter of that, Powers and Lyman, there
isn’t that opportunity so we thought let’s provide that opportunity for some of those bigger boxes
which we don’t have a zoning for in the city.
Doll: Okay.
Aanenson: To put those downtown so it really provides an opportunity for a big box user, which
we don’t have right now. A zoning of what we don’t have right now. We’ve got other zonings
where we could put strip centers and that sort of thing. Not a bigger box.
Doll: And if you were to develop something with big boxes, are you saying you can’t have a
smaller stores within that?
18
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. We’ve got other opportunities for that, because if we said that, it
would be all smaller stores. We wouldn’t get what we wanted which is an opportunity for some
of those, and we’ve had people looking for that opportunity for a bigger box. For example there
are some existing buildings over in the area that we’re looking at that could be retrofitted from
office to a bigger box retail. So that’s the opportunity there. Not to provide another opportunity
for a little convenience mart.
Doll: And my next question is, the regional lifestyle. You know PUD is, isn’t that a flexible
zoning type thing?
Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Doll: So what, why the need for additional language or?
Aanenson: Well I think you still have to put some framework and some expectations of what it
could be laid out and as far as the mix use and the size. If you didn’t put that in place someone
could come in and just sell off 3 acres, 5 acres. So we have a minimum development size. So
you’ve got something that would be consistent, cohesive so that would allow the parcels. They
could develop independently. There’s 3 property owners now. So they could be developed
independently or they could come in under a master plan, however that works. But by letting
them segment into smaller pieces you really dilute the whole process of having a center so to
speak. That’s not forcing anybody to work together. They could work independently with 3
parcels. The other thing too is, we do currently in the city we have built in buffers under our
PUD ordinance when there’s transition between uses. So as the Planning Commission had
discussed earlier, when we did kind of the taste survey, correct me if I’m wrong Bob but there
was a lot of discussion about height in that area. Some people felt like 4 might be too high. I
think as a project would evolve, right now we’re trying to set some minimums but certainly as a
project was to evolve, if everybody felt comfortable with that was how it laid out, where the
buffering was, we certainly could build that into the PUD to say in this circumstances it makes
sense and we would allow that. But this is the beginning framework for that discussion.
Doll: And this, the owner of this property, does that shut them out from what they originally
thought it was when they purchased it or was it.
Aanenson: It’s up zoning the property. Significantly.
Generous: Yeah. It used to be agricultural.
Aanenson: Significantly. Correct.
Doll: It was zoned agricultural. Then it gives them options.
Aanenson: Yes, and that’s what, that’s the best thing to do is create that flexibility. That’s what
we want to do but we don’t want to give a carte blanche. The expectation this is not going to
become all residential. We want to put that out there. That’s why I say the residential doesn’t go
first because we’ve got plenty of residential. We want to see either office or a mixed use.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Doll: Okay. Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: So the smallest size store that you were hoping to have there, what was that?
Generous: 15. In the community commercial it’s 15,000 square feet.
Dillon: That’s still a pretty good sized store.
Generous: That’s a big, yes.
Aanenson: Right.
Dillon: Okay. So where would then like, you know like a, well an example here, a Barnes and
Noble or something like that, where would that go?
Aanenson: Well that could go in the regional commercial. We’re just talking about the
community commercial which you really consider more of that big box or mini box size. You
know we’ve got the locations for, we’ve had interest in from sporting goods that need a bigger
footprint. We don’t have that zoning in place right now, so really what this is a compliment to
something that may want to be freestanding to catch some of that downtown traffic. To create,
we don’t have additional property downtown so we wanted to create that synergy, some
additional larger buildings to pick up some of that traffic in the downtown, along Highway 5 to
compliment something on the regional scale.
Generous: And if you look on page 10 of the staff report, the Barnes and Noble come in that
25,000 so conceivably they could go into the community commercial.
Aanenson: If they were that big, yes.
Generous: Yeah, if they’re that big. But if they’re small, under the 15,000 then they have to find
another location. Which we have in the city.
Dillon: Okay.
Aanenson: Yeah, we’re just trying to find another zoning category that we don’t have. That’s
what we’re trying to create for both uses.
Keefe: On the high end, on the community commercial, Byerly’s and Target and Office Depot,
what kind of size, just for a point of reference.
Generous: Byerly’s is about 62 or 63, right around there.
Aanenson: Target with it’s addition.
Generous: Target would be over.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Aanenson: I think it’s closer to 7.
Keefe: Little bit smaller than, well the max would be about Byerly’s.
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: For a single user.
Keefe: For a single user, right. And then how many boxes could get on the site if they were all
say 50,000?
Generous: Depends on the site. We only have about 12 acres over there so.
Aanenson: Yeah, on the one piece.
Generous: Well on, between all the pieces.
Larson: Are you talking about the Lyman/Powers?
Keefe: The community commercial.
Generous: The community commercial. No, on 5 and Powers.
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: Yeah it really, it’s two parcels really isn’t it, or is that road in there?
Aanenson: It’s the shaded. It’s hard to see on that.
Keefe: The road isn’t in there now is it?
Generous: This is in.
Keefe: Part is in, okay. Alright.
Generous: And this is the vacant building now. And if they wanted to keep industrial, we’re
not, the city won’t be rezoning any properties as part of that. It will be developer or property
owner driven. It just provides them an opportunity.
Thomas: To do that, yeah.
Keefe: So if I’m looking at the Byerly’s on the north side there, is it just the Byerly’s itself or is
it the Byerly’s plus the additional, you know? I mean…
21
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Generous: Well they’re about, they’re 60 about. 62.
Keefe: Their piece of it is.
Generous: Yeah, but they couldn’t have a bigger building.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. I’m just trying to…
Generous: And there would just have to be other users.
Aanenson: Yeah, Target is probably closer to 70.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. Just you know in terms of just the items that Mr. Dorsey brought up. I
think you addressed the building height because we already kind of talked about it. The setback
from the resi, I mean I guess his point is, there’s sort of no limit to how far back that height
would go if somebody came in. You know is there any need to, you know have you given some
thought to…
Aanenson: Well we don’t know what, right. We don’t know what the use is going to be.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Yeah.
Aanenson: So we need to put something in there.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: It’s a place holder. You know if they put in a row of townhouses 35 feet would be
exactly the height that the buildings are. If they wanted something bigger, yeah. And they, we
think that there’s going to be a circulating road in there and so that parcel may not be as big as
they think.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: Because this, the standards would allow them down to 10,000 square feet which is
our downtown zoning category. 100 by 100.
Keefe: And then the point on timing, just for the resi, and the reason why we really don’t want
that is, is we want to see the whole thing?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Really. You know in advance.
Aanenson: It’s once you start residential, right. And then it becomes all residential, yeah.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Keefe: And it’s problematic because commercial’s really cranking down the street and all of a
sudden it’s kind of reversed a little bit and it’s yeah, hard to time it out but I understand.
Generous: Yeah, and even if they know that it’s going to be there, once the residents are in.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
Larson: Well, shall I open up the public hearing?
Aanenson: Sure.
Larson: Is there anybody that would like to, Mr. Dorsey? State your name and address for the
record.
Rick Dorsey: Good evening. My name is Rick Dorsey. I am one of the property owners who
has property in the area that’s, the ordinance dealing with regional commercial application.
Really what my concerns are is you know maintain flexibility and a lot of what’s already been
done does that. Just in reviewing the ordinance as it’s been drafted, myself and the Fox Family’s
had some points we just would like to have reviewed and you talked about them briefly but I
would like to go in a little more detail perhaps in what our concerns are and just why we think
maybe some language could be adjusted a little bit to it. If we take a look on dealing with the
regional commercial on part (e). Dealing with minimum setbacks. The first item I have is
somewhat of a question or clarification. You have listed there that PUD exterior setback would
be 30 feet.
Larson: Can you give us a page number on that?
Rick Dorsey: That’d be page 3 I believe.
Generous: Yeah, of the ordinance.
Rick Dorsey: Of the ordinance. And we’re talking about Section 509. 20-509.
Larson: Okay.
Rick Dorsey: Do you find where I’m at?
Larson: Yep.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. What, first question is intent. If there was a master plan incorporating all 3
parcels, and there are multiple property owners here, if there was a master plan that included
those and within that master plan there was multiple PUD’s, from PUD to PUD is the intent that
there would have to be 30 foot setbacks or if they’re part of a master plan, in fact could the
setbacks be no different than in later in the section here where your front yard, rear yard, side
yard setbacks are listed. So what it would be doing is if there’s multiple PUD’s within a master
plan, being there’s maybe more than one property owner, or one developer ultimately there, from
23
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
the standpoint of cohesiveness of the development, it may be adjacent properties and there’s a
line. You know you really want the intent for them to be 5 feet or from each building or
whatever but you have lines. The way it’s worded there suggests that it could be 30 feet or
would be required to be 30 feet. Now there is some, it says that the City Council could have
some impact on that and we just want to make sure, you know clarification of what the intent
there is that we’re not limiting it to a 30 foot setback.
Aanenson: Well we are, but for if it made sense that all 3 were somehow master planned
together, then we wouldn’t consider that and use that exception.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. That’s what we want to find out. Okay. The second area has to do with,
just below that about 2 paragraphs where it says that building setbacks adjacent to either
development lot lines abutting an area designated for residential use in the comprehensive plan
shall be 50 feet unless circumstances are found that would allow the City to reduce that setback.
As Bob brought up in his example there he had showing a row of row houses and on this says
that it has to be 50 feet. If you have residential to residential from a standpoint of consistency
with other parts of the code, if there is residential within a master plan, would it not you know
make sense to have language in there that’s no different than anything else saying that
residential, abutting residential only has to have the 30, I think it’s 35 foot setback. This
suggests, I think it’s looking at worst case scenario where the assumption is that it’s all
commercial use or office use and from the standpoint of, if it is residential that’s adjacent to it, I
would think that there should be no different setback required there than between adjacent
residential properties anywhere else.
Aanenson: But for, depending on the type of residential I guess. That would be, you know if
you had something that was 4 stories, overlooking something that was one story so I guess we
would look at that. You may want to…
Rick Dorsey: Well I’d like to go into that to the next part dealing with, in a second here there’s
another area that talks about height restrictions and distances and I think that that part of the
ordinance, actually it’s right above it.
Aanenson: Yeah…
Rick Dorsey: Does talk about saying interior to a development that for each foot higher you go
than 35 feet, you would have an additional foot setback and I guess what I’m thinking is that
maybe there’s similar language you know dealing with the exterior property line, if it is
residential. Depending on the type it is, you know you may need to have a bigger setback, or
you will have to have a bigger setback if it’s a taller building or in order to get a taller building
but to make it so that it, you know if it is the same thing, or a lower level of density should you
know, this PUD have to be further away than normally would be the case. So if you’re looking
at taller buildings and higher density I can understand it but a scenario could be that there would
also be the same density along there. So not knowing what the circumstances are as far as
developing the ordinance, it doesn’t seem to me to be right to basically penalize property owners
when you don’t know what’s going to go there and if it is the same thing, it should be the same is
what my point is. So what I guess we’re asking for is to look at the wording of it so that it could
24
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
perhaps say that if it’s the same type of residential or lesser density, that it would keep the same
setbacks as residential developments would typically have. If it’s commercial use than it has to
be that minimum of 50. If your building’s above 35 feet you have to go a foot further back for
every foot taller you go. Just being consistent with other code that’s already in place in the city.
Larson: Do you want to address that?
Aanenson: Yeah, we can talk about that. Again our intent was, as Mr. Dorsey’s saying, is that if
it’s a different use up against residential, for example if you had a taller office building that
affects privacy, was looking down into somebody’s back yard so that’s where we put that higher
ratio of setback to give more privacy to the single family. If it’s residential to residential, we
have a buffer ordinance in the city that talks about the density and depending on the, we haven’t
done a subdivision for a while but we do, there’s a buffer setback requirement depending on the
number of units per acre that it calls, or type of use. There’s a matrix so if there’s a change in
land use you can either create a greater setback or actually increase the.
Generous: More intensity.
Aanenson: More intense landscaping. So I think that’s kind of what we’re trying to get at with
that caveat to reduce the setback but we can also maybe look at incorporating some of that same
language in here, but that was the goal. It’s not as always, if it’s, even if it’s residential to
residential, a lot of it depends on the type and height.
Rick Dorsey: Right, and I don’t disagree with that. I’m not at all suggesting to put some big
building in somebody’s back yard type thing. But what I’m saying is if it’s comparable type of
use, that the setbacks within the ordinance should reflect that.
Aanenson: And we can reference that buffer section which we already have in code and that’s
what that talks about. We haven’t done one for a while but again if you’ve got low density, large
lot up against multi family, we do require a certain amount of setback. That setback can be
reduced by increasing the amount. If there’s a slope or a landscaping a berm, yeah. Something
like that. Right, exactly. Or fencing. For something that was, something effectively screening
could reduce that so we could maybe reference that. Sure, we’ll take a look at that.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. With respect to that as well, the north side of Lyman Boulevard is also
residential.
Aanenson: Correct.
Rick Dorsey: So you know you showed here a 30 foot setback. Is that the way it actually is or is
that again dependent on what’s on the other side of the, you know what’s being built or what do
you suggest there?
Generous: The language specifically says directly adjacent to so.
Rick Dorsey: So if there’s a road there.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Generous: Take it out.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. Alright. So we don’t have to address that. Then on dealing with maximum
building height section, well let me go back to the top of page 4 and it’s just a clarification I
guess. The code is saying, I guess I should read the sentence before that too. There’s instances
where it gives the City the ability to reduce the requirements under unique circumstances and on
the top of page 4 they say unique circumstances include site elevation, separation of natural
features and give a couple other items. I think the intent there, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I
think the intent there is those are examples and it’s not limited to those uses. So inclusion of
some language saying you know, include but are not limited to.
Thomas: That’s how I read it.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah. Well different people read it differently so I just want to understand it
myself to make sure that I’m reading it correctly. Because it’s referenced in a number of
different places in that respect. On letter (f), dealing with maximum building height. I heard just
a little bit here about intent. I’m interested in, as a Planning Commission you know your
thoughts as far as putting within a PUD actual height restrictions for different types of uses. And
I guess I’ll throw out my thoughts first. I think there should be flexibility for a developer who
comes in. We’re looking for creativity in a development. We don’t know what it will look like.
As Bob mentioned, you know vertical stacking or mixing of property uses is not included here.
How do you deal with that when you put these elements in as they are? You might have a
commercial space with an office above it. Which is it, 3 stories or 5 stories? Or is it 8 stories or
you know that type of thing. With commercial retail limiting to 2 stories with, I don’t know if
you’ve had a chance to read my letter that we put forth and the Foxes put forth. There is, in the
current state of the world, you know wanting to have anchor stores. They basically get their
space pretty cheap, if not for free, and developers are looking for ways to curb costs. One way is
to put a smaller footprint and go a little more vertical perhaps or stack things. That kind of thing.
By putting it in as 2 stories, we may turn people away because they can’t do what they need to
do. And again what I’m just suggesting is there’s probably other ways that the City Council can
look at the PUD and make alterations, suggestions, that kind of thing. I’m not saying we want a
10 story commercial building. That’s not realistic. It’s not going to happen but a 3 story could
be a possibility and we’ve eliminated that by doing it this way. Likewise commercial service.
I’m not sure exactly what that would look like as far as a building. I can’t picture one with
commercial service unless it’s like a doctor’s office or something. I’m not sure what’s being
looked at there.
Thomas: What would that be?
Aanenson: Anything that would support a tenant.
Generous: Anything that’s not specifically retail.
Thomas: Okay.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Rick Dorsey: I mean if you looking, I mean I could see it being, including things like a doctor’s
office. A dentist, an orthodontist, a lawyer, something like.
Generous: Well that would actually be under offices.
Rick Dorsey: Are those actually office? Office service? I mean when people are coming in
that’s different than true office.
Generous: Service, an example, a restaurant could be an office use because it’s a service.
Aanenson: I was going to say.
Rick Dorsey: Okay, so the others would be offices. Okay. In any case what, you know I’m not
sure how the heights came. If they’re arbitrary or if there’s some specific reason why these
numbers were chosen. I haven’t, I’m not aware of any specific reasons other than discussions
that have been had over the past couple years. So just suggesting flexibility so that opportunity
that might come along is not passed onto a neighboring community that doesn’t have such
restrictions. I think you’ve got to put in perspective as well that this is a regional development
that we’re looking at here. Not us necessarily but the community is looking at here and as
regional development, it’s not like downtown Chanhassen or you know, different. And if you
look at other regional developments, and in the letter we put together we gave some examples of
regional developments and if you look at most all the regional developments they do have a
building or two that are higher significantly than these elevations that are restricted here and
some of that is done for marketing purposes. Some of it done for economic purposes but
sometimes a taller building becomes a landmark and it becomes, it’s not just a Knollwood Plaza
which no one really knows about or cares about but a Southdale or it could be even on Highway
394 and Hopkins Crossroad where there’s a significantly taller office building next to the retail
development that’s on that area. It becomes more notable and there’s different reasons for it but
the point being is flexibility and as well competitiveness with neighboring communities that do
in fact have less restrictive height restrictions or no restrictions. At least not the significant so if
we look at the neighboring communities that are trying to draw the same type of development
that you’re looking here, you’re looking at Eden Prairie and Minnetonka and Bloomington and
Edina and St. Louis Park. If you look at those, they have bigger buildings going in. The lifestyle
center at the intersection of 494 and or excuse me. 394 and Highway 100. They included a hotel
that’s probably about 14 stories with their development there that’s just currently going on. If
you look at areas around Southdale where they’re redeveloping and part of that’s land cost
driving that but as well they’re looking at more intensive use where they go vertical with an
office building. There are some cost advantages I think in doing that for a developer as well. So
I’d like to look at it from the standpoint or having you discuss a little bit and look at it. If there’s
a way for the language to be changed so the City Council or yourselves have the opportunity to
review these plans but not put them in the ordinance itself as a limiting factor. That that could be
beneficial to trying to attract a development that the city would like to have. The next item is the
following sentence, the maximum building height for building sites at the perimeter of the
district which abut single family residential shall be 35 feet. What my concern there is, the
distance away from the property line, the further the distance I think the less reason you’d want
to maintain that 35 foot level. I could see if you’re right at the property line and you’re at your
27
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
minimum setback but let’s just say you have some open green space or you have a parking lot
that’s 200-300 feet before you get to your first building and you still are saying that you want to
have a 35 foot height restriction if it’s 100 feet, 200 feet, or 1,000 feet away from that residential.
To me that doesn’t make any sense when we also are saying in here as far as the inconsistency
that for interior for every foot taller you go you have to have a foot further away from the
property line. It seems to me the same kind of relationship should be against the residential
property line as well. Maybe that’s not the exact formula but as you get further away you should
be able to go higher and just because it was broken into a PUD where you know like I say, here’s
the residential here and staff’s putting a building here, you’d put it over here. You should be
able to go higher. You’re not looking down on them.
Larson: Well just to address that.
Rick Dorsey: Sure.
Larson: The City had extensive studies done to figure out what would be the best for our area,
and I understand that you want to go through each of these points but you know, it sounds like
you want everything rewritten, is that?
Rick Dorsey: No, no, no. No, there’s four basic items on here.
Larson: Okay.
Rick Dorsey: You know is what.
Larson: Alright, then I’ll let you continue.
Rick Dorsey: What I’m looking at is, is to me that’s an inconsistency with the rest of the
ordinance because the ordinance says that for every foot back interior I can go up a foot higher
okay. For every foot back further than the minimum setback I can go up a foot higher and in
looking at when, where is that first building going to be from the residential development? We
don’t know where it’s going to be. Right now it says no matter how far away it is, it can only be
35 feet. Is it over here? 35 feet, I can’t go above 35 feet perhaps with anything in the
development if it’s one big building.
Dillon: So do you own the affected property or near-by property?
Aanenson: The property.
Rick Dorsey: I own the property. Part of the property.
Aanenson: I think the two most sensitive areas, can you go back to the slide. The two most
sensitive areas that we see for the perimeter would be Lyman is probably, is probably as
sensitive as the property to the west of the existing homes there. The property further south is
probably going to be buffered a little bit more by the road coming across but to the west so no
matter what’s adjacent to Lyman Boulevard you’re going to have the right-of-way improvements
28
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
of Lyman but still it’s going to be pretty physically imposing when you have large lots along that
corridor until you get over to Audubon. Even along Audubon the historic home there so our
concern there was, I would agree there is some inconsistency in how we interpret that but the
goal there was, I think in looking at edge treatment, it may be better for noise attenuation to
actually have the building closer to the street as opposed to a parking lot adjacent to Lyman, so
you know, and then circumvent, but then also you want to make sure what that looks like and
how imposing is that and how high is it going to be so a lot of those things we don’t know yet.
What would be, would a retail be user. Be better or would an office user be better along Lyman,
or residential? What’s the better mix there? Until we know exactly how it’s going to shape out,
I would agree there is some inconsistency there as far as the height but I guess our initial
response was, that’s a very sensitive area. Lyman Boulevard is. Based on those larger lots. So
we just want to make sure that we’re treating that adequately. I don’t know what’s the exact
answer but you’re right. There is some inconsistency when we talk about the height on the other
end and we can look at that.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah, if we can look at it and I think there’s also on Lyman Boulevard, I think the
road’s probably going to get cut down.
Aanenson: Yeah, there’s some topographic changes.
Rick Dorsey: Topographical changes that will be there which will make a big difference as well.
So again to put the restrictions in the ordinance, when we don’t know what’s going to be there,
I’m just saying maybe there can be the flexibility that says it doesn’t create this restriction but
provides the City Council and the Planning Commission, when a plan comes forth, to be able to
have flexibility to address issues based on whatever the real plan is that does come in.
Aanenson: Because we do know that there will be a turn off onto Lyman Boulevard. It’s hard to
see there between those two purple buildings but there will be a turn off so that’s going to be a
highly, for people on Lyman Boulevard, potentially a very well traveled so there is some
sensitivity on the staff side to make sure that, because that is a big change for that neighborhood
and it could be highly visible and we would think we’d want it to be. You know welcoming to
come in there. That’s very a sensitive area and we just want to put you on notice on how that
lays out is very sensitive. Across the street coming up on Powers Boulevard we don’t have the
same issues. Because you’ve got vacant property and then you’ve got the potential medical and
office user on the one side so it’s a little bit different as far as the treatment on that side coming
across so we just want to make sure that we handle that carefully to create a good neighbor of
that edge.
Rick Dorsey: So again all I’m saying is that maybe there’s some limitation of up to 50 feet. It
has to be 35 beyond then it goes a foot plus foot or for something depending on what it is so at
least just to take a look at that. And then last item deals with the time constraint for residential
which is on part, Section 20-502. And again with respect to this being a city ordinance, part of
the city code, you know entering into a time element for development to happen, I think that’s
something that’s within the PUD itself that’s the discretion of the City Council and the Planning
Commission at that point in time. For it to actually be part of an ordinance, which while this
happens to be the only parcel that the community has that’s guided this way, it’s not to say
29
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
something else couldn’t be in the future. It just seems to me that if an opportunity comes along
where a developer, and I’m not suggesting anything because the city already has said 20 acres, or
not 20 acres. 20% of the development is a maximum that could be residential. If somebody
came along with a high quality project that would enhance the development and you know
there’d have to be some sort of plan for the rest of the property showing what the intent was.
Where it’s located and how it mixes in with whatever else is there. It seems to me that we
should not be restricting it. This is not 5 acres of land. This is 117 acres. This is 3 property
owners. Not just one property owner so there’s not control over everything by one property
owner or another. The ideas that we want to have a mixed use there, that’s the guidance for it.
That includes some residential if it’s going to have the retail and office mix with it. It doesn’t
hurt a development ever to have more roof tops when somebody’s looking to put retail in rather
than less. And just from the standpoint of getting a development going. A developer could
come in and it’s not time to put in the retail yet but there’s a time cost of money. We can’t just
sit on property and hold onto it forever. We have to, you know here’s the plan. This is what we
want to do. It just doesn’t seem to me that any property owner or developer should be held
hostage to a time constraint and the understanding can still be there that no it’s not going to be
residential across the whole property. There’s protection for that.
Dillon: This is a strategic choice that we’re making here and strategy involves choices and you
don’t want to have to have a choice. I mean you want to have it, I mean like…
Rick Dorsey: No, I disagree with you.
Dillon: You want to have so much flexibility you don’t have a choice than what are you doing?
Rick Dorsey: I disagree with you. There’s a lot of.
Dillon: Well that’s what you just said.
Rick Dorsey: No. I am asking for flexibility. There has to be flexibility when you’re dealing
with a big project and the current economic situation the way it is. There’s time cost of money.
Dillon: I get all that. But still.
Rick Dorsey: I don’t know if you do if you said that. That’s you know because you need
flexibility. This isn’t.
Dillon: I think, alright.
Rick Dorsey: Can I just throw out from the standpoint of you know the state of the world today.
Dillon: Don’t lecture me on that.
Rick Dorsey: To put up a large retail center costs several hundred million dollars and banks are
not loaning money off today in that size so to have flexibility to take elements of the whole
project is what we’re looking for. Flexibility.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Dillon: I think you know, I’m not speaking for the staff. You just can’t have it all ways.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. From a standpoint of a property owner, I have.
Dillon: You want to have it all ways. I certainly understand your position of wanting that so you
can do whatever way the wind blows you can have the flexibility to do it whatever. That’s
certainly understandable you being in your shoes but in terms of the community I don’t think
that’s the right way to go.
Rick Dorsey: I disagree with you because everything I’m doing is in for the benefit of the
community. I’m spending a huge amount of money to hold onto this property for the community
and from that standpoint I do care about the community as much as anybody in this community
does. As a property owner we’ve held the property for 30 years. We’ve put it into an ag
preserve to protect it and keep it available for the best interest and long term of the community.
We did not take and subdivide it into 5 acre parcels when all our neighbors did. To make
money. We’re good stewards of the land and that’s the way we look at it, and I am trying to look
at this from the standpoint of the community’s interest. If you read the record of everything I’ve
said over the last 5 years, I’ve come to the table and tried to look at this from the standpoint of
the community. So from that standpoint what I’m suggesting is, in a plan, everything can’t come
together necessarily at one time. Flexibility, it may be that some residential could come first to
make sure that we can get that retail. There’s 20% of it is all that can be residential. Whether
the 20% is built today or after the retail’s built, maybe it makes a difference. Maybe it doesn’t
but if you have a plan before you allow that residential to be developed, I’m not sure I
understand why you’d wait until after it’s built to put the residential in.
Aanenson: Can I go back and just briefly talk about again what the staff’s intent was. There’s
two zoning options on this property. One, it could come in and be a straight office park. Or they
could come in and try and do a mix use development. Our goal in the mix use development is
we recognize that residential could be as important as Mr. Dorsey stated. Some rooftops would
be an important component. In the history of this city residential sometimes we’ve had a lot of
pressure to rezone office industrial pieces to residential so the goal there was, while it may be
interpreted differently, the goal there was to say it needs to be part of a plan and our goal is not to
have it go all residential and incrementally kind of work it’s way across the property. That’s not
our first choice for the property. The first choice is to have it office park or a mixed use with
retail and office as a part of that. So that was the concern and if it comes in as a master plan, I’m
certain that if there’s a timeframe built into the different components, how these things will go
out. How these things will go out. We need the market to be at this point in another year, then I
think that’s something we could look at but it’s certainly not our goal to say we’re going to go
ahead, build the residential and wait 5 years. 7 years and then come back so I think that would
be part of a plan that we’d want to look at, and I understand what your concern is. Developers
do look at rooftops.
Rick Dorsey: Well and I’m a property holder. I have a big piece of real estate sitting there. I
have a big house sitting there that I can’t sell because of the guidance for the property. I have to
31
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
wait until the property is developed as the guidance goes. There’s no one that wants to buy a big
house with non-conforming use.
Aanenson: It’s in ag preserve though too which you put it in.
Rick Dorsey: For 2 more years but what I’m just saying is that if a residential developer came
along and said hey this big house here could be part of an element of the resident development
that we see for the whole picture of the thing, that maybe that should be looked at, or could be
looked at, and I’m not held hostage necessarily either. I’m not saying that’s going to happen. I
mean I hope that we can have something going real soon but I don’t know and so you know have
to take and have flexibility to deal with it and not use ordinances that necessarily prevent
anything from happening, you know. It’s in the best interest of the community to get more
development going but I’m not saying residential. That’s not what I’m here for. If we wanted
residential we wouldn’t have been here 5 years ago.
Undestad: I don’t think what we’re putting in there is really nailing you to the residential either.
I think as Kate said.
Rick Dorsey: Right.
Undestad: You know anytime you’re dealing with a PUD, bringing in the master plan, all of that
stuff is looked at and massaged and you know brought through the process there so it’s not, I
mean kind of what I’m hearing you say is, you’re almost in a position that I’m going to bring this
in tomorrow and here’s what I’m looking at. As it comes in, as things come in…
Aanenson: Sure, an office park takes, can take 5 to 10 years to build out. We’ve had a lot but
we have a plan that we’re following and yeah, we make minor tweaks along the way. Lots
change and that sort of thing so, and I think that’s inherent. We have an example. Villages on
the Pond you know. It’s still not completely built out after 10 years but I would say for the most
part it’s following true to what the original proposal was. We made modifications as economic
forces have changed and different needs are there but for the most part the elements that we saw
to go in there have stayed and that’s kind of what we’re trying to lay out here so everyone has a
clear understanding. People moving into the community have something to look at and have an
understanding of. If I was to buy a piece of property on the north side of Lyman, what’s my
expectation. Kind of what could happen over there and that’s a lot of the rule too is for the other
people in the community to understand what the expectations are so you know to have a vision
and understanding when they’re buying their property, what their investment is too.
Rick Dorsey: And I don’t disagree with anything you said, and just like you said there the
process that goes on, just like things can take time and the development, the south side of Lyman
of downtown did have mixed use development but there wasn’t a restriction saying you can’t
build the residential portion of that until you built the rest of it out and that’s all I’m suggesting is
that consistency where you have a plan and as the pieces come together you’re building that part
of the plan. You don’t have to wait until one element is there before anything else can happen.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Aanenson: Unfortunately on that one we already had other uses that were ahead of the
residential. I mean the church wanted to go in first so that was a given. And then you know
some of the other uses that went in there. The hotel so residential we knew wasn’t going to be
first. They needed some other things to happen to make those economic forces so this one we
understand that there’s probably a little bit more pressure for residential than some of the others
so it’s a little bit different and we’re just all sensitive to that. What our original vision is for that
property and how we get there.
Rick Dorsey: So I’m not sure what you said but.
Aanenson: Well the fact is that we don’t want to just say we’re going to do residential today and
hope the rest of it comes. We want to see it come in as a master plan with an articulated and
what timeframe this is all going to happen.
Rick Dorsey: And I guess that’s, I’m not in total disagreement with you. What I’m saying is
that as you bring a plan in, the way the ordinance is written is that, my interpretation of it says
that the residential cannot commence construction until the retail is built and that’s what I’m
saying. The way it’s worded.
Larson: Well, so you’re saying that if you bring in a master plan.
Aanenson: It says concurrent.
Keefe: It says concurrent.
Aanenson: It says concurrent.
Larson: Okay.
Aanenson: So, I guess the Planning Commission can make their recommendation to the City
Council as far as the tweaking of those words. If you wanted something, if you wanted more
flexibility or if you wanted to leave it the way it is and let the council address it.
Rick Dorsey: To finish up, I’m just throwing out to you guys are the Planning Commission. I’m
throwing out concerns as a concerned citizen and property owner. I can’t, you’re the ones who
are going to make the decisions. All I’m doing is just pointing out some information. It’s a
public hearing. That’s what I’m trying to do is share some information. I hope you will hear a
different perspective and take under consideration. Thank you.
Larson: We make recommendations, not decisions.
Rick Dorsey: Pardon me?
Larson: We make recommendations not decisions so we can discuss it and then…
Rick Dorsey: Correct. Ultimately it will go to the City Council, correct.
33
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Doll: Do you have a vision? Do you have a vision for the property?
Rick Dorsey: Do I have a vision for the property? I think that the direction that it’s been going
right now is our vision in part. You know before this was in place there was light, or low density
residential was what the guidance was for it. We were involved when the roads were all being
built and just looked at it and said it just doesn’t make sense. It would be very difficult to put in
neighborhoods when you’re within 600 feet of roads from everywhere and all those properties,
of a road that has 15,000 cars per day going by. So you know it kind of, was it migration.
Certainly it wasn’t the original one 30 years ago when this big home was built there because it’s
now a non-conforming use. So no, I mean you move with the flow and that is what we have
done. But for the betterment of the community with the infrastructure that’s been built, we as
property owners have looked at it and said how can we work to make sure it gets put to the
highest and best use for the community and I think public record shows that. That that’s the
direction we’ve moved throughout the whole process. Does anybody have any questions? Any
further questions for me?
Larson: I don’t. Anyone else?
Keefe: Well just one question. What’s the status of any potential offers or moving forward with
any potential partners that you might have?
Rick Dorsey: Right at this point in time the whole world is at a stand still for commercial
development. Banks aren’t loaning any money so they’re, and retailers are holding out as best
they can to not lose tenants and using their cash flow to stay in business at the minute. It’s no
different than for office use either. I mean for the most part office use is at a stand still as
everybody’s cutting employees and there’s a lot of vacancy out there. So it’s a you know, it’s a
thing of being competitive and as a community looking at it and that’s what I guess I’m looking
at is making sure that we’re as flexible as we can be to entertain offers. It’s not saying we have
to take them but to be as flexible as possible so that we can bring people to table when we start
talking because you know there is a lot of competition. The inner ring suburbs are all looking to
redevelop. They’re looking for the exact same developers to a large degree as we are. In the
community so you know there’s going to be a timeframe here you know until the economy firms
up.
Larson: Okay, thank you very much.
Rick Dorsey: Okay.
Larson: Is there anybody that would like to talk? No? Yes? No? Okay. I’ll close the public
hearing then. Okay, what do you think guys? We’ll start with you Mark.
Undestad: Well, for me personally I think you know we spent a lot of time, a lot of good time on
this. There really isn’t any magic way to put everything in for everybody every time but I think
the idea of creating you know a master plan, the PUD. You know these are you know they’re
guidelines. They’re any, I mean a number of projects come in here based on the codes and the
34
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
guidelines but when you come into a PUD, that’s why we create these things. I mean you can
create, you can push and pull so you know I think it’s put together real well. To Mr. Dorsey’s
side here, you know I don’t think we’re limiting his development potential. He’s kind of
concerned about if we don’t, if we cap the heights that we’re going to lose out on somebody.
Again creating the master plan, the PUD, if there’s something out there that’s ready to do
something like that, that’s all going to come out into the master plan and it will all be discussed
and at that point we say do we want a hotel? Do we want this? Do we want that? I mean we
can look at it then so.
Larson: Okay.
Undestad: No, I think the way, the way we’ve got it set up I think works at this point.
Larson: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: Kind of the same comments as Mark. I mean the ability that we can, the PUD allows
us to do changes. Can, allows us just an opportunity to make it exactly how we want it to be and
a good reflection of the City of Chanhassen and allowing it to have good uses on the property. I
guess that’s all I have at the moment.
Larson: Alright, Tom.
Doll: Yeah, I guess I’m new at this and I’m confused by you know the flexibility with PUD and
you know why there’s restrictions in here. Why isn’t it case by case basis and what can happen.
Aanenson: Well we have to create a zoning district because we guided it for regional
commercial which we don’t have a zoning district for so instead of giving it just a straight
zoning, a regional commercial zoning district like we have a central business district and you
give it prescriptive permitted uses. We wanted to create something different which would allow
a blend of uses.
Doll: You can’t just zone something a PUD?
Aanenson: Well it was a recommendation in order to get that blending and that flexibility was to
put it into a PUD so someone applying for this zoning district, a regional commercial zoning
district, is going to have to do a master plan under a PUD. Otherwise if it was just a regional
commercial you’d have somebody could split off 5 acres, 10 acres, and you wouldn’t get that
master plan. The goal of this is, whether it’s split up into smaller increments, is the, the desire
and the minimum is 30 acres so someone could take off 30 acres and do a mini master plan. You
could have 3 and that was the question that came up. How the 3 work together so the goal is not
to have, as you do downtown, a lot of individual parcels.
Doll: Yeah I understand. It’s the setback wording and the heights and the things like that. I
would just make as the plan came in you would work with the developer and you know.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
Aanenson: Right, and this goes back to the history of when we started back a number of years
ago talking about the comprehensive plan and we looked at the McComb’s study and we went
through a lot of iteration. Discussed with the Planning Commission to say what do we want to
see for heights so this was something that was driven by the Planning Commission and the staff
to kind of look at those heights. Now when we go project maybe a couple of years down the
road, maybe your thoughts have changed and say you know, we do want to be more vertical.
This is a different area of downtown. We don’t, the highest thing we have in town is 4 stories for
hotels. That’s the highest building we have in town. And over time, as the property owner’s
indicated, maybe this area would be something vertical but then what does that do to some of the
surrounding and where would that vertical be? Be more to the center? Towards where there’s
not as much, maybe towards Powers so those are the things we want to look at. So right now
we’re kind of saying in today’s world this would be the framework to start that discussion.
Doll: And just for educational purposes, how did, you know the different types of buildings.
How do you, you mentioned the study that I guess I’m not familiar with.
Aanenson: McComb’s study, sure.
Doll: Okay.
Aanenson: Yeah. Well some of that also came from when we had the open houses for the
comprehensive plan and listened to the community and got their feedback. When we talked
about what would be and if we created this zoning, what would, you know what’s your responses
to some of that and some of that again is driven by, not only for the developer’s expectation but
what’s the community’s expectation. Some of the surrounding property owners. What do they
see as the visual impact with the high school and those sort of things. So again that’s where that
came from.
Doll: Okay.
Aanenson: But again you always have to look at over time.
Doll: Yeah, some change.
Aanenson: …may change.
Larson: Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, so I think this plan supports all the research that was done. It reflects the opinion
and input from a lot of people in the community and you know the past couple years we’ve been
asked our opinions on this a lot so I think it’s a good plan. I support it. You know there’s some
nits in it I’m sure that got to get worked out but those are pretty small things I think so.
Keefe: Yeah, I’m in support of the community commercial district for sure and I, you know as I
look at this you know regional lifestyle, you know this is a culmination or another, let me put it
another step in a very long line of planning that a lot of people have pitched into and I think it’s
36
Planning Commission Meeting – November 3, 2009
really very exciting and yes, is there some word smithing that could potentially go in here and
some issues which can be addressed? Yeah, absolutely and I guess the way I’d look at it is, you
know let’s move forward with this and then allow the staff to work with the applicant to
potentially word smith it between now and City Council and get their feedback as well.
Aanenson: And I hope something comes in that none of us have thought of. Like wow we
didn’t know we’d get that you know, and that’s happened in town.
Keefe: And hopefully Mr. Dorsey will get an offer on his property here shortly. Or two offers.
Larson: Or three. Okay, I think you guys pretty much covered everything I had so at that I will
entertain a motion.
Undestad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission, Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinances amending the Chanhassen City Code
creating a community commercial zoning district and planned unit development standards for a
regional lifestyle center commercial districts.
Larson: Can I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the ordinances amending the Chanhassen City Code creating a
Community Commercial Zoning District and Planned Unit Development Standards for
Regional/Lifestyle Center Commercial Districts. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 2009 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
None.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
None.
Chairwoman Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37