PC 2010 03 16
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2010
Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Debbie Larson, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Denny
Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
APPROVE RESOLUTION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 10 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
Aanenson: Thank you Madam Chair, members of the City Council. This item is new business.
It’s not a public hearing but it falls under your jurisdiction of an action item so it’s for the
Chanhassen Station TIF agreement. Again the location of this is just north of Highway 5
th
adjacent to Main Street or West 78 Street and it involves the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. More
specifically the location includes the 7 parcels identified in this existing area. Again bordered on
th
Great Plains, West 78 and just north of the railroad tracks. The current location of the Dinner
th
Theater and the surrounding parcels. As you recall back on November 17 you recommended
approval of the preliminary plat as did the City Council approve that plat for the Dinner Theater
itself and providing through the platting process the ability to provide a park and ride. A 420
th
stalls on one of the lots. We also on that meeting, the Planning Commission on November 17
recommended approval of the park and ride ramp. So under your jurisdiction with this TIF
improvement plan it’s your job to review and make sure that this plan, if it goes forward, the 7
parcels in that area is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
So before you is the Land Use Plan identified in the blue circle around the Dinner Theater site is
guided commercial. So redevelopment in this area by taking some of the surface parking away
could provide for future development in this area and again this Central Business District which
this is zoned, which is that red area, is the zoning district that provides for the broadest depth of
uses which would include commercial, office and housing also could be included in that district.
So before you tonight is for your review to make sure that the tax increment district is
appropriately zoned, which is Central Business District. That the property, the land use is guided
for commercial, and that the subdivision of this property is consistent with the zoning ordinance
and that the subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans. So with
that it will allow for the redevelopment through a TIF agreement as part of the Comprehensive
Plan. Now the TIF agreement itself will be, there’ll be a public hearing on that before the EDA
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
and the City Council so your role is much narrower in just looking at the plan to say does it
follow that. So if you go back to those parcels that are included, those are the 7 parcels that are
included in that TIF agreement so could they be developed additionally with this plan. So with
that we are recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution attached in your
staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Larson: Are there any questions?
Undestad: I’ve just got two Kate. How long ago since we did the last TIF district in the city?
Aanenson: The last one we did was the Sands property which is down on the extension of Lake
Lucy. Excuse me, Lake Susan Boulevard and the new 101. That was the last district that we did
was down there and that was probably 4 years ago. 5 years ago.
Undestad: And prior to that it was probably another?
Aanenson: Yeah, they’re pretty infrequent, that’s correct.
Undestad: Okay. And do you know off hand are the other districts that we created, are most of
those expired now?
Aanenson: Yes. They have been expiring. Yes. There are still some out on the western side of
the city. 41 and 5.
Larson: Tom?
Doll: Ah no questions.
Larson: Okay.
Laufenburger: So Kate, our action on the Planning Commission has nothing to do with whether
or not tax increment financing is appropriate or not. We’re only deciding as to whether or not
the, the way the plat has been set up is consistent with the city plan, is that correct?
Aanenson: That’s correct Commissioner. Your review is narrower in scope and so what you’re
looking at is it consistent with the, if it was to redevelop would it be consistent? Obviously the
park and ride which you already approved is consistent but it does provide additional opportunity
for some future development so that’s what your review is, that’s correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. No other questions.
Larson: Kathleen.
Thomas: Yeah, I don’t think I have any questions.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Larson: How about you Dan?
Keefe: I’m fine. Thank you.
Larson: I’m good too. So at that, how do we proceed on one of these?
Keefe: Is there a public hearing on this?
Aanenson: No, there’s no public hearing. This is just new business. The public hearing will be
held at.
Larson: So just ask for a motion?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Larson: Okay. I’ll take a motion. Anybody want to give me one?
Laufenburger: Madam Chair?
Larson: Yes.
Laufenburger: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution
for the review of Tax Increment Financing Plan Number 10-01 in compliance with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Larson: And do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Resolution #2010-01: Laufenburger moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2010-01 finding that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area,
modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 10
conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESIDE TWINHOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT TO LAKESIDE; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES, AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR 22 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOTS B & E,
LAKESIDE. APPLICANT: RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION. OWNER: HOME
FEDERAL SAVINGS, PLANNING CASE 10-06.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Roback Ron Clark Construction
Tom Vasques North Bay Townhouse Development
Mike from Bearpath
Generous: Thank you Madam Chair, commissioners. Before you is a three part application.
Ron Clark Construction is proposing the redevelop, or the development of a portion of the
Lakeside project. As part of their proposal they’re requesting a planned unit development
amendment, subdivision approval with a variance for a 20 foot wide private street and site plan
approval for 22 twinhomes. The project is located on the north side of Lake Riley off of Lyman
Boulevard. It’s between Lyman Boulevard and Highway 212. To the east is the corporate
boundary for the City of Chanhassen and the Bearpath Golf Course and to the west is North Bay
detached townhouse development. Lakeside was originally submitted and approved in 2006. It
was, consisted of twinhomes, townhouses, and three condominium buildings. Charles Cudd
Development are doing the townhouses and twin homes on the east side of the project, which is
on the north of this concept plan. Wooddale Builders are doing the townhouses on the west side
of the project which is on the bottom of this plan, and then there are three condominium
buildings that were, received site plan approval but they didn’t really have any developers.
Sienna Corporation brought them forward to show the total build-out of the site. Additionally
they had a community building with a pool on the east, or south side of the property which is on
the right side of this development. Part of this development was built. The amendment to the
PUD is to, three parts. One is to modify the intent to reference city code through the R16 district
regulations. The second part was to amend the permitted uses to change it from three
condominium buildings to one condominium building. And the third part is to revise the
setbacks to 30 feet from 50 feet for the east property line and the south property line. This is to
facilitate the development of the twin homes in this location which is very constrained on the
property. The PUD has been amended before to change the separation between the buildings.
We believe that the reduction in the intensity of the development does warrant a reduction in the
required setbacks in this locations and are proposing approval of the amendment to the planned
unit development design standards. The developer’s also proposing the subdivision of
approximately 3.9 acres of property that represent two outlots on the south side of the
development into 22 twin home lots, 2 common outlots for the twin home units and then a third
outlot for the association in general that has the big retaining wall on the south side of the
project. The variance is to permit a deviation from the 24 foot design standard for a portion of
the private street to allow a 20 foot wide private street. Subdivision is very straight forward. All
the lots that are being proposed comply with the R16 regulations for minimum lot size. There
are no minimum frontage or depth requirements but they do encompass the location of all the
proposing housing. Outlots A and B would have driveways across them and would be common
open space for the fourth addition of this development. Outlot C on the very bottom of the plat
again is that retaining wall and they have signage for the overall project in there. The location of
the private street is just to the north of Block 3 and as you can see only 6 units total are accessed
by this. On the west side of the T there’s 2 units that would access the private street and on the
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
east side of the T there are 4 units. Under the low density residential this would be the design
that would be required for the development. We believe it is appropriate to reduce the width
because the number of units are being reduced in this area and so you’re not having more than 4
units accessing on a 20 foot wide private street. Additionally this reduces the impervious surface
in this location as well as providing areas for snow storage and to maintain the 25 foot deep
driveways for each of the units so we are recommending approval of that variance as part of the
subdivision approval. City sewer and water will be provided as part of the subdivision. It has to
be consistent with the city design standards but they will be private systems. The site will be
mass graded as part of the subdivision for the individual house pads and they did provide a
preliminary landscaping plan. They showed the 1 tree per front yard. They also have some
foundation plantings as part of the site plan. There are some additional requirements under our
landscape ordinance and when they come back for final plat approval they would need to revise
that plan consistent with the ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with
the variance. Finally the site plan review is for 22 twin home units. There’s basically 3 types of
units in this. They’re 30, 32 and 36 foot wide units. They’ll have a maximum of two stories.
They’re low pitched hip roofs. Additionally they are showing an alternative of providing a gable
roof end and so we wouldn’t necessarily limit the final design when they come in for building
permit to that hip roof but that’s what they’re looking at going at right now. There are 3 palettes
of materials that they’re proposing for the project. And so no two buildings would have the same
colors and materials that are adjacent to each other. It’s possible that there’d be two that have
the same stuff. In the staff report we specify a specific manufacturing and type of stone.
However the applicant has told, requested that I advise the city that they may choose a different
one. Same idea but a different manufacturer. The whole idea is they will provide this stone face
at least at the base on the columns and potentially rising up. So that’s material samples. They’re
going to be earth tones. It will fit in well. The architecture will mimic the community building
that’s there. A little prairie style. There’s some wonderful things that they’re proposing. The
overall site plan would be 5 buildings to the north of the club house will be the 30 foot wide
townhouses. This design will have a lower, it’s slab on grade so the garage will be at the street
level and then the upper level will be the primary living area. On the fronts of each of these
there’ll have porches and decks and the orientation of these homes will be towards the lake. The
ones on the east side are the 32 foot wide units and there’s one lookout building on the north end
and then there’s two walkout buildings. And then the three buildings along Lyman Boulevard
will have full exposure to Lake Riley and these are all walkout type units. Again here’s the
rendering of how that 30 foot wide unit would look. It’s oriented towards the south. It has the
porch and the deck which would extend partially over the driveway into the building. And these
are the 32 foot wide twin home units. This is with the hip roof and then they brought in the
gable. In this instance they’ve extended the fieldstone up on the front elevation. And then the 36
foot wide twin homes. As you can see those units along Lyman will begin approximately 10 feet
above Lyman Boulevard so they’ll be up high. They’re walkout units. Setback 30 feet from the
right-of-way and again they’ll have a full decks and patios and a lot of window exposure on the
south side. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions and I’m sorry on the
front cover of the staff report it’s conditions 1 through 3 for the site plan approval. Approval of
the subdivision with the variance with conditions 1 through 8 and approval of the ordinance
amending the PUD design standards for Lakeside and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Larson: How about you Dan? Start with you this time.
Keefe: You know on the setbacks, we’re going from 50 feet down to 30 feet. But it also
maintains the building height in here for condominiums with a minimum of 30 feet. Is that still,
is condominium still going to be?
Generous: Well the condominiums would be on the north end of the project.
Keefe: So there’s still a spot for the condo on the north end, right?
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: As I recall the most difficult thing we had was the condominiums on the, on that
southeast corner right.
Generous: Southeast corner, right. You can see it would be on the very top of this property.
That’s the last site that’s available for development.
Keefe: Okay and then that would still be retained.
Generous: As a condominium.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: It start at 30 feet but then the building height is tied to the setback so as the building
got taller it would have to step back.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: I would anticipate that they may terrace a structure on there except that the market’s
not in for condominiums right now.
Keefe: Right. But on the east side, the 30 feet, it goes from 50 to 30, is that right? So it takes it
closer to Eden Prairie right.
Generous: Eden Prairie.
Keefe: Yeah and.
Generous: What we’ve also reduced the, originally the condominium on this side was a 3 story
structure and so now we’re down to one story with a walkout.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Keefe: Right. So there’s really no way, you know with the one story walkout, I mean that’s
going to be the max height over there so even though you’re going to have a reduction in width
from 50 to 30, you really haven’t, the massing is totally different.
Generous: Yes, it’s much smaller.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: Look more like a single family home.
Keefe: Yeah.
Aanenson: If I can just comment a little bit on that too and some of the justification. If you
looked at the orientation of a buildings, not all the doors face the street so there’s some side
loaded. So in order to accommodate that and Bob didn’t mention it but back in 2007, well he
mentioned it but I think we kind of glossed over it. We did amend the PUD ordinance to create
some of that flexibility. When we have residential against residential we just automatically put
in that 50 foot buffer but it didn’t always make sense so we’re looking at it by project by project
basis so that was already in place when this project came through. So taking advantage of that
and the fact that, like he said, there’s not the same amount of massing. There’s breaks in that and
to allow for the different orientation so not all the doors are facing the street. They have side
loaded. Some flexibility in design that we thought it made sense to get it, for that PUD.
Keefe: Some relief on that.
Aanenson: Some relief, correct.
Keefe: And it butts up against the fairway but it’s still 30 feet from the line.
Aanenson: And the trail on the other side.
Keefe: And that, you know in regards to the, you know the landscaping requirements, how do
we do that? I mean is that, is it bermed behind those or is it you know in terms of the east
property line. I forget what, just out of curiosity.
Generous: There’s a retaining wall.
Larson: I thought there was a row of trees.
Generous: Those trees on the Eden Prairie side.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
Generous: So we’ll get some and our ordinance specifies for every 100 feet you have to have
something in there.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Keefe: Okay. The 30 foot setback on Lyman, and we scratch 50 feet for the beachlot. Is there
still a beachlot?
Generous: There’s a beachlot for this overall development.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. Alright. Moving on to the variance. You know it’s a narrow street, or
narrower street. Put it that way. We’ve got other examples of private streets, right? In the city.
Do we have an issue with termination? You know where this thing terminates to the east you
know with turn around or you know fire or anything along those lines? Is it approved?
Generous: They went through the fire marshal and he didn’t have any problem with that.
Keefe: Yeah.
Generous: He just wanted to relocate the fire hydrant so that they can access it as they’re coming
into that street and then they’ll hook up. It’s short enough so that they don’t need to have a
bubble turn around.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: They can back the truck in at either end.
Aanenson: Again you ended up with a wider product and you have the differentiation in the side
loaded garages so it pushes that so could you lose a unit? Or could you compromise a design?
That was where we went with that and it’s really only serving the 4 off that.
Keefe: I mean if fire approved it then they’re the guys that know. That’s it.
Larson: Okay.
Thomas: I actually don’t have questions with staff at the moment.
Laufenburger: Nor I at this time Madam Chair.
Doll: Is there any issues with retaining walls with having a railing on top of them? Isn’t it kind
of steep?
Fauske: The way we’ve approached these Commissioner Doll is when we look at the height of a
retaining wall versus it’s proximity to a walking surface. Be it the sidewalk or something or a
street. In this case we don’t see the necessity for a fence.
Doll: No further questions.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Undestad: Just one little follow up on Dan’s. That setback when we go from that 50 to 30. Is
there, are there any trees or anything in there that don’t show up on here that are going to get
removed in that extra 20 feet that we’re removing out of there or are we still good with the 30
feet?
Generous: We’re good with the 30 feet plus we’re requiring additional landscaping as part of the
overall project for the boulevard planting and behind the houses.
Larson: Okay. I just have one. Was this the same parcel that the one condo that was going to be
40, in excess of 40 feet? That we had issues with before when they were putting up their site
plan originally.
Aanenson: Yes, this originally was for a condominium project on this site. Both of them were
approved.
Larson: Right. But wasn’t it like a 4 story or something? Why am I thinking that’s what was
going to go there?
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: The final approval for this site was a 3 story building.
Larson: Three story.
Aanenson: With underground parking.
Generous: Yeah, with underground parking. On Outlot, or Building B was a 4 story structure.
Larson: Oh maybe that’s what I’m thinking of.
Generous: And Building C, which is the north one would also be 4 stories.
Larson: Okay. Alright, well that’s all I have. With that I will see, is there an applicant? Please
step up to the podium. State your name and address for the record.
Mike Broback: I’m Mike Broback from Lakeville, Minnesota. Ron Clark Construction.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners. Do you have any questions for me? Bob did a pretty good
job of presenting the project and we’ve also got a couple other members of our design group
here. I think he went through most of the items.
Larson: He tends to do that. He’s pretty thorough.
Mike Broback: Kind of covered the bases for us. We do, as he said, we have 3 different product
types and the orientation of that, for the group of 5 is situated a little across the pond at the lake.
That is kind of a different, new concept for us. It’s main level living is actually above the
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
garage. The other two building types are traditional walkout ramblers. And as Bob said we
worked closely with the staff to get the layouts to work. Get the minimum separations between
all the buildings and it worked out to a matter of a few inches and a few feet here and there to get
everything squeezed in so we appreciate the staff’s help in getting to that point. We did meet
with both the other builders. We met with Wooddale and Cudd 2 weeks ago. Had a nice
meeting with them. We’re talking about doing some group marketing to market the
neighborhood as a group. It’s a wonderful development and we’re excited to be a part of it. Last
week we met with existing homeowners. We invited all the homeowners from the development
to meet us over at the club house and representatives from both the builders came as well and
had a real nice meeting with everyone. I think everyone’s happy to have twin homes that match
the neighborhood versus the previous condos so it’s made our fitting in there pretty easy so we
appreciate the consideration. Any questions for me?
Larson: Anybody have any questions? I think we’re good. Thank you very much.
Laufenburger: I have just one question Mr. Broback, is that correct?
Mike Broback: Yeah.
Laufenburger: Can you talk a little bit about the price range that you think these will be on the
market at.
Mike Broback: Well we’re still working on that. Generally the first 5 units to the west.
Laufenburger: That being the 30.
Mike Broback: 30 foot wide units.
Laufenburger: 30 foot wide units.
Mike Broback: Those will be around $400,000 to start.
Laufenburger: Per twin home.
Mike Broback: Per twin home, yep. And the 32 footers will be about $500,000. Starting in that
range. And then the 36 foot wide would be in the high 5’s to low 6’s to start. I think the square
footages were, I don’t have that right at my fingertips but they’re in your book. That lower
square footage would be the one level finish and up to a maximum square footage I think of up
to 3,000 square feet is the largest and it’s facing the lake.
Laufenburger: And then one last question. When are you anticipating beginning construction?
Is this something that you see, will early development be yet this year? 2010?
Mike Broback: Yes. Yep. What we hope to have our approvals through the City so we can start
in early June if possible. We do have a fair amount of site work to do where existing soils were
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
stockpiled on, above higher than our building pads will need to be. So we need to dry out the
material that’s stockpiled on the site so if we’ll get some dry summer weather to do that.
Laufenburger: We’d all like that I think.
Mike Broback: And we plan on some models started and completed towards the end of the year.
Laufenburger: Thank you. That was my only question.
Larson: Okay, thank you Denny. Thank you very much. Alright at this time I will open the
hearing to the public. Anybody wishing to come up and speak, please stand up to the podium.
Give your name and address for the record.
Tom Vasquez: Thank you, good evening. My name is Tom Vasquez. I live in North Bay
immediately adjacent to the proposed development. I also serve as the president of the North Bay
Homeowners Association. We have reviewed the proposed plans and certainly support their
enactment. We do have one request and this is the same request that I made several years ago
when Lakeside was initially proposed and that is that should this proposed plan be approved, that
the contractor would please take and utilize the Lyman Boulevard entrance for all construction
equipment and personnel. There is an entrance to the site off Lakeview Road, as you know,
through North, adjacent to North Bay and some of our most senior citizen residents live right in
the area of that entrance off Lakeview Road and so we’d sincerely appreciate if the, if approved,
if the contractor would use the Lyman Boulevard entrance for all construction equipment and
materials. That was very thankfully observed by the original developers of Lakeview for which
we were appreciative. Thank you.
Larson: Thank you.
Scott Fredrickson: Good evening. I’m Scott Fredrickson. I live in Bearpath and I represent the
kind of homeowners along 15 immediately across from this development and let me start by
saying we’re delighted that Ron Clark is going to step into the shoes of Sienna and we think it’s
a huge upgrade to the project. I do have a couple of comments. Number one, when they were
prepping the site for the condo development they really massed a lot of soil on the site of the
potential condo building and so today that elevation sits quite a bit above the elevation of the rest
of the project and so I’d be concerned that they kind of take it back down to a more normal level
and that the heights of the buildings that are proposed are consistent with the heights of the
Charles Cudd development townhouses because it’s hard to guess where they’ll end up on kind
of an absolute elevation. If they were to build from the existing grade up, they’d be quite a bit
above the grade of the remaining Charles Cudd townhouses and so I don’t know if we have
elevations of where those roof lines actually ended up relative to where the Ron Clark roof lines
ended, or are proposed to be but I’d be interested to know that they’re at least consistent there.
The second thing is, there’s trees and a trail corridor that are immediately adjacent to this and
there was a lot of controversy. Everybody remembers years ago about making sure those trees
remain and right after the development got approved of course Sienna came through and clear
cut everything that wasn’t in the trail corridors so today there’s no trees standing on any of this
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
site but the trees that are there are clearly in the trail corridor so I’d want to just caution everyone
that through the construction process and through the process of prepping the site they’re
cognizant of the existing trees and try not to disturb those because they survived now a few
years. We’d like to see them remain. And then the trail corridor we’d like to see at some point
get completed and I’m not sure if the onus on that rests with Eden Prairie. Rests with
Chanhassen but it’d be nice to see at some point that get rectified. The only thing that really was
a little bit concerning was the setback and there really isn’t a hardship I don’t think you can point
to. This is a foreclosure situation. It went back to the bank. I mean when the original
developers came up they talked about how much they had to pay for the site and how as a result
of their exorbitance on it that they were paying to rip down the old apartments they had a
hardship so they needed some of the variances to make the economics work. Now it’s been in
foreclosure. I mean I assume that the deal you’re getting on the land today and terms of Ron
Clark are pretty attractive so there really isn’t a hardship so back to some of the points that were
brought up earlier. Maybe in compensation for this pushing the property up to inside the current
setback 20 feet, maybe they could add some landscaping or do something because they really
have pushed it inside and I noticed on the site plan that they’ve got kind of an equal amount of
space in front of the units as they’ve got behind the units so they’re kind of centered on the site
so I don’t know if it makes more sense to shift them forward or put some more trees in back but
we’re very cognizant of the screening and now to the extent, clearly we’re delighted it has the
potential to be lower but now we pushed it right up against the fence so those are all things we’d
like at least considered in the approval but overall of course we’re supportive of the project. It’s
a huge upgrade from what we saw before. Thank you.
Larson: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Seeing nobody else I would close the public hearing.
Pardon me?
Doll: I was just looking at the elevations.
Keefe: Can we do a follow up question to staff on the elevation question? I think there were a
couple good points that Scott brought up.
Fauske: Certainly with respect to the roof line elevation, we can certainly work with the
residents of Bearpath to, and with the applicant give them some ideas what the roof lines will
look like. We don’t have that information at our fingertips at this point.
Keefe: Well they referenced material on the site.
Aanenson: There has to be quite a bit too. That’s what Alyson can address, yeah.
Fauske: When the original development went in with regards to the amount of material on the
outlot as it exists, we certainly see that quite a bit with a phased development where they go
through and they typically will mass grade the site to get the site balanced and then stockpile
material on outlots that are to be platted in the future…and that’s a situation we’re faced with at
this point. The developer, Ron Clark right now is looking at a situation where he indicated that
they have some grading work to do but certainly they do have to tie in with the elevations that
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
we see of the existing townhomes through there. So particularly on the east property line where
we start looking at where they tie into the existing, there will be a retaining wall in there and just
looking at the maximum height of that wall it’s approximately 8 feet at it’s maximum which is
between the, well I don’t know where the location is. It’s about halfway between, about the
halfway mark of that wall on the eastern property line.
Aanenson: Just a minute. Bob, can you please use the pointer and then show, or have Alyson do
that. yeah.
Fauske: So approximately at that location where you have an 8 foot high retaining wall and
that’s simply because of the grade difference from the site to the existing Bearpath development.
Keefe: So the retaining wall is already there?
Fauske: The retaining wall, this retaining wall is proposed. There’s an existing retaining wall on
the west side. Thank you Bob. And that’s what prohibits shifting those units further to the west
and having an access off of that private drive. The grades just aren’t conducive of doing that.
Larson: So the elevation is higher than.
Fauske: Correct.
Larson: The golf course.
Doll: Can you turn on the aerial once? Are you, do you know, I’m sorry about my glasses. I
have the wrong glasses on. Just trying to figure out if you’re running with the, you know there’s
one property to the north. Are you trying to tie in that, you know it looks like you’re running
your elevations all the way back to achieve your walkout and everything it’s flowing towards the
trail. But are you consistent with the property, well I guess that’s on the east side. On the
northeast side. I don’t even know if there’s anything built there. I unfortunately didn’t get a
chance to get out there and look. You understand? On that first lot, it appears by the aerial that
there’s nothing right in there. Just for his thought you know on elevation. Keeping it consistent.
Are you looking at the walkout elevation in that and then does your grading plan follow?
Fauske: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Doll: Okay. So it’s, essentially you would have the same kind of elevation that the existing
homes there are because.
Mike Broback: It starts really close to the same elevation as the…home next door and it does
step up a little bit as you get closer to the lake.
Doll: It does step up, okay.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Mike Broback: But we will be cutting off quite a bit of material. That one side elevation Bob
that shows the entrance off Lyman. That one. You can kind of see the relationship between the
top of the existing wall. Just a couple feel below are walkout elevation on those…so we’ll be
cutting down, right now there’s probably another 8 to 10 feet of material sitting right there.
We’ll be creating that back towards the Cudd homes because there’s a drainage collection area
right now that exists. The retaining wall Bob is showing is actually…
Larson: Oh! That’s what I was wondering.
Mike Broback: So there’s a 6 to 8 foot wall behind their homes and our homes are lower so, if
that makes sense…
Larson: Okay.
Aanenson: So again the challenge is there’s fixed points that we had to work that product in and
herein lies the challenge of working the orientation. Where you wanted to compromise and
looking at the value. Trying to match the values that were already there based, because even the
condominiums we’re looking at were larger, significant value so that’s what we trying to match
to make the existing homeowners happy so that’s where we ended up with kind of that product
type and then kind of pushing it, but certainly I just want to point out too in the staff report, one
of the conditions was, and this was raised regarding the landscaping plan. That we are going to
ask for additional landscaping. It does meet the minimum so when it comes back for final plat
we’ll look at that screening along the back and how that works with, and looking at those
existing trees. Field check those and then provide additional screening between that and then the
golf course behind so that is a condition that’s in here and we’ll work with them.
Keefe: What about the trail?
Aanenson: It’s Eden Prairie’s.
Keefe: It is? Okay, so it isn’t our’s to.
Aanenson: No. I think everybody thinks it would be a benefit and now you can go underneath
the new 312 so it would be nice to complete that.
Keefe: Right. Okay.
Larson: Okay. Well what do you think?
Laufenburger: I have a question for staff.
Larson: I’m sorry.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Laufenburger: I believe it was Mr. Vasquez who asked the question about construction traffic.
Are we in a position require that of construction to keep it off the Lakeview, I think it’s call
Lakeview? Or is that not in our purview?
Fauske: Commissioner Laufenburger, to answer your question with regards to grading the site,
we do work with developers to establish a haul route. When it comes to the individual home
permits our requests, we’re somewhat limited in directing them where the traffic should ingress
and egress the site but I think we can certainly ask Ron Clark to use that access point and I think
it’s a logical access point for their construction deliveries. It would be the most direct access.
Laufenburger: Thank you.
Aanenson: Okay just for the record. Typically those are put into the development contract also
as part of the standard language. It typically goes to the City Council level but we’ll certainly
carry that forward.
Laufenburger: Thank you.
Doll: Can we include that language in the motion?
Aanenson: Yes you can but typically, as Alyson was saying, the grading in the final plat, that’s
where we identify haul routes and typically those are put into a development contract because as
she says on the individual building, although in this case it’s the same builder/developer that
typically you know. In the past we didn’t have that problem and I don’t believe but we’ll
certainly put it in there.
Doll: It makes sense to use the entrance.
Larson: Okay. Well.
Laufenburger: Oh I had one other question. Thank you.
Larson: Okay.
Laufenburger: The, this is for staff again. The staff report showed various fees. Water quality
fees. Water quantity fees. I’m going to call it a SWMP fee. SWPP. Are these new fees
associated with the development or are these fees that were previously collected?
Generous: They’re existing fees. We’ve always collected them. Thanks for bringing that up
though. On the staff report there was a typo on page 9. The water quality fee was $17,152.99.
Not the 72. The total’s correct but that number was wrong.
Laufenburger: Say that one more time Bob. The water.
Generous: The water quality fee should be $17,152.99.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Larson: Instead of?
Generous: $72,137.
Larson: I thought that seemed high.
Generous: The total was correct.
Laufenburger: So the total fees of $35,129.
Generous: 61 are correct.
Laufenburger: That is correct.
Generous: And the quantity fee was correct but that number was wrong.
Laufenburger: Okay. Well I was kind of looking forward to the combining of the two numbers
including the incorrect one but I understand.
Aanenson: And I was just going to clarify too then when you, because this is an outlot and when
it goes, becomes a plat that’s when we attach the fees so that’s when the extraction occurs.
Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you.
Larson: You’re welcome. Anyone else? No more questions? No?
Keefe: Close? You haven’t closed the public hearing right?
Larson: I already did. I closed the public hearing. We’re chitty chatty now. So go ahead.
Keefe: You know I think this may be a case where sort of economic distress may have
benefitted a lot of people except for maybe the people who were foreclosed out on this. I mean I
think the lower density is a real improvement. I think the quality of their product is really nice
and I really like it. I think it’s good. I think it’s an improvement.
Thomas: As do I. I really do like it too. It’s a good development. It looks nice with the
property and I think it will really compliment everything else that’s on the site. Yeah.
Laufenburger: Concur and I think the existing homeowners that are in there will be pleased to
see all of that bare space filled in.
Doll: I like it.
Undestad: Good.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Larson: Good. I agree. I had misgivings a little bit about the previous condo that was going to
go in. I like this much better so kudos. Alright, well with that I will entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City
Council approve the ordinance amending the PUD design standards for Lakeside. Number two,
that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the subdivision
th
for Lakeside 4 Addition creating 22 lots and 3 outlots with a variance to permit a 20 foot wide
private street to access Block 3, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 10/15/09, revised
2/25/10 subject to conditions 1 through 8. And Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
City Council approve Site Plan 10-06 for a 22 unit twin home project in the Lakeside
development, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 10/15/09, revised 2/25/10 subject to
conditions 1 through 3.
Larson: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
City Council approve the ordinance amending the PUD Design Standards for Lakeside.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
City Council approve the subdivision for Lakeside Fourth Addition creating 22 lots and 3
outlots with a variance to permit a 20-foot wide private street to access Block 3, plans
prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 10-15-09, revised 2-25-10, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Access easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street.
2.Payment of Park Dedication Fees totaling $110,000 ($5,000/Unit) in lieu of parkland
dedication shall be collected for the 22 residential twin homes being requested for Outlots B
& E at the time of final plat recording.
3.The applicant shall provide 6 overstory trees along Lyman Blvd; 4 overstory, 8 understory
and 8 shrubs along the south property line of Outlot C; at least 3 overstory, 7 understory and
7 shrubs along the east property line of Outlot B or landscaping consistent with the existing
buffer to the north.
4.A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements must be submitted to the city
before final approval.
5.Landscaping security shall be provided for all development landscaping.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
6.Fire Marshal conditions:
a.The new private drive to the east of Lake Riley Drive must have a street name. Submit
proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
b.An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Lake Riley Drive and the
new private road to the east.
c.Water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to
combustible construction (2007 MSFC Sec. 501.4).
d.Fire Department access roads shall be installed prior to combustible construction to
support the loads of fire apparatus (2007 MSFC Sec. 503.1.1).
e.A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants (2007 MSFC Sec.
508.5.4).
f.Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of
an approved size, weather resistant, and maintained until replaced by permanent sign
(2007 MSFC Sec. 505.2).
g.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
spec sheets regarding sign design and specific locations of signs (MSFC Sec. 503.3).
7.City Engineer Conditions:
a.The emergency overflow elevation between Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3 is labeled
improperly and must be corrected.
b.The lowest floor elevation of Lots 3 through 6, Block 2 must be minimum one foot above
the corrected emergency overflow elevation.
c.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. If
importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
d.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
e.All utilities within this site shall be privately owned and maintained; however, they must
be constructed to the City’s minimum requirements, including pipe diameter and slope,
installation of manholes at bends and the ends of sanitary sewer runs, and installation of a
hydrant at the dead end of watermain.
f.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
g.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2010 trunk
hookup charge is $2,026 for sanitary sewer and $5,393 for watermain. A portion of the
trunk hookup fees will be collected with the final plat; the remainder must be paid with the
building permit, which may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance.
h.The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and
supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
i.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
Dept. of Health, Carver County and Watershed District.
j.All streets within the development will be privately owned and maintained.
k.The developer must submit written verification that the private streets meet a 7-ton
design.
l.At the time of final plat recording, the developer must pay the Arterial Collector fee,
which is calculated as follows: 3.58 developable acres x $2,400/acre = $8,592.
8.Water Resources Conditions:
a.Provide detail for Inlet Protection on the beehive structures.
b.Show sealed concrete washout area.
c.Provide an updated SWPPP.
d.Eliminate detail plate 5300.
e.The SWMP fee for Lakeside Fourth Addition is $35,129.61 which shall be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Keefe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
City Council approve Site Plan #10-06 for a 22-unit twin-home project in the Lakeside
development, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated 10-15-09, revised 2-25-10,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The final plat for Lakeside Fourth Addition must be approved and recorded prior to the
issuance of a building permit for the twin homes.
3.Building Official conditions:
a.Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not
constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the
floor area threshold.
b.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
c.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
d.Walls and projections within five feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
e.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
f.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
g.The applicant and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aanenson: Excuse me Madam, did we adopt the Findings of Fact with that motion?
Thomas: I don’t think it was added on there.
Undestad: Wasn’t it?
Larson: Okay, back up.
Aanenson: Yep. Can we, and adoption of Findings of Fact. Can we incorporate that?
Larson: And the Findings of Fact.
Thomas: Do we need a motion for it?
Aanenson: Yes, thank you.
Larson: All in favor.
Thomas: Wait, wait, Madam Chair.
Larson: Alright, one of you guys.
Thomas: Alright.
Larson: Sorry, I’m too sick.
Thomas: That’s alright. I move to add the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Keefe: Second.
Thomas moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 6 to 0.
Aanenson: Thank you.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUD AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS: VASSERMAN RIDGE/ARBORETUM VILLAGE/GALPIN
BUSINESS PARK. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 10-03.
Generous: Thank you Madam Chair, commissioners. Before you are planned unit development
amendments. Back in December of ’09 we presented an issue paper that there’s some, our
PUD’s needed to have some revisions done because they weren’t tracking city code. I believe
there are like 15 total that we were looking at. We broughten two sets before you previously.
One was the downtown planned unit developments and the other one was on 212. This next set
of amendments are for three planned unit developments on Highway 5. One the Galpin Business
Park. The other one is Vasserman Ridge and the third one is Arboretum Village. Arboretum
Village and Vasserman Ridge really act as one planned development. However there are, were
deficiencies in the way the ordinance was drafted because it didn’t allow the PUD to check
changes to city code. We’re trying to review, update those PUD’s so that they can do that.
Again we have 3 of them tonight. The Galpin Business Park has 2 building sites on it. The
south one is the CVS Pharmacy and the north one is the Kwik Trip. It also encompasses a large
open space on the east side of the project. This is included as a part of the PUD because it was
originally part of the original subdivision and the design standards would technically fall over
into that. However it’s all wetland and storm water ponding so it’s undevelopable. The other
two planned unit developments are off of Century Boulevard and Highway 5 and between West
th
78 Street. They consist of a gas station, convenience store, small restaurant, a strip center, and
then 2 strip centers. One in the Arboretum Village and Vasserman Ridge. What we’re
proposing for the Arboretum Village and Vasserman Ridge Planned Unit Developments are to
reference the neighborhood business district as an underlying zoning when the PUD design
standards are silent. This will permit any development to be consistent with our city code. For
instance when we recently revised our light ordinance to permit LED lighting, well this, through
this amendment we would allow them to proceed under that. The Galpin Business Park, there
are two proposed amendments. One is to again reference the Neighborhood Business district as
the underlying zoning when the PUD is silent and the second is to amend the light standards for
that where it specifically mentions metal halide and we’re proposing that we delete that from the
design standards for this. Staff is recommending approval of three motions amending the
PUD’s. I believe this is more administrative in nature and it keeps them consistent with city
code and I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Larson: Dan?
Keefe: No questions.
Larson: Kathleen?
Thomas: Nope.
Larson: Denny.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
Laufenburger: Standard question. It creates no non-conformance, is that correct Bob?
Generous: That’s correct.
Larson: Anything else?
Laufenburger: That’s it.
Larson: Tom.
Doll: So you’re going to, the language would state that the lighting would have to follow city
code. You’re not going to specify a type of light like you did in the past.
Aanenson: Correct.
Doll: That it’s going to follow city code versus having to update these once technology changes.
Aanenson: That’s exactly it. So what we’re trying to do is make them more fluid and when we
put those in place some of the things we locked in doesn’t make sense so there’s certain uses we
want to be more prescriptive on but the rest of it we want to, if the City Council, if they’re
moving on parking stall sizes. If we’re moving on lighting. Electronic message centers. We
also want these PUD’s to be able to take benefit of that. Otherwise it puts a burden on them to
come and ask for relief of the ordinance so we’re trying to be pro-active, pro business and put
those in place so they can also benefit from, as we move along on some of those underlying
changes.
Doll: Bob can you explain stacking in regard to.
Aanenson: It’s for drive thru’s.
Doll: Yeah. I just, it’s a little confusing.
Generous: The stacking ordinance refers to the type of use. They have different requirements
for the number of vehicles you can put in queue.
Doll: Okay.
Aanenson: For example a drive thru pharmacy would have less requirements than a fast food
restaurant.
Doll: So how long, the lane would have.
Aanenson: Yeah, we call it stacking but you have to have like typically for fast food we like to
see 5 or 6 cars stacking. For a pharmacy it might only need 2 because you don’t have the
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
frequency isn’t as great so, and we put those standards in place when we adopted some of those
PUD’s we didn’t have those in place either so.
Generous: Right. That was based on the study and we were looking at different uses and we
actually went out in the field and look at how people are using drive thru’s and so.
Doll: No further questions.
Larson: I have none either. Okay where do I take this from here?
Aanenson: You can ask, someone could put all the motions in one if they would like.
Laufenburger: Do we need a public hearing here?
Aanenson: Public hearing, yeah.
Larson: Public hearing. Open the public hearing. No? Nothing to say. Okay. I will close the
public hearing due to lack of interest. Okay now, entertain a motion.
Keefe: I’ll make the motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village amending Section a
as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of Fact. Number two. The Planning
Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment
for Vasserman Ridge amending Section a as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the
Findings of Fact. And number three. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Galpin Business Park amending Section
A and G.2 as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of Fact.
Thomas: Second.
Larson: Alright.
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum
Village amending Section a as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of
Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Vasserman Ridge
amending Section a as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of Fact.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Galpin Business Park
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 2010
amending Section A and G.2 as stated in the attached ordinance and adopts the Findings of
Fact. 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 February 16, 2010 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Aanenson: In the update it was noted that the Lotus retail was approved and then also the
Planning Commission appointments which I think you saw so congratulations to Denny being
reappointed. I have spoken to Kevin and to Andrew who there’ll be here at our next work
session. That will be strictly a work session. We’re going to talk about, I think we got started
with Tom talking about our larger sized plats so we kind of want to maybe take a look at our
staff reports. See if we can make those more effective so we’ll do a 2009 wrap up. Some of the
goals that we’re working on for 2010 and then we’re also putting together a developers meeting
so I want to share with you what we’re doing on that. And then I also want to take the
opportunity to thank Dan and Kevin’s not here for personally thank you for your, this is your last
meeting.
Keefe: Yeah.
Aanenson: And just say thank you for your service and your insight and helping guide the
growth of the city and we really appreciate your service.
Keefe: It was great serving.
(Applause!)
Laufenburger: I wonder how Nann’s going to record that.
Larson: Alright, well with that I guess we are adjourned.
Chairwoman Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
24