4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind, and
LuAnn Sidney
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Todd
Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4
AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-1.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any
questions from the commission.
Peterson: Questions?.
Kind: I have a question.
or d?
Are there any other planned uses for the TIF money other than a, b, c,
Gerhardt: Not at this time. The goal of the City Council is to basically pay off Lake Drive West
public improvements, pave the parking lots and then put the industrial properties back on the tax
rolls within a 4 to 5 year period. Right now it's approximately $1.4 million worth of public
improvements. $350,000 allocated back to the city for it's portion of the roadway and parking
lots. Approximately $600,000 back to the industrial user and the rest would be the Lake Susan
Apartments development. The white piece here. And we'll probably be back in probably 6
months with another tax increment district for that property to try to provide affordable housing
on that site.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: A general question Todd. What happens next if we were to recommend approval?
Gerhardt: The City Council is also having a public hearing on Monday night for the approval of
the development plan and I will provide a verbal update on your action-tonight to them. The
school district and the county have reviewed the plans and have not provided any input back to
the city regarding the development of this tax increment district.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Kind: Did you say what the duration was going to be?
Gerhardt: Well it's .11 year district. You get to collect 9 years of increment. And the City
Council through our projections would see a 4 to 5 year period for that district to last. Last up to
11 years.
Kind: But 10 years is the maximum according to this stack. For economic development.
Gerhardt: 11 years is the lift of the district. You get to collect 9 years of increment. We give
you a two year window in the beginning. You don't want to collect those first two years.
Typically it takes a year for the developer to get the improvements put in and then you have a one
year delay in taxes being generated. It's always a one year delay before they're on for full taxes.
So you get a two year window and then you want to collect the last 9 years of that district. In th~
case the City Council work have enough increment probably in 5 years to pay for all the
improvements based on the development that's going to be occurring. Right now I think you've~}
approved 4 buildings. I think you have another one on tonight for the Eden Trace development
and that's really unusual to have 5 buildings in before you even created your district. So we're
going to start off fairly quickly on this. And the developer marketed the site with tax increment
Without the incentives you probably wouldn't see ¢
so that is to the credit of those 5 buildings.
that many buildings right away.
Peterson: Okay, other questions?
Kind: One more question. In the staff materials about TIF there was a section about 10% being~-
used for administrative costs. Are you going to .do that?
Gerhardt: We'll probably use less than that. You do have some administrative costs that can, or~
the increment can pay for the feasibility study for the roadway. Bonding costs and selling the
bonds. Right now I do not anticipate us using any for staff time. We will be having expenses
and having private redevelopment agreement prepared for each of the developments that go in,
which will allow the city to give them incentives back based on minimum market values. So ~yo~
can determine how much increment would be generated.
Kind: Theoretically though shouldn't we be trying to get the maximum...outside of that d~stnct!~:
Gerhardt: Well in this case the City Council wants to try to get the parcels back on the tax rolls
as soon as possible. So any money that we free up we can reduce those assessment costs and
then get it back on the tax rolls.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I've got a couple questions.
and I'm curious as to why you feel that this parcel would not be developed in the near future
TIF wasn't available. Question number 1. Question number 2.
general think about TIF because they're the big losers in that.
Generally, I'm not sold on TIF as it stands.~_
What do the school districts in ~
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Gerhardt: The schools districts aren't losers in the TIF scenario. The losers are the county and
the schools districts break even. School funding is determined by new development that occurs.
They get less in state aids so if you've got a building, let's say it pays $100,000 a year in taxes,
the school district would get half of that. So the would get $50,000. So that means they would
get $10,000 less from any state aids. So if you create a TIF district, the TIF district would then
capture that $100,000 and then the State would kick in the $50,000 to the school district so
they're not, their net, or they break even.
Blackowiak: It's a wash. I mean assuming no formula changes or anything. Okay. And then
my first question again was, the reasonably foreseeable future was the statement that was used in
here. Do you feel that this land would not be developed in the foreseeable future without TIF.
Gerhardt: This property has been on the tax rolls for, I've been here 13 years and this
development has been a part of the Chan Lakes Business Park for 20 years. And we've done 2 or
3 feasibility studies already for building Lake Drive and we had one interested party six years ago
to Redmond Products was going to build a corporate headquarters there and decided not to. And
so since we decided to put tax increment on this parcel, the development has come in with five
buildings. It's not a science. I can't sit here and say those 5 buildings would have come or
'wouldn't have come, but from what the developer tells me he probably would have lost 2 or 3 of
those buildings if he didn't get the TIF. Those are his comments to me. And when you have
surrounding communities like Waconia, Chaska, Shakopee having TIF, why would they choose
to locate in a community of Chanhassen where it costs more to build their building versus those
communities. So there's a whole other argument is all cities stop using TIF, we wouldn't have to
compete against each other and this would you know chips fall where they may.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Peterson: Thank you. This being a public hearing, may I have a motion and a second to open for
the same please.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission or board state
your name and address please. Seeing none.
Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, any comments? Thoughts? None, may I have a motion and a second
please.
Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends considering, or recommends approval of
Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District 4-1 consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion.
Kind: ...on duration or making it...?
Peterson: Why?
Kind: That we desire it to be shorter...?
Peterson: Why? I'm just asking you know because I don't see a rational reason for it but.
Kind: I would rather it be shorter so that we can get them on the tax rolls for the general fund.
...get our projects done.
Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Your role tonight is to look at it from
a planning standpoint and that it is consistent with the overall development of the community. Is
it zoned properly? Are we meeting the guideline for the comprehensive plan? The City Council
will be asking those questions of me Monday night. Duration and they really control that aspect
of it. Your role tonight is just to make sure that you want to see industrial development occur in
that location. That you want to see Lake Drive built. You want to see it built with a trail. Do
you want to insure that the development is consistent with your comprehensive plan? That's
your role tonight. As to the other questions. I'm more than willing to answer those. I just want
to make one more point for Alison regarding upcoming referendums. The State has now allowed
market value referendums. So if the school district with their upcoming $42 million referendum,
they will capture revenue from these industrial buildings which will support that referendum. So
I will not be able to capture that increment based on the increase in taxes from that referendum.
That will go directly to the school district. That was not the rule several years ago. So these
businesses will also support the new referendum coming up.
Kind: I leave my motion the way it was.
Peterson: That's good practice for Todd.
Resolution #99-01: Kind moved, Burton seconded to approve the resolution declaring the
program and plan for Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District
No. 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the plans for development of
Chanhassen as a whole (Attachment #3). All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED
AT 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE, KIM AND JOHN WARNER.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Public Present:
Name
Susan Albee
Roger Beckman
John & Klm Warner
Address
6871 Nez Perce Drive
Contractor for Applicant
6870 Nez Perce Drive
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of the staff?.
Kind: Question. Is this an urban myth that if you maintain a property for x number of years, I
thought the number was 7 years, that it's yours.
Aanenson: Are you referring to the setback?
Kind: No, just maintain.
Blackowiak: Adverse possession?
Kind: yeah.
A1-Jaff: That has been debated.
Kind: That's not true. I've heard that and I was just wondering. That's an urban myth? You
heard a bigger number?
Peterson: Other questions? How does changing that setback, or changing the variance, how does
it affect their building? If at all.
A1-Jaff: Their building?
Peterson: Or addition.
Burton: Is that your Attachment #5 and #6, is that what that shows?
A1-Jaff: What happened was, and through a conversation with Cindy Kirchoff, she said that she
did speak to the applicant and that it is possible to shift the addition, to maintain the exactly same
setback as the rest of the home and be able to accomplish the required addition and yes, that
would be the southern side elevation.
Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
John Warner: Good evening.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Peterson: Name and address if you would.
John Warner: My name's John Warner, 6870 Nez Perce Drive. This is my wife Kim. I'm not
sure exactly what papers you guys have to look at. This is kind of all new to me so. What I'm
basically looking for on that is where the, our addition is planned on that. There's a staircase
inside of the house and there's a second level addition, that's where the stairs all on the house
itself. The only feasible way of putting this addition on the house is the way that I've got it set
up where I need a 25 foot variance. There's no question. I've got a gas main that comes in on
that side of the house that I'd have to move the meter, the gas main. I'd have to move the
staircase within the inside of the house. Financially it's really not feasible for moving it up to
the, even with the house. It's just to put it honest, it's going to cost us a bundle anyway but the
city does state that the residents should have a two car garage on the property. That's basically
what I want to do is comply with that and the only way of putting it on is the way that it's set up
on the plan. Anybody got any questions?
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
Burton: Yeah I do. Can you explain the stairway thing again because I'm looking, it looks like
what you proposed and then what the staff, how the staff revised it. I don't understand how a
stairway wouldn't work with the staff.
John Warner: On here, the back side of the garage is here. It comes into the house here. There's
a staircase in the middle and that's where the staircase for the second level would have to go
right to the top of that. So the stairs will enter into the living room on the house but yet they'll
come out on the second addition. In order to put it up as they have it here, I'd have to move the
staircase completely.
Peterson: Other questions?
John Warner: And one of the other purposes of going off the original wall of the back garage is
because of the fact that the garage is block wall. And my intention was only to take part of the
back wall of the garage off and the foundation and to incorporate it into the house.
Peterson: Can you take a pencil and just draw on there the two options? Now that I'm spending
more time looking at it, I'm more confused than I was.
John Warner: This is our original plan. Put the garage back. Put the staircase in.
Burton: Can you draw where the stairs would be?
John Warner: The stairs are right in here. They're all right in here. It's all foundation. This
original garage was the original garage and about 3 ½ foot span between the side wall of the
garage and the side wall of the house and that's where the staircase from the second to the
basement.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Peterson: Alright, thank you.
Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for the applicant. Did you talk with your
neighbors who...the land about this encroachment?
John Warner: The Carlsons in the back and behind us? Yes we have spoken with them. They
did intend, they did intend on selling us the 10 feet of property. The only problem is that the city
requires me to have their lot surveyed and my lot resurveyed, then incorporate the 10 feet in it
and just them two costs alone go outside of the range of what it's going to cost to actually
purchase the piece of property. It's basically not financially worth it.
Kind: And that being not possible, did you talk with them about their feelings about your
addition plan and it being 5 feet off the newly found property line?
John Warner: Last summer when we did this, this has been a two year ongoing thing with us
trying to get this set up so we can put an addition on the house. We did speak with them because
our intention was, we wanted to purchase the 30 to 40 feet of land behind our house because we
have, my wife got a permit from the city of Chanhassen to put up a chain link fence on their
property and the city never told her it wasn't hers so we've maintained the property. We had the
lot surveyed so we could plan our addition and found out that the property was not ours so we
had contacted them and did talk with them because we wanted to purchase the whole piece of
property and as far as our addition goes, they really said they didn't care along with the fact that
they didn't care that I put up a, I have been putting up a 6 foot wood privacy fence around the
property because we have two black labs. They're good dogs. They need a fenced yard but the
Carlson's expressed some interest in the fact that the dogs seem to scare their kids when they're
in a chain link fence. So we decided to put up a wood privacy fence so the dogs can't see them
and they can't see the dogs. And as far as I got from them, it didn't seem to bother them. There
is basically right behind the house on that comer is all woods. You can't see through it in the
summertime.
Peterson: Based upon what the staff has heard this evening, any additional comments? May I
have a motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Sidney moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Susan Albee: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Susan Albee, 6871 Nez Perce Drive.
I'm the property directly across. This is appearing to me that the nature of this request is based
on more convenience than a variance hardship. There are several alternative plans to this
property. Bringing the garage forward, there's ample room. Their setback on the property.
Going to the south of the property, even bringing it back off the lot line would eliminate the
second variance. The additional family area could be added Onto that side of the house. Carver
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Beach is based a lot on weird lot configurations. If we look at a 5 foot rear yard setback, coupled
with a stockade fence, that's going to give us about a 4 foot rear yard setback. Bad precedence.
For the whole neighborhood. It really categorically is a starter home. You know there's only so
much you can do with it and I really think an addition on this property could be accomplished
without variance. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Roger Feckner: Hi, Roger Feckner, New Hope. From New Hope and I'm on the contractor
working with John and Klm on their project here. If there are any questions or still confusion
with the layout that has been designed here, as to where it's going to go. Why it's got to go
there, I'd be happy to answer those questions from the structural standpoint and design
standpoint.
Peterson: Questions? So from your perspective there is zero alternatives for?
Roger Feckner: From an economical standpoint and the overall design and usability of the
second level, the staircase has been best located to go over the top of a masonry staircase leading
to the basement at this point in time. As far as the utility tie ins go, because there is proposed up
here two bedrooms and a full bath, in the living area over the garage. And for running those
utilities up there, tying into the sewer system in the existing home, and getting water supplies up
there, there is a channel that's going to be, a heated channel that's going to be constructed on the
end of that staircase leading to the basement at this point in time so that we can effectively feed
that bathroom on the second level. If that addition were pulled forward, 11 feet that's been
proposed here or what staff is recommending, that's going to push that staircase to almost
completely to the back of that addition. And as far as the interior layout and usability of that
floor space would be greatly hindered by doing so.
Kind: Question. Could you slide...and just slide the addition forward...that second floor?
Roger Feckner: No because then that would put the bathroom to the rear of the home and
basically as far as the tie in capability for mainly the sewer system, the drainage for the bathroom,
would be very difficult and additional cost from that standpoint.
Kind: So it can be done, it's just a cost issue?
Roger Feckner: It's a cost issue as well as they have a sitting deck coming off of the master
bedroom in the rear comer of that unit on the, which would be the west corner I believe of that
addition off the master bedroom. Northwest comer. This area here.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close.
Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one.
Burton: I guess I can venture forward Mr. Chairman. I think that it's, what the applicant
requested probably doesn't technically qualify for a variance and I thought that the staff reached a
fair compromise in their recommendation and I understand the applicant's cost concerns but I
think it most likely could be reconfigured and could incorporate the stairway the way the staff
proposed so I guess I'm inclined to follow the staff recommendations in this matter.
Peterson: Other comments.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Matt. And ! also would hope, they could also look at
the south side of the home because there is adequate space on that side to do an addition. I do
feel the 11 feet is a fair compromise. I would think that the applicants would probably want to
get it surveyed and get that resolved, even if they choose not to do an addition. That's a fairly
major issue when, make sure where your back yard ends and your neighbor's begins so I would
certainly encourage you to look into that. I would feel more comfortable personally if that
happened at my house but you know if you want to go, if you have to go back that way, if that's
the only way you want to go, then I think what you need to do is talk to your neighbors and get
that worked out and get the additional land from... Otherwise I think there are opportunities
for...this addition forward or on the south side of the home to do something so I would go with
that. And I do agree with the staff report in this case.
Peterson: Anyone else? A motion.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny the request for a 25 foot
variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback but approve Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot
variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with conditions 1
through 3.
Kind: Second.
Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 25
foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for
an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition
with the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the
existing and proposed elevations of the addition.
2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave.
3. The existing garage shall be demolished.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Peterson: This item may be appealed by the applicant or any aggrieved person by appealing this
decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days
after the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available city council agenda.
REQUEST FOR SITE' PLAN REVIEW FOR 35,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED AT LOT 6, BLOCK 1
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER
OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD), BOEDECKER COMPANY, AMCON
CONSTRUCTION, LLC.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Kind: I have one question Mr. Chai~w~an. Sharmin, in your report you talk about the west and
north elevations and on the blueprint it's the south elevation. That's the blank wall?
A1-Jaff: No, actually it is.
Kind: Or is it because of the angles and stuff?. That's really hard to tell.
Al-Jarl: The entire rear wall that faces the...
Kind: It's hard to see on the plan what's going on. Thank you.
Peterson: Sharmin, in your beginning narrative you really Spoke of some design characteristics
that you weren't happy with. Quality as it relates to PUD, yet a little bit at a loss as to why
you're still recommending approval, rather substantive points that you aren't necessarily agreeing
with yet.
A1-Jaff: The condition is there to change the architecture of the building. I mean the approval is
contingent upon the design and the materials changed ashighlighted in the staff report.
Peterson: That begs to question, are we trying to approve something prematurely? I mean my
sense if we're talking about some pretty substantive changes that I don't know if I'm real...on
passing onto council without seeing the changes ourselves because it is.
A1-Jaff: You can definitely table it. Require the applicant to revise the design before you send it
to council.
Peterson: Any questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? Name and address please.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Dennis Kornelius: My name is Dennis Komelius. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13,
Burnsville, Minnesota. Mark Huis who is the designer is with me, will speak to the architecture
first and then I'd like to speak to the various points that staff has directed the project. Thank you.
Mark Huis: Thank you. My name is Mark Huis. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13 in
Bumsville. The architect for Boedecker Company. First of all about Boedecker. They design
and assemble equipment for the food processing industry and Boedecker will occupy
approximately 2/3 of the building initially. The other 1/3 of the building will be leased to a
second tenant. IfI might I'd like to just do a quick tour of the surrounding buildings in the same
industrial park. First off starting with our neighbor to the west, Paulstarr. The building here.
Basically the building is a concrete block building...color and there's one color band...
Peterson: We really can't see that so...
Mark Huis: Just a quick tour of our site. As Sharmin mentioned, there are two entrances to our
site. One off Lake Drive West, and that's essentially the public entrance. That's the balance of
the parking, that's where most of the employees will park. And for visitors would park.., off
Commerce Drive which is a cul-de-sac. That's essentially the entrance for this site. That's where
trucks would enter the site. There's also a small amount of parking on the back side of the site.
Along Audubon Road there's a large berm that continues along the full length of the property.
...and we will be putting a retaining wall in the back side of that berm. You can see that on the
perspective here. So the parking lot will be quite shielded from Audubon Road. That berm is
approximately 4 to 5 feet high at the parking areas. We've also continued the retaining wall
around the entry in a semi circular fashion and created a plaza at the entry. There's also a patio
to the north along that wall and that will be an employee lunch patio that will work in
conjunction with the lunchroom in the Boedecker portion of the building. There was a mention
of a trash enclosure in the staff report and we do intend to work with staff. We've had
discussions with Boedecker on the location of that...back of the building and we will construct
that in accordance with the building materials. The materials of the building are architectural
precast concrete panels. They will have an exposed aggregate finish and a rib texture. There's
also pre-finished aluminum panels at the entry. Those have a 2 inch by 2 inch reveal vertically
and horizontally articulation. The window frames are also prefinished with a color to match the
metal panels and the coping at the top of the building. The glass is a bronze tinted glass. The
brick and precast concrete sills which occur at the bottom of all window openings. This brick
here, I think Sharmin showed that to you already.
Peterson: Angle them up. We can't really see anything from here. Also the big box.
Mark Huis: The exposed aggregate... I did also bring along pictures of the buildings we have
completed with very similar wall panels. Some of the reasons for the choice of building
materials. Number one, durability. Boedecker Company was very interested in having a
maintenance free building. Energy efficiency as well. They're very concerned about that and
precast panels do have a better insulating value than a concrete block wall. And also Boedecker
wants to project an image of quality. The layout of the building is essentially in response to the
site again. The office portion of the building will happen at the main entry and all the service
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
functions towards the back of the building. At staff's request we have increased the size of the
window openings to give the building more of an office building appearance and I do believe that
with very few exceptions this building probably has more windows than the other buildings in
the industrial park. One correction too. There are windows around the end of the building that
are shown on the elevation... Dennis would also like to address some of the staff
recommendations and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have.
Dennis Komelius: What I'd like to do is in your packet from staff there's a list and I think about
16-17 items that they have listed as recommendations for the project. I'd like to go through those
and respond to each one of them. How we feel and what we think we can do on the project.
Items 1 through 3, we take no exception to the items. We're prepared to proceed with the items
as addressed. Item number 4. There's discussion about providing additional landscaping in the
track dock area to the back of the building located here. In 1997 Planning, and I think the City
Council approved a plan for this specific site in which they approved the parking of the building
as it's laid out. We've replicated that event or that design so we're questioning why the
additional need for landscaping when the approval is already given for the design as it was
proposed. So that would be one of the questions we'd ask. Item 5. We do not take any
exception with. We're prepared to do that. Item 6, there's discussion about landscaping and
there's shortfalls in trees and overages in trees. We're prepared to rework the site...probably
overages in some spots and underages in others and we'll rearrange it to accommodate it. Plus
there's some overstory trees that we intend to add to the landscaping plan that weren't shown in
the plan as presented. Item 7 talks about adding additional berming along Lake Drive West.
That's from this drive entrance to the comer. We don't really have a concern with that other than
the fact that we questiOn if it's not a safety issue. When you go out and look at the site, berms
along Audubon actually drop down at the entrance to the park on both sides of the street and
gives you a view down Audubon when you drive up for exiting that park. We're concerned that
if we bring that berm around the comer and add more mass, when you're taking a look to the
north, you're going to have difficulty seeing the sight line onto Audubon Road. So it's not a,
again in the '97 approval of this project, that was not called for. It's called for here. It's more of
a question of why on that one. Item 8, we take no exception with the item they suggest there.
Item 7, again there's really no question. There is a call for a fire hydrant that has to be added on
the south side of the building. We recognize that's a requirement by the fire department but a
technical point, under the '97 approval it allowed excavating within the road to tap into this line.
Under the current report it's asking us to mn a water line full perimeter around the building to the
back side in order to connect with the water line. We would like to revisit that issue. Item 10 we
have no exception. The other items within the list, there's a sequencing and number problem but
right after 10 there's a number item 9 again. We have no exception on that one. And then item
10 is again no exception. 11 and 12, no exception. 14 no exception. And 16 we talked about the
trash enclosure going in and item 15, I think that's just an administrative item regarding payment
of park fees. Item 13 is really the issue at hand and that's the design of the building proper and I
guess that's the one we'd like to talk a little more detail on. Reviewing back through what the
staffwas recommending, they envisioned a higher quality design in the comer. We haven't, in
the 1997 approval of this project, a building identical to Paulstarr I believe it is, was approved
which is a concrete block building with some accents of brick. Under this current
recommendation we're being asked to do the entire building in brick. Our question is what's the
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
difference in the last two years that have raised the standards for that comer property? The other
question we have is under the PUD criteria, if we read it correctly, precast wall panels are an
approved product for this park as long as it has textured finish and rock exposed aggregate which
we're providing. In addition we've added banding to provide accent to the building. The other
question I guess we have is, looking at all the other buildings in the park and addressing the
question of the PUD's criteria for a design standard. We feel that the design we're proposing
meets or exceeds the standard that's been established for this entire park. There are precast
buildings that are masonry buildings and brick and we've incorporated all of that into the project
we're doing. And then I guess our position on this, we feel that we meet the material criteria for
the PUD. We feel the '97 project was approved on this site using identical site plans with a
block building and we're now proposing a precast which we feel is a comparable product to that
block and we feel it's a justifiable product. And we feel we meet the quality standards of the
design of the park. We think we have a good design for you. But as a compromise to that, we
are prepared to add some additional brick and modify the second entrance to the building.
Currently it's just an entrance recessed. We would add metal panels. Add brick at each side of
the entrance to accentuate that... Based on those ideas, those concept changes we would ask the
commissioners to consider our project to be passed onto council. We feel that we do meet the
design criteria and the project did have some approval, some type of approval in '97 because it
was prepared to be built and for some reason the developer decided not to in a concrete block
building. Any questions?
Peterson: Thank you. You brought some story boards with you.
Dennis Komelius: Oh sorry. What I had here, these are the boards of the original building and
you do have pictures of Paulstarr but these are the elevations of the Paulstarr building as
originally approved and again we just felt by the, we expanded the size of the windows. The
original windows are like 4 x 4 windows. We've gone to much larger windows, more of an
office characteristic on the building. We don't have the projected entrances but this building was
designed as a multi tenant building rather than a single tenant where Boedecker is really
corporate center for one company with kind of a secondary entrance established for the interim
tenants but ultimately they hope to be occupying the entire building.
Peterson: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I do have one quick question. Mr. Komelius made me think of
something. You said the Paulstarr building, now are you saying the building you're proposing is
similar to that building?
Dennis Komelius: No, what I'm saying in the original approval in '97, which was approved by
council to be built was identical to the Paulstarr building. And we're of the opinion our building
is comparable or greater in design character than that building. And we feel it provides a
gateway to your park and is not a detriment to the image that your park presents.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff quickly. Sharmin, when was Paulstarr
approved? Or approved and built?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
A1-Jaff: Building or phase II?
Blackowiak: The existing building.
A1-Jaff: '95 or '96.
Dennis Komelius: I do, maybe you want this. This is the site plan permit 97-3 which is the
approval for that project. And.
Al-Jarl: Second phase.
Dennis Kornelius: That's the second phase but it's an identical building to the Paulstarr
building.
Aanenson: It's our opinion that they're not the same. I mean I think you know, it's not the same.
In our opinion.
Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please.
Dennis Komelius: John Mueller who represents the owner would like to say something if he
may.
John Mueller: ...in Minneapolis and we found this site in part because of city assistance. I
talked to Todd Gerhardt about any land that would be available in Chanhassen in picking out a
site and he directed me to the Paulstarr organization and also the owners of Paulstarr. The land
wasn't formerly for sale when we first discovered it through the help of the city. The issue we
have, and I have in particular is based on some assumptions...conversations I had with the city, I
recommend to my clients that they go forward and purchase the land which was done probably 2-
3 weeks ago at the cost of $350,000.00. And I met with the city planning department, a
representative of the city planning department. The person that previously approved the plans
that were done in 1997. This is the exact same footprint. It's the exact same site plan. The only
thing we've done really is take the building up a little bit and also do some exterior changes on
the building itself. I was given verbal assurance that it would be no problem whatsoever
approving the building with precast panels provided they were of an upper level kind of design.
What we were told we could not do is painted panels or... I took that message back to my client.
My client made the decision to buy the land and build the building. Now what we're being
asked to do is spend $250,000 more in design elements... Had we been asked to do that, we
never would have bought the land. I've been doing this long enough to try to clear the path
before recommending a client to do something so I did come to the city with the plans in hand.
...going to build practically the same building. We're going to build a 35,000 square foot
building. These plans I think Alison you asked about when the plans were first approved.
Paulstarr built their building I guess '94-'95. Okay. They bought this neighboring land with the
anticipation that they would build speculative...the dock was moved to the back as well. So we
didn't do much at all to the original plans that were approved. I think some of these that are
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
being asked now, I can understand times change, people's minds change. The thing I take total
issue with is that the city asked us to upgrade the material of the building when the building was
approved once before with a lesser exterior. And when I went to the city planning department
and specifically asked about the...no uncertain terms would we have no trouble whatsoever with
precast panels, provided that they were above the first...which is exactly what we're doing here.
This is an upgraded panel. So based on that advice and based on that information I
recommended to my client to go ahead and buy the land and proceed to construct the building. It
does, you're putting an individual in a very, very difficult situation if in fact you go forward with
the recommendation on the exterior of the building...
Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one.
Kind: I'd be interested in staff's comments regarding...representative.
Aanenson: I think there's a lot of issues here that we hadn't heard before. They were apprised
quite a while...we feel the discussions about the material came up before that. I think...facts we
need to get clear here.
Peterson: What about the architectural changes?
Aanenson: It's always been a policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues, that we'd like
to know ahead of time. It's been a policy we've adopted for a number of years. Issues that they
address with staff ahead of time. We haven't had an opportunity to have some...fire hydrant.
We haven't...
John Mueller: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear those comments...
Aanenson: It's a general policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues with the staff
report, that we'd like to go through those before the meeting so we have an opportunity to
address those. I think there were several issues that you brought up that we had not had a chance
to address, specifically the fire hydrant, the landscaping berm which I believe was in there before.
Some of those items. As a general we try not to resolve those in front of the Planning
Commission. We try to have those internally agreed to with the staff that we can say there's
concurrence. That if we need to correct it, that we have that resolved before we get to the
meeting. That's generally a policy.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
John Mueller: What's the message to me?
Aanenson: I'm not giving any. I'm talking to them.
John Mueller: Oh okay.
Aanenson: You asked me to repeat it. What's what I was doing.
John Mueller: ...on the panels you had asked what you felt, what you folks thought about the
comments...
Peterson: It wasn't specifically asked about your comments. It was just generally. What I might
do is offer, I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Not to use a clich~ but I
think that what I'd like to do is probably recommend that we table, and I'm certainly open for
feedback from my fellow commissioners so that both parties, staff and the applicant can address
some of these outstanding issues. I think what we may be benefitted by doing is offering our
respective comments back to the applicant and staff so that if we do decide to table it, they'll
know what they have to work on. Okay?
Burton: I agree.
Peterson: So with that, why don't we move our comments to what the recommendations would
be, if we have any regarding some of the contentious issues that we have before us tonight.
Commissioners.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I can start off. I do agree that the materials should be upgraded and I do
feel because the property is a prominent location in the development, this is something that we
need to take into account. Another thing I would like resolved is landscape islands in the rear
parking lot. I do feel that that's an important issue to be resolved, as well as the lighting plan.
I'm concerned about any lighting which might be visible to the neighborhood to the east. And
also the fact that we have several blank walls which need some architectural...
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: Next time around I'd like to see color copies of the elevations. It's very helpful to see
those...even more helpful to see them in advance. And I agree with LuAnn's comments that we
really would like to see higher quality materials. Most of the buildings that you showed us in
your schematic were of rock face block and I think especially in it's prominent location, it should
be rock face or better.
John Mueller: Can I ask you a question?
Peterson: Let's finish our comments.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Burton: I would just say, I think I agree with the other two commissioners and I would like to
have a better visual representation of what it will look like before we can pass on it.
Blackowiak: I agree and also some more concurrence between staff and the applicant because I
don't feel that, don't get the feeling that we're there yet so I'd like to feel like everybody's behind
a project. That we're getting the best possible project for this location before I see it again.
Peterson: My thoughts are probably the same. Architectural interest as noted in number 13 I
think is lacking. And that could be just from the presentation. The blueprint that I saw in the
package was very difficult to get a sense of, feel of the building. Even the color renditions we
have before us tonight was, there's only a small portion of the front of the building. I just don't
have a sense of what the building is like. It might be something I like. I don't know from what I
saw tonight. My sense is that it needs a little bit more tweaking, but again I'm guessing because I
can't get a feel of it. So you had additional comments? If you'd come up.
Dennis Komelius: Oh I'm sorry. The only question I had was, there's been a number of
comments made tonight. I'm looking more for an explanation rather than to comment on it but
I've heard said on several occasions that because of it's prominent location on this particular site,
the building itself should be something special. And are you saying it should be more special
than what is in the park? It should be representative of what's in the park... I think that's what
the story board attempted to show is that in most circumstances it's of a higher grade quality than
what you find once you go into the park itself.
Peterson: I think the answer to your question, it's difficult to answer but I think that what we're
looking for on a prominent entrance building per se may be different than what had been
approved in the past. I think you also have to put in a lesser concrete than what's already been
approved. Somebody commented we do change. Design standards change. A lot of things
change over a period of years. That also could be a factor. Again, until we have a better
perspective of really what we have tonight to answer that question specifically.
Kind: Also Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. My question to Sharmin about the
elevations is, I figured it out after puzzling over this. North and south are revered and east and
west are reversed, and I puzzled over it and it would be helpful if they were labeled the right way.
Hurt my little brain. Although next time I'll know.
Peterson: Motion and a second.
Blackowiak: I will move that the Planning Commission, and the number here. Table Site Plan
#99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen
Business Center Second Addition.
Burton: Second.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #99-15
for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen
Business Center Second Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Peterson: Do both parties understand what the issues at hand are? ...met with staff. What have
we got available for the next time, any idea?
Aanenson: August 9th.
Peterson: Potential for.
Aanenson: It's not the 9th. It would be August 4th.
Peterson: Time on that one potentially? August 4th.
Aanenson: If we can get everything turned around.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-8 TO ADD A SECOND
TIER TO THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE, INSTALL LIGHTING AND PERMIT ON
SALE LIQUOR SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH 212 AND TH 101, RRS
GOLF.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of Kate.
Burton: Kate I guess I do have a question. When you say you don't want further intensification.
I'm not sure what that means in terms of like building another floor.
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to. Intensification is, well it would be more extended hours
because with the lights you have in the winter, you know longer hours of operation with the
lights. And then the other intensification is in the flood plain you're adding more building value
in the flood plain which in our judgment is not good planning practice. You're putting additional
building evaluation in the flood plain. And as indicated on the Fish and Wildlife, it's a matter of
time. We've had two floods there within the last two years that it wouldn't make good sense to
add.
Burton: It's not really our nickel. I don't know why we'd care. Maybe if they want to build a
building, if they get demolished, why do we care?
Aanenson: Well as planners we have the responsibility to do good planning, just like we
wouldn't allow someone on the bluff if it's going to slide or something like that. Use good
judgment to say that as the folks down the river, that good planning practices would be that we
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
don't want to add additional pollution and have that slough off. Just make sure we have the
pesticides that are being applied and what that does to the surrounding properties. So we think as
local jurisdiction that has the authority to control that, or the ability to regulate what uses go in
there, that is our responsibility. The Fish and Wildlife can't control the use. That's our
responsibility. So we think that there is reasonable use and further intensification is unnecessary.
Burton: How about the beer? I believe they want to sell 3.2 beer, and I know that they do it like
at Bluff Creek and other golf courses around.
Aanenson: They don't do it up at Swings.
Burton: Well not Swings but I mean most of the true golf facilities...
Aanenson: I guess we felt this was a driving range and not that, your stint, your time there is
probably shorter than you would be if you were on a golf course. 4-5 hours as opposed to an
hour lesson. I guess that was our response.
Burton: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?.
Kind: Piggy backing off of Matt's comments. They do have a 9 hole golf course.
Aanenson: Yes. Yes, that's true.
Kind: And do we have to amend the Code or could we give a variance to this specific parcel?
I'm talking about the alcohol right now.
Aanenson: You could do it as a variance. That's, for this specific. I'm not sure how many more
we're going to get on this one but that would be fine.
Kind: Why change the code for everybody.
Aanenson: That's another approach of looking at it, sure.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: One question. A question about the calls you received. Intensification was a concern
but was it the structure or the lights or what?
Aanenson: Oh, lighting and more people being, hours of operation. Night time. Winter use.
Later at night and then yeah, with that would be the lights, correct.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I don't want to forget it. On the last page, page 11 it
talks about the status of conditions of approval and there are three I guess are pending or haven't
been fulfilled.
Aanenson: Yeah, I've talked to Mr. Helstrom about that. We did make a site inspection. Things
seem to be in pretty good order. It's a lot of it's the paperwork. He is working on the sign. We
didn't get enough information as far as regarding the signs so he's got a temporary which could
have been resolved sooner. The report of the fertilizer, I believe is just a matter of the paperwork
and the building code issue he is working with the building department on those. It's door
handles and those sort of things.
Blackowiak: And then I just have a suggestion for us internally. At some point, maybe Planning
Commission or I at least personally would like to have a discussion of conditional use permits
and enforcement mechanisms. So I'm throwing that out so at some time in the future can we talk
about that because I so often see not enforcement of things and we've happen to give approval
and they're never enforced and what's the point? So.
Peterson: My question, and I'll probably ask the applicant too Kate, but as the artist rendering
that we have before us, if we were to approve that second story, would that actually be higher
than the house?
Aanenson: I put it in the report. I believe the house was like.
Peterson: I missed that one wherever it is.
Aanenson: Almost 24 feet. I scaled it offand it would be 28 feet with the.
Peterson: Questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If
so, please come forward.
Jim Eggen: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jim Eggen. My
wife and I live at and own the Bluff Creek Inn which is the Bed and Breakfast on the far lower
end of Bluff Creek Drive.
Peterson: Are you the applicant or not? We'll have a public hearing in a couple minutes.
Jim Eggen: I'm sorry. I jumped the gun.
JeffHelstrom: Well last time I jumped up here before I was supposed to. Well thanks for
looking at this. Kate has said there's been some comments from different people from public
hearings in the past that have had a problem with this project. So I wanted to bring down, we put
up, put together a little sign up sheet here. People that were in favor of lights on this project
itself...pass this around. Not everybody's from Chanhassen. We've got Eden Prairie and
surrounding areas so I just think it's important to know that there are a lot of people who love
this project and there's a lot of people who don't have the opportunity to get down there in the
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
winter and hit balls. Kind of like I figured initially, the hours of operation just don't cut it. And
if you work during the week and you get down there on the weekends, it's just packed and we've
got basically 900 square feet and there's 40 or 50 people sitting in there waiting to get in and hit.
A lot of those people could come you know during the week and hit some balls but they just
don't have the opportunity because they work until 5:00 and by the time they get home, it's just
too late. We're closed. You know normally it's 4:30 or 5:00 by the time it's dark in the winter.
So it's, I just think, I've put a lot of work into this place to make it as nice as I can, and I hope
that all the members here have been able to at least look at what I've done and know that I want
this to be nice and if it's a matter of a second level, maybe not tying in with the wildlife area
down there, I have no problems kind of maybe modifying the look of it. We've got some
stairways here that are on the outside and would be fire exits. You know we could go a cedar
siding on that. Eventually when the siding gets changed on the house, I'd go a cedar siding on
that and on the roof, maybe get it looking a little more rustic because I think that was one issue.
There was a comment in the staff report that you wouldn't be able to see the wildlife refuge as
well with the second deck but you Can't see anything past it now with the elevation change so I
don't feel that that part of it should be as much of an issue. I think I've done more than I initially
proposed doing. I mean basically I've put everything I've got into this project and I jUst see
people coming down there all the time. Why don't you have lights? And basically the consensus
that people have is, you know I could understand if this was in the middle of the wildlife refuge
but this particular project is right on the comer of two of the busiest roads in Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie. Right where 212, or 169 and 100 connect. It's a busy intersection. We've got a
small motel across the road. A landscape company. Kennel. Down the road you've got a
salvage yard. I mean it's not like this thing is thrown in the middle of Glacier National Park or
something. And even if it was, I mean Glacier National Park has a park with lots of lights. And I
just feel that I've done everything that I can to preserve what's there and I really don't feel that
this would do anything to hinder that at all.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Jeff Helstrom: Thank you.
Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Jim Eggen: Thank you. I'll start over again. My name is Jim Eggen and my wife and I live at
and own and operate the Bluff Creek Inn which is a Bed and Breakfast. Very old farmhouse on
the south end of Bluff Creek Drive. Just oh within a quarter mile or so of the golf development.
And I guess my wife and I object to the project because kind of an off site impact if you will, but
the traffic situation is very severe and kind of out of control and has been for a number of years
on Bluff Creek Drive. And my primary objection to really any development in that area, not to
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
discriminate against golf or anything else but that this would only serve to exacerbate the traffic
problems on Bluff Creek Drive. And what I've done is talked to some of the neighbors in the
area, some of those folks I think Kate you said may be people within 500 feet got letters. Some
did and some didn't. Actually I'm more than, I think I'm more than 500 feet away but
nevertheless I got one or two notices on the golf project. And I talked to some of the neighbors,
primarily some of the people who live up and down Bluff Creek Drive and they say unanimously
that the traffic problems' on Bluff Creek Drive, having been there for the past 20 years or more,
have steadfastly been essentially ignored by the city over the years and I guess I kind of see this
as another opportunity for the city to ignore those problems. Or perhaps to address those
problems or somehow control them. So I guess I agree with some of the other questions that
were raised too. In fact I'm a little bit surprised that there would be a significant development
like that in a wetland and near a wildlife area and a floodplain and so on. So I guess what I'm
saying is I object to that kind of development and the additional impact that it might have off site,
which admittedly is seldom the kind of impact that is considered. But I think knowing that you
already have a significant excessive problem on Bluff Creek Drive with traffic and trucks and
speed and so on, this is another reason not to...facility itself but that's the comment that I have
and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have too. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to cloSe.
Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Who wants to take a stab at this one?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I like the facility. I've been there since it was built. I've seen how they
operate. I've been there in the winter and I know that that lobby there just gets packed and
people, I don't know how long people typically hit golf balls for but maybe like 20 minutes to a
half hour, but there are people that wait, I've seen them wait an hour to hit balls and they could
really stand to increase their ability to service their clientele. I know that their parking lot, I don't
know how that fits into traffic, because all those people are going there right now anyway and
waiting and they couldn't park this winter very well but I think that they've, it seems to me like
they've fixed that by paving their lot and cleaning it up quite a bit. I think Kate said that this was
one of the better alternative uses for this site and that's why we let it go through in the first place
and it just seems to me if we're going, since we let it go in, I think we should try to help them
succeed and I was in favor of just about everything they proposed last time also so this is nothing
new for me. I think that extending the roof 14 feet is consistent with what's already there. I
understand the concerns about flooding but I think they've already got so much there already in
terms of poles and fencing and a building and the deck they've already built. I don't think it's
that much more. I read the letter from the United States Department of Interior and I'm jumping
ahead I guess to lighting but one of their objections was if they were allowed to put in lights, and
there was a flood, the lights are just one more thing that they'd have to pick up and I think that's
kind of laughable. I don't think that that's much of a factor at all. They've already got the poles.
I think they're just sticking the lights on the poles that they already have. And I recall from the
last time we met on this issue, there were some literature distributed about the type of lighting
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
they were going to use, and I don't see it this time. And I don't recall it that well but I remember
it was the type of lighting that was shielded and it didn't put a lot of glare out and just kind of lit
up targets...thing they were for and that would help reduce the visibility from around the
community and at our last meeting when we knew this was coming, Alison made a point of
making sure that the notice was given to the people in the area. To talk, so we could get
concerns about lights and nobody apparently came to talk about lights. So I don't think that that
should be, I'm in favor of them putting in lights, I guess I'll cut to that. The beer I think is
consistent with the other golf facilities in the town and the nearby areas and I would not oppose
them having 3.2 beer for sale there. And I understand Kate's concerns, but I think it is more ora
golf facility than a driving range. I do think people spend more time there, although I'm not
convinced that the time there is that much of an issue. I'm guessing that there's others on the
panel here that will be against some of these things but I just, I think I'm in favor of their
proposal right down the line and even with the concerns that we heard.
Peterson: Thank you. Other comments?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. Diametrically opposed to what Matt said, more or less.
First of all I think the scale of the building at 28 feet would be much too high. It's, I think I've
used this analogy before. About as long as a football field. 275 feet of building. You're going
to have this huge brown mass of painted metal which I think is not going to fit in at all with the
surroundings of the club. And I would even kind of beg to differ. I don't think it's a.golf course
because it's just, I mean a golf course is used more than a couple of clubs, and this is like
pitching and putting and that's all. So it's not really a golf course. I would say that I wouldn't, I
don't buy the argument that it is a golf course. I say it's a driving range so that's scmant/cs I
guess but that's what I'm thinking. The lights, I don't think the lights fit in the area either.
Granted this is on the edge of the wildlife area but still it's by the wildlife area. I just don't think
that it fits there. The applicant requested to come in, knowing what the conditions of approval
were. He went ahead and built accepting those conditions and he's got every right to come back
but I don't feel that that my mind has been changed at all. I don't think the lights are appropriate.
I think the scale of the building is wrong. In terms of the beer, yeah ! guess I could go either way.
Again it's not a golf course. If it was a golf course then I would say yes. But there are other
driving ranges and they generally don't serve beer from what I've heard. I've talked to some
people that golf so that's what I'm hearing. I guess I'm less concerned about that. The building
and the lights are my big concern and I don't feel that they are in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood and I would vote no.
Peterson: Other comments?
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll chime in. I guess I'll split the difference. I do have a problem with
the massive scale of the addition and I guess I don't feel that it really fits that comer. Two stories
and huge wall...so I'm not really convinced that the way the addition is designed at this point I
could really put in ... If it were open, maybe I guess that defeats the purpose, but if it was
redesigned possibly I might be more in favor of it. I did go down and look at the light that's on
top of the bunker, which is representative of what you're proposing. And I also looked carefully
at how I compare it to other lighting in the area. And actually the lights on 212, 101, very bright
23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
and I couldn't really even see the light that you put up because it was facing south when I drove
in the parking lot. And really it wasn't offensive to me so I feel as though I could be convinced
to vote in favor of the lights... And also 3.2 beer is fine to me.
Kind: I'll go next. Second story I think is a good idea to increase the volume of the demand. I'd
like to see the whole siding changed to be more rustic .... looking at budget wise. The cedar's the
local thing or what. And I'd like to see it a darker brown. I know it was specified to be brown
but it's really beige...like to see it a darker brown that blends more into the wildlife area. And
I'm guessing the elevators are a big cost issue so I'm wondering if staff has any information
about if they reduce their bunker size to 30, they avoid the elevator.
Aanenson: That's a building code issue. We can check with the building official on that but it's
based on occupancy. So that's something that we can work on internally.
Kind: But the way it is with the metal siding, I'm not in favor of that. Although I'm very
impressed with the landscaping they've done out there. The size of the trees are very impressive
and if this addition of the second story, I'd like to see them maybe put more of those trees...what
they've done. Lights. I went and looked at the light as well and could not see it at all when you
drive up. I think even the bluff you would not see it. It would be less of an impact than the
ballfield lights at Lake Ann are quite bright... And again this is the city... We're not talking
Glacier National Park here. And 3.2 beer, I think that's fine. I view the pitch and putt course as
a par 3 golf course. I would golf a-course like that. I think that it's considered a golf course like
many par 3 golf courses.
Peterson: Thank you. My thoughts I guess have to be dissimilar to somebody's. I haven't got a
problem with the lights. I was there two years ago when the lights were tested and again, I just
don't see them as being an issue...the liquor license. I do have architectural design standpoint an
issue with that enormous of a wall. Perhaps it can be toned down. I can't look at it tonight and
say I can approve that based on what I see. I doubt that I would be able to approve it...more of
the size of the house and... So those are the comments of the respective commissioners. Is there
a motion?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, it looks like staff broke it into a series of motions.
Peterson: First in the series.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to
allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf.
Sidney: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the
request to allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf.
All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Peterson: For the reasons Matt already mentioned?
Burton: Correct.
Peterson: Motion for the second variance please.
Kind: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for
eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: Discussion. Noting that you had lights specifically sited out?
Kind: What do you think about that?
Peterson: I'll pass on limitations but I don't know whether eight's too many or eight's too.
Kind: I think eight is what they're requesting.
Peterson: I'm comfortable with that. Other discussion?
Kind: And what do you think about the hours? 9:00 p.m. year round.
Peterson: I'm comfortable with that also.
Burton: I am.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m.
year round. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Peterson: What you mentioned? Next motion.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from
the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer at RSS Golf.
Peterson: Second?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Burton: I'll second it if we can discuss it.
Peterson: Discussion. I had a question on why you say 3.2. I don't know whether or not...
Kind: That's just what they were requesting...
Burton: My question is for staff. I'm wondering if we're better off, it looks like we're going to
allow it.
Aanenson: I would just leave it blank. I'm not sure there's criteria based on different things that
that's a whole separate ordinance so I would just say that.
Burton: Approve it and not say how?
Aanenson: Well you may want to limit it to, I don't know the different classifications but.
Kind: Beer?
Aanenson: If you want tojust say what your intent is. Just say allow alcohol but it's our intent
that it be.
Burton: Right, because my concern is whether we amend the ordinance or approve a variance.
I'm not sure what's the best way to go.
Aanenson: Well I think the point that was brought up by Deb, and maybe would be if we had
another one that would come in, we would still...alcohol. By giving a variance will allow this
use to have alcohol.
Peterson: So we would have a motion that would recommend a variance to allow.
Aanenson: Alcohol at this location and you may want to forward onto City Council any concerns
you have as to what type. Full service bar or something, right. Right.
Blackowiak: As a point of discussion, they would have to go through the normal liquor license
approval process, is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Pay the liquor license fee and all that.
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Blackowiak: So we don't need to say anything about that. That's kind of understood?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Aanenson: What I would ask that you do after you motion is direct the City Council that it's not
your intention that it be a full service bar and then that would therefore define what type of
alcohol license. And we'll get clarification on that when it goes to the Council.
Kind: I change my motion.
Peterson: Well we've got a motion and a second so I'd recommend changing your move.
Kind: I'll withdraw my motion. I'll try another motion Mr. Chairman. I move the Planning
Commission recommends approval of a variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of
alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: Discussion.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a
variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOUR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDINGS WITH AREAS OF BUILDING A - 46,800 SQ. FT, BUILDING B - 54,000
SQ. FT., BUILDING C - 54,000 SQ.FT., AND BUILDING D - 49,500 SQ. FT. AND
PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARK TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN EAST
BUSINESS CENTER (SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD),
SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER, CSM CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff. Hearing none. I just had one. You talked about the berming and
landscaping. Is that meeting our current ordinance or is it exceeding it?
A1-Jaff: In some areas it meets it and some areas it exceeds it and there are other areas where
they're short.
Peterson: ...between homes and the building.
A1-Jaff: That exceeds the minimum requirements.
Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please
come forward.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Dave Cumin: My name is Dave Cumin. I'm with CSM Corporation. We're the property owner
of both existing property there and the developers for the four new properties. I have Jesse
Symynkywicz with RLK who will address some of the landscaping and site issues and Paul Klein
who will talk to you a little bit about the architecture. I want to apologize for some of the things
that we sent out. The color rendition was not real good in those as they reduced. We do have the
originals that will show a little bit better what the color difference is between the buildings and
Paul will also go over the architectural difference between the two sets of buildings. At this time
we do have leases pending on the first two buildings A and B. Those are the ones closest to Dell
Road. And that would, what we'd like to do keep this moving on to the City Council for their
next meeting. In all likelihood we have strong activity out there, leasing activity and in all
likelihood we'll start three and possibly even four buildings this year under construction. The
leases that we do have commitments on are first quarter occupancy so obviously we would like to
get moving on them. We're prepared to go along with all the staff recommendations. Jesse with
RLK will discuss a little bit item 32 which was a 6 foot sidewalk running the length of the
property from Dell Road basically all the way down to Park, which is about what, ~A of a mile of
concrete. We have, we met with the neighbors, I believe it was July 1 ~t that we met with some of
the neighbors and addressed their concerns with these buildings and we have addressed their
concerns. Jesse will also talk about that.
Jesse Symynkywicz: Thank you. My name is Jesse Symynkywicz from RLK Associates and
basically we're a civil engineer, planning firm and we did a lot site development and landscaping
and civil drawings for this development. What I'm here to talk about right now is the
landscaping and primarily the landscaping between the residents and the use here proposed in
front of you. And basically about a year ago Welsh came through here with a proposal that was
approved and I'd like to go over just briefly how this one is an improvement from that previous
proposal. The Welsh development was more of a distribution center so we weretalking more
about more truck traffic. This one that's before you right now is more of an office, light
manufacturing so I think it's a better fit and a better use against a residential area. From there the
buffer landscaping on the south side is actually bigger than what was approved before. Previous
approval was 50 feet and we have a larger green space and it's been expanded up to 70 feet.
With that, that gives us a better opportunity to increase the height of the berm basically 2 to 4 feet
above what was previously approved. And from there we have added some more landscaping
and also added some landscaping on the south side of the existing building and parking lot,
which provides a better buffer for that existing use. That existing building is also, has more
parking islands and I think that helps break up that large mass of asphalt that's out there right
now. From there, if there's any other questions for landscaping. There are some
recommendations that have been included in the staff report and we are comfortable with
meeting those. We will be revising our site plans to meet the recommendations so we feel that
we are all comfortable with that. From there the number 32, the sidewalk issue is the next issue
I'd like to briefly touch upon. We feel that there is an existing sidewalk on the north side of Lake
Drive. We feel that is adequate to service both of the uses. This is a non-residential area so we
feel that there's not going to be a lot of families or children activity and primarily the only time
people would be walking out there would be 12:00 to 1:00 lunchtime. And from there we do not
believe that there's a lot of activity. As we all know, unfortunately we don't get a chance to take
walks during lunch more often as we do. Mainly we take a drive and go somewhere and grab a
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
bite to eat. And from there we think that most of the people that do take a walk are going to be
trying to cross the street right away to go to the commercial development, McDonald's further to
the northwest so we feel to have a sidewalk on the south side would be under utilized. The park
that's been a referenced further to the west of this development is more of a neighborhood totlot,
so we do not believe that there's a lot of, going to be a lot of interest from the employees to walk
over there. And lastly, the sidewalk issue as far as how the rest of Chanhassen is consistent. We
noticed as we drive through Chanhassen that most of the streets have sidewalks on one side. As
you look further down East Lake Drive there is just one side with a sidewalk. Market Boulevard,
Great Plains Boulevard, Highway 5 and Center City Drive also has sidewalks on one side. So we
would like some discussion and some recommendation from the Planning Commission on
whether having sidewalks on both sides is a good idea here. From there I'd like to answer any
questions that you might have about landscaping or site issues or bring it for architectural
presentation from Paul.
Peterson: Thank you.
Paul Klein: I'm Paul Klein with CSM. Project designer on this. I guess some of the confusion
on the elevations is due to the color reduction.
Aanenson: Excuse me a second. It's always nice if you could put it here...so then people at
home.
Peterson: Yeah, I agree. Let's put it back down there. We've got TV's up here so.
Aanenson: Yeah, they've got TV's up there so if you want to just lay it flat then that camera can
zoom in on it. For the audience at home.
Paul Klein: Part of the confusion is when Building C/D get reduced it turns out the same color as
A and B. The intent was to keep A and B similar and group those two buildings together.
Because of the height variation on the site there's roughly...about 100 feet apart That was quite
a bit different when you get to full sized drawings and I was just brought here to clear up some
confusion.
Peterson: ...let's say a person like myself would be concerned.., sooner or later for lack of a
better way of articulating it, too much of a good thing. The buildings still are pretty close in
design and I've always had a concern that...a lot of the same thing right in that area... These are
different from what's already there but four buildings that are essentially the same real close
together...
Paul Klein: Certain differences on the projections. Not huge but a projection on Building C and
D will project out about a foot and a half with right here...that area entryway. That's the major
difference then the difference at the comer... Also we looked at if this property...masonry colors
in B and D... That just seemed too scattered trying to be, and then also looking at four different,
completely four different elevations and they're all linked close enough where this might be too
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
much for one industrial park. There could be one tenant taking out two buildings in that area
also.
Peterson: You didn't convince me but it seems good.
Paul Klein: ...
Kind: Could you show the building materials. I think one of the things that actually hurt your
case with me is this color elevation that was mailed, because they look the same and I'm
guessing that they're quite a bit different?
Paul Klein: Building B and D are... The accent band is...
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if you're going to have any lighting on the walls,
especially if you could comment about anything to the south.
Paul Klein: Most of the lighting...basic lighting. It's not overwhelming. We're trying to reduce
it...
Sidney: What kind of fixtures are you putting on?
Paul Klein: Shoe box.
Sidney: Well in the parking lot but on the building itself. Proposed lights.
Paul Klein: Yeah, it's a round, about a 9 inch light.
Sidney: Oh is that like what's on the buildings.
Paul Klein: ...Chan, I believe right now in Chan...
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one question. I'm not sure who it's for so feel free to jump
in. Staff report talks about the 25 foot minimum setback from the parking on the north side,
which is Lake Drive East. And that there are a couple buildings that only have a 10 foot setback
as opposed to a 25 foot setback. And I'm wondering what that does to either the building, the
siting of the building of the building itself or to the number of parking spots. And also what
potential effects would it have on north and south berms.
Paul Klein: We revised the plan, so the only place where it does not meet the 25 foot
requirement...building and the parking... Everywhere else it's 5 feet...
Blackowiak: Okay, I didn't understand that was from the existing building. Okay, that's it.
Good, thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
John Swain: My name is John Swain. My address is 18942 Winfield Road in Eden Prairie,
which is the development just south of the proposal. The folks from CSM met with us on a
couple of occasions and they made a number of changes to the landscaping design based on our
wishes and we're, I'm speaking for myself, am quite satisfied with what they have done and
provided that what they are proposing is accepted. I'm perfectly happy with their landscaping.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Any thoughts on this one?
Kind: Mr. Chairman.
Peterson: Please.
Kind: I, like you, see the similarities between the two groupings. I'm in agreement with the
developer. I like the idea of kind of keeping them as those are two buildings rather than four.
And keeping them clustered together. To me...same designer designed all four buildings. I
know from working in an ad agency, sometimes it's helpful to assign two different people to get
a totally different look then. I'm wondering... I know it's going back to the drawing board but
no matter what you do you kind of have your look. Your thumbprint on it and I think they're
nice. I think they're attractive but there's four of them. I really would like to see two of the
buildings treated much differently.
Peterson: Other comments?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in too. Yeah, I agree. The four of them are, they're four
buildings. They're the same. I mean there might be 1 ½ foot indents and some slight variation
but as you drive by from Highway 5, which most people will be doing, they will look the same.
They also look the same as the buildings right on the north side of Lake Driv~ East, that border
Highway 5 so I mean I look and I saw these little color squares of color and I thought, you know
this is exactly what's there right now. It's the same thing. I don't know that we as a commission
necessarily have to hold it up because of that but boy, I certainly would like to see something a
little bit different and a little more creative to enhance this because it's the same old, same old. It
could maybe use a little bit, something a little bit different for this. Spoke a lot about the
sidewalk and I'd like to clarify that when this came through from Welsh Company, the Planning
Commission recommended approval with the condition that the sidewalk be in place on the south
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
side of Lake Street. The City Council was the body that ended up deleting the sidewalk. I do not
agree with that. I still don't agree with that. I'd like to be on the record as saying I want the
sidewalk on the south side of Lake Drive. It makes perfect sense to go from that, which is not a
totlot. There's a basketball hoop and everything down there. I'm sure there's people that will
use it in that little park down there. That Chan Estates mini park. The south side is also the side
that would wrap around the connecting sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road. It makes sense.
The sidewalk stays as far as I'm concerned and I'd like the Council Kate, or Sharmin, tell them. I
would like to see the sidewalk on the south side. Do not delete it this time. So that's what I've
got I guess.
Peterson: Thoughts?
Burton: ! agree with Alison's comments. I think they're nice buildings. Each one but I think
that they are very similar and I'd like to see more variation.
Peterson: I think I've already shared my comments. I just, give me a second to close and I'11.
Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that is you know.
Peterson: That's alright, go ahead.
Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that I guess to answer Alison's, your questions about or
comments about the existing buildings. Those are architecturally you know a lot different.
They've got a lot of brick to them. These other ones that we're, what we tried to do was come
back and improve what was proposed and approved by the Welsh plan which were completely
identical buildings going in there. So I think we've struck something that does give them some
different flare to them so they do not look completely identical in there. There are architectural
differences that may not come out entirely on the plan but the elevations...staff recommendations
on this based on the fact that we do have two of the buildings leased and they are much more
attractive to both the planners that we worked with and the neighborhood. Thank you.
Peterson: I think what you're hearing, my initial comments and some of my peers this evening is
this is an area of Chanhassen that we've discussed as a group is clearly predominant entrance into
Chanhassen and that we have a desire to not just have it look like a Standard office industrial
area. Knowing that there are costs that have to be...and otherwise doesn't mean that we as a
commission can't send it to council with our respective thoughts. I think that's what you're
hearing tonight. I would like to see it different and unique. Based upon the comments that... I
don't dislike the buildings. At all. I don't dislike any building there. I just like the intensity of
the structures themselves and where they're at. That would be the...I would offer the council as
they make their respective decision. With that, motion and a second please.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion the Planning Commission, the recommendation the
Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on
the plans received June 18, 1999 with the following conditions, 1 through 35.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
Blackowiak: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Kind: I'm looking in these conditions to see if there's any architecture mention and I don't think
there is. Do you all fellow commissioners feel that our discussion is enough to pass forward to
the council or...?
Peterson: Depends on how we vote. No, I think that I think we have to vote what we want to
individually and if you want, certainly you can add a friendly amendment addressing some of
that.
Kind: I'm going to leave the motion.
Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans received June
18, 1999 with the following conditions:
If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash
enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash
enclosure be located within the loading dock area.
2. Signage criteria:
mo
All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign.
Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign
ordinance.
bo
Wall signs for Building A will be permitted along the north and east elevations.
Building B will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations. Building
C will be permitted signs along the north and east and Building D will be
permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be
located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
do
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30
inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage.
i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
The development shall maintain a 25 foot parking setback from Lake Drive East.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and prOvide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
Building Official conditions:
a. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss
commercial building permit requirements.
b. Each building will require 6 accessible Parking spaces dispersed among
the various building entrances.
All roof top and ground mounted equipment must be screened in accordance with city
ordinances.
Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Southwest
Tech Center with Hennepin County.
Increase berm height along the north property line to three feet.
Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
Increase plantings for Lake Drive E. buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements.
Revise plant schedule to specify an average of 7 feet for evergreens.
Increase parking lot island width to 10 feet or install aeration tubing in islands that are
less than that.
The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval.
Fire Marshal conditions:
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
II.
Install and indicate on plans the location of the P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
III.
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
IV.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy
#4-1991. Copy enclosed.
VI.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the
City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. The private
utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder
shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits and inspections from the City.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for pre-
and post-development conditions for 1 O-year and 100-year storm events for the City
Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a bUilding permit. In addition, the
applicant's engineer shall verify that the existing storm sewer system in Lot 5 has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the additional drainage areas being proposed.
The applicant shall provide an emergency overflow for storm drainage for the properties
south of Lots 4 and 5.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any street lights in conflict with the
proposed driveway access points along Lake Drive East.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Drive East or
Dell Road. Landscape materials are discouraged within drainage swales or over utility
lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement
conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City.
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction
commencing.
All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial
driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207).
Cross-access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded against all lots
for the utilities and driveways. The City shall be included in the document for accessing
the regional storm water pond on Lot 1.
The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to
accommodate emergency vehicle access and meet City Ordinance 20-1101.
The applicant shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the
property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lots 4 and 5 in the City of
Eden Prairie.
Two rock construction entrances shall be shown on the Erosion control plans. The rock
construction entrances shall be installed prior to grading and maintained until all
disturbed areas are revegetated. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence,
rock filter dikes or hay bales as well.
Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan
design process for each lot. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along
the south side of Lake Drive East from Dell Road to the west property line of Lot 5.
The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion
control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction
activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any
corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The developer will be
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999
responsible for removing any erosion that has washed into the regional pond and repair
the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site.
34. Increase berm height along the south property line adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 by three feet.
35.
Depending on phasing, an interim stormwater management plan may be necessary
depending on which lots are developed first. Each lot must maintain the neighborhood
drainage pattern as it develops."
All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Peterson: Thank you. It goes onto Council the 9th.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Matt Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated July 7, 1999 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: Just to let you know on the next Planning Commission meeting we'll have the
theaters back on. We tried to get it on this meeting. There were still some issues regarding the
traffic that we didn't have concurrence on. And it looks like the Boedecker will be back on. So
we don't have any new items. We will be having a large residential project coming in. We've
been talking to a couple other small residential pieces. Things are coming together but so there's
a little bit ora lull. If we do have a short meeting next time, we'll try to put some other
housekeeping things on that we wanted to discuss as far as upcoming projects and budget issues
for next year.
Blackowiak: Kate, I will be gone next meeting and I believe I told you that like, there was snow
on the ground. I don't know if you remembered but I will be gone next time. So don't talk about
conditional use permits and enforcement while I'm gone because I'd like to be on that one. I
think it's an important issue.
Peterson: Other ongoing items? What I'd like to do Kate is on Board of Adjustments tonight, it
would be very beneficial if we get specific feedback as to which ones the Council is over riding
and/or.
Aanenson: That's great. If it stays with just these two items we can talk aboht that next time.
And then go a little bit into some detail about criteria. I'm sorry you won't be, but we'll send
you the packet and if you want to come in and talk about it but a little bit of a training on some of
that. And we can kind of give you a checklist of which ones they've approved and which ones
they haven't.
Peterson: Bob have you been waiting around for 7 through 9?
37
Planning Commission Meeting ~ July 21, 1999
Aanenson: Actually I'm covering 7. He's doing 8 and Sharmin's doing 9.
Peterson: My only concern is that we've got really a hefty portion of our commission out on
some stuff that we as a group have requested. I'm wondering if.
Aanenson: Do you want to just wait for these three? That's fine.
Peterson: To have Bob sit here for the last 2 ½ hours.
Aanenson: He's been working.
Generous: Remember Villages.
Aanenson: We can save it for next time. I think that that's a good idea Craig. If everyone's here
next time, except Alison won't be but.
Peterson: She's an expert in all three of these.
Aanenson: We can go through that with more specifics...and if she has any questions.
Peterson: We're probably always going to be missing one but two is, this is important enough
where I think it would be valuable for everybody.
Aanenson: That's fine.
Kind moved, Burton seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting
was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
38
CITYOF
690 Cig Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.93Z 1900
General Fax 612. 937. 5739
Engineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety lax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator
July 14, 1999
Bluff Ordinance
I am writing this memo in light of the recent problem we've had with the bluff
ordinance violation. I have taken this time to go back and read the Bluff Protection
Ordinance and I will be recommending that some changes be made to this
ordinance to better define what is and isn't allowed along the bluff and to ultimately
provide better protection for bluff areas.
Attached is a permit we received recently for a Lake Riley property where the
homeowner requested using the provision in the bluff ordinance that a property
owner could clear a 30-foot wide path to a lakeshore property. I have enclosed the
original grading plan which the contractor used existing slopes to create a path
down to the lake. What happened in this situation was the person who applied for
the permit was not the person that did the work and as a result, large retaining wails
up to 12 feet high were put in along the bluff area. The bluff was totally destroyed
along this path. We are working with the homeowner and the contractor to restore
the bluff as best as possible without doing anymore damage, but this instance has
underlined the need to revise the bluff ordinance.
In going through the bluff ordinance, it states that "Major topographical alterations
are prohibited" yet it permits a 30 foot wide clearing for access to a lake or bottom of
a bluff. While the ordinance states that no more that a four foot wide path is
allowed, it implies that 30 feet can be cleared or graded to get this path.
In my conversations with Ceil Strauss, area hydrologist for the MnDNR, she
strongly suggests that only stairs should be permitted for access. Her reasons are
underlined by what has happened at the Lake Riley site. To obtain a safe trail or
path to the lake, ether large retaining walls or a longer winding trail must be
constructed. Both activities result in heavy tree and vegetation loss leaving
permanent scars on the landscape.
I am looking for are suggestions on how to restrict grading along the bluff entirely
and just use the lifts and landings creation of decks with stairways to gain access to
the bottom of the bluff.
jms
Attachment
The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schooh, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beaut!ful parks. A ~reat place to live, work, and play.
KERKER INC.
5800 Baker Road
Suite]IS0
Minn~tonka. MN 55345
§12.936.9596
.~.
I
t
I
ZONING § 20-1402
Secs. 20-1352--20-1399. Reserved.
ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION
Sec. 20-1400. Statement of intent.
Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone may
result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and
thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the
city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as
regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the
property is located.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 2, 4-8-96)
Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks.
(a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory
buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluffand must be set back from
the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet.
(b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the
setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for
additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 3, 4-8-96)
Sec. 20-1402. Stairways, lifts and landings.
Stairways and lifts may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will not redirect
water flow direction and/or increase drainage velocity. Major topographic alterations are
prohibited. Stairways and lifts must receive an earthwork permit and must meet the following
design requirements:
(1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider
stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings.
(4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or
placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures
control of soil erosion.
(5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous
portions of lots.
Supp. No. 9 1273
§ 20-1402 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are
also allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards ofsubitems (1)
to (5) are complied with.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 218, § 1, 8-22-94)
Sec. 20-1403. Removal or alteration of vegetation.
Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone is prohibited except for
limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees to provide a
view from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and
landings and access paths.
Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior approval of the planning director or
designee. An on-site review will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of vegetation
will require new ground cover. In no case shall clearcutting be permitted. City staff will work
with the property owner to develop a means of crea[ing a view while minimizing disturbance
to the bluff impact zone.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1404. Topographic alterations/grading and filling.
An earthwork permit will be required for the movement of more that ten (10) cubic yards of
material within bluff impact zones. The permit shall be granted if the proPOsed alteration does
not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property. Topographic alterations/grading
and filling within the bluff impact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage.
The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be redirected without a
permit from the city. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas.
Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed
within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If
no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause
adverse impacts.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Sec. 20-1406. Reserved.
Editor's note~Section 2 of Ord. No. 218, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, deleted former § 20-406,
pertaining to the official bluff impact zone map, derived from Ord. No. 152, adopted Oct. 14,
1991.
Supp. No. 9 1274
ZONING § 20-1449
Sec. 20.1407. Reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures.
Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed may be recon-
structed provided that it is reconstructed within one (1) year following its damage or
destruction and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased.
(Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91)
Secs. 20-1408~20-1449. Reserved.
Supp. No. 9 1274.1
CITYOF
690 Go Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937,1900
General Fax 612.93Z5739
Engineering Fax 612.93Z9152
Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE:
July 2 I, 1999
SUB J:
BUffer Yard Requirements, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-1
BACKGROUND
In 1995, in response to a proposed twin home development adjacent to an existing
traditional single family detached housing development, the city initiated the
development of a transition screening and buffering landscape ordinance.
Previously, the creation of screening was subjectively applied on a case by case
basis. The objective of the ordinance was to create standards which would lead to
effective buffering of different land uses which were adjacent to one another.
Additionally, the city wanted to create standards that were quantifiable for both
developers and staff members. As in many of the city's ordinances, preservation
of existing site features, such as topography and vegetation, was encouraged. The
buffer yard ordinance was adopted on April 8, 1996.
DISCUSSION
The buffer yard ordinance is applied in a Straightforward manner using the Table
of Buffer Yard Requirement matrix. Along the top of the matrix are the land use
of the proposed development. Along the side of the matrix is the land use of the
adjacent property. Where the row and column intersect is the required buffer
yard standards for the specific developmenL
Once the required buffer yard was determined the amount of required vegetation
was easily calculated by determining the length of the perimeter to be buffered
and the width of the proposed buffer yard. The narrower the proposed buffer yard
in width, the more planting that would be necessary to achieve the desired
buffering. Additionally, the higher the buffer yard standard, the more plantings
that would be necessary to appropriately screen the adjacent use. The number of
plantings are then calculated by multiplying the length of the buffer yard divided
by 100 by the type of planting. This quantity is then adjusted using the plant unit
multiplier corresponding to the buffer yard width. Finally the total is reduced by
multiplying by 75 percent.
The C/ff of G3an/mssen. A growing cvmmuniff with clean lakes, qua/iff schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Planning Commission
July 14, 1999
Page 2
An example may help: a mixed used development is proposed adjacent to a low density
development that has a common boundary that is 300 feet long with a 30 foot buffer yard width;:~
First, in looking at the buffer yard matrix, we determine that the required buffer yard. is type C.
Turning to the buffer yard type, we Calculate the base number of plantings as follows: 6 canopy~_
trees (3 x 3 x 0.6), 11 understory trees (3 x 6 x 0.6), and 17 shrubs (3 x 9 x 0.6). We then
multiply each of these base numbers by 0.75 to determine the minimum number of trees fora
required planting of 5 canopy, 9 understory, and 13 shrubs.
Attached are examples of buffer yards that have been approved in the city as well as the cover
memorandum and draft ordinance for the final reading of the buffer yard approval. Additionall~
there are before and after examples of how the buffer yard Ordinance would have impacted
various developments. I hope this explains how the ordinance is implemented. If you have any~
questions, I will be happy .to answer them.
g:\plan\bg\buffer yard discussion.doc
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
PLAHT SCHEDULE: PLANT
NORTHCOT1~
OFFICES
Plantin~ Plan
L1
'l'9"l'~t=t L¥id
CITY'. '0 F
690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
· (6!2) 937-1900 · FAx (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bob Generous, Senior Planner.
March 14, 1996
Buffer Yard Ordinance, Final Reading
City Council held the first hearing on the propos~a'
o~dxnance amendment on March 4, 1996.
CoUncil approved the first reading of the ordinate dli'ecting staffto work with Councilmember
Senn to provide langUage to apportion the amo~t of i~dscaping that would be required of the
development and the amount that abutting prgperty owners should provide. Staff has amended
section (f) (2) c., on page 3 of the attached ordinance, pf~yiding a split of 75/25 percent. Staff
has also revised section (f) (2) d., page 3 of{he ordiance,:~6 clarify maintenance responsibility for
fences and section (f) (3), page 4 of the ofdlnace, incorpo;iting the Planning Commission
recommendation eliminating credit for:iffian made features/:
BACKGROUND :
. In JUne of 1995, the p~pppS~ ~uffer Yard ordinance was reviewed and recommended for
approval by the PI~ Co~~ ~ Ju!y; ~ ~ ~.ity ~buneil reviewed the ordinance
and tabled the item:to permit staffand :the to address concerns
expressed interim, staff has met
representatives from th~ T~:~ Cities Builders Association to revise the ordinan'~to address
specific areasof contention.
The major ~eas of change between the revised bric'ce 'and the ordinance originally reviewed
'by thePlanning Commissionare the'potential ~::~°viding some of the buffer yard landscaping
within city right-of-ways on sites with limited area [section (f) (1)]; elimination of the four
highest buffering categories (E - H) whicl~ included excessive plantings and berms and solid wall
combinations (table); and the addition of exemptions for and consideration of maintaining
significant natural features to meet the buffer yard requirements [section (f) (3)].
Don Ashworth
March 14, 1996
Page 2
Due to the significant changes in the ordinance, staff believes that the Planning Commission
should review the ordinance.
ANALYSIS
In developing the.ordinance, staff's objective was to create an ordinance that conformed to the
following goals:
Buffer yard standards should be calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to
buffer.
The buffer yard standards should provide aesthetic as well as functional planting
requirements for sites and buildings. These plantings should not only provide screening
or transition between adjacent uses, but they shoUld also be designed to add color, natural
growth, a sense of identity, as well as an enhancement to the natural environment.
3. Standards should be understandable, reasonable, and easy to implement.
Buffer yard standards should compliment preservation/forestation and parking lot
screening requirements. Emphasis shall be given to the protection and enhancement of
natural features, rather than replacement.
5. Buffering should be provided between different intensities and densities of uses.
6. Standards should be comprehensive covering all sorts of development.
The ordinance shall provide minimum standards to assure that a baseline level of quality
is achieved.
o
The ordinance should not unduly limit design flexibility and should allow a good
designer to reflect the demands of the site andthe setting in Which it is placed.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Section 18-61 (a) (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the
comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to mOre intenSive land uses. Required
buffering shall consist ofberms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs
and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and
area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the home
protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over
Don Ashworth
March 14, 1996
Page 3
zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and final
plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be
required.
Section 20-1176 (f) Buffeting shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses
and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by
the comprehensive plan.
COMMENT: The city's current language requires buffering between different intensities
of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. HOwever, there is no defined
standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes appropriate and adequate
buffering.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a hearing on February 7, 1996 to review the proposed revisions
to the buffer yard ordinance in response to the City Council direction given on the original
ordinance. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended the deletion of the following~
from section (f) (3) on page 3 of the ordinance: "... or other man-made features such as
stormwater ponds." The Planning Commission did not believe that the separation provided by a
stormwater pond adequately buffers a development and that the required landscaping was
necessary in addition to the pond.
RECOMMENDATION
(Note: Staff has left the ordinance in strike through and bold to show revisions to the ordinance
made since City Council's last review.) .
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion approving the revised buffer yard
ordinance shown as Attachment #1 and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
ATTACHMENT
e
Buffer Yard Ordinance Amendment (revised 3/13/96)
Planning Commission Minutes of 2/7/95
Examples of Existing and Proposed Ordinance on Oak pOnd/Oak Hills, Shenandoah
Ridge, and Richfield Bank & Trust
City Council Minutes of 3/4/96
Revised 4/27/95
Revised 10/10/95
Revised 3/13/96
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.~
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL
FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES
PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of land
uses and between developments and public collector and arterial right-of-ways in order to
provide screening from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve
the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum
standards that are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a
comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design
flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which it is
placed.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1.
ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5).
Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read:
(5)
Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and
arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (f').
Section 2.
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (f) below, this article
does not apply to single-family developments in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning
districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the subdivision
ordinance (chapter 18).
Section 3.
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION
1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance,
subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
(f)
Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses, between a site
and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the
comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The
buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of
land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this
ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a
land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been
calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer."
(1)
Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to
the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural
features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject
to review and approval by the City Engineering Department, buffer yards that are
compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements may be located
within a portion of an existing municpal public collector or arterial tight-of-way.
(2)
To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a
parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed:
ao
Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the
adjacent parcel or functional classification of abutting tight-of-way based
on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan.
Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof,
of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard
Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required
between adjacent uses or streets.
Co
Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard
and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard.
Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two
uses or adjacent to a collector or arterial tight-of-way. The plant unit
multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required
for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width
of the yard. The project developer shall be responsible for providing
75 percent of the required plantings. If abutting property owner(s)
desire to bring the buffering to 100 percent of the required buffer
yard plantings, then the adjacent property owner(s) may install the
remaining 25 percent of the required plantings on their own property.
de
Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are
shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection
ADJACENT LAND LL/
USE LD
LL/LD non
MD non
e
HD non
e
OFF non
MIX non
COM non
PUB non
ACT non
PASS non
OFF/IND non
e
ROAD B
and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the
buffer yard provider (project developer). Mainenanee of the structure
shall be the responsibility of the landowner on whose property the
structure is located.
All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or
storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or
organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free
from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and
replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove
or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property
the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is located.
TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/
IND
B C C C D B B A D
A B B C D B B A D
A A B C D B B A D
B B A B B B B B B
C C B B B C C C B
C D B B A C C C B
A A B C C A A A C
A B B B C A A A C
A A B B C A A A C
C C B B B C B B B
B B B B B B B B C
The land use abbreviations are as follows:
LL/LD - large lot and low density residential;
MD - medium density residential;
HD - high density residential;
OFF - office; Mix - mixed use;
Com- commercial;
Pub - public/semi-public;
Act - active park/open space;
Pass - passive park/open space;
Off/Ind - office/industrial;
Road - collector and arterial road.
(3)
Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting
requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer
yard plant material requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes,
woodlands or wetlands, or man mado foatures such as stormwator ponds which
provide physical separation between developments or between a development and
a collector and arterial road may satisfy the buffering function of the required
buffer yard. The plant unit multiplier for the required plantings shall be reduced
proportionally to the increase in the buffer yard width incorporating said features.
(4)
Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail
provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the bUffer yard is
maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements
may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and
buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within
said easement.
(5)
Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may
be established within such required yards.
(6)
Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary
deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(7)
Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees
in the city's subdivision ordinance.
(8)
In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening,
the city may designate that all planting be of conifers.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
__ day of
,1996, by the City Council
4
Don Ashworth, City Manager
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
)
5
BUFFERYARD
A
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
Conopy Trees
Understory Trees
Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Plmt Unit
Multiplier
25'
~)
I00'
.6
.8
1.0
BUFFERYARD
B
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
· 2 Canopy Trees
4 Understory Trees
6 Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Planl UP. it
Multlpliet I00'
BUFFERYARD
C
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
Conopy Trees
Understory Trees
Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/'
Conifers
Rent Unit
Multiplier
.6
100'
.9
HR~r Inler,..flty Use
BUFFERYARD
D
REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/lO0'
5 Cenopy Trees
JO Underslory Trees
· 15 Shrubs
Evergreen Trees/
Conifers
Plum Unit
Mu~liplier
f I00'
Req~ed
.8.
oo ·
1.0
.8
Lowe' Intensity Use
HkJ'~er Inte~ity Use
FENCES
TYPICAL MINIMUM
SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY
44"
Wood Roil
F2 48" ' 50%
Wood Picket
95%
ONIJ. SIX~
!
o" i
- !
'(1350d08d
~gUY.L
~DNI.LSIX3
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal
structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right-of-ways.
The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the
wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual
monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the
development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No
backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted.
The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall
comply with sign placement limitations.
10.
One additional "No Parking-Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In
addition, where "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should
be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire
hydrants.
11.
The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the
plans must be made before issuing building permits.
12. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Poxvers Boulevard to
the northwest corner of the parking lots.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING, CREATING A
TRANSITION ZONE, FIRST READING. '
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This ordinance resulted from a fe~v development
proposals that came before the City late last year and early this year. The question was how do you transition
between different uses. Staff did some initial investigation in the American Planning Association and found out
that there is no real transition zoning. There's the standard things that you can use in planning such as greater
depth between buildings or stepping down intensities or densities of use. But there's nothing specific on that.
However, we were able to find significant amounts of literature and ordinances on buffering the screening
requirements inbetxveen different cities. So we began to put together an ordinance after direction of the
Planning Commission that would address the screening between the different uses. Staff's goal, and I believe
the Planning Commission's goal with the ordinance was to develop an ordinance that was comprehensive in that
it would cover all possible differences between uses. Or different uses that would conceivably be adjacent to
each other. In order to do this we were directed to more the views of the comprehensive plan, which had land
use guides in place rather than our zoning because there are instances where we will have property guide, d for a
higher intensity of use where the current zoning on it xvould be agricultural. A second thing we were looking
at is to provide buffering on both sides of the property line, if you will, between the different intensities of uses
because we found out that a lot of times xvhen like residential development comes in adjacent to a higher
intensity of use, they don't put anything there and all the landscaping is required the nexv intensity of use and so
there's almost an extra exaction required of that development as opposed to other developments. Now also in
this ordinance we tried to make something that was easily understandable by developers and so xve tried to set
up a form that they could look at and know exactly what, at a minimum the city would require for buffering.
13
City Council Meeting o July 24, 1995
And finally we want to level the development field for one develoPment standards for cities that they have some
understanding of what the city would require when we specified that there be screening or buffering between
uses. What we would accept at a minimum for that screening. The ordinances provides a matrix, it specifies
the land use. The proposed development across the top of the matrix and the adjacent land on the bottom.
When a developer came in they would look at the top and go down that column to look at the adjacent land use
and that would determine the minimum landscaping requirement. Based on the code, an alpha code they would
be able to look further in the ordinance where there are examples of what was specified by, for instance a buffer
yard B. Within each of the buffer yards there's a required planting units per 100 linear feet of buffer area, and
this would specify the number of canopy trees which are more significant overstory trees. The number of
understory trees which are more the...buffering and then an additional evergreen or conifer designation for the
higher intensities of uses. We brought this before the Planning Commission many times under discussion basis
to try to work out the ordinance. We also requested input from the Builders Association of the Twin Cities and
we mailed this ordinance out to developers in the community and members of the Tree Board. From this we
found out there was a discussion and we believe there are some deficiencies within the ordinance. The first one
is that we don't adequately address significant natural -features. That in and of themselves could act as buffering,
such as wetlands located adjacent to a property or significant slopes that are on the perimeter of a property and
staff would like to be able to go back and look at that issue and make some corrections. Secondly we are
concerned that the upper levels of landscaping requirements, the levels A to H may be excessive. We've heard
that they're excessive from both the development community and also from members of the Arboretum, who did
review the ordinance and they thought that was a little heavy on that end. Thirdly, we'd like to clarify the
matrix and just put in a little table across the top. The letters on the top are for the proposed development and
the symbols on the side are for the adjacent land use. I think that makes it a little easier, rather than using the
footnotes. Finally, xvhile the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this ordinance. However, they
did it with a request that the Council look at three specific items. The first one was should the buffer yard be
included between low density and low density residential development. In this instance between a single family
detached development and a twin home development that may be adjacent to it. The second one, are the costs
associated with this ordinance justified based on the possible benefits. And the third one, they wanted to know
xvhether or not this was understandable by you all. Staff does support the boulevard planting requirements
because currently we're finding out that we're having a difficult time coming to agreement with developers on
xvhat is acceptable. We've got an over and under on a lot of them and we believe that this would be a good
guide for us to go forward with. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Bob. Are there any specific questions from the Council at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple .... working on this an awful long time. I've got a couple of comments.
I was happy to see this list of goals and really the proposed ordinance, it looked like the majority of the goals
have been achieved except for a couple of items that I considered. Item 3, standards should be understandable,
which I believe that they are in the ordinance. However, I don't necessarily agree that in this case yet they are
reasonable or easily implementable. I think there's some overkill on a few of these. Number 7. The ordinance
should provide a minimum standards, and some of them, the one that struck me. I'm looking at, you look at
buffer yard H. Well that's between commercial and industrial...so obviously that's going to be the greatest
distance and the most heavily planted. But B struck me as an example of one that is, there was a bit of overkill
in comparing it to what kind of mix that you have. Wherever B was on the matrix. So I had a couple of
concerns as to whether or not the ordinance really provided minimums. In a lot of instances it doesn't look like
it could do much more. The comparisons between what the new ordinance would require versus what has
previously been approved. All the exalnples seem to either require a much greater number of plants or shrubs
14
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
and it just seems like overkill. I understand the reason behind this. Everytime someone comes before us, you
have to re-invent the ~vheel, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That was part of the issues in what was driving this. Was to make sure that there was a level
playing field and that's consistency and as Bob indicated, there is concurrence, even our reviewing this, that the
upper ends may be excessive.
Councilman Berquist: I think that's true. I understand the need for the clarification and in the present format, I
don't think I could vote for it. I'd like it to be revised to be somewhat more modest.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Do you have any questions7
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Comments. I think we all know that it needs some work and we know which
direction it needs work in but I'm going back to what precipitated it and Planning Commission and Council,
there were several plats that came through and there were large numbers of neighbors in here but those instances
where residential versus residential and that's xvhat precipitated this entire discussion. My opinion is, there
should be no buffer requirements between residential neighborhoods. I don't care whether_they're R8 and rural.
I think you just divide neighborhoods that way. And I think a lot of that does get taken care of through the
process of negotiation of the site plan. So when Planning Commission asked for direction as to whether, xvhich
path this kind of ordinance, low density versus low density, my opinion is absolutely not. But that being the
background, I think we did come up xvith a good ordinance in terms of heading in the right direction with
arterial streets and industrial buffering. My question, or my concern is an item, Section 3(2)(d) where we say
the erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. I'm
not entirely sure that that's completely fair. If you have a piece of property that is zoned RSF, and right next
door is IOP, the question becomes who should pay for the buffering. Who goes in first or who's going to
benefit from the buffering? Or is it always the higher intensity use? So I think that needs further discussion, in
my. And I would assume that this is just, as with all ordinances, developments that are already in will be
grandfathered. We wouldn't go back and make them change or add more. I think we've learned that ~ve do
need a little more muscle or negotiating power with an ordinance but as you have stated, this goes a little too
far. And we do need to take into consideration the vegetation. I think it's great that we sent it out to a number
of parties for their input. I didn't know we took this to the Arboretum. That's a good idea. I don't know how
we reach the people who come here at the podium and complain. How do we get their opinion? I'm up for any
ideas but I think that we need their input as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I basically concur xvith just about everything Colleen said. I have a real strong opinion
about whether we should be buffering residential areas from residential areas. It seems to me that at some point
the owner of a house, if he doesn't like his neighbor or she doesn't like their neighbor, they put up trees along
their property line and I don't think that a whole neighborhood needs to bear that burden. I agree with the
boulevard planting. I think that, I definitely think this is on the right track. I like the arterial, the industrial,
like Colleen said. And I think where certain, clearly where, if the Arboretum says it's excessive, it probably is
and I think we need to take a look at that. You know reading through, of course like everyone else up here, has
been following this and I, you know I read some of these Minutes of the Planning Commission and you know
this stuff about people that are paying $300,000.00 for a home don't want to look at this small house next to
them. Well boy, I really have a problem with comments like that and I'm not going to call to task who said
them and this, that and the other thing but I, boy that's maximum elitism to me and I just, I don't think that's
15
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
~vhat Chanhassen is about. I mean lord knows homes are expensive enough in this city. But I think this is on
the right track. I think we do need to take a look at where it's excessive and I think Colleen raises a real good
point. Who pays? Who is? I mean clearly the industrial use could care less, for the most part I would guess,
if an area is buffered but if they're brunting the cost. I think ~ve need to have some discussion about that. As I
was reading through the purpose and intent, I'm a little curious as to why enhancing Public Safety is in there.
For some reason that just struck me. How is that, and I dare say Scott would probably say, what do you mean,
more trees7 Criminals can lurk behind those trees. But I'm just curious as to why that's in there at some other
point. And it is also says, to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. Well, some of these aren't
compatible and that's why we're buffering. So I think, in my opinion that would help clear it up. If
compatibility wasn't in there. I think aesthetics, absolutely. But that's me. But it is on the right track but yeah,
I feel, and I know Ladd Conrad on the Planning Commission I think shared that same concern about whether we
should be buffering residential areas from residential areas and I've already stated my opinion on that. But it's, I
think we're on the right track but I think what I'm hearing is there's still some more work to be done. I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I thought about this one quite a bit. Talked to Kate a little bit too about it. You know I
share a lot of the concerns I already heard as it relates to why is this before us because I mean really the only
complaints we've had on this is effectively single family detached residential to effectively anything else...where
it's at. I don't care whether it's other residential or anything else. We've gotten into kind of I think in a little bit
of a vicious circle here of, like we were here first. And I don't think this is something that ~ve can just simply
put off and say that well, you know geez, you were here first. I guess you were the fortunate and everybody
else should take the responsibility to pay and that sort of thing. As I said, I'm having a real hard time really
looking at the broadness of this and dealing with it in that context because all of a sudden I mean it just, to me
it starts seeming overly complicated, and I mean I really underline that. And overly regulated and really gets
the city I think overly involved in a situation...very often a win/win situation. It's generally going to be a
lose/lose situation. And the more I thought through that it just seemed to me that maybe what we needed here
was not more government regulation but maybe taking a different approach. The current system that's there, I
think is somewhat governed by the marketplace. I know that's going to be a hard, that's going to be a difficult
concept to explain and I think what we need to do is ~ve need to look at fixing it rather th~n revamping it. The
current single family development or single family detached development, one way or another on any buffer lot
discounts those lots. Pure and simple. I've always viewed that myself as positive because it takes people who
say like that community, like that neighborhood, like that specific area and gives them an opportunity they
wouldn't have because they may not be able to in effect afford that full price interior lot or you know, a special
lot or bigger lot or there's lots of ways to look at... So you have in effect these perimeter lots that border other
uses but they're discounted and they're generally fairly deeply discounted. And I think that brings a certain
diversity and I think that's good. I think the place that we've lost track, or place we've made the mistake is we
haven't assured that's being documented because what happens to us is 5 years later everybody's in front of us
saying, oh. I never knew that or somebody told me something different or you know, but he said he can't tell
us now, went onto another community and he's not here anymore. But lots of excuses to it but nothing really to
hang our hats on. Which then...And the more I thought about it, it seemed to me if this is a real problem we
were trying to fix, what we really need to do xvas face the fact that those were in effect transitional lots and they
were discounted. Now what we need to do is to document that fact so nobody forgets. Now the reason those
lots are discounted is quite simple. They recognize the fact that whoever purchases those lots is probably going
to have to put in more landscaping than normal, if that's their desire, but again that's their freedom of choice. It
also recognizes the fact that they may be looking out their window at something a little bit different than
another single fanfily detached house. But again, that's their choice when they buy that and that's their choice
16
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
when they take that discount to take that lot. So why not simply set up a mechanism when these plats are
brought in and stuff, to in effect document those transitional lots in a deed, or on a plat, or in some form that
makes it a permanent part of a record so the argument never comes. I mean all it really does effectively is
document what is there and it seems to me we solve the problem. I mean maybe it's overly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In theory.
Councilman Senn: Well, I understand that. Maybe it's overly simplistic but where we run into the problem and
where we sit up here gnawing our teeih together is trying to sort through information we have no ability to sort
through because we can't, none of us were there when those conversations occurred. Or knew who's telling
which side of the story is right or whatever. You know I look at ~vhat's in here and it's just, you know. I think
that this ordinance, if we go ahead with it, is going to create more questions, more problems as we go down the
road than it's going to solve. I think we're going to have a lot of real problems over who is going to pay and
who's not going to pay. What level are they going to pay and how do you start putting...on those types of
decisions. I think we're going to have to, again I think We're intervening to a level here I don't think we need to
intervene. And in looking at it, I look at it more in a sense of well, maybe the other's worth trying first. If
nothing else, if the transition doesn't work, than...easier solution. I don't know. That's basically where I'm at. I
wish I had a better way to explain it, I wish I had an even better solution but I'm sorry, I don't like the one we
have here with the ordinance. I think given the initial impression, I think a lot of good work has gone into it
but I think the direction is there. I'd really like to see us go back and really look more specifically at the
problem rather than the global change to a non-problem in the sense that we're globally trying to change a
whole bunch of things here that there hasn't been a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess, as you indicated, fixing it rather than revamping it. There seems to have been
some given problems that we've had at Council over the past year or better, with concerns of people and some
of those go back to maybe some residential areas. I think that what has been pulled together is not bad. i think
there's a certain amount of direction to provide clarity once those situations occur. I think on some of the things
that we see, ~uch as the streetscape and the natural features and some of those, I think those really have to get
refined. More clarity put into it. And I think that's something we're going to have to look at. But before we
come to that conclusion, I know we have some people in the audience who have come this evening, maybe to
express their opinions and I'd like to open that up at this particular time for anyone who would like to come
forward. If you tvould, just please state your name and your address and who you're representing.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, city staff. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at
7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen. I'm here as a resident of Chanhassen and as a chairperson of a local
and metro public policy committee, which was established basically to work as a positive resource with you in
the future. With County governments and with the Metropolitan Council. Our members presently consist of
home builders, developers, subcontractors and in the future we're going to be adding consumer groups and with
some of your concerns to come in and speak on their behalf because the consumer is the one that ultimately
pays for what we do and the decisions you make at this table. We are very fortunate to have had, to have hired
a director for our committee, or Karen Christopherson is here this evening...Mary Zwieg is also here this
evening but our basic purpose is to be a resource to you and to help you go through this specific process. We
understand what you go through because we do the same thing every night. You are highly Pressured all the
time by small special groups that may be looking out for their own interest, and some are valid. Some is not.
In most cases they are narrowly focused and they're not looking at the general interest of the city and what you
are trying to achieve and what your staff is trying to achieve in general. So we've sympathize ~vith what you're
doing here ever)' time...occurred to you on Galpin Boulevard. A situation like that. We have looked at the
17
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
ordinance. We've been very, felt very positive that both Kate and Bob came to us with this thing and gave us a
chance to comment. We thank you for that. But we think the ordinance has many undesirable features that
we'd like to have you take a look at. One of them we've already talked about. It is buffering between similar
uses, which we think is probably not the purpose of a buffer ordinance. Between a single family townhouse or
a duplex or a similar area like that. I don't think that's the purpose of a buffering ordinance. Bob also talked
about...pointed out that there are many situations where you have a ravine, where you have a wetland, where
you're going to create a NURP pond. Where you have situations like that xvhere to buffer an area like that
would not even work. It'd take away from what you're trying to achieve. But your ordinance, as it's drafted
today, would require you to buffer around the entire perimeter. You may also have a wooded area that backs up
to your property line, or to your neighbor's property line that may be heavily wooded and this ordinance would
require you to buffer that woods. I don't think that's the intent of this ordinance. I think there's a tendency to
wall in neighborhoods with this type of ordinance. You're almost, without exception, whether it's single family
here or multiple or commercial or industrial, I don't think you want to fly over this to~vn in a fe~v years and
have it look like Ireland where they put up all those spike fences and you're going to have all these little fences
around everything to keep so and so's sheep from so and so and the Protestants from the Catholics or whatever
you're trying to do here but, you know I'm making a joke out of this but you are creating kind of a spike fence
ordinance here so to speak. I xvant you to take a good, hard look at that. I think if someone's on a limited
budget and wants to follow this ordinance to a T, you're going to have single family and single family...all start
looking alike and I don't think that's the purpose of the ordinance. I think you're taking some creativity out of
xvhat happens now. As Councilman Senn talked about the marketplace and what happens to the type of market
that we're trying to create. I have two other members of our committee that's here xvith us tonight. Daniel Hunt
from Daniel Development. I'd like you to listen to his concerns about cost and also Hans Hagen from Hans
Hagen Homes. Then I'd also like to make myself available to answer any questions you have, so...
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Dan Hunt: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Hunt. I live at 4150 Colfax Avenue So in
Minneapolis.
Mayor Chmiel: You need to, if you'd like to just move that mic up.
Dan Hunt: Everything in this ordinance, I worked out this...We did some analysis of the cost associated xvith
the different buffers. This is buffer yard F, between the Iow density residential, office industrial. Both the least
expensive option and the most expensive option. As you can see for 100 feet, it's a significant amount of
money and it has a great impact on the affordability of lots. As was said up here, and you'll see an example
later, there are lots in developments that are affectionately known as dog lots. They're not as nice as the rest of
the lots. They may be much nicer than lots in another development or another city, but they're not as nice as
the lots in that particular development. The price of the land a developer pays for the entire land somehow
reflects those lots and the price of those lots xvhen they're sold, the fact that they're lower than the rest of the
development is reflected in that and they do provide an opportunity for people to put more money in their
house, rather than their lot. That's a good portion, if you drive like down 35W in Minneapolis, many people
have more house than they could afford anyone else because they're buying a lot that is cheaper, and that's an
important part of the marketplace. This is buffer yard H. This is between an office industrial land and a low
density residential. As you can see the numbers here are even greater for 100 feet. The most expensive option
which someone would have to take, if they didn't have a lot of land to work with, is $20,000.00 for 100 feet.
That's an astronomical amount of money to put into the buffer. To put into landscaping for a lot of that size
anyway. This paragraph is an example and it's parenthetically a 20 acre office industrial park, 660 feet by 1,320
18
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
feet, .surrounded on 3 sides by low density residential and having 1,320 feet of frontage on a collector arterial
road. The buffer budget ranges from $340,000.00 to $564,000.00 under this ordinance. It equates to $.40 to
$.65 per square foot. Now there's very few instances where you're going to have just a pure industrial park next
to a residential but let's say you have an office park and so the land's a little more valuable for the office
development and they're paying $4.00 a square foot. That's a 10% increase in price for the land for that
development, based on anywhere else. It was encouraging to hear a couple of comments from the Council that
residential land next to each other really doesn't need to be buffered. But I would make the point that even
other uses, don't necessarily need to be buffered. In this example homeowners who live next to undeveloped
land, let's say it's industrial. They buy their home. They accept the cost, the cost of that home reflects the
adjacent zoning. To come back and require the industrial user to buffer their land is unjustly rewarding the
homeowner, because when they came in, as was stated earlier, they knew what the zoning was. If they didn't
know what the zoning was, certainly the adjacent landowners...maybe the developer or the builder, the agents.
They may have called the city and gotten the wrong information but the adjacent landowner is not responsible.
...Number two. I grew up in Indiana. That's how they spelled things. If someone comes in wants to purchase a
home next to an adjacent parcel that has been developed with higher density, or intensity use, is stripped of the
opportunity to make that important economic decision. Basically the decision is, hoxv much money they want to
put in their home and they may come into a development, as I stated earlier, and say, yeah. It's not the best lot
in the world and the view's not the greatest but the school system is great. The city is great. We can put
$5,000.00-$10,000.00 more into our house. The ordinance and the buffering requires, takes that decision away
from people and to me that is not the route that you want to go. Just in conclusion I would, some of the things
said here, that the market has always taken care of those concerns. You just need to show people when they
buy a lot, somehoxv in the purchase agreement, that they know what is around them and ~vhat can potentially
happen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
Councilman Mason: Can I make two comments now, or do you want me to ~vait?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: Has staff had any time to look at the figures that were just presented here? I'm curious to
know whether you folks think those are realistic or not.
Bob Generous: We've had that range, yeah.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. I think the second point, or the last point Mr. Hunt made, I think therein
lies one of the problems. Certainly we have time and time again had, and I'm certainly accusing, not accusing
anyone here, but how many people come in and say, well we were told this and it's in reality that. So you
know, it's easy for you to say that, I mean that is one of the problems clearly and I'm sure staff, and I'm inclined
to share that argument would say well, this is one way we can put some of that grief to rest. So that, you know
this is a very complex problem here so I think we all need to be real aware of that.
Hans Hagen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and the staff. Thanks for the opportunity of giving our
viewpoint on the proposed ordinance. I guess in looking at this, the first thing I looked at was saying, what is
the problem. And in redesigning the problem it sounds to me as if there has been some complaint on the part
of citizens saying, I don't like xvhat's next door. 'Otherwise they wouldn't ask for a buffer. And then the
question is, why don't they like what's next door. And were they responsible for knowing it. And if they knew
19
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
it, do they really have a right to complain. Because it all goes back to Councilperson Senn's comment that the
market kind of lets all of this go through. To bring this back down to a more practical issue. Our company
developed Stone Creek, and I don't know if all of you are familiar with Stone Creek or not. That has been very
successful. We've almost doubled what we thought we were going to do in terms of sales and one of the first
things ~ve wrestled with, after we got our first plan turned down, which have been fortunate at the time, was
how to deal with the Galpin Road, and that's what you're dealing with tonight. You're talking about how do we
buffer against something that we perceive as to be unattractive. And as developers we wrestle with that because
either we discount a lot, in which case we get less revenue, or we improve the lot. And that's what you're
talking about in terms of buffering. So we looked at this area and we decided that we could put a pond up front
and we could also, so along Galpin Road we've put in a very large pond and then we put the trail, which was
requested by staff, and we also added some lights and significant landscaping. Now what we did was add an
asset, not only just for those lots because those lots could have been perceived as the least attractive lots in the
neighborhood and now they are some of the most attractive lots. They are premium lots that we charge for and
we are also able to add an asset to every other lot in the community. That's innovation. I don't know how you
can put that into regulation. If you let the free marke_t respond to it, they will do varying degrees of jobs and if
we do a lousy job next time we come around, I'm sure you'll be a little tougher on us. And if we do a very
good job, you'll probably let us try with our innovative techniques...good job. But if we hadhad this ordinance
in place, I'd venture to say that it may not have turned into Stone Creek. I'm sure it would have been delved
out at some point but this development is adjacent to an industrial property, and to I believe, is that a collector.
Have I got the right classification of Galpin Road. And we're next to a railroad tracks. Yet we have let the.
market determine if they like it. There are 37 lots that would have been affected and xvhile it's hard to believe
the numbers that arrive up here, could it be that big of an impact. The impact on Stone Creek, if we would
have put buffers in, it would have affected 37 lots. If in effect we would have lost a percentage of those lots, it
would be easy to say, and we could document this, that it might be as high as a half million dollars of cost
because as soon as you put a buffer in, all of a sudden you still have to meet the minimum square foot in the
ordinance. And you still have to meet the front yard setback and all of a sudden that pushes a lot further axvay
and then might squeeze a number of lots out of the center of the development. So everytime's there an action,
there's an equal and other reaction and I think what it does is close in. The problem is when you add
ordinances like this, and I appreciate what the staff is trying to do. They're trying to improve your city, but it
doesn't always work when you take a broad brush and paint it across everything. You may end up with doing
disservice. Not only on an economic basis, but on a result basis because now you have to consider, you do
have to consider wetlands. You have to consider where you put ponds. You have to consider the landscaping.
You have to consider the forest and you have to consider elevation. So that there may be situations where you
want more of a buffer than is provided in the ordinance, and you lose that right when you categorize them and
say that's what it will be. Or you may not need one and why waste the land. Because if you have elevation
change or trees or whatever it changes, so there are some things that we still have to go back and use our mind
for to come up ~vith the best results and I think that, I've heard comments of the Council which is very
encouraging. This is one more regulation that may end up backfiring and unquestionably it's going to cost a lot
of money and I would say that it's probably in the neighborhood of 15% so that you're talking about, a
developed lot costs these days around $3.00 a square foot. You could 15% very quickly to this ordinance, and
that may not be too bad if it was going to get better results. But it well could get substantially poorer results.
You're getting lots of little matrixes when you put in wetlands and you put in forests and you put in setbacks
and you add all these matrixes until finally you can't get the best job, although that's.., thanks very much. If I
can answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else?
20
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Gene Ernst: Mr. Mayor and Council, staff. My name is Gene Ernst. I'm a landscape architect. I office in
Chaska, Minnesota. Basically representing myself after I saw this new proposed ordnance. It was passed onto
me by one of our client's, Lundgren Bros who wanted me to look at it. I do want to commend the city for
making an effort...improving some of the standards but I 'know if this particular ordinance is passed, as written,
as a landscape architect working for developers, I'm going to have to implement these requirements. And
looking at the requirements as they are outlined, and then trying to lay it out physically back to a plan, there are
many cases and it's been addressed and people talked about it. I think many of the things that I was going to
talk about have already been mentioned, but physically to put this plant material in some of these cases on the
drawing, would be against what we consider good...practiees. We've gone through different analysis and
actually taken the trees. Initially to plant the trees as specified, because they're smaller but .when we design
these plans, we think of mature trees. In many cases we could not pack, in many cases and I have some
examples, we could not get them on those pieces of property. There's just so many plants...pretty much
impossible. So I think you've talked about that tonight in excess and I don't know what the response has been
from other developers but that was primarily what I was going to speak to tonight. More of a physical.
Actually trying to get those plants onto a drawing to bring them to the city for approval. And we would
probably be back here saying, we do not recommend in most, in many of these cases, planting plant material
that dense because in time it'd sort of probably kill itself out. Then you are not going to have a buffer because
where it's all touching and underneath there's not going to be any growth. It's all going to be above and you're
going to...so I appreciate having an opportunity to at least state that simple little issue. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay, anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council one more time. I
think a lot of good points have been brought up in regard to this.' Being that I think we have you know, gone
through the process of looking at this and I suggested probably before to look through some of this and maybe
to eliminate some of those given problems as each of these people have brought up. I think we should go back
into the ordinance to see if it can be addressed in a lot of these things that we've done. As I mentioned before,
the streetscape and the natural features and things of that particular nature. But that of course is where I think
maybe we should go with it. I'll throxv it back and get an opinion of Council.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm fine with looking at anything. I'm not married to this thing one way or another.
I'm amazed at how much I learned just by listening. That's probably the extent of my comments.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I really appreciated particularly Mr. Hagen's comments. I hadn't thought of
it in those respects. I still think the ordinance does have merit. It needs work but I think the underlying reason,
underlying purpose does have merit. Particularly when you deal with buffering streets. I think that benefits not
only the homeowners but every resident that drives the road. So just to reiterate, it needs some changes
obviously and it should be looked at in terms of residential industrial and residential and streetscape.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Nothing new.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay I guess you probably have direction to come back with something, and also to
keep the people who are here aware and copies of those sent back to them so they know exactly where we're
21
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
coming from. I appreciate your comments and coming in and sometimes that I agree that we try to overkill.
Maybe we can still address this and make it into an ordinance that will be acceptable. Not only to you but to
the city and address our concerns that we have coming before us. So thank you for coming in. Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Do we need a motion to table this then7 It's an ordinance amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I think probably we should table it.
Roger Knutson: You don't xvant to consider this the first reading?
Kate Aanenson: That's what I guess I'm asking. You don't xvant to consider this a first reading?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the other point, right?
Roger Knutson: It looks like a lot of work's been done so the best thing to do is just a motion to table it and
bring it back and have another draft. Then the next draft will be back to the first reading.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councihnan Mason moved, Councihvoman Docllendorf seconded to table the amendment to Chapter 20 of City
Code Concerning Landscalfing, C~eatlng a Transition Zone. All voted in favor and the motion eanied.
CHANGE ORDER REOUEST FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT, SOUTH OF
LAKE SUSAN.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Hopefully this item's still fresh in everyone's
memory. The award of contract for this project was brought before you at the last Council meeting on July
10th. At that time staff indicated that the low bid was significantly higher than expected. - In an effort to make
this very much needed project a reality, staff developed some resources program whereby the contract could be
reduced in scope and some of that work could be done by city park maintenance forces to help bring the overall
project cost down to within our budget limitations. As a result, a reduced scope contract was awarded to Jay
Brothers Incorporated at the July 10th meeting. During discussions with Jay Brothers over the past two weeks,
it became apparent that there's two primary factors with their significantly high bid of $15.60 a cubic yard for
the excavation. The first was having the contractor be responsible for disposing, disposal and trucking of the
material to a site that they would have to locate. And number two, they were a little uncertain as to the
conditions of the soil out there to be muck, in terms of being able to access it with equipment and having to
take any special measures with a backhoe and drag them in such to do the work. So as such they basically
covered themselves and provided a high bid. During these past two weeks, as a result, staff has again looked
for ways to try and deal xvith this issue. We've actually come up with a couple of disposal, fill sites if you will,
that the material can be taken to. In addition, Jay Brothers has been able to do some test digging out on the site
last week and feel more comfortable with the material that is out there, that they need to work with. And as a
result, they've proposed and submitted a proposal back to the city to actually complete the original scope of
work at a reduced bid price for the muck excavation, which is more than 50% lower than their original bid.
The bid noxv, or the price now is $7.40 a cubic yard, which is basically a reduction of $30,000.00 over the
original low bid. Staff and the park maintenance staff have talked about this a little bit and based on our
22
c ITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE · P,O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by City Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II
_
{~lodified
Rejected ~
Date' ~=
Date Submitted to Commission
Date Submitted to Council
DATE: August 11, 1997
SUB J:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-908. YARD REGULATIONS. (5), to
allow porches to encroach 10 feet into a required front yard setback.
A variance application recently appeared before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals requesting
they be allowed to construct a porch within the required front yard setback. The home was located
in the Carver Beach subdivision, which is an area that predates the zoning ordinance. There were
several reasons for the variance request, however, the reason which prompted this ordinance
amendment proposal dealt with the applicant wishing to define the entrance into their home.
Mayor Mancino was present at the meeting. Following the meeting, she directed staff to
investigate an~ending the ordinance to allow and encourage such additions without having to go
tErough a variance process.
The requested variance was for a porch that exceeded the 3 foot maximum encroachment allowed
by ordinance. It should be noted that there are homes with porches throughout the city. The issue
here is whether or not homes that existed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance and want to
add a porch should have to go through the variance process.
All new housing (developed after adoption of the zoning ordinance) which have front porches no
matter the size, have to meet the underlying setback requirements. The intent of this amendment is
to address' existing homes that want to add a front porch. The purpose of the porch/balcony is to
add architectural interest to older homes that may not have defined entrances.
The current ordinance pertaining to porches states:
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations
Mayor and City Council
August 11, 1997
Page 2
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstmctious:
a. "In~o any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line~
cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance
exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distaneeino~
exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landing~
may project a distance not to exceed siX (6) feet, provided such stair and landing-
shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay window, balconieS~
open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3). feet~
unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feetan~
shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may b~
permitted by conditional use permit."
C. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence o~
February 19, 1987, may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same locatio~
provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten-foo~
minimum front yard.
Staff. researched several home design books. HOmes we seleCted incorporate porches in thei~ ' ::
design. It can be assumed that the front yard setback on all those homes was 30 feet, which isth~
required setback in the zoning ordinance. We then attempted to add the porch to the front elevatio~
and see if the majority of these, designs can be accommodated in Chanhassen. We also tried
examine the aesthetics of having a projecting Porch face a street. We assumed that these horne~
were placed on a 15,000 square foot lot or maybe on a lot that is part of a PUD that has a redUce~
area. A builder will attempt to maximize the square footage of a home by pushing the home
close as possible to the 30 foot front yard setback, place the home, then maximize the size of th~.
rear yard where most outdoors activities in Chanhassen take place. - '
The attached designs nUmber 1- 7, are designs that are permitted under the current front pOr~'
standard. The common theme between these d~signs is that the location of the porch doe~ no~
extend beyond the front elevation of the house.
Designs 8 -20, would exceed the allowed 3 foot front yard encroachment permitted by ordinaxice~
All these porches are unenclosed, project up to 10 feet beyond the house from elevation, and tefid
define the front entrance of the hom~. These designs tend to give the impression that ~he garage
pushed to the back and hidden from views; allowing a passer byto focus on the livable space ofth~'~
structure. We need to point out that designs 8 - 18 do not extend beyond the first level where ~
entry is located. Designs 19 and 20, still meet the definitiOnofa porch, however, design 1.9 extend~
up to the second floor, while design 20 contain a porch as well as a balcony. They ~re both °Pe~
structures.
Mayor andCity Council
August 11, 1997
Page 3
All these designs can be considered attractive, however, as stated earlier, some of these designs are
not permitted under current ordinances due to setback requirements. The main concern with
allowing such projections deals with the size of the porch and the possibility of additional living
space closer to the street. If the porch extends along the entire length of the front facade, it will be
very tempting to enclose it to make the space more livable by adding screens or enclosing them.
Design #11 has a porch that extends in front of a kitchen. Theoretically, this space could be
enclosed and used as a breakfast area. We believe that such uses should not extend into a required
front yard setback. Rather than creating a setting that would encourage a flood of variances to
enclose porches within a front yard setback, we believe this space should be limited in size
allowing for a small seating area, provide an added architectural feature, and define the entrance of
the home. Staff has prepared an ordinance amendment that would allow some of the attached
designs to be permitted. If the direction was to exclude designs that contain porches extending
beyond the first floor, then staff will change the language in the proposed amendment accordingly.
Staff is recommending language that permits homes built prior to February 19, 1987 (zoning
ordinance adoption date) to have a porch/balcony that would encroach into the front yard setback
meeting specific criteria (specifically be open and not exceed 15 feet in length and 10 feet in depth).
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On July 16, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended denial of
this ordinance amendment. There decision was based upon the following:
There has not been a preponderance of such requests
Limiting the size of the porch and the setback is arbitrary
An intent statement has not been provided
The ordinance does not protect historically significant homes
This issue could be handled at the variance level
Not an important issue to spend staff, Planning Commission and City Council time on
Staff contacted the City Attomey for an opinion on the historically significant homes. He explained
that all homes that are on the National Register listing have to get approval of the National
Historical Registrar's Office prior to any construction taking place; therefore, this ordinance will
not impact such homes. We also discussed homes that have been considered eligible for listing on
the National Register. The City Attorney explained that if a home is not registered with the
National Historical Society, preservation requirements will not apply.
Staffalso added an intent statement to clarify the purpose of this ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor and City Council
August 11, 1997
Page 4
Should the City Council decide to approve this ordinance, the following motion is recommended:
"The City Council approves Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations, to
read as follows:
"The intent of this section is to allow homes built priOr to the adoption of the
ordinance that need to add a porch as an architectural feature to define the entrance
into a residents. This area shall be limited in size allowing for minimal seating area
and shall not be enclosed:
Homes built prior to February 19, 1987 may have open porches and balconies that
project a distance not exceeding ten (10) feet, provided they maintain a minimum
front yard setback of 20 feet, and they do not extend farther than six (6) feet on each
side of the main entrance or front door of a home. The ten (10) feet shall include the
roof line, support columnsl and steps. Homes that are on the National Register listing
or have been considered eligible for listing on the National Register shall be excluded
from this ordinance unless approved by the National Historical Registrar's Office."
Attachments
1. Home Designs that include porches.
2. Front elevation design of the variance which prompted this ordinance amendment.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated July 16, 1997.
· This economical plan offers an impressive visual
statement with its comfortable and well-proportioned
appearance. The entrance foyer leads to all areas of the
house. The great room, dining area and kitchen are all
open to one another allowing visual interaction.
The great room and dining area both
have a cathedral ceiling. The fireplace
is flanked by book shelves and cabi-
nets. The master suite has a cathedral
ceiling, walk-in closet and master bath
with double-bowl vanity, whirlpool
tub and shower. The plan is available
with a crawl-space foundation.
Design by
Donald A.
Gardner,
Architect, Inc.
,I
DECK
Design S§664
Square Footage: 1 287
PORCH
66-4
m.,,
55'
Design S8§22
First Floor: 1,820 square feet
Second Floor: 700 square feet
Total: 2,520 square feet
· Expansive interior spaces, a
porch and a patio are found in
this country-style plan. Front-to-
back views begin at the double
doors that open to the foyer and
extend through the dining room
to the covered patio. To the right,
the foyer spreads into the living
room, which opens to a tower.
The pass-through kitchen is
linked to the bayed breakfast area
by a large walk-through pantry. -.
The family room includes a fire-
place flanked by windows and
built-in shelves; French doors
open to the patio. A lower-level
master bedroom offers private
access to the patio. Its full bath
includes a walk-in closet, double
vanity and spa tub.
Design by
Home Design
Services, Inc.
142
Design S2974 First Floor: 911 square feet
Second Floor: 861 square feet; Total: 1,772 square feet
· Victorian houses are well known for their orientation
on narrow building sites. And when this occurs nothing is
lost to captivating.exterior styling. This house is but 38
feet wide. Its narrow width belies the tremendous amount
of livability found inside. And, of course, the ubiquitous'
porch/veranda contributes mightily to style as well as liv-
ability. The efficient, U-shape kitchen is flanked by the
informal breakfast room and formal dining room. The
· rear living area is spacious and functions in an exciting
manner with the outdoor areas. Bonus recreational, hobby
and storage space is offered by the basement and the
attic.
Home Planners,
Inc.
ATTIC
Wide-Open and
Convenient
~o'~ 20100'
Stacked windows fill the wall 'in the front
lxxlroom of this one-level home, creating
an attractive facade, and a sunny atmos-
phere inside. Around the comer, two
more bedrooms and two full baths com-
plete the bedroom wing, set apart for
bedtime quiet. Notice the elegant vaulted
ceiling in the master bedroom, the master
tub and shower illuminated by a skylight,
and the double vanities in both baths.
Active areas enjoy a spacious feeling.
Look at the high, sloping ceilings in the
fireplaced living room, the gliders that
unite the breakfast room and kitchen with
an adjoining deck, and the vaulted ceil-
ings in the formal dining room off the
foyer.
Main floor-- 1,727 sq. ft.
Basement- 1,727 sq. ft.
Garage w 484 sq. ft.
DECK
.'.. i'. - r "-
.- ..'.' ~ ~i-~ i ......... ~FS~ o ~.. ..." · ..:.~' "
. : ;~.', ~ ~DR~M ~ LIVING ROOM
;'~ 13"4" x 14"8" 16"0" x 19"4" .
· .:~: ~ ....~ ...... ; .... ,o'-o" I~ll&. .,
' U ~ ...... ~ ~ E ' " ' " '
S.YLT~ D C . ~;~ KITCH N / 21-8 x 21'4 ....
· - ._) ,~ [~l,,,,rW~h~ ~_.
' · "'~:: BE~M XI~ ~1~ ~ ~1 ..,.~. ,,,_~. ~ · .
, - ..'. ,~--,--~ -~' ~ u__z~
' ~ ~ t ~ I I ~m ..'/. '
' '. · ' ~4-D x~l-4 c.
· No.~m I ~ ~'~[ ~"~/ ..
. . ..... ~ , , -W~~
' ' ', ' · ' * ST[P ' .
, ; ".' "'.~": ~z-~ ' "' 2'-'. '
A Karl Kre~er Design
Inviting
Porch Adorns
Affordable Home
You don't have to give up storage space
to build an affordable home. With large .
· closets just inside the front door and in
every bedroom., a walk:in pantry by the
66'-
kitchen, and an extra-large storage area
tucked behind the garage, you can build
this house on an optional slab foundation
and still keep'the clutter to a minimum.
The L-shaped living and dining room
arrangement, brightened by triple win-
dows and sliding glass doors, adds a spa-
cious feeling to active areas. Eat in
formal elegance overlooking the patio, or
hav~ a family meal in the country
kitchen. Tucked in a private wing for a
quiet bedtime 'atmosphere, three bed-
rooms and two full baths complete this
affordable home loaded with amenities.
Living area -- 1,160 sq. ft'
Garage m 2-car
t
!~ PATIO
~. .. · · ---?,~ ~8~ . '
~ . ~' c~ I~1 · . . - T .
~ . "' , I ~r. ~'"1 ..........~' ~1 ................. -~ ....... ~ ............. '
~ · I .... ""[ - ~ a,m~ ~ L~v~a~ m. ' ............... ~0 CAR GAUGE
~ '1 ' . , ~:; '.." ~ . '~ d~ ~-4', ~o ~ 2o'-o",a9'-o'
.~' ' :' 14'.0-. .,.4" · t ~ d[ ' ~ . .o,. .'
~-~ ,.:' ~ .' ,.~:... ~o-m&" "" '----'-- -i '. -
~* . ,:' " ... ":'":":.'~" .~ ~ In .- · .. . .. · '
~-. ,. ,~ ~ . :., ,,. , ,. F ~. · . ~
~- ~ : : :..' , · ,~.' , I .... .: .
. , ; ; ';:~ . : . ..~ -. - · .. .
g;..;.~....-... :.....'~'....... ~....:....,~.'.'-...'....,: :...; :~_..~ :..... . ../.'
a
Design S9607
Square Footage: 1,299
· Though rustic in appearance, this two-
bedroom plan provides all the features
sought after in today's well-planned
home. A large central, area includes a great
room, entrance foyer and kitchen with
serving and eating counter. Note the use
of cathedral ceilings with exposed wood
beams, skylights, clerestory windows and
fireplace in this area. The master suite has
an optional fireplace, walk-in closet, and
whirlpool tub. The second bedroom also
[ a~. PORCH ~.~ has an optional fireplace and a full bath.
,-..,-o - ~ v All rooms open to the rear deck, which
- ,s-, supplies space for a hot tub.
·
, t
~- Design by
Donald A.
Gardner,
~~'~';~'~ Architect, Inc.
FRONT
Design S8614
Square Footage: 2,100
· Gingerbread trim crowns the
roof of this spreading plan,
enhanced by an intricate facade
with high-ceilinged spaces. The
covered porch gives way to a tiled
foyer. Double doors on the right '
open to a den or study with a
twelve-foot ceiling. The splendid
great room sports a tray ceiling,
corner fireplace and French doors
to a covered patio. The pass-
through kitchen serves the front-
facing dining room and 'bayed
breakfast room with equal ease.
Bedrooms include a master suite
with patio access and a sunken
shower, and two secondary bed-
rooms which share a bath.
Design by
Home Design
Services, Inc.
WIDTH 102'
DEPTH 59'-4'
Covered Patio
Porch
J
Design S3438
First Floor: 1,489 square feet
Second Floor: 741 square feet
Total: 2,230 square feet
· A unique farmhouse plan which provides a
grand floor plan, this home is comfortable in
country or suburban settings. Formal entertain-
lng areas share first-floor space with family
gathering rooms and work and service areas.
The master suite is also on this floor for con-
venience and privacy. Upstairs is a guest bed-
room, private bath and loft area that makes a
perfect studio. Special features make this a
great place to come home to.
LOFU
STUDIO
/
59'-0"
Design by
Home Planners,
Inc.
122.
//
ill
Country-Style For
Today
No. 91700
No doubt about it, this plan, with it's ~
wide wrap-around porch, matches the
nostalgic image of a farmhouse.
However, except for the living room,
which can't help but remind us of an
old-fashioned parlor with it's double
doors, this house is thoroughly modem.
High-ceilinged and bright, the kitchen,
nook family room'and dining room
have a free-flowing lay-out and the area
opens onto a wide deck. The first thing
you see, upon entering the home, is the
polished wood of a graceful open
stairwell. At the second floor landing,
it forms an open bridge. Two
bedrooms are tucked away on the
second floor with a full bath. The
kitchen contains both a huge butcher-
block work island and another long
eating bar island. It also features a
large walk'in pantry and built-in desk.
The master suite has a spa and a huge
'walk;in closet as well as a shower,
double vanities and its own access to
the deck.
First floor- 1,785 sq. ft. '
Second floor -- 621 sq. ft.
Total living area -- 2,406 sq. ft.
No. 91700
SECOND FLOOR
BEOROOM
140 X 151
%
PLAN
BEDROOM
. ~,,--,
14° · II8
\'.
· Deck Surrounds
House on Three Sides
No. 91304
Sitting in the sunken, circular living
room of this elegant family ho. me, you'll
feel like you're outdoors even when
you're not. Windows on four sides corn-
· bine with a vaulted clerestory for a wide-
open feeling you'll love year-round.
When it's warm, throw open the win-
dows, or relax on the deck.' But, when
there's a chill in the air, back:to-back
fireplaces keep the atmosphere toasty in'
the living room and adjoining great
room. Even the convenient kitchen, with
its bay dining nook, enjoys a back yard
view. Do you sew? You'll love this
roomy spot just steps away from the'
kitchen. Bump-out and bay windows.. '
give the three upstairs bedrooms a cheer-
ful atmosphere, and cozy sitting nooks.
First floor-- 1,372 sq.' ft.
Second floor -- 858 sq? ft.
No. 01804
'Traditional Sun
Catcher
downstairs den. Upstairs, three bedrooms
open to a balcony overlooking the floor
below. Look at the master suite. A walk-
in closet and shower, double vanities,
and a raised, skylit tub make this spa-
No. 20096
Windows and skylights in all shapes and cious area a luxurious retreat.
sizes give this airy home a cozy feeling·
From the two-story foyer to the skylit First floor -- 1,286 sq. ft.
breakfast nook off the island kitchen, Second fiD°r-- 957 sq. ft.
active areas are arrangedin an open plan
- just perfect for entertaining. In warm
weather, you'll .enjoy the huge rear deck,
, accessible from both the living and · '-.'.' ,. '. '°'. '
appreciate the full bath adjoining the ....
BEDROOM . . · ·
If-O"x 14'-(J' -- ---
/ -" -~ L LIVING ROOM ,, I I g-O'xS'8 - ..
NO 20096 '" ,. ,. , ,, , .. L[DC~ .
.......... TT 'c.'~ I~q~ P~ ~ ~x~5 4 :,, ,r-~,,4-o ---,,~-~I~.~
) . .~",~, ~ , (,..) BEDROOM - '.' 'tull tt~5'-' ,/', GARAGE .
~s . . C~ x I! 1 '.'. ~ --IL ..... ~ "' ' .
~. .. < i 0 II I .- "'n'i / ! I~ ' '
~. ' .- __/' ,--,iLl _ _ _ . . [ 1., ~ PR.['-= ·
~ - "T~"- :~,~" . tg- FT' .'%,o? ,,<- i o~ · .. ·
I ' ' . ' ',' ~ IO-O'xlt-O IN, a ir'~ ·
~,' ' :'... - ". A Karl Kreeger Design '.: ,,:~. ' ~ 0 ~H '
-. '' -' · '.". · ?.'..:
· . . · , 'no.~ i~"" :'..'.'.'.'~ ','
. " ' .. FIRST FLooE.-.,~.' '. '.' '-.', ' ,
' ' ' l" "" ~-o"' .... ..........:,...'./ ' I
!~:;.:.!':i:....'~; ,. · .~.. '.... " ',
_~. ~.. _~ :,.=,.~.~ ~-..~ .~~ -
' Master Suite CrOwns
5~~~~ ~ walls, 1
TraditiOn on the outside, modem luxuw
- '~ithin. ~e delicate lattice work that
~Y
"' cove, the en~ way, the sheltered
'. porch and Ce classic lines all recall a o~n st
· ' bygone era of fine craftm~ship. ~e
' luxuw, that only modem technology M A S T E ~ ¢ ~ E 9 3 fmily
.- can bring, is the theme tboughout. ~s/0x~7/o ~ 121ox12/o b~fa
~ ~ ~ ~ right,
From ~e sately vaulted ceiling of the feast
' foyer~ ap thc wide, Winding staircase to ? ~,, ~w ~ ~d ch~
"the ap~ment-sizcd master suite, we' ~ .... h ] No. 91650 fom~
;..¢ bring you the finest. . in modem living.. ~,~__~/f - pact kil
g~ ~ter state ~s the hea~ of th~s ' ' v~ni~ni
' - hom~ wi~ double doo~, spa and a [~/~~ ~e two
.' gigantic walk-in close[ 1~, ac-
Main floor 1,288 sq. ft. ~11 bat
I s/°x*/° I '
" Upperfloor 1,094sq. ft. ~:=,, ]1 private
~ Tot~ living area -- 2,637 sq. ~t. · . FAM ~L Y o ARA o E
Seco~
1 l/OX
' '- ' ' -- ~L ~~ ·
.,· . . ... ~~~3 -
..... . .._ -
,,,o~,,,o'
~.;';,' ...... .. .:.. . .. ~u' . "~OYE~ DEN .
i.'.": .' .' .... '- I ' ' H~II ,,,ox,o~o .
~).'L-.~ ..... ~...:L.....j....:.:. ...... ;;,,. ................ ;..~ ............
~ 4,~: . - . . ' ...... ~ ............. . ..... ~ ....... . ............. ,, .................................. ~ ...................
' ' MAIN ~EOOE,
,;5~7..... .- . D - .
~:~'; .. .; -
' E2~ ' · ·
. ~.,,'.. '~ .....~" ..
- ~;~.- ; - '. '. ~'
:~?~- .:~.. _-- -.: . - . , ·
,,; ~.~e'..; - .- -:. , .: ~ ~ ...._. '.'.
~,,,:.,..,..,.~..,...~.. ..... .~.,....: .., ........
Romance personified
No. 90439
Here's a stately Victorian that will reflect
your excellent taste, and accommodate.
your family in comfort. A sprawling,
wrap-around porch leads to a central
foyer flanked by formal living and dining
rooms. Informal areas overlook the back-
yard, including the fireplaced familY
room lined with b6okcases, the sunny
breakfast'bay, and the adjoining country
kitchen. Store your extra groceries in the
large pantry on the way t9 the laundry
room. The expansive master suite
upstairs, which spans the width of the ·
house, features built-in shelves, loads of
closet space, and a private bath with
every amenity. A hall bath serves the
other two bedrooms tucked into 'the
gables at the front of the house.
First floor ~ 1,366 sq. ft.
Second floor~ 1,196 sq. ft.
Basement ~ 1,250 sq. ft.
Garage ~ 484.sq. ft.
BEDROOM 2 ~ ~ ~ BEDROOM 3 '
H~LL
SECONO FLOOR
No. 90439
WOOD DECK ' ,
GARAGE
-- ! II II II I ~
I II Il II I - ,
~is m~ified cape with attached two c~ . way, the vaulted ceiling in the master
g~age can house a growing family for suite creates a spacious feeling. ~ree
a b~gain price. Double d~ in thc cozy other bedr~ms and a bath shoe ~e sec-
living r~m open to the bay-windowed ond fl~r.
family room with fireplace and patio First fl~r ~ 930 sq. ft.
, access. Eat in the family-size kitchen or
fora! dining room. Up the central stair- Second'floor ~ 980 sq. ft
B~ement ~ 900 sq. ff.
' Garage ~ 484 sq. ft.
SE~ND F~ ~ ~
~TH ~
9'- I0" I0'- I0"
{ c '- ~/c I{ Id~ ~ ~W ..... ~--'.~.'?. ",~
~TER BED~OM ~DR~M 2
' I t I~ ·
' ~4'-4" x 13'-4"l lO, lO x I0'-0" .: stt~ :":.T: ';':?' - '. '
-- -- .~ '~h~'~'i ~- ~
- ' ' · ., ~.,~.~2..~..,..' .; (~' I ' ~au%u~ rooM ~
.' '.. . ·. ~ ....... , ...... ' ........ , ......... · ..... ..,..:.:,l 1~'-~"~,'-6"~ . ~'-4' ~'"': -
.: , .-:.,.: . · -t- .
. .- ' ~.. __~.~R.~ ~ /x.
..................... ~ ', ~' ... - ,~ ~ LIVING ~ [~ -
.' ' ' . ~'~ ' ~' .~ ~.~ . :D.7 -
~"-:, .. .' ' '" ~' . FIRST FLOR ']..c~ [~'N0.'0646 :i:~ '
· ' ' '" -' ' ' - · · ~'-n" " ' '":~':" ' ~'~
, - } . .. ~ - . -.. ' : . · r..'~;
Jnviting Porch
.Enlarges compact
Home
~o. 10646
-~ ~";"-,~eo, .,.n Grace ,
No. 20151 )- -~ ', ~~',~
Herc's~elegant, move:up home that .~ MBr }1
brings the ~st of yesterday to today's ~ 114 x 1~41
discerning family. Sturdy brick ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 · -
pomh, and a focal, central ent~ are [ / -'~lll/l["" ~ ' -.
bo,owed elements from long ago. But
.' the magnificentislandkitchen, the '
Br 2 x ~ ~ ~ Br 3
convenience of ~th a living room and 12x lS-4
' info.al family gathering room, and
· the his-and-hers walk-in closets in the ~~[
- sprawling master suite am high on ~ ................~,,,..
many.most-wanted lists. Abundant .-.. :.. bed
windows lend a sunny beauty Second Floor " No. 20151 ore
.throughout this special home. And, ~ mas
convenient touches abound: a handy ~ _ ~ ' * ~ c
' - ~' rote
bar in the ~ok-lined living room, a A Karl Kr~0~6r
-covered porch and sun deck at the rear ' ' ~... 7'/ X. First Floor t bred
of the house, two first-floor powder' ' . . .
rooms, and adjoining baths and walk-in .. ".. :.' .' .'.'~X~*.. ~oeck ~ '~ '~'~~" ~ firet
~ I ~ decl
closets in all fou; upstairs ~drooms. .': ' ' ~ _: :( ~'. '- ~ '
Firstfl°°r~'l,953Sq-ft. ' ..... .'-. '..' '"')" Po~ch [-~/)::1 "~;::" Fin
.Sec°ndfl°°r 1,865sq. ft."::i' ~' "'""":"'"" ")' -~---~ ~~'" '""' '" . sec
~ Screened porch 180 sq. ft. · :'1 ] ' ~ ,x_ I ' · - Ba~
Basement ,n~n ~c, .'-.'1 ].
' ' '~ ~'l~ ~ ' ' " I
--'To~llivingar;a__~,818sq. ft ~ :.". ' '
' · . ' ' .'. ~ ' Gar_._
' ~ .. m~ ~!g,.I I~l~l~- ~ 23-4X35-4
· ' ' .:. ~ , //¢~ ....... ~"~ ~ ~l .
- . ..-~ I~o I r--~ ~: -:-% ~ ~' ' ' .
. - "'. ~ .
................ ; ............................ ."'. .... . Lib.. ~ r ....
' · ' 10-~xlg-4 ~ ~ ~ J m "~ -'
: : . · ~ Foyer ~ '~ ..... ' ~ ~ :
- . . .. · . . . . ~ / ~-~ ~ .-:
. . .. . .". ~ ~ ~ · ~ .......... ~ - . ~,, ......... . ..................... :,.~'
· The exterior of this full two-story is highlighted by
.C~....~,~ ~ the covered porch and balcony. Many enjoyable hours
~-~t~'~'x"::u~'7~~.~ will be spent at these outdoor areas. The interior is
~~~~~ ~, highlighted by a spacious c ount~ kitchen. Be sure to
~~)~ ~:' notice its island cook-top, fireplace and the beamed
~~~ ceiling. A built-in bar is in the family room.
FAMILY RM ~
. 6°~ $~ MASTER
Design T162664
1,308 Sq. Ft. - First Floor
1,262 Sq. Ft. - Second Floor; 49,215 Cu. Ft.
Planning Commission M~eting - July 16, 1997
k. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy fire sprinkler systems.
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division #40-1995.
1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on labeling of rated fire walls.
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy g44-1997.
m. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on fire alarms. Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Policy #01-1990.
stalls.
Parking lot layoUt must comply with Building Code requirements for handicap
8. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide the necessary financial
guarantees to comply with the conditions of approval.
9. The applicant shall incorporate an entrance on the west side of the building and consider a
plaza treatment in the rotunda area.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW PORCHES TO
ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REOUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Sharmin AI-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Has there been a preponderance of these requests?
Al-Jaff: No...
Peterson: Is the Honorable Mayor trying to get more porches in our city? Okay. This is OPen to
a public hearing. May I have a motion to open to public hearing and a second please?
Sidney moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name
and address please.
Conrad moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Comments. Kevin.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997
Joyce: I'm going to wait and see if anybody else has a comment.
P~terson: Allison.
Blackowiak: Well, I'm one of the people that called and talked to Kate the other day and told her
I was confused. I understand what, I believe I understand what is trying to, what we're trying to
do:here. I don't know that we necessarily need to limit it to 6 feet on each side of the main
entrance. I looked at the plans that you had attached, for example plan number 12 to me, the
porch that goes much longer than 6 feet however, I think it's wonderful and I think that's the
spirit of the ordinance. I think you want to add interest to homes and I don't know if restricting it
lo 6 feet on either side of the door will allow people to do that. I understand the hopes of not
encouraging people to add room additions, and basically that's what you're I think trying to
prevent is people adding a large porch. Encroaching into their setback and then at a later date
enclosing it. Ifa porch is narrow enough, I don't think people will be likely to enclose it so
maybe we could look at it from that perspective as opposed to a length perspective. I don't
know, and again I did talk to the Honorable Mayor about this last night and You know, she
explained to me her position. I understand it but if we've only had two requests for variances, I
don't know that we really need to get into it at this point. If staff feels strongly that this is
something we need to look at, I think maybe I would like to see it back again and toy a little bit
more with what you're trying to accomplish in terms of maybe an elongated porch or something.
Maybe don't limit it to the 15 feet, or something like that and I don't know what it is I guess right
~ow but.
Aanenson: What you're...trying to develop... Anybody that comes in under new construction
certainly the front porch...and anybody coming in today... The issue is when you have an
existing home that now wants to put a porch on and they want to encroach. Do we have to go
through the permitting process of going through a variance? ...but again, we want to encourage
architectural... What we are concerned about is up front space and then.., which is good.
Blackowialc. Oh definitely. I agree with that and I think maybe an intent statement would help
because we don't want to dissuade people from improving their homes and adding things but at
the same time I understand the need to maintain setbacks and at least get a handle on that so, so
that's it
Peterson: LuAnn.
Sidney:. I looked at this and the first question I asked is...how many of these requests for
'variances have we had? Two. So I think to me it seems like pretty much a non-issue in some
ways. We're not getting a lot of requests for them. I do see Allison's point because that was one
thing that I thought might be nice is if you would be able to put a porch all the way across the
house to add some interest to the house, but then I can understand staff's position that it much
encourage people to eventually enclose it and use it as living space. So I guess after thinking
about this I feel as a first step...to include existing homes, that this was a good start. I guess I
would understand this would be smaller homes on smaller lots and you really may not want to
have this...porches in the front anyway. It's more of an entrance to protect from snow and wind
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 16, 1997
and rain. And so I think the way it's written I don't understand the 6 feet part but...it appears in
this formula, I agree with staff. What I'm hearing is go back to the intent statement, what do we
write? ...an exampIe here of newer architecture and I guess I don't see that...so I think what
we're trying to do is just provide people with a mechanism to create a better entrance to their
home. Not necessarily expand it with a porch...
Peterson: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Oh I don't think it's a real important issue and I'd rather not have staff.spend a lot of
time on this. So an intent statement is.appropriate and let's get out of there and pass it on.
Peterson: Great, thanks.' Alyson.
Brooks: My only concern is that if you have an older home that is historically significant that is
without a porch, that is not something we want to be adding porches to. We need to be really
careful of that. One of the worse things I've seen are those great Chaska brick houses with like a
wood lean to on it for a porch. I mean that, it completely destroys the historic visual character of
the property. So I would, if we are going to pass an ordinance like this, I think we need some
kind of clause about the houses in Chanhassen that have obtained National Register listing; or
that have been considered eligible for listing on the National Registei' and monitor putting
porches on historic properties. So I guess before I would pass this I would ask that maybe we
consider adding something about historic properties.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. I don't want to spend a lot of staff's time either. That was my first
reaction. I understand if there was a lot of these, that we take the staff time and commissioners
and Council's time to address this. I don't see that obviously as happening .... because we have
an ordinance, you're always going to have another variance so my reaction is I don't think we
need an ordinance for this slight adjustment that we're making. With that, is there a motion and
a second?
Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning staff.recommends, well let me think about
this. I take back my start of the motion Mr. Chairman. If somebody has...consider it.
Peterson: So I ask for a motion again please.
Brooks: I move that we table the motion pending further consideration of it's affect to historic
properties. And I want to use Alison's, some of Alison's concerns but I can'.t. I'm stumped.
Conrad: The only other thing was an intent statement.
Brooks: Oh, and with the addition of an intent statement. Statement of intent. Want me to say
that again with a complete sentence?
Peterson: I think they can sort that through. Is there a second to that motion?
20
?lanning Commission Meeting-..,ly 16, 1997
Blackowialc I'll second that.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Conrad: Yes. Mr. Chairman, you would rather not see this back.
Correct.
Conrad: Staff, how much time do you think you'd have to spend on this based on the motion you
just heard? Couple hours?
.fi~nenson: Probably.
Conrad: Do you two agree with this amendment?
A~nenson: I agree with Craig. I don't think it...
Conrad: And did the Board of Adjustments, did they grant this variance? Did they? Just
a
comment. I think it's a well worded amendment. It's very simple. As arbitrary, it seems simple
to me.
Aanenson: But as Alison had said, is 6 feet the right amount? ...do you just raise the level...I'm
not sure there's a right answer... There's a lot of hOmes that have landings... Is that the right
mount? ...I mean.it was an arbitrary number back then...well thanks for the 5 but I need...
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to table the amendment to City Code to allow porches
Xo encroach 10 feet into the reqUired front yard setback for further consideration to
historic properties and a statement of intent. Brooks, Blackowiak and Sidney voted in
t'avor. Conrad, Joyce and Peterson voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote
~f3 to 3.
Brooks: Well Ladd, what do you want to do then?
Conrad: I think.
Sidney:. Just leave it.
Brooks: Do you want to pass it as it is?
No. No. I think we kill it. I think we kill it.
Brooks: Kill it. Oh, okay. Well that will save my historic properties then. So that works.
21
Planning Commission ,..ceting - July 16, 1997
Conrad: I would recommend that the Planning Commission tums down. I would recommend
the Planning Commission recommends dis.approval of the zoning ordinance amendment 20-908
regarding yard regulations per the staff report of July 16th.
Joyce: I'll second that.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of an
amendment to the City Code to allow porches to encroach 10 feet into the required front
yard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: And the rationale for the City Council is that we don't see the need or the accuracy of
the, if we don't see the need of an amendment at this time, and that we feel that the variance
process can handle the few requests that we're receiving.
Peterson: Okay, thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
Peterson: Any old business Kate?
Aanenson: No.
Joyce: Any comment on this Kate?
Aanenson: The Council directed you to...trail. The issue that we had whether or not identified a
trail out in...hadn't been identified to the potential buyers. The attorney did state that you'd have
to have the underlying property owner's approval and he, Mr. Carlson...but regardless of where
you stop the trail, going north to Lake Lucy, you're able to get over to Minnewashta, that would
be a benefit... What we are...trail, Council wanted to see how that relates, if there's a tie in
continuity...before it comes back for final plat. That was one item that was on the Council's...
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated June 18, 1997 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: Back to me now?
Peterson: Ongoing items.
Conrad: We thought you were thinking.
22