5 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Kevin
Joyce, and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin Al-Jarl,
Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5,223 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT, RUBY TUESDAY ON
PROPERTY ~ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ONTHE
PONDS SECOND ADDITION, ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC.
Public present:
Name
Address
Bob Savard 8080 Marsh Drive '
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions for staff?.
Kind: Sharmin you recommend putting, or removing the signage on the pond. Could the
applicant choose to remove, which one would be not the front of the.
Al-Jarl: Highway 5? They don't have.
Kind: Which way do the two that you're recommending keeping face?
A1-Jaff: The one that faces the...and the one 'that faces the parking l°t.
Kind: So they could for instance give the parking lot one and keep the one that faces Highway 5
or the pond?
A1-Jaff: No. Because the ordinance, well they could apply for a variance and you would have to
grant a variance. The parking lot is their main entrance.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Kind: Okay, so they could keep the parking lot and the one on Highway 5 and get rid of, could
they pick whatever two they want?
A1-Jaffi They need two. They could keep two.
Kind: But the pond, Highway 5 one would require a variance?
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Kind: I can just understand why they would want a sign on Highway 5 so I'm trying to figure
that one out.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Sharmin I've got a question about the trash enclosure. Was this
approved as part of the Famous Dave's or part of the retail?
It was done with both applications went through at the same time.
A1-Jaff:
Blackowiak: And are you comfortable with what is being proposed and it still seems to serve the
needs of both lots?
A1-Jaff.' Yes. We looked at that in depth when Famous Dave's came in and we looked at two
separate trash enclosures, one for the retail building and another one for Famous Dave's and afte~
a lengthy discussion everyone agreed that a shared trash enclosure would be the best solution.
Burton: Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, can you give us a little more background on your discussions
with the applicant regarding the west and south elevations and what you're recommending and
what their responses have been.
A1-Jaff: Our understanding is that one of the major issues that they would be facing would be
cost associated if they were to add windows to the building. Meanwhile staff has to enforce the
requirements of the planned unit development. And we went through three revisions. With the
first proposal they were proposing to paint the columns. It would be painted brick and we told
them that that wasn't an acceptable solution. Painted brick is not permitted in the PUD. They
eliminated that. The paint. And the revisions basically showed brick only. Well, the building
looked very plain. The awnings were still there. With the third revisions, which is before you
today, they came back with the EFIS and the awning. They included tile for the diamond shaped~
accents on top of the building. We're also running against a deadline for the 120 days and we
basically had to bring this before you.
Sidney: One more thing Sharmin. In the development design standards, point 11 it talks about
slope roof elements...
A1-Jaff: It's a combination of a pitched element that they have on the building and staff added t
that the awnings as sloped element as well. They need to meet a 70% slope.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Sidney: The awnings...
A1-Jaff.' One other thing. The only thing we have as far as samples is the brick. We don't have
the colors that will be used on the awnings or the roof or. Thank you.
Joyce: I do have one question. I do concur with you that this seems like an awful lot of light
fixtures. Condition 9 we have the applicant shall reduce the number of light fixtures. Should we
be a little more specific like right now so that they understand how they need to reduce so they
can comply to that? Do you feel comfortable putting a guideline in there?
AI-Jaff: They feel that that is a trademark part of the corporate logo for Ruby Tuesday. It's very
important for them to keep those fixtures. Again, we haven't received a photometrics for the
lights but I went and visited other Ruby Tuesdays, specifically the one in Edina in Southdale.
There is no glare whatsoever.
Joyce: Are you going to need a photometric for both this and the parking lot, correct?
A1-Jaff: Yes. The light fixtures are shielded.
Joyce: I understand but I just think that that condition, because it's very open ended and I'm just
feeling that it might be...process we should close it up a little. With that said, any other
questions?
Conrad: Just one Kevin, or Mr. Chair. I mean when you talk about adding windows, are they
fake windows?
A1-Jaff.' We looked at the interior plan for this Side and the areas, the problem areas are where
they have their storage coolers so my guess it would have to be fake windows. It's something
that Houlihan's did. They added three windows and the hotel, they added six windows.
Conrad: Real or fake?
Aanenson: Fake.
A1-Jaff: We're trying to maintain the same standards and requirements of all applicants within
the PUD.
Conrad: The hotel it's relatively easy to do. With rooms on all sides. Restaurants it's tough but
we're talking about, and detail wise you've recommended like on the south elevation one or two
fake windows? What have we recommended? I'm going to have a tough time voting for the
staff recommendation because I'm not sure what it really is.
A1-Jaff.' Basically where you have the awning, underneath that. You may have a window.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Conrad: Okay. So the full awning, and why. Visually that doesn't bother me personally.
Visually it seems if they put another column like their green and yellow columns to the left of the
awning, there would be some interest to this. But it is your recommendation that a fake window
that you can't see through is a better architectural detail? And you know I don't like, I don't
want to be involved in architectural things but it's going to be hard for me to swing with the
condition here ifI don't understand what we.
Aanenson: This is the third draft and the problem was the articulation on that facade so Sharmin
was working to try to get some additional articulation. They came back with the canopy and we
thought well, that makes you believe there's a window under it. So if you have a concern with
putting a window there, then we would suggest they do something else to make that not along,
unadorned wall. That was the concern that Sharmin was trying to resolve. That was our
response. I'm certain they can...
Conrad: I'll reinforce the Chairman's comment about the light fixtures. I think we'd like the
flexibility to review what they could bring back,.is the way I'm reading your conditions. Is that
what you're looking for is the ability to look back? We don't really have an ordinance that says
you can't have 72 fixtures?
AI-Jaff: As long as they meet the requirements of the photometrics.
Conrad: Yeah, okay. And they're way under in terms of signage square footage, so and they
certainly could put signage on TH 5, right?
AI-Jaff: Right.
Conrad: We want them to actually. Yeah I think that's, we want to help them promote
themselves and not putting it on TH 5, I'm just making sure that,, if that's where they want it but
boy, we don't want to restrict Highway 5 visibility. We want them to be successful. Okay, thank
yOU.
Joyce: Okay. If the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please
step forward and state your name and address please.
Gerry Ruta: Good evening. My name is Gerry Ruta. I'm the President and CEO of RT
Minneapolis. I live at 8391 West Lake Drive in Chanhassen. My family and I moved to
Chanhassen about two years ago and I'm excited to talk to you tonight about Ruby Tuesday. I'd
like to give you a brief overview on the restaurant and my colleague tonight, Scott Nelson will
talk to you about the architecture and address some of the questions you may have. Ruby
Tuesday is a restaurant that's been in business since 1972. Most of the restaurants are east of the
Mississippi and south. There are 385 restaurants nationwide. My company bought the three
existing restaurants in the Twin Cities, Southdale, Rosedale, Mall of America October of 1998.
So we've been doing business as an entity for approximately one year. We have plans on
building six, I'm sorry, 9 more restaurants within the next 5 to 6 years within the Twin Cities.
Most of these restaurants will be free standing restaurants as you see today. We have been
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
working, as Sharmin has said, for the past several months on presenting a building that will be
acceptable to the PUD requirements of the Village on the Pond plan. We're excited to be a part
of the vision of this development. The staff recommendations are very good ones and We've
made quite a number of changes to our prototypical building. As we build our brand in the Twin
Cities, it's important to us that when building a brand you address service, great food, and of
course the image that you project. Part of that image is the prototype for the building. So we've
been working within the PUD requirements as well as our Ruby Tuesday incorporated
requirements as far as prototypical design goes. We think we've come up with a design that
should address most of those, and Scott can talk to you more about the architecture of the
building. And I'd like to bring Scott up right now.
Scott Nelson: Good evening. My name is Scott Nelson. I'm the project architect from DGR
Architecture and we've been working with Gerry and the staff here for several months and as
Sharmin has indicated, done several revisions in listening to the concerns of staff and in trying to
address the concerns and respond with some new ideas. Just say a couple things. Our company
does a lot of work with prototype restaurants and I won't name them all but I think in doing those
we've really begun to appreciate what Ruby Tuesdays does in their brand identity and their
enforcement of the prototypical standards. I think that as a prototype restaurant, as opposed to
several, this is not a box design, as manyare ofa 60x 100 box. The building itself, the floor
plan itself is a very well articulated thing with ins and outs. Changes in height. It also uses some
very traditional brick detailing. Corbels, soldier coursing, diamonds that we've added tile to and
with the pilaster design we've gone through a couple revisions. Have changed these to an EFIS
which brings some color and texture to the building and their basic prototype design is made to
fit into small towns, urban centers, some of the neotraditional design type of ideas. We've
reviewed the conditions of approval I believe that number 20 on here and we really don't have
issue with any of them but two that I'd like to discuss and review and you've actually touched on
a couple of these already ifI might. And we're more than willing to work with, continue to work
with the staff on a couple of the landscaping issues. I think' a number of these have already been
addressed and we'll be happy to work with the building department as it goes through to the code
issue. You touched already on the issue of the fake window I'll call it, and we've discussed in
looking at a couple of possibilities, ifI could refer to the plan here. Refer to the elevations. The
reference was made in the revisions that additional windows should be added to the south and
west elevation. Actually the way the building... The south elevation is really an articulation of
steps that doesn't really show well...but this first piece right here we could add a window that
could be a real window...we've added the awning in the center in response to some of the staff
comments to provide some additional color and some texture out there. We also in the
initial...added a number of additional pilasters at all the comers, not just what's inside... We've
added them basically around the whole building. Added some additional canopies for it, and
light fixtures. Actually added a number of light fixtures so that it would look like one of the, one
that is typically the front and the side. We'd be more than happy to work with staff on...a dozen
or more light fixtures. Anyway, our hope was to get... The west elevation is a little more trouble
because all of that area back there is cooler, restrooms and service area that would be impacted
by windows... Especially at night to seeing through or seeing... The other condition that we have
some issue with is the signage on the west elevation which Sharmin pointed out .... area plan
here that shows where our site sits relative to the pond. Right across the pond from Houlihan's.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Their building, because of the atrium inside, they're able to mm their building slightly such that
they can actually get the three signs and have all of them facing TH5 and the parking area. We
think that the vision of the building coming from the west on Highway 5 is very
important...believe that we still need the one on the north side. Of course on the... We're more
than willing to continue to work with staff...couple of issues but those are the key...
Joyce: Commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
Conrad: Yeah...elevation, which is the side closest to the road? To Highway 5.
Scott Nelson: That would be this one.
Conrad: Okay. And so it was kind of, but you put the signage on the end away from the
highway.
Scott Nelson: Oh I'm sorry.
A1-Jaff: The only elevation that doesn't have any signage is the south elevation which faces the
Villages.
Conrad: Sharmin, that doesn't help with my question. So on the elevation I'm looking at, Ruby
Tuesdays is on the west elevation, the name you've put away from Highway 5 or, which is north
on that elevation? On this particular schematic, which direction is north?
Scott Nelson: It is the one with the entry.
Conrad: Okay.
Scott Nelson: See how the canopies cluster...and we've added light fixtures over... Ideally we'd
put our sign as far north...
Conrad: No, I think it would benefit you by putting it closer a little bit.
Scott Nelson: I think one of the reasons we looked at that there were some landscaping
elements...application. They're really kind of clumped around the comer. They've actually...
Joyce: Anything else? The comment I'd like to make is we like to have live samples of the
materials and I'm sure that City Council would probably like to see those.., samples of the, what
do we have just the brick here tonight?
Aanenson: The colors.
Scott Nelson: Stucco, the canopy.
Joyce: I would highly recommend that.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Scott Nelson: Okay. But they are very close to what you see here.
Joyce: Considering that this is part of a PUD, we like to...
Scott Nelson: We'd be happy to do that.
Joyce: Okay. Alright, could I have a motion to open this up for a public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Joyce: This item is open up for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning
Commission on this topic, please step forward.
Bob Savard: Good evening, my name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and I'm the
closest current residential neighbor t° this development. My concern is particularly with the" .
addition ora patio at some time. Noise. We already have a development in Villages on the Pond
that has a patio and I have a problem with the noise. My concern is what Will we do to try to
prevent extreme noise. I can stand in my bedroom and recite the words to the music that's
coming from the current live entertainment on the patio at Houlihan's and I certainly don't want
that to happen again. I'd like to make it clear though that I've been a strong supporter of the
development of Villages on the Pond, but in this particUlar case I'm Concerned about that issue.
And Secondly, I look at the south elevation of this building from my home. And I would be
concerned about how that appears aesthetically to me. Personally so thank you.
Joyce: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, could I get a motion
to close.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Joyce: Back to the commissioners. We'll start off and put on this item.
Burton: Alright Mr. Chairman I'll venture forth here. I think it's basically a pretty nice project.
I do agree pretty much right down the line with the staff recommendations. I looked at the PUD
standards and it says that there shall not be undevelOPed back sides of buildings. All elevations
shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities, and I guess it's subjective but I don't
believe that they've met those standards and I don't think that the staff is trying to address that
with their recommendations. So I pretty much agree with the staff and then since the applicant is
willing to put a window on the south side there by the entry, I think we should require that they
do that.
Joyce: Anyone else have any comments on this project.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. I agree with Matt. I also feel that the south and west
elevation needs some further interest. Specifically on the south, that is what many of the
pedestrians and a majority of the people who are going to be walking and doing business in the
Villages will be seeing. So I think that that is as important an elevation as the north almost. I
mean there might be granted more traffic per se. More cars per day. Whatever, but the south
elevation is going to be very important to the bulk of the Villages and to leave it totally brick, I
mean although brick is nice. I'm not saying it's not but I think we need a lot more interest there
because by itself it's just not going to do it. I feel that the applicant should consider a West sign.
I feel that the staff needs to really work with them on getting a western sign. I would encourage,
strongly encourage the applicant to do a patio right away, and although Mr. Savard was worried
about noise, I feel that this patio is on the northwest comer of the building and pretty much
screened by the entire building itself so I don't feel that noise would be, I could be wrong. I
don't think it would be a real major at this point because of how the building is placed. The fact
that it probably will project more towards Highway 5 than towards the southeast. And again, if
noise is a concern I'm assuming we have a noise ordinance. If they're exceeding some type of
decibel threshold we have, that that can be looked into but that I guess is another issue. And then
finally just make sure that we get a little more interest of whether it's a false window or whatever
it may be. More columns or something but don't leave the south and west elevations blank
because that just doesn't quite make it. It's not a complete building in my mind then. I need to
look at all four sides equally...
Burton: Mr. Chairman, can I follow up on one thing? A question for staff. Is the sign issue the
same issue we had with the Chinese restaurant that was across the 'way? Is it any different?
Weren't they looking for an extra sign and we wouldn't let them?
Aanenson: Yes.
Burton: Isn't this the same?
Aanenson: ...that would be frontage, correct.
Joyce: I'll ask a similar question...do you know?
A1-Jaff: Technically, as the ordinance reads you would need to give them a variance to put a
sign facing the pond.
Joyce: So in essence they'd have to come back to us? Did I open up a can of worms here?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the answer. How many signs does Houlihan's have?
A1-Jaff: Three. One facing TH 5. One facing the interior of the development, Pond Promenade,
and the third one is facing the parking lot, which is permitted by ordinance.
Kind: They have signs on three sides of every building?
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
A1-Jaff: Correct. That is permitted by ordinance. Under the PUD requirements.
Kind: I don't get how this is different.
Blackowiak: Yeah exactly. Why does this need a variance as opposed to Houlihan's?
A1-Jaff: Houlihan's, signage on Houlihan's faces Highway 5, which is a street frontage. Pond
Promenade which is another street frontage. And the parking lot, which is also another permitted
elevation under the PUD requirement. With this application, with Ruby Tuesday, they have one
sign facing TH 5, which is okay, under the requirements. One facing the parking lot, which is
also okay. The third one is facing the pond, which is not permitted under the PUD requirements.
It could face south which is Pond Promenade.and then they would have a similar situation to
what Houlihan's has.
Kind: How would you make the argument that the one facing the pond is also facing Highway
5?
A1-Jaff: They have one on Highway 5.
Kind: You can only count Highway 5 once? ...got it. Mr. Chairman, I'll just speak to my
points. I would like to be able to see them to have a sign on the west elevation. It's important. I
would also encourage them to move it towards Highway 5. Do different landscaping or
whatever. And I agree with everything else that was said. -
Joyce: Anything else?
Conrad: Well I like this. It's got some life to it and it's probably not Chanhassen. This has got
more character and color and it's kind of fun. I think you've all said the right stuff. Their
signage is real understated and therefore I guess I'd like to figure out how we could help them. I
don't want to break the rules however. There's no point to break the rules but their signage is
really understated and that's kind of neat so I'd like to make sure they have the right visibility so
staff that's, everything I've said is a contradiction. I don't know that you can do that. I think if
we can, a couple architectural details are going to solve some problems, especially on the south
elevation. If they can put a window in there. If they could put one more column or...or
whatever, boy that's going to solve it. I think it's real close and if they want to reduce the, if they
feel that they have too many lights, it looks fine to me but if staff wants to reduce it. It adds
character to the building and again, I don't know how we figure out what the right number is but
they seem to be willing so I think we should leave that in there and give staff flexibility but on
the other hand I don't think I want to say strip out, it does add character and we're not, I'm not
trying to reduce it by 50% by any means so that's clear. I think it's a nice building.
Joyce: Yeah. I'd have to echo everything else that people said. I would like conditions, if we
can make a motion to enter a photometrics study for the light fixtures and if that's okay, I'm
going to back off on how many light fixtures there are. I just want to make sure that we're not
exceeding anything. But after your explanation I can see they are kind of more decorative than
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
o
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security
required by the agreement.
Add planter boxes to west side of building.
All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views.
The Famous Dave's site plan shall be officially withdrawn.
The applicant shall reduce the number of light fixtures.
The west and south building elevations shall be revised by adding windows or other
architectural details.
The proposed commercial development of2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quantity fee of $9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the
final plat.
The wall mounted sign along the west elevation shall not be permitted.
Building Official conditions:
a) The building is required to have fire sprinklers.
b) The utility plan was not reviewed at this time.
c) The floor plan was reviewed for exit separation only.
d) I recommend that the building owner and/or their representatives meet with the
Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
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
storm sewer inlets shall be protected with erosion control measures until all disturbed areas
have been revegetated. A rock construction entrance shall be maintained until the parking
lots and driveways have been paved with a bituminous surface out to Great Plains
Boulevard.
The sidewalk on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site
improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather
conditions prohibit. The applicant shall coordinate installation of the proposed
trail/walkway along the west side of Lot 1 through Outlot B, Villages on the Ponds with the
developer of Villages on the Ponds.
The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The applicant shall be responsible for
obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Department. Cross-access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over
the lot.
15. Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City
upon completion of the site improvements.
16.
A building permit shall not be issued until the access driveway meets fire code
requirements. The driveway may be constructed with a bituminous and/or Class 5 gravel
section, 20 feet wide which meets a 7 tonper axle design.
17. Staff recommends the applicant consider raising the curb elevation/parking lot grade in the
northwest corner of the site a minimum of one foot.
18.
Construction plans for utility extension to the lot from Main Street and Grandview Road
shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All
utilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specificatiOns and detail plates. ~
19. The applicant shall provide parking lot and building lighting plan, i.e., light fixture design
and height, location, photometrics, etc. for review and approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT TALL
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4151 HIGHWAY
7, U.S. WEST WIRELESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN
CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave Fischer
Peter Keller
Deb Reiff 6750
Robert & Mary Blue 6770
Barry & Giselle Matsui 4170
Loren Witte 4101
Bea Gemlo 6780
Bill & Lorna Slott 4167
Jason Hahn 4142
Pat Yantes 4156
US West Wireless
6760 Country Oaks Road
Country Oaks Road
Country Oaks Road
Hallgren Lane
Glendale Drive
Country Oaks Road
Hallgren Lane
& 4162 Hallgren Lane
Hallgren Lane
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions for staff at this time?
Kind: Move to open the public hearing.
Joyce: Can I get a second?
Burton: Second.
Joyce: That's quick. Alright this is open for a public, no I can't, I shouldn't allow that. We've
got to get the applicant up here.
Kind: Oh, sorry.
Joyce: You should be sitting here. Withdraw that. We need to talk to the applicant so if the
applicant would like to make a presentation at this time, please step forward and state your name.
Dave Fischer: Good evening Planning Commission, staff and citizens of Chanhassen. My name
is Dave Fischer representing US West Wireless located at 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room
101, St. Paul, Minnesota. And I'd like to just give a brief overview of where we arrived at this
location. How we started and kind of the quick A to Z if I may. US West engineering
department issued the search ring for this location November 1 st in 1998 and the coverage
encompasses the following locations centered around Highway 7. And the search ring goes as
far north to Howard Point, east to County Road 41, west as far as Smithtown Road, and south to
Red Cedar Avenue. On April 28, 1999 1 met with the City staff to discuss the possibilities of
locating our facility at the Chanhassen Fire Department. Based on positive feedback from the
City to allow us to pursue this location we performed a drive test and based on a couple different
reasons, one being our RF engineering requirements for the height and our objective to locate to
connect our coverage from that site to the west in Minnetrista, and also the lack of ability to
achieve our setback requirements being the height of the tower and half the height of the tower
fi'om the right-of-way. Being that this was the issue and we could not meet these requirements,
we disqualified this location and pursued further locations to the west to try and meet up with our
other existing site to the west. June 7, 1999 1 scheduled a meeting with the Chanhassen staff to
discuss height restrictions, setbacks, zoning restrictions within our search area, and after
reviewing the area, keeping in mind the zoning requirements and our RF engineers objectives, we
determined the Holy Cross Lutheran Church would be the best site that would meet and comply
within the zoning regulations. After several meetings in June with the city staff and talking with
them we determined that we could be permitted through a conditional use permit as long as the
US West comply within the following zoning ordinance guidelines. 'In Section 20-1503 the
height restrictions up to 80 feet unless we accommodate one other additional user. In Section 20-
1504, that we may exceed the height limitations up to 25 feet. In Section 20-1505, that we
comply with all the setback requirements. Since US West was in compliance with all of the
guidelines as staff had pointed out in the zoning ordinance. US West proceeded with the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church. Understanding that there had been concerns from the community
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
surrounding the church, US West decided to hold an open house to address any questions and
concerns of the community. Under Section 20-1506 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance,
towers in residential zoning districts, subsection (c) allowing towers in residential uses for
government, school, utilities and institutional sites. It has been US West's experience with
jurisdictions such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnetonka, Woodbury, and many other jurisdictions
that churches are typically defined as institutional sites. Since the City of Chanhassen does not
have a definition of institution and the city staff had not conveyed anything to the contrary, US
West had proceeded with the proposed site at the church under Section 20-1506. Towers in
residentially zoned districts, subsection, as an institutional use, which is very common
throughout the Minneapolis area. When we held this open house, US West notified all residents
within 500 feet of the proposed property to address the following issues. Why US West chose
this location. How it related to our design requirements. The concerns regarding aesthetics and
how this affect property values. Why US West chose this site, the Holy Cross Lutheran Church
is the most sensible location that achieves our objective, yet also complies with all applicable
zoning Outlined in the Zoning Ordinance that I stated previously. As well as subsection, as an
institutional use. The location allows us to meet all setback requirements and height
requirements and still achieve our objective in meeting with our site located to the west. One of
the other issues which we understand the concerns from the public are regarding property values.
Based on the review of property value studies, including an article in November, 1996 there was
a real estate value impact study conducted in the cities of Stillwater, Golden Valley and New
Hope in 1996 by Rupert and Rupert Associates.. And the study concluded, the .findings of this
study indicate that all three study areas, there's no measurable difference in the market value and
selling prices between the property in close proximity to the communication towers and those
that are farther away from the tower. Therefore it is our conclusion that communication towers
do not have a measurable or identifiable impact on residential values, unquote from Scott Rupert,
MAI JD of Rupert and Rupert Associates. On behalf of US West I'm requesting approval of this
application for the CUP be approved for a 100 foot monopole structure to be located at the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church located at 4151 Highway 7, Excelsior. US West makes this request
based on the following criteria. Compliance to Section 20-1506 of towers in the residential
districts. Compliance to Section 20-1505 regarding to setbacks and compliance to the Section
20-1503, Subsection (b)(1) and 1504, Subsection (1), as well as Subsection 2(c) of 1506 of
institutional uses. I would like to thank the City of Chanhassen for their assistance regarding US
West's proposed wireless communication at the church and request approval for this application.
And would be more than happy to answer any questions concerning this.
Joyce: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much.
Dave Fischer: You bet.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Joyce: Okay. This is open for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the commission on this
topic please step forward, state your name and address.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
I guess I'll volunteer to go first. Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760
Country Oaks Road. I've also served on a commission, local commission and I know it's a long
and huge and often unthanked job so I appreciate your dedication to the community. I'm a stay at
home dad. I do daycare. Have a home based daycare business and look directly at the church's
property. This is the primary view from my back yard. I find it wonderful that Dave's had the
time to read the ordinance. I can't agree more with Sharmin's conclusions that the tower does
not comply with 20-1506, number 2, section (a) that it quite clearly says that a church site, that it
has to be camouflaged within the steeple or the bell tower. It certainly is open to interpretation
whether a church is an institution or not but because it more specifically outlines a church as a
church, and the roles that apply to it, I think that's what we need to stick with. I also have to
thank Sharmin. It's been a true pleasure in working with her and getting some great feedback in
how the process works. And that if we want to go into the business of looking at a variance
request from US West, I think at that time it'd be far more appropriate for us to get into the
compatibility and residential neighborhood. How it's going to affect values. We would need to
do things like get a little bit more organized. I mean when I talked to Sharmin about her report I
was inquisitive as to why a lot of the things that we had discussed left out and it's essentially a
moot point. It's not appropriate to address at this time. The ordinance collectively says it's not
right. We need a variance to go into those other things. The other things, you know namely have
a lot of them have been brought up by Dave but I think it'd be interesting to get our experts on
whether there really is a need for this technology and our experts to look at real estate values and
our experts to look at resale and things like that. And also again, at the variance time it would be
interesting to look at things like increased incidents of lightning in the trees that are around there
and how this would negatively affect my business that I run at home with a view of this tower.
Why they really, truly believe that this is the best location considering Minnetrista's about a
stone's throw away from approving a 150 foot tower that's actually less than 2 miles away from
this location. And why really specifically should we come to the conclusion after approving
great hardship that the church is the only place that it could be. why it has to be in clear view of
the neighbors without any screening whatsoever. This is in full view of our homes so I guess in
closing I really don't have a lot more to add except that I very encourage you. I understand you
are an advisory commission and I very much encourage you to advise the City Council on the
staff recommendation. Thank you very much.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the Planning Commission at this
moment.
Robert Blue: Hi. My name's Robert Blue. I live at 6770 Country Oaks Road. Right next door
to Pete, and as he did point out, this view here is directly west of my hOuse. That tower, 100 feet
tall is approximately I would guess about 300 feet away from my house, and there is no
shielding. There is no trees. There's no nothing. It's going to be aneyesore sitting on my deck
and that's why I bought that lot in the first place was for the nice view in the back of that church.
I can't recommend this tower being there at all. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
Deb Reiff: My name is Deb Reiffand I'm on the other side of Pete at 6750 Country Oaks Road.
I have with me a letter that was given to us by the church one week ago when they had their
initial hearings or informational meeting on this. It states in here, if you believe that this tower,
which will be explained to you tonight, is something you can't live with, then neither are we
willing to have the tower built on the property of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. I don't know if
there's any church representatives here tonight but I think that we have 100% representation here
tonight of every house ,along the back there that will get to enjoy this oversized flag pole view.
And that the advantages to Holy Cross congregation as they listed in here, actually there's only
one and that is the financial payment that they would be receiving for this. I guess my feeling is
that churches should be holding fund raisers rather than erecting towers that are going to lower
our property values and just have this site in our back yard. And in criteria number 5, in their
recommendation, it is not true that it would not be, that there would be aesthetic impact because
there will be. The houses to the south have tree cover but as they explained a week ago, come
wintertime that tree cover is gone and these people that have built these nice homes there will
have that huge pole right in their back yard. And we have no tree cover so we can enjoy this
tower all the time from our back deck. So I request, I strongly request that this be denied.
Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed,
Joyce: Okay, commission.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman...staff report and appreciate, the comments.. ~ The zoning ordinance
clearly states the fact that this site...
Joyce: Anyone else like to comment on this?
Conrad: It doesn't meet it so the staff report is appropriate.
Kind: I agree.
Joyce: The only comment I'd make, I mean who was the fellow that used to work for the
Planning Commission that did all the work for us on the.
A1-Jaff: John Rask.
Joyce: He became quite an expert on that. And just a note to US West, I think we really did
some due diligence on monopoles and really looked at our ordinance very, very seriously and did
a lot of research on it. John did a lot of research on it. This doesn't follow the ordinance so I
really don't think I could vote for it. So with that said, could I get a motion please.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
conditional use permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless
communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the finding in the staff report.
Conrad: Second.
Joyce: Any discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
Conditional Use Permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower
wireless communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the following:
The zoning ordinance requires antennas on church sites to be camouflaged as an
architectural feature such as steeples or bell towers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Joyce: This topic will come up again in front of City Council September 27th. Thank you all for
coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT SETBACK
REQUIREMENT OF THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR (HC-2} DISTRICT REGULATION
TO PERMIT THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SANITATION DOCK AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED
lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD, C.F.
HAGLIN AND PILLSBURY COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dennis Wendt
Tom Lind-MacMillen
Dotti Shay
4749 Diane Drive
3311 East 51st Street
7230 Frontier Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions of staff?. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Dennis Wendt: My name is Dennis Wendt. I'm with Setter, Leach & Lindstrom. Basically we
concur with the recommendations the staff has made and we are willing to look at adding the
additional trees that they want. As far as applying for a building permit, the information that
they're looking for will be part of our contract documents for the city. I have the, a couple
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
people from Pillsbury that can address any questions that you have pertaining to the use of this
facility.
Joyce: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Burton moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Joyce: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to addresS the Planning
Commission at this time, please step forward. Seeing none.
Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Joyce: Commission?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the staff comments. I think it looks pretty good. Makes
sense here.
Kind: I especially like the benefit of the trash enclosed and I like the idea that it's a condition.
Joyce: Alright, can I get a motion.
Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification, excuse me. I meant to say this before. This is a
straight forward variance so it does not go onto City Council unless it's appealed so let me
modify that condition number 5 to say that before a buildingpermit is issued, that they
demonstrate that the lighting is downcast and not shining on 'the adjoining property. Or is in
compliance with City ordinances.
Kind: Is that all lighting?
Aanenson: Yes.
Kind: The whole facility, not just this new addition?
Aanenson: Correct. Just so you understand it's not going on to City Council unless it's
appealed.
Kind: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-11 for a 20 foot
variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a sanitation dock enclosure
addition as prepared by Setter, Leach & Lindstrom dated 7/28/99 based upon the findings in the
staffreport and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 5. And do I need to restate?
Joyce: Paraphrase.
Kind: That the applicant review overall lighting to ensure compliance with current city codes
before building permit.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: Perfect. I've got a motion, do I get a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Joyce: Discussion.
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-
11 for a 20 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a
sanitation dock enclosure addition, plans prepared by Setter, Leach & Lindstrom dated
7/28/99, based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall replace the trees being lost due to the expansion on a two to one ratio.
Based on the grading plan dated 8/20/99 submitted to the city, the replacement trees include
eight (8) conifers and 12 deciduous trees. These replacement trees shall be located to
soften the building elevation and help screen the condensing units to the east. A landscape
plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to the issuance of the
building permit.
2. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan needs to be submitted in conjunction with the
building permit application. Details such as retaining wall height, parking lot grades and
erosion control measures need to be denoted on this plan.
3. The plans shall be revised to show specific utilities that will be extended through the site.
4. Permits from the Building Department will be required for relocation and extension of the
storm sewer system.
5. Before a building permit is issued the applicant shall demonstrate that the building
lighting is downcast and in compliance with city ordinances.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414
UNITS) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES, COURT HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES
AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE
HOMES.
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Public Present:
Name Address
Dennis Griswold Pulte
Mark Gugnther Pulte
Jim Deanovic Peter
Paul Savaryn 9950
Bud Olson 7331
Bruce Geske 7325
Brian Evans 2585
Susan Markert 7461
Homes
Homes
Anderson Co.
North Shore Road, Waconia 55387
Hazeltine Blvd.
Hazeltine Blvd.
Southern Court
Hazeltine Blvd.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: ...conceptual point, this is conceptual PUD.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: So I'm a little bit confused in terms of the process Kate. I thought we were kind of,
why all the conditions at this point in time? It looks like you put a lot of conditions on when
you're really looking for a non-binding comment by the Planning Commission at this time. I
don't understand.
Aanenson: That's a good question. We leave no stone unturned. We want to make sure we've
given them clear direction on what they need to do at the next evolution. That they're not going
off in one direction. That they hear from you. I think if you wanted to leave it in broad brush
strokes, come back with storm water calculations, more details in grading, that's fine. I mean
their marching orders are actually in the PUD ordinance itself that says what you need to show at
the next level of detail. So it could be addressed that way. But I think some of the things that we
did want them to resolve that wouldn't be in the PUD ordinance is articulation of the commercial
zone, specifically the list. You know the list that you feel comfortable with the uses. And then
architecturally, how they're going to make that compatible. The other thing that we talked about,
there is five different home products in there. Get some direction from you. The staff's initial
response was to make those more neighborhoods. We want diversity of material within there but
should that be done on a neighborhood basis or within the project and those aren't specific to the
ordinance itself.
Conrad: If I could challenge everybody up here. Stay on the big picture tonight. Staff can do the
other stuff. Don't get hung up in all the conditions in the staffreport. Do you like where
commercial is? Do you think there should be more commercial? Do you like the housing type?
Do you like the, stay big.
Joyce: We shouldn't get into the density at this situation?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Aanenson: Well, it does require based on this project, it does require a land use
recommendation. Alteration which would read in that you'd have to, again we're not increasing
the total number of units. What we're doing, so that we would need feedback on too. So that's
the big picture though, that's correct.
Joyce: Then it will come back to us as an amendment?
Aanenson: When it comes back to you, the process would be conceptual approval,
recommendations, whatever you recommend to the Planning Commission they will also hear and
make a recommendation. They have to come back through the process with very detailed plans
for preliminary.
Joyce.' ...that tonight at all either?
Aanenson: No. But what I'm saying is they need some direction so they know how to proceed.
Again, similar to like we did on Walnut Grove.
Joyce: Okay. Any other questions for staff?.
Conrad: Just a couple. The density transfer is coming from where to where in your
recommendation? The visual was so dark.
Aanenson: By the north side of the road is 0 to 4. And the south side is 4 to 8 so it's actually
coming in, based on our calculations at 114. They're coming in at just a little over...
Conrad: Were we preserving anything in that?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: What were we doing?
Aanenson: This stand of trees. These trails connected throughout and then the area that's behind
the Olson... And then all this area over here will transfer the density. This isn't going up but
this is what we recommended based on the primary zone, that it's in the primary zone. That all
this be preserved. That has the slopes on it. That would be in front of the future Westwood
Church.
Conrad: So we're transferring density from the west side. You are transferring from the west
side of the highway?
Aanenson: Right. Consistent with the Bluff Creek overlay district.
Conrad: And that is all wooded?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Aanenson: Predominantly. I would say 80%. Near 90.
Conrad: The ag/urban wetland that are marginal, you've just pointed at them. Is that where
you're trying to get maybe some funding to support the resurrection of those or, I wasn't quite
sure what the staff report said in terms of the future of the restoration of those.
Aanenson: Okay. MnDOT examined those as part of the Highway 5 frontage road. When they
went out and did their surveY. And based on farming practices, some of those have been
eliminated. They are proposing a pond, this pond, part of this will hold Highway 5 drainage also.
But this pond does remain but they have been altered as far as past practices.
Conrad: Pretty worthless basically, is that what we're saying?
Aanenson: Right.
Conrad: So we don't have plans from the city to help, or from a government standpoint, to help
those?
Aanenson: No. Again, MnDOT was driving that issue. They're out ahead °fus on that as far as
the frontage road.
Conrad: Do we have a visual direction for the comer of 41 and 5? Are you comfortable with a
pond being there? Being that it's a major intersection. We have the Arboretum across, is this
where staff is comfortable in terms of an entryway to really Chanhassen? Is the pond what you
like?
Aanenson: Ah no .... actually they're coming back with more of an arbor. We had the same
discussion on Bluff Creek Elementary that we're reflecting character of the Arboretum, which is
apple orchards. I'm not sure as far as mitigation of some of this, it's going to be a busy
intersection. Mitigation of visual qualities, that that's the best material that we should be using.
I think we can do a combination. City Forester, the Water Resource Coordinator and I have
discussed that. We think we can do a nice combination in that comer of forest, you know
reforestation and a water feature and that's who we are and I think that would be a better
statement instead of just the pond.
Conrad: The commercial area, you like the proportion? Has that always been our vision? That
amount of commercial.
Aanenson: The comp plan said, I believe it was 2 ½ to 5 acres. That is one of your attachments.
Flip through it quickly. 2 ½ acres. It's really a remnant piece and actually if you look at the
frontage road it's a point of discussion that Dave and I caught as we were looking at the location
of the frontage road. As this property goes back towards the group home it actually comes back
and touches Highway 5. We have a little remnant parcel. This is the commercial piece. This is
the property limits here. We've got this little remnant piece. It doesn't have a lot of, here's
Highway 5...in front of the group home...
23
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Conrad: Do we like that restored Wetland? The commercial, if it's neighborhood commercial
it'd be cool if you didn't have to pass over a street. Do we like the restoration of that, do we like
the pond where it is?
Aanenson: I think that's being driven by MnDOT. They need a pond at that location. I think the
commercial was originally on the other side of the street and that was their recommendation.
Correct me if I'm wrong Dave. Yeah. But there is a nice tree row. If you bring that point up on
the back side of that house that's being rented right now, but it's difficult at this time to measure
the exact degradation as the trees at that frontage road and the gradings going to appear. It would
be nice to save the tree lines on the back of this... Actually in BluffCreek we talked about an
alternative underpass and that was basically a critter crossing. Underneath Highway 5 we talked
about that. It was not implemented into the design guidelines so we're going to put little arrows
to direct the deer. But we do have the other underpass, but that was talked about. There is a nice
tree line but at this point it's hard to measure exactly what the grading and utilities are going to
do to that. And speaking of utilities, the sewer will follow similar to what it did at the Meadows.
It does follow the edge of the wetland. It will be in the low area so it will be following the
southern edge of that most northerly wetland. That's the low area. No matter what went in,
that's where the sewer would go.
Hempel: And a pathway will mostly likely follow the trail that's being proposed along that
wetland edge as well.
Aanenson: Right. And that's similar to what we did on the other side.
Conrad: The Markert property, do we care what kind of vision or guidance do we have for that
and we do have connectivity to that when it develops.
Aanenson: Right. And as we're planning access on it, Mrs. Markert is here. We have met with
her. She has some development potential for her property in the future but right now it's my
understanding she'd like to leave it in the agricultural use. She has plans on kind of an
agricultural use that you'll be seeing shortly, but we have provided access to her and where the
Highway 5 touchdown point was located, they did...in order to give her a little bit of buffering
and landscaping so it's not right adjacent to her property.
Conrad: The property to the west of TH 41, again that is recommended for density transfer.
How do peopleuse that in the future? What is it's purpose?
Aanenson: It's similar to what we did on the property just north of Stone Creek. We left that as
a conservation easement.
Conrad: Is there a trail projected to go through?
Aanenson: No.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Conrad: Is it just there?
Aanenson: Yes. Natural.
Conrad: Just the natural. And how many houses, what kind of density can we transfer out? 4 to
1 out of that area?
Aanenson: Well first they have to demonstrate what they could have got on that otherwise.
There is a wetland on the north, very small little finger of wetland. They have to demonstrate
what they could have gotten anyway if they were to do an official layout and then based on that,
we'd take those number of units and transfer them over.
Conrad: Any benefit to the, or what are we doing for the marsh to the north? That good, big
wetland there. Anything that you've recommended Kate?
Aanenson: Right. That one we did recommend. That was one of the projects we recommended.
We did receive some resistance at that time from the subdivision to the north. We'd like to"
revisit that issue. The Bluff Creek corridor study made a recommendation to increase the habitat
by adding some, by making it a little deeper. Adding some water. Give some diversity up there.
We'd still like to revisit it. Again, this will be a very nice, with the trail around the entire
property, very nice experience and we would like to increase the diversity, and that is a project
and we will be working, if this goes forward, to try to make that as a part of this.
Conrad: Do you know what condition that is, or where you said that in the recommendations ·
Kate? And I don't want to get into details of it.
Aanenson: It is on page 7 under wetlands. Very bottom of the page.
Conrad: And is it in a condition on your recommendations Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. I believe so.
Conrad: I think that's important, that's why. We can come back to that Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Joyce: Deb you had a question.
Kind: Yes. Kate, could you talk about the trail, the section that you'd like eliminated. Show me
where that was. I couldn't figure out the directions.
Aanenson: Highway 5 does have a trail section. 41 is not being upgraded at this time. They
show a trail going all the way around. The other issue, going back to circulation... There's two
access points. The project on the frontage road which is West 78th...creating a better grid. With
that we felt like there needed to some internal trails through there. Get out of here, you're
blocking a driveway.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Kind: I agree. Yeah.
Aanenson: So we felt if we made an edge here, making this...and put a trail or sidewalk in.
Kind: And where's the trail that you want to get rid of?. That you reCommended eliminating,
Hempel: We're proposing a trail along this wetland here...
Aanenson: Sort of duplicating that trail experience.
Kind: Thank you. And then have you calculated the hard surface coverage?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: That's being proposed here... And just this drawing, I can't tell that they're providing for
any visitor parking lot. Would our ordinance of 1 for every 4 units apply to this?
Aanenson: We'll have to calculate that. We didn't do the landscaping percentage of anything.
It's kind of broad brush at this point but that's something that they'll have to look at, correct.
Kind: That's all for now.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman. Could you, on this color map, show us where the primary and
secondary corridors fall based on the Bluff Creek study?
^anenson: It takes in most of this...
Blackowiak: So pretty much everything west of TH 41, which is.
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: And that follows the edge of this wetland. And then...but again the point I was
making with Highway 5 frontage road, some of that would be eliminated.
Blackowiak: So primary, pretty much the northem.
Aanenson: Correct. And then along this edge.
Blackowiak: Okay. What about secondary? Is that all the rest?
Aanenson: No. The secondary follows...
26
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Blackowiak: Okay. Talking about setbacks from primary corridor, weren't we at 150 feet?
Aanenson: No.
Blackowiak: What is the building setback from the primary corridor? Why do I have 150 feet in
my mind?
Aanenson: I've got the attachment, it's one of your attachments. The other thing is with the
primary corridor is that, that was our kind of point of beginning. They can provide
documentation by a qualified person to say this site has been altered but that was based on the
information we had based on wildlife movement again and vegetation, slopes, wetland.
Blackowiak: But didn't we have some qualified people to do the Bluff Creek study? Aren't we
confident about the primary corridor delineation?
Aanenson: It's similar to what we did with the wetland. We inventoried all the wetlands with an
exact line of delineation. They would still have to go back out and verify by a qualified person.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: The ordinance is attached as one of yours, I don't have that offthe top of my head but
if you want me to look it up I can. They're going to have setbacks from the wetland.
Burton: I think it's on the last page.
Aanenson: 40 feet.
Blackowiak: 40 feet.
Aanenson: And that's consistent with like the, and that really is following the wetland. Edge of
that wetland which is going to be 40 feet. It's a PUD. You can put what standards you want in
there.
Blackowiak: So where, go to Family of Christ on the south side of TH 5, near Bluff Creek
school. Weren't we talking about 150 or 100 feet back?
Aanenson: That was an area within the Bluff Creek study that we had identified additional
enhancement to so as part of that PUD we said this is an area that we want to enhance. Similarly
we said that huge significant tree stands we wanted to preserve so that was an area that we had
identified in the study document, and I attached that in your packet, of an area we wanted to
improve because that was along the creek. So we said we wanted additional setback there. For
the PUD. What were we getting for that PUD.
Blackowiak: Right. So what are we getting, tell me what we're getting with this PUD and why
we should stay at 40 feet and shouldn't be farther back from the primary zone?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Aanenson: I don't know if I've given a specific setback. I haven't calculated all those yet, or
parking ratios. I think we're looking for some direction from you. Again, what the staff's
position was was lower the front end instead of putting the higher units, that we preserve the
significant stands. We transfer the density and the diversity of housing mix.
Blackowiak: And then the commercial, the amount of commercial. How does it compare, I'm
sure I've got it here somewhere but.
Aanenson: 5 was the original recommendation, but what I'm saying is the pond had to go on that
side so it left a remnant parcel. It may even be larger if you add what's on the other side. Or you
can say, maybe you only have 2 acres and the rest of it will be office related or quasi because
you're going to have that remnant piece as TH 5 works it's, the frontage road West 78th works
it's way back towards TH 5.
Blackowiak: I'm just concerned about what kind of income, you know tax revenue.
Aanenson: Sure. I guess and we wanted more specific, what types of uses they were looking at
and maybe you could attach what some other quasi kind of uses that would be compatible to a
neighborhood.
Blackowiak: And just the overall, talking about what you want for that comer of TH 41 and TH
5 and you're not sure that the pond is what you want. Is this dense block of housing what you
want? We as a city want. It's pretty intense right there.
Aanenson: It could be more intense. It's up 8 units an acre. We lowered'it down to just over 4.
I think that's probably better than keeping it up closer to 8. And also I think with this type of
product and orientation, I think it works nice with the trees being saved. You're not going to see
with the orientation of the buildings, you're not going to see the sea of rooftops through there.
Again, we don't have a lot of details on the topography, which is oneofthe conditions we had in
there specifically. How they can work those units which they're aware. We've discussed that.
Worked those units in so they're not, it's not mass graded. I mean it can hold 400 units. 400
plus units on the site. That's what they're coming in with. Whether it was all low density or
what about the higher density, they're still going to have 400 units. It's 100 acres.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Burton: I was just 'following along with Alison. I'm concerned with the density too, and maybe
it's just hard to look at the mixture here, but I like how the manor home section is spread out
with the houses and that green space. And it'd be nice if we could incorporate more of that feel
throughout the rest of the project too because just when you look through the corridor with the
court homes and, especially along with the village homes too, it's just so dense right through
there and I don't think it's like anything that I'm familiar with in the area. It just seems like it's
such a heavy use right in the middle there. And one thing I was curious about, is this whole
28
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
project within the conservation, excuse me, the Bluff Creek conservation overlay? Whatever it
is.
Aanenson: No.
Burton: Just the edges?
Aanenson: Yep. Just this piece here.
Burton: It's not in the overlay district, the whole?
Aanenson: No. I know it's hard to read but that is unattached.
Burton: Yeah, I couldn't read it at all. Because that's talking about incorporating the natural
features and working with them and I kind of like the rural feel that Chanhassen has and this I
think just eliminates that feel altogether.
Joyce: See what they have for the presentation. A couple quick questions Kate. Is there a fence
around this area?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: I mean is it a big fence?
Aanenson: There's not specifics on that.
Joyce: It looks like it borders the whole, that whole big section. I can ask staff. Are you saying
that this rOad right here is going to, like a turn around, is that the suggestion there?
Aanenson: Cul-de-sac it. We don't think it makes sense to pinch it between those two wetlands
and take down the trees.
Joyce: One, just so I can understand this. We're going to send this, this is kind of like a dry run
that we're going to send to City Council. City Council's going to get our comments.
Aanenson: Right. If you want additional you can certainly keep it here for a while but yeah, it's
ultimately your recommendation will go up to the City Council and then they'll give the final
read.
It may take some time to come back, correct. It's not in the MUSA. They'll have to wait 'til
that. They also have to petition for sewer. They have a two year phasing plan. They hope to be
started in 2000. Very optimistic in our opinion. Assuming, we've got to get the road in place.
Utilities in place. They can't proceed. We don't allow permits to go until the utilities are in
place so it could be a year out.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: ...out in front of some people and find out What we're doing here so that's what we'll do
right now. If the applicant would like to make a presentation.
Dennis Griswold: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is
Dennis Griswold. The Director of Land for Pulte Homes and with me tonight is Mark Gugnther
who will be up in a few minutes to talk about the particular product types that Pulte would be
offering. And also Mr. Jim Deanovic who is one of the underlying property owners who will be
speaking to you about the rental townhome portion and also the leftover piece on the west side of
TH 41. So with that I think we've talked, or hit on a lot of the different points on the site plan.
I'd like to just quickly go through some of those points and give you some of the thoughts that
we had. Of course we're trying to, through the planned development process, do two things.
Provide a community that would be a life cycle community for a number of different housing
needs within the city of Chanhassen. And we're also trying to shift density around, or the units
around somewhat so that we can work with the proposed frontage road and with the existing
amenities on the site. Namely the wooded areas up along the marsh to the northwest behind the
Markert property, and also the wooded area down on Highway 5, which is right in here. Those
are the dominant features on the site that we can work with. Obviously we're totally avoiding the
major wetland on site within the corridor so we feel that when we accomplish this site plan we
will have a community that will be a life cycle community for various people in different age
groups, income groups, housing needs groups to enjoy this land and the amenities and also be in
a site that is very strategically located on a very busy road, but very convenient to the
metropolitan area. And I think that's what we're trying to do is blend the Highway 5 corridor if
you will with the amenities and given that we feel it is a very exciting site and a very nice site to
live at, if we can do those and accomplish it through working with you by the way and to this
point we've worked closely with staff. We've come through several iterations of this concept
plan, and we did want to keep it a concept level because as soon as we get into more detailed
plans you get more locked into a position. It's harder to flex with comments. It becomes a very
expensive process. This way we can have an interaction and hopefully come out with the best
community possible working with you and council. We obviously don't know all of what you're
trying to achieve. We were trying to provide an amenity on the comer of TH 5 and 41 in the
form of a pond with a fountain that would be backed by pretty heavy vegetation and a decorative
fence to kind of form the buffer between the heavy traffic area of TH 5 and the housing behind it.
We thought that could be a nice entrance to Chanhassen from the west. Reflect what is over in
the Arboretum in terms of plant material, but have the statement be more of a natural statement if
you will with the plant material and the pond. I think through the process with you and staff
maybe we can refine that to what yoUr vision might be for that comer. It's obvious looking at the
plan we're willing to dedicate some space on the site. Some expenditure to accomplish that. So
we do have some common goals here. We want to come out of it with a very nice looking
community that is economically successful for our company but one that you can be proud of too
for years to come. We do offer within the plan development a series of paths that represent kind
of our best effort at where people might want to go on site. On an initial stage. That has been
recommended to change a little bit. Having gone through parks now, by revising the path along
the east side in this area, and there have been comments about bringing the path system more into
the southwest.., and maybe a better alignment on that street. So the streets within that part of the
site are all private streets that would be maintained by the association. But given that we can
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
work with you on the green spaces in a more organized path system through there. The more
heavily defined streets through this area and through here, of course public streets within public
right-of-way. We would be constructing those and of course dedicating to the city. It was our
understanding on a preliminary basis that that northerly, or northeasterly loop is something that
was being contemplated by the, by one of the overall neighborhood plans and we're very happy
to make that a cul-de-sac and not impose an access onto the adjacent property to the east. So we
think that would be a very good solution. We will be, just a little bit about our process. Pulte
Homes is a national corporation. We do about 20,000 units a year nationally. About 600 units
locally and we're actually the Marv Anderson Division here in Minnesota. We've been here
since 1990. And this is the type of community or project area that we really like to develop. We
do the development and the construction of the units so we control the total community and I
think we end up with a very nice product in the end. With that I would like to divert the
comments to Mark Gugnther to just briefly touch on the unit types that we're proposing. As we
mentioned on the site plan there are five different unit types. I'll just quickly point out where
those units are on the site and then Mark can come through with more specifics about the
architecture and the demographics. On the northerly part of the site, along the marsh are the club
homes, which are one level with a basement where topography permits. Those club homes
typically for the empty nester type buyer. In the center portion are our manor homes. They are
row homes that are front to back. Garage on the front, back has the patio with either three to a
building or four to a building. The area in through here, the rental townhomes which Jim
Deanovic will be constructing. He will address those after Mark...his comments. On the south
side of the frontage road would be the court homes through this area and thoSe are 8 unit
buildings and 6 unit buildings. And then down in the southwest comer are the village homes
which are 12 plex units. They're three story on the garage side, or patio side, and theY're
configured with the green space in-between that creates kind of a little two building
neighborhood affect for those people. So those are the different unit types. The villages, court
homes, the manor homes and club homes will all be constructed by Pulte. They would be owner
occupied and the 32 rental over here would be constructed by... With that I'd like to introduce
Mark Gungther from Pulte Homes to go through the demographics and...
Mark Gungther: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Mark
Gungther. I'm the construction manager for Pulte Homes, Marv Anderson Homes Division as
Denny mentioned. Denny did kind of give you a little background on Pulte Homes in terms of
it's size. The thing though that we've been most proud of here in Minnesota in our division for
the past 5 years we have been the best Pulte Homes Division across the U.S. in terms of customer
satisfaction. The product that we deliver to our customers is a very high quality product. Our
customers are very satisfied with the end result as well as the service they receive afterwards.
Like Denny mentioned, the community here of Arboretum Village consists of four products that
are owner occupied and another product, one product that is rental townhomes. The products
that we are presenting to you tonight, we have built hundreds of already across the Twin Cities
metropolitan area. We've learned a lot from our buyers by building these communities what
their needs are. What their wants are and then design and modify the products throughout the
years to meet those needs. The first product that I'd like to present to you as Denny mentioned
on the southern part is the village homes. This product is a two story townhouse with a tuck
31
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
under garage. We offer four floor plans in 12 home building so there are actually 12 homes in
one L shaped building.
Joyce: Mark, do we have a rendering of that?
Mark Gungther: That one there. Was there one in the packet?
Joyce: We have some nice color. I guess this one's black and white.
Mark Gungther: The square footage on these homes range from about 900 to 1,150 square feet.
Price range on these is about $100,000 to $110,000. The buyer profile on this, this caters
basically to a first time buyer. They're typically professionals just starting out their career.
Wanting to own. Moving up, or moving away from rental or mom and dad just said enough. It's
time to get out on your own so don't want to live at home anymore. Since they are a first time
buyer we have seen very few children in these communities. When we do a purchase agreement,
each buyer is surveyed and so that's how we get our demographic information so by building
hundreds of these homes we've been able to compile all that information throughout the years
and what we've seen in this product is about .25 children per household. And in the age group,
the majority of those children are falling in from birth to 5 years of age. In this product. As
Denny mentioned on the elevation that you're seeing here, this is the two stories with the tuck
under garage on the main entrance and then in the green space, this court yard area between the
buildings here, the elevation of the homes will be two story and patios on that side into the
courtyard as well as a couple units on the end with a patio courtyard. The next product is our
court homes. These are also two story townhomes. The square footage is larger than the village
homes. We range from about 1,100 to 1,350. The price range also is increased from about
$112,000 to about $130,000. We offer three floor plans in 6 and 8 homes per building. The
buyer profile on this is also very similar to the village home, except in the essence that they need
a little bit more income. It's a buyer that wants a little bit more house. Has a little bit more
income to spend and so they move into a two car garage unit. A little bit more square footage. It
is typically your first time buyer as well and we've seen about. 16 children per household in this
product. We offer in this community we do have multiple elevations. This one here is kind of a
hip roof and then we also have...elevations. The elevations do get mixed up within the
community so it's not just one elevation throughout the entire community.
Joyce: Could I back you up for just one second. On the village homes, there's a question I was
going to ask. Number one, you've got some bayed out windows in our rendition here. I assume
that's a premium or something like that or is that natural?
Mark Gungther: That is a different, the end unit is a different design. So that would be
incorporated into the cost of that. And then in the comer, these are actually, it's a single level
home. Single level...so that's the four different floor plans that we're offering.
Joyce: The other question when we're talking about elevations is, we're looking at the gabling
right now. They're just small gables here...
32
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Mark Gungther: Correct.
Joyce: Thanks.
Mark Gungther: The next product is our manor homes. Those are all... In this product we have
two floor plans. They are both split level townhomes ranging from about 1,200 to 1,500 square
feet. Price range is about $145,000 to $165,000. These are available in 3 and 4 homes per
building. The buyer profile on this is typically 50% are move up buyers. The other 50% are first
time buyers. Just like the village homes, court homes, manor homes and the club homes, these
are all association care communities. All the snow removal, ground maintenance, etc is all taken
care of underneath the association. So they're looking for association care as well. You typically
see a few more children in this community. About .32 children per household. And the last
product that we're presenting here is our club homes. We offer three floor plans in our club
home communities here as well. The square footage on here varies from about 1,222 square feet
and we also put 3 homes per building in here as well. The square footage varies in these homes
because we offer them with one level, as well as some of the homes will have a basement. And
the buyers that we've seen most recently are deciding to finish their lower levels so the square
footage goes up as well as the finish price, which will range from about $145,000 to $220,000.
These cater mostly to our active adult communities. Average age is around 55. This is typically
their last house that they're going to purchase or they're just nearing retirement and just
preparing for it. They're seeking, the primary goal is seeking that one level living as well as the
ground maintenance, association care. And we typically don't see very, see very, very few
children in here. About. 15 children per household and those range in age of 15 years and older
so living at home or just getting prepared to move out of home. So those are the four
communities. All homes presented to you this evening, we have they'll all be predetermined
exterior color packages and we can discuss that as well. All the elevations you see have brick.
Typically it's all maintenance free products that we install in there between brick, vinyl siding,
aluminum soffit, facia, and shingles as well so, with that I'd like to thank you for the opportunity
to present this community and questions on product, we can either hold those or have Jim present
the rental townhomes first and then we can discuss it.
Joyce: Why don't you present the rental townhomes and then questions.
Jim Deanovic: Hello, my name is Jim Deanovic. The part of the development that I am
responsible for is right in here, and Met Council would speak to affordability, life style and
integration and those would be affordable rental townhomes. A majority would be 50% of
median income and the elevations would be very, very similar to Pulte's elevations on their two
story models that are three building, four building units. The colors would be very similar to
that. We just feel real strongly that we go from a rental to a start up to the life style that they've
set forth in their plan.
Joyce: Any questions for the applicant at this time?
Kind: I guess not. I was, I want to ask materials questions but maybe that's the next phase.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Aanenson: Yeah. That's something that the staffhas talked about. Certainly we feel again it's
on the comer of TH 5 and 41. It needs to be wow. Brick. More articulation. Certainly. We're
looking for direction from you on it too.
Joyce: I think that's something that we should comment on. At the comment stage.
Kind: Well I don't have any questions of the applicant. But I do have comments.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Dennis Griswold: Yes, I would if I may, like to make a couple comments. While I have it up on
the board. This is the artist rendering of that comer of TH 5 and 41 with the units in the
background. There would be the pond with the boulder treatment behind it and the fence and the
landscaping behind that so that's kind of the preliminary concept of what we were looking for
there and would be happy to work with you on refining that.
Joyce: I did have a question. Now what's, give me some insight on the fence. Does the fence go
all the way around this, the southern half of this development?
Dennis Griswold: It starts at this point. Right where, there's actually a little wetland right here
and the fence would tuck into the existing trees and it kind of...and it would be angular in areas,
working it's way around behind the pond. Angling in certain areas and die off at this point. And
at that point it tie into a mass of evergreens and other plant materials and berming and plant
materials...here and along the sides of... That's the concept.
Joyce: Could you explain, could you give me a little...decorative or is it functional.
Dennis Griswold: It's a decorative fence that would probably be 6 feet high. It would not
be...more of a decorative fence... Give some separation... That's the thought. The other thing I
wanted to comment on was that our concept of what Pulte at least is proposing on this site in
terms of density is to use the guide of the 4 units per acre and the 4 to 8 units per acre through the
site. And use that as the determiner for our unit count and our density on this site. We are
purchasing the portion of the Savaryn property east of County Road 41 only, and we're
purchasing the Mill's property which is all east of TH 41. We have no control at all on the
portion west of TH 41, even though it is the same tax number and it's being reviewed with this
development, we're not trying to ask for any density transfer from that. That is Mr. Deanovic's
property and we have no claim to that.
Aanenson: Can I make a comment on that? That's a big concern of the staff and it's been
pointed out in the first meeting. It is part of the same tax parcel. It has a primary zone on the
majority of the property. There's nowhere to transfer that density. This is an area we've
identified that we want to preserve. If Mr. Savaryn or Mr. Deanovic picked up Mr. Savaryn's
property, we think it's good planning practices to address that now. They choose not to transfer
the density, fine. But then look to the conservation easement but I think it needs to be addressed
34
Planning Commission Meeting - September l, 1999
as part of this project. Whether they choose to include it or not, because if it's just split off, given
the later density, there's nowhere to transfer it. I don't think that's good planning.
Jim Deanovic's comments were not picked up by the microphone.
Aanenson: Which is the reason why we supported this as part of the PUD.
Conrad: What's your vision for the commercial area?
Dennis Griswold: Right now the vision is limited basically that it is a comer of the property that
we feel would be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial area being at that intersection and it
could tie to the property to the east. We understand that the access recommendation is that there
be a combined access onto the frontage road for those two properties with a right-in, right-out
onto the north/south portion. So we are, we haven't at this point shoWn any site plan because we
don't have a specific user in mind but we feel that that would be an appropriate location for it. I
know there was some discussion tonight and at other times about would the property west of that
access point be appropriate for it and it's an area that is low. MnDOT was looking at it for a
holding pond. We would like to work with them on that location for their ponding requirement
and actually mm that into a feature by having a fountain in that area. And have the backdrop of
the trees and landscaping coming up the hill behind it so as you look towards the northwest from
TH 5, there would be a pond there with... While that side would more directly connect for
pedestrians coming down to that neighborhood commercial, it is contemplated that there would
be a path system all around that area and that we feel that it would be more appropriate on the
other side of the access point.
Aanenson: Can I just comment. That goes back to your original question and Dave pointed out
in his...will be a signalized comer...
Conrad: Kate, what do you think we should expect when they come back in terms of flushing
out a little bit the commercial layout? Right now it's a box. It's a block and we don't know. Is
that, will you have at least some, will you require at least a little bit of planning on that
commercial site after we approve or disapprove the PUD?
Aanenson: Certainly. I think it'd be similar to what we did on Mission Hills and that there is
commercial zoning adjacent to 101. We put together a laundry list that everybody was
comfortable with. That became the uses permitted. Or conditional. And then we also put design
guidelines so pitched roofs, materials, all that would also be, you know whether you want this to
relate to what neighborhoods. I think that would also be part of the specific standards for that
commercial district, and how it relates to the other piece. It should be one of the conditions. I
can double check to see. Yes, number 23. I think that can be further articulated by saying
address the adjacent property and how that relates.
Joyce: I like the idea of having conditional uses like you were saying. A list of that so that's
something we can look at as far as...I think Ladd brings up a good point. A little better pin
pointed.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for Kate. You're asking us to look at you
know broad picture tonight. Sounds like they're in some disagreement at this point as to whether
this parcel west of TH 41 is going to be included. To me that sounds like basic step number one
is define your area. Are you comfortable with where you are right now? Or do we need to wait
until we get a little better defined area before we move forward with this?
Aanenson: Well it's the staff's recommendation that, while they believe they're not benefiting
from the density transfer of that piece is approximately 12 acres. It would be guided when it
came in you know residential low density, up to 4 units an acre. However many they could get
on there based on the primary zone. The staff's position is there's nowhere to transfer it
elsewhere on that property. It's not big enough. There is property on the other side and because
it's, we're saying you can't segment the two.
Blackowiak: Right, because they're the same tax number.
Aanenson: Right. And they're doing it with the project and whether they benefit, if they're
getting increased density, then that's a benefit to the PUD. They could choose to use that. But I
think the staff's recommendation would be to leave it as part of the PUD and I think, what I
thought I heard was that they were not receiving benefit as far as density from it. And while that
may be true.
Blackowiak: It's part of the property.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: So, what is your feeling? I mean do we need to tell you to go back and talk to them
and iron out step number one?
Aanenson: Give them some direction.
Blackowiak: Define your property area and then come and talk to us. Have a little more
information.
Aanenson: I would just say, just leave it as a condition. That's how we had it, yeah. Do you
want it included or not, and then you send the marching orders. If you don't, right. I mean they
can, if they don't want to do it, that's sending clear your direction.
Jim Deanovic: Can I speak to this?
Joyce: Come on up to the podium.
Jim Deanovic: You know I don't want to, if we eliminate that density on that piece, that piece
goes to a value of zero. You know if we're not utilizing the density, which I know we are not on
the other piece, I don't think that that's fair. It's as simple as that. I understand the conservation
36
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
and all the trees and everything else and I think that that has to be taken into account on a
separate, whatever would happen to that piece after that. I mean the owner is here, let him speak
to it.
Joyce: I'll let him.
Paul Savaryn:- My name's Paul Savaryn. It's been a family farm for 30 years and just address
that triangular piece. I'd recommend you drive by there but Kate's wrong on her characterization
of it. It's 12 acres gross. Tanadoona Boulevard is on the north side of it. We've had that rented
out for crops for the past 30 years and we receive rent on 7 acres so over half of it is tilled. And
the trees, although they're dense and they're on the triangular, the steep triangular angle, there's
nothing especially spectacular. It's just a dense growth of trees and I think any development in
that would probably want to make use of it, but the fact is, as it gets narrower, there's less and
less you can do on that southern end. So as far as that piece of property goes, I think it should
have a use for itself and I have many in mind that probably could work there but it is now sold to,
in the works to Mr. Deanovic.
Aanenson: Okay, let me just rephrase the issue. We've got a piece that's a part of it and they
want to segment something off. You have to assign it something. We can't just leave it there.
Joyce: I think what we've got here is, it's nice that we're going through this conceptual PUD.
Iron this out...area of this but I think what Alison said, I think they need some direction. I hear
what Kate is saying. It's not whether we segment this off or not, and then give them some
direction so they can come back to Kate... I'm not gOing to get hung up on this right noW '
tonight. We need to proceed forward because we have a whole project here ~hat...one segmented
property. Although it's noted that it is an issue. Fair enough? Okay, let's get a motion to open
this up for a public hearing then.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission
at this point. Step forward.
Bud Olson: Mr. Chairman, public safety commissioners. I'm Bud Olson. I live at 7331
Hazeltine Boulevard and my piece of land, let's see does it show on that? Okay. My piece is
right here and my neighbor Brace Geske is also here and he's just north of me by one parcel
them. He'd be right there. Just some of my, I'm kind of pleased by the fact that it's not going to
be Mill's Fleet Farm so I appreciate the fact that we're working on some other kind of concept
for this comer. Some of my concerns are, first of all sewer and water considerations. Brace and
I are just kind of a couple of loners out there right now. Lundgren's got their project in over at
Longacres and we didn't have much, we didn't know about it. So when we look at the future of
our properties we're looking at, where's the sewer and water coming in for our two properties.
My home is 30 years old. It's got septic and well. I don't know how much longer this is going to
work for us so one of the considerations that I have in this whole project is how will you address
the two loners that are sitting out there regarding the project. I know the church has petitioned
37
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
for that sewer line to go across and I just don't want to be forgotten. So that's one of my
considerations. A couple others that I have is directly behind my parcel is a 2 ½ acre spot that is
part of this land process and it is part of this project.
Aanenson: It's topographically separated. It's on the other side of the wetland. They can't get a
road to it. The Olson's property is in front of it. It's land locked.
Bud Olson: Right, and I was waiting to hear some concept ideas for this whole thing and so that
piece concerns me. Across the road is the 12 acres that is part of this discussion already that
we've had. I have a consideration or concern for what we do on that side because that directly
impacts the front of my property across the road there. Those are a couple other concerns. Being
in the law enforcement profession I have a deep concern about this density when you consider the
frontage road that's coming out to TH 41. As you drive that I'm sure you know there's a curve
right into that road and I'm sure MNDOT's done studies and looked at that but I still have a car
density issue. That TH 5 and 41 is a high traffic area. We have a lot of crashes there. It's
another intersection here where we're going to add a large volume of traffic into that
neighborhood so I have some considerations about is that traffic controlled? Is that going to be
traffic controlled there for the purposes of getting in and out of that neighborhood. That is a
consideration of mine. Future usage of Highway 41. With this density and this number of
families and we've got kids that are going to be in this neighborhood. We have a school district
that the school is already maxed out over at Bluff Creek. How will that impact this
neighborhood and where do my children go? Where do the children of Longacres go? And this
project some considerations for the school district. Also, there are parks but I don't see much
green space here. I'm looking for where do all these kids go on their bikes? Where are they
going to travel to? Where's the park system going to be involved in this process here, so that's
another consideration I have great interest in. The rental units, I'm curious to see if there's going
to be any on-site management there. We know in law enforcement that on-site management does
a lot to control what happens on that property, so again from the law enforcement perspective I
think it's important to know, will we have on-site management that will be watching those
properties? I think that pretty much handles it. I am concerned about the usage of Highway 41.
Will the trail system come north? If it does, it will come right through my front yard and how
much impact that will have on the pedestrian bike traffic that comes by my neighborhood. So
those are some of my considerations on this. Thank you.
Joyce: Thank you. Dave, is there any comment on the...?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. That is one of the items that we've
requested the applicant to do is petition the city for extension of sewer service to the area. We
have received the petition from the Westwood Church group for that. We'll be in the process
later this fall of putting together a feasibility study for the Westwood, what I'll call, what I call a
frontage road is West 78th Street. Or the extension of West 78th Street. And we'll be putting
together a feasibility study for that later this fall, early winter. In that review we will take a look
at all the adjacent parcels that are included in the sewer district. Mr. Olson's property and the
property owner to the north were excluded from the Lundgren development to the north because
38
Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1999
they were outside of the sewer district based on the comprehensive plan so those parcels will all
be looked at with this new area coming on line here in the year 2000.
Joyce: Actually that touches off another comment. I'm just wondering, do we have a traffic
study going on for this development? Is that something that's a necessary consideration?
Hempel: That is a point that we did think about. I guess as far as access points along there, we
did try to consolidate some of the access points and create a looped road system in our
comments. That's why we probably need a little more detail than a conceptual review than usual
because we did want to flush out a lot of issues to make the applicant aware that there are some
issues out there with regards to traffic, sidewalks and so forth. Those will be reviewed as the
plans get further detailed. Look at sight lines, spacings, working with MnDOT on the turn lanes
for the intersections and whether or not they need to be traffic control warranted for those
intersections. And so forth. All be coming down the line as the project...
Joyce: It's an expense obviously.
Hempel: Correct.
Joyce: But it might be something that...
Aanenson: Right, and again this project is predicated on the upgrade of Highway 5 and the
frontage road and there will be signals with that.
Joyce: Okay.
Blackowiak: Kate, when you say predicated upon, in other words when Highway 5 is upgraded
before this begins?
Aanenson: That's what we're saying. Their time frame was 2000 and we're saying that the
water would go in as a part of the road, then sewer also would need to be in place before we issue
permits so it's pretty optimistic to say they'll be under construction in the year 2000.
Blackowiak: So you're saying that Highway 5 needs to be in completed.
Aanenson: The frontage road, which is the first, because the frontage road gets built first. That's
access the by-pass during the construction of Highway 5.
Blackowiak: Correct. So could conceivably the builder come in and start building while we're
being by-passed from a frontage road or no?
Hempel: Highly unlikely.
Aanenson: Highly unlikely. It's very optimistic, yeah. I don't think so. That was something
that.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Blackowiak: Big picture I mean. Big tracks. Lots of traffic. That doesn't sound like a good
combination.
Joyce: This is still open for a public hearing so if anyone else would like to come up. Seeing
none, close the public hearing.
Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll throw out my comments. I think we've had a good overall discussion
so far. Direction for staff...maybe make a few comments about a few points... I guess my
general comments are I like the project. I like the mix of products. However I do have some
concerns with the village homes and the court homes, that area. Individually the village homes...
that layout that I've seen...I'd like to see the road shifted around maybe to create different angles.
I have a feeling...more towards the center as far as the...in the development mainly because I'm
concerned with the height. That it would give the appearance of more apartment like structures.
Because we're not going to have a lot of vegetation.., for many, many years to give screening and
buffering for this comer of TH 41 and 5. I guess I'm concerned about the massiveness of those
buildings. I'd prefer to...if that would be possible. Also not really...pond at that comer. I guess
there have been discussions about more vegetation and I would encourage more berming in that
area for the sake of the residents because it will be very noisy on that comer so I guess I'd like to
beef up more of a buffer and green space on that 41 and 5 area. Also I think just the basic layout
needs to have more...green space .... manor home area is great the way it's laid out. Something
that appeals to me...I'm sure that can be worked on. Feel comfortable with the amount of
commercial...preserving what is there worked out really well.
Joyce: Great, thanks. Good comments. Anyone else?
Kind: Mr. Chairman. I agree with LuAnn and I won't repeat, echo many of my feelings, but I
want to add to the comments with the village homes. I'm really not thrilled about the idea of a
three story home with single car garages. And no double garages worked in here. I like the idea
of mixing the lower priced units physically with the double car units. The more expensive units
like we did in Walnut Grove where they're mixed in and not segregated offto the side. And I
think that we can have.., single car units that's being recommended here. The court homes are
much more appealing to me. They start at $112,000 and I think would meet our affordability
requirements. The court home style versus the three story, single car garage village homes. I
really want to emphasize LuAnn's point about the contiguous green space. I think the spaces are
wasted by having those village homes looking at the open courtyard. Nobody else gets to benefit
by that...and it sure would be nice if some nice sight lines from Highway 5 to see some green
space. Let's see what else? And I do have some comments, I guess it would be more along the
lines of direction for what I would like to see in the next stage regarding I guess architecture. I
really encourage the Pulte folks to go take a look at Walnut Grove. I think that there's some real
nice things being done there, and my favorite things about Walnut Grove are that each style of
building has kind of a unique look to itself. It's not each building looking unique but each style.
4O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
So all the court homes have kind of a similar look about them. Not each individual building. I
am not a big fan of changing color of roofs on each building Or changing the color of siding on
each building to make it look like a single family detached, because it's not. And I really prefer
subtle color pallets and one of the things I like about Walnut Grove is how there's a unified roof
color and materials are common but have a unique look to each type of home. The craftsmen
style, it's a classic style that I like. I'm not suggesting that this also be a craftsmen but I think we
really need to be careful of picking a style that's going to look dated and trendy. And the open
gazebo space at Walnut Grove is really neat and maybe that's more appropriate than a totlot. I
don't know. I think that's it.
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have just a couple short comments. I guess I commented a little bit
earlier and the comments have been echoed. I think that we need to have more green space and
to preserve it and I think a lot of it could be achieved with the layout. It just seems so dense to
me. Especially in the southwest comer. Then one of the audience comments was about
recreation areas and I do see that there are recreation areas for tots. I don't see that there are any
other recreation areas and it would be nice to see other options like perhaps ice rinks or
basketball courts or something like that so the other older kids, and the adults too have other
things to do there. I guess and then the wetland issue I would like to make sure that as we go
forward that we stringently adhere to the setback requirements and not make exceptions since
we're so early and they can get plenty of notice that that would be the case. I'd like to strongly
enforce that. And to also preserve the natural features as much as possible. I think that's it.
Blackowiak: Well yeah, I think I'd like to start out by saying that I strongly support what Kate
said about treating not only this parcel but also the triangular parcel west of TH 41 as the PUD
area. I would like to see that. The PUD area defined as such. I don't feel that leaving that little
sliver of the parcel is appropriate. We need to plan accordingly, and whether, I'm not talking
benefits. I'm not talking density transfer but I think it's good planning to put it all together. One
tax ID number. That's how it is. Treat it as such. Secondly, overall I think you need to look at
the commercial and make sure that it is attached or works with some way the parcel directly to
the east so that we don't just leave a couple little commercial here and a little commercial there
because that doesn't make a lot of sense. When we're looking at PUDs we keep saying higher
design standards. What is the community getting and I think that we need to do some real basic
planning before we even start getting into the whether we like the village home versus the court
home versus you know. That's all fine and good and that's...but like I said, overriding, I think
we need to define this parcel as, including the west of TH 41. And specifically the commercial.
Village homes, boy. Awfully dense and I use the word intense and I think they're very intense
for that comer. I would question whether it will even meet the parking requirements Kate. I'm
not sure. One garage per unit doesn't sound quite right to me. So I just don't know if that's the
place for it. I agree with what Matt said about the recreation opportunities. I heard all these low
numbers for tots. You know. 16 per unit or something so they're not going to be playing there.
We need to have something for the people that are going to be there so gardens, basketball
courts, gazebos, open green space areas. Something for the other people because according to,
what I'm hearing there aren't going to be lots of tots there. And finally, I don't know about the
primary zone but I would really encourage us to look at where the primary and secondary zones
fall and get a real good idea of distances from things and what we're trying to accomplish. What
41
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
we're trying to save up along this north end. And what we're going to do with this little land
locked just east of the Olson property, because that really needs, I'm just assuming we're just
leaving it. So if we're all comfortable with that. And let's take a look at that.'..carefully along
the north end and see what we can do. See what we want to accomplish there and maybe them
can be some passive recreation opportunities in that area to be addressed.
Joyce: Ladd.
Conrad: Actually I was hoping this was going to come in all commercial so probably, and I'm
serious. This is a commercial site and I'm sure the neighbors like single family. I'm sure, but
it's a commercial site where we could make some money. I'm vacillating back and forth. I
basically like what's been presented. If we care at all about affordability in Chanhassen, it's an
opportunity. Even the 3 or 4 of the, well 3 of the home plans are affordable so it's hard to make
affordable housing. So we should all check on that. I think some of the, every time we see
density then we worry about is it looking good but then boy, then get rid of our comprehensive
plan. Tell them how to make affordable housing. That doesn't negate what the rest of the
commission has said however. So it's not easy to give direction on stuff like this. Offer
affordability and I think Pulte's a good name. They do make a good product... A couple
concerns I have. Given I give up my commercial need there, given I give that up, you've got to
make the TH 5 and 41 intersection attractive. You've just got to. I'm not going to tell you how
to do it. You've got to tie it to the Arboretum and make it look, probably staff has a good sense.
You've got to make, I really, I think what we all react to is the blocks, especially in the village
home. It does look stamped out. That's how you make money. It does look very predictable and
that bothers me but that's what a builder like you can do very well, so I know that's your
strength. From a conceptual standpoint, it bothers me a little bit. I'd like some variation in there.
I think the connectivity in that area is real important and that one I'll make sure you do. The rest
you'll probably persuade me one way or another but I just don't want block. You've got to solve
that one. You heard some comments about the three stories and I don't know. I think we've got
to put, that's how you bring affordable housing in and you bring affordable housing in not by
putting it next to Lundgrens, but by putting it right here. So there's go[to be a check up here, but
I think you can do some of the things. The connectivity, I know you can do. I know you can
make some green aisles going through here. I know you can. I know you can do some pathways.
I don't want a pond just to be a pond because of the highway, MnDOT says we need drainage. It
sounded like you were doing it so I heard that, make it work for the people that are there. Not
just a fountain. Make it work. That commercial, for sure you've got to, there's such nice
neighborhood commercial things that I've seen that integrate in and that's why I really don't like
it across the road. It's a little bit ora barrier and it stops. It makes people drive versus walk, but
maybe we have to have it where you got it. I would like to see how your schematic of how you
might be laying that out back Kate. I'm not going to approve it just a box. I have to at least have
a good faith estimate of where we're going with that. I'm not necessarily and I'm not sure what
we zoned it for so now I'm winging it but I really, it's just got to integrate. If we allow gas
stations, it's not a SuperAmerica. It's one that's sort of integrated with the family type
atmosphere that we might have at a market or whatever. It has to be really a true neighborhood
type of commercial center. I don't care how you solve the land to the west. I'll contradict maybe
the rest, some of the commissioners and staff. I don't know legally how we deal with it. I wish
42
Planning Commission Meeting - September l, 1999
you could use the density transfer. That's a great way that we have to get what we want and help
you and if that doesn't' work, I don't know how we do it. You heard we don't want so much
density so I don't know. I don't know how to size that. I think some of the other things they said
here are pretty good. Even though you only have 50 kids in this site, I'm surprised the Park and
Rec didn't give any.
Aanenson: They put 2 lA acres they wanted totlots, right.
Conrad: They felt comfortable, okay well I guess you're hearing some challenges to that so they
have their opinion and we have ours and it looks like a lot of parcels and where's the park. I
think if you didn't put the word tot in here we would have been comfortable. To be determined
whether. Yeah, that's my. I think what we're getting is some good, well constructed, affordable,
predictable, good builder stuff here. If we start knocking out some of the things where they've,
the higher density stuff, then we're screwing around with affordable housing in Chanhassen so
it's your opportunity, our opportunity to get it. Again, I don't know, but I think you've got to
solve some of those other things that you heard up here. Those are important. If you can show
me how you can vary the predictability of those neighbors close, you know the village homes. I
kind of like how you, I like the green space between them. I think that's kind of neat but I think
you've got to do something there to help us put a lot of folks in there. In terms of walking.
That's all.
Joyce: ...I think your initial presentation is nice. I like, it's well organized. Nice materials. It's
laid out real nice for us so that's helpful so next time around you knOw...in that regard. I don't
have a lot to add. The only thing I can say is when I look at this, the part to the north of the
frontage road seems okay and this part always bothers me. I mean it's just as simple as that. So
it's kind of a flow of the project. We went to seminars and stuff Kate where we had the
neoclassical looks and things like that where we really condensed some of these higher density
buildings into one area to leave green space and I think that's kind of what we're saying because
it really looks chopped up.
Aanenson: Well that's what we tried to do with the village but you're already seeing resistance
because it's different. We're trying to compress some of that towards the front. Try to keep it,
make that transition from Longacres.
Joyce: I challenge Pulte to give us some sort of, something like that. I think both Deb and
LuAnn made some good points. LuAnn saying the elevation on those things. I think you can
alleviate that by what LuAnn said maybe blending the court homes. I didn't like, I personally
think you can work on the elevations as far as the articulation on those village homes. I think
more gables, more bayed out windows, things like that gives it a little more...look. I think it was
plain looking. This is just personal stuff I'm throwing out there but yeah, I mean I'm just saying
what everyone else is saying. It'sjust you've got these cookie cutter blocks and if there's some
way of pushing all this density into one area to take advantage of some green space, yeah. It'd be
different but I think you get more benefit out of it.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Aanenson: Can I just get some feedback from you. If we push the taller ones toward the middle,
you're going up in elevation. You're going to see them more. That's why the staff pushed them
towards the intersection to give a sense of entrance so maybe it might be helpful to come back
with a couple different, before we spend a lot of time at the next evolution.
Joyce: I mean if we had a couple of options. Did we do that with Walnut Grove?
Aanenson: Oh yeah. A year of options.
Joyce: I mean they gave us some options. They came in and they said here's 2 or 3 ideas, what
do you guys, and you know you got the response back. People liked it.
Aanenson: Yeah, because what I'm saying is, if we're going this way I think you have to realize,
you're trading one thing for another and I want to make sure we understand what we're trading.
That was a concern that we had. That by pushing them up, you're going to see more of them.
And keeping them as a lower profile but maybe we can come back in an open discussion and
come back with some different versions as we move this along.
Joyce: I think we have a concept. Now it's a matter of working with it. Yeah, it's going to take
some time but I think thought and scratched and we got that Walnut Grove thing and I live next
to it... We finally came to everyone agreeing to it and shaking hands and being happy.
Conrad: Kevin, what's the price range down there?
Joyce: More than my house I'll tell you that.
Conrad: Yeah.
Kind: They have some units...
Joyce: Yeah you're talking about, but I'm talking about, we're talking about, see when we
started with those zero lot homes, they were, they looked like mobile homes. And what they
turned into are these bungalows and they're gone. For $250,000. If you're talking affordability,
yeah. I agree. But you've got also the $80,000 homes next to those nice homes and you've got
some affordability.
Kind: That's what I like. They're mixed in within. Not just segregated off.
Joyce: Yeah there was, the neighborhood blended in from single family to very nice bungalows
to some affordability.
Conrad: The price range is pretty compressed, and so again as you went from 1 to 150 to 180 to
210 to 240, I heard some ranges that were between 100 and 150 for most of their product. I was
pretty impressed so, I don't know. I'm not trying to argue affordable. I still like commercial.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
What we get here...the density's okay. Figure out how to push it one way or another but do we
like, or do we want to cut density by 50%.
Joyce: Kate had a good point. You've got 100 acres. There's not much density you can cut.
How much density can you cut?
Aanenson: Well there's a wetlands in there. I mean you have to take out, there's gross and net.
Joyce: ...80 acres.
Aanenson: Correct.
Joyce: You're going to have 350.
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. You're getting 400 units on there so it's how you want to
segment those. That's the $64,000 question. What I'm hearing is we need to come back with a
couple different iterations for you. I mean we spent, staff and Pulte, this is the third or fourth
iteration. Our recommendation, they were thinking all one product. We should try to get some
different product.
Joyce: What I'm saying is, I think this comer has to be worked on. That's my personal oPinion.
I think I heard from everyone else they have a problem with that. It's a gateway into the city.
Aanenson: Right, and we tried, again the staff's position, just so you understand is we tried to
make a transition. Similar to Walnut Grove. Stepping the density towards the highway, which
was given the higher density, and tried to do that but what I'm hearing is just some of the other
issues. Open space. How the, as Ladd said, the predictability. Some of that issues and I think
we can come back with some different, before they go too much further, come back with some
other. It may be even before council.
Conrad: Yeah, this shouldn't be a dialogue between us but you're okay with the density there.
You just don't like how it's mixed around.
Joyce: What I don't mind about the density is that you have, you don't have homes up here
either though that are, I mean it's, this right on Highway 5. It's probably, I'd review it. I agree
with the fact that yeah, it seems like it's an industrial property...outside of the downtown so I
disagree with commercial.
Conrad: Or office would be fine.
Joyce; This would be a better office. If you had an office thing in front of me, yeah. I'd be
happier.
Blackowiak: Yeah, office in the southwest quadrant. Leave the homes up here as they are. I
mean that to me that would be ideal.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: That would be ideal. But this is going to be developed one way or the other and we could
just toss out the whole idea. I don't find it really offensive, I just have a problem with this comer
I guess is what we're trying to say.
Conrad: But that's a tough comer. Do you not like so many units on it? Are we trying to strip
out units from this comer?
Joyce: What it looks like, to give it a better flow, yeah. We'll leave it at that. Like I know what
I like and I can't tell you what I like but I don't like this right now.
Conrad: But what they'd like to hear is if we want to strip out units some. That's the point of
this conceptual deal. If we think it's got 20% too many units or we think 5 more acres should be
commercial, let's tell them right now. They don't want to come back and we say well, yeah. So
are we comfortable with the density?
Joyce: You know what, I think that if they use a little imagination they wouldn't have, if they've
got to strip out 5% of them to make it look nicer, it might be worth their while.
Conrad: But they could have the 36 units from across Highway 41. Where are those?
Aanenson: Good question.
Conrad: We've got to give them those units I guess. They have a right to but anyway, it
shouldn't be a dialogue but.
Kind: Mr. Chairman?
Joyce: Yes.
Kind: To answer Ladd's question, I'd like to see less density in that lower area. What I'm
hearing from Kate that we in the comp plan have promised that 400 units could be on this.
Aanenson: No. They...get that many, no. I'm saying if you look at it on the gross, that's
approximately what they could get. It would be lower density on the north side of the frontage
road and it would be even higher on the south side, up to 8 units an acre. What I'm saying that
right now it's averaging about 4. They still probably maybe 2 ½, maybe closer to 5.
Conrad: It's low density folks. It's low density and you're trying to strip it out.
Aanenson: The 80. I added the 12 on the other side in.
Conrad: It doesn't look pretty and high density doesn't look necessarily as pretty as single
family.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: Well I think it could be more imaginative. I think you can be creative with this, and
that's what I want them to come back with. Something a little creative. I think if you have some
options, and work with the staff because Kate has an idea here. It's brewing that she might be
able to offer you, and I hear what she's saying. That we don't want these big massive three
structure buildings up on a hill. I can see a problem with that. I think I'm just going to leave it at
that. We're going to bring this, we'll vote on this right now?
Aanenson: Yes. You can go a lot of different ways. Conceptual, you have to make a
recommendation to planning. I mean to the council, excuse me.
Conrad: The concept. How could I summarize what we just said?
Aanenson: You have three options. Table it, recommend denial or recommend approval with
conditions.
Joyce: I need a motion then. If everyone's done.
Conrad: Are we making the motion, yeah. So this is going to the City Council for a conceptual
plan review Kate?
Aanenson: Correct. It says, and I can quote, the PUD ordinance. The Planning Commission
shall conduct a public hearing, report it's findings and make recommendations to the City
Council.
Conrad: I've never done this before.
Aanenson: Yes you have.
Conrad: I never have, so you're making me go into waters that just, on a concept plan it's give
them some direction.
Aanenson: Yes you have.
Conrad: These are very specific things that probably I haven't reviewed because they look too
detailed for a concept plan. Therefore I'm real uncomfortable saying I agree with all these. What
I do agree with some of the directions that we gave up here. So I think, because it will come
back, I don't know what. Kate, you've got to tell me what's legal. If we need a motion on it,
then I'll make the motion. If that's what the ordinance says, I heard we had to process this with
the 120 day deal.
Aanenson: No. You've got three options. You can table.
Conrad: Previous deal, okay.
Aanenson: You can table it.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: Make the motion.
Conrad: I don't have to but I may want to.
Aanenson: That's fine. Or you can change the recommendations. Those are, staff put those in
for guidelines. If you want to put something different, make them broad brush, that's fine.
Conrad: I would recommend, I'll make the motion. That the Planning Commission, do we have
to do approval?
Aanenson: No. You can table or deny it.
Conrad: Yeah, but we don't want to do those. There's no point in doing those.
Aanenson: You have to make a recommendation.
Blackowiak: Unless we want to see some other options.
Conrad: That's right.
- Blackowiak: I mean conceptually, are you in agreement with it?
Conrad: Well the validity of a concept plan is to get everybody's perspective. The developers
would like to know what everybody's thinking, especially the City Council. They make the last
decision. I have no need to keep it here and have us screw around with it and then have the City
Council say that's not really what I want. We agreed Ladd with you that it should be all
commercial. Don't need to do that. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council that they review the conceptual planned unit development #99-2
for the Arboretum Village and the comprehensive land use plan amendment subject, reviewing
the conditions in the staff report dated September 1, 1999 with the following additions. After 31,
I put all my notes away. That 32 says the Planning Commission is looking for a more creative
approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining
affordability. Planning Commission is looking, next condition 33. For a creative approach to the
intersection of TH 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the
Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity
in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. Planning Commission is
looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. Planning Commission wants to
review the traffic implications of the site. I've got to leave the chunk of TH 41 off of my motion.
It is in the staff report. I don't know how to deal with that. They've recommended it be
considered part of that and I don't know that I can contradict or counteract that or contradict it
right now so I'm going to leave that in. That was the other issue. Parenthetically we did note the
comments from the public so we're not ignoring, I think everybody heard what you were saying
and they're good points. That's my motion.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: Does anyone want to second that?
Kind: Thinking about it.
Blackowiak: I'I1 second that.
Joyce: Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the
City Council that they review the Conceptual Planning Unit Development #99-2 for
Arboretum Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment reviewing the following
conditions presented by staff and the Planning Commission:
1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
o
o
Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to' final plat approval.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staffreview and
City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained
by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight
in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The
private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after
the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for. 1 O-year and 100~year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for
49
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout
for safety purposes.
o
The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
o
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of
approval.
9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
10. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas.
12. The applicant shall incorporate berming into the plans adjacent to West 78th Street, TH 41
and TH 5 per city code. Additional buffering/screening should also be considered along TH
5 and TH 41 for noise abatement. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the
right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk
Highway 5 Corridor Study.
13. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the
100-year high water level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks.'
14. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for
review and approval.
15. The applicant/property owner shall petition the City for sanitary sewer service.
16. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer.
17. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto West 78th Street,
TH 41 and TH 5. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out
along Century Blvd. and a full shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
The exact location of the access points are subject to City and MnDOT review at time of site
plan review. Cross access agreement will be required at time of final platting
18. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Blvd., TH 41 and TH 5 shall be compatible
with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5 project.
19. Provide a public street and sidewalk/trail system south of West 78th Street which will loop
back out to West 78th Street. Sidewalk/trails shall also be provided along the public streets
north of West 78th Street. Eliminate the trails along the wetland in the easterly portion of the
site. Provide trail connections to TH 5 trail and future trail connection to TH 41 between
West 78th Street and TH 5.
20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted within the public streets contingent upon the
developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose
a traffic safety issue.
21. FUture extension of the north/south street is not needed. Shorten street to minimize impacts
to wetlands and trees provide cul-de-sac.
22. Each housing area become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics.
23. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This
too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. Neighborhood uses are those goods
necessary to meet daily needs.
24. A road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order.
25. The applicant shall be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans
are submitted.
26. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area
before a setback can be established.
27. Preservation of the wood lots on the property.
28. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense.
29. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public
easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction.
30. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval.
31. The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2-1/2 acres in size be centrally
located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes.
5]1 ,.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
32. The Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the
same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability.
33. The Planning Commission is looking for a creative approach to the intersection of
Highways 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the
Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen.
34. The Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways,
green spaces, playground areas in the plan.
35. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area.
36. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS: ALTERATIONS IN THE BLUFF ZONE, REVIEW OF
LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER ORDINANCE, AND YARD (PORCH) REGULATIONS.
Aancnson: It'd been around.
Joyce: It's been around the block. I missed a couple meetings hoping it would go away.
Blackowiak: How much time do we have in our work session?
Aanenson: I think that'd probably be better.
Blackowiak: Would that be appropriate to discuss this.
Burton: Do we keep them?
Aanenson: Yes.
Joyce: Why don't we do that.
Blackowiak: I'm just thinking that personally I'm getting.
Aanenson: Well it's the first day of school for you.
Blackowiak: Yeah. Would we have a better discussion if we have a little more time or do we
have a full agenda that night?
Joyce: Do we have a work session coming up?
Aanenson: Yes. First meeting in October.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce: So can we just, why don't we put that in there. I think that's a good idea. Thank you
Alison.
Blackowiak: You're very welcome.
Joyce: Because actually I think that's probably where it belongs anyhow.
Blackowiak: Because it doesn't need a public hearing or anything. It's just discussion.
Aanenson: Discussion. Just education.
Blackowiak: Okay, well let's do it at our work session then.
Kind: Which one are you talking about?
Joyce: 5, 6, 7 and 8.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: Just let you know on the 15th we do have the hotel coming in on the property next to
Applebee's. And then there are two variances. The hotel next to Applebee's, that will be in.
Also, the school, Chapel Hill Academy. I'm not sure that it. will make it on for the 15th or not but
they're in for site plan review and they came in originally we had a condition that ties them to go
through the process to keep it moving. They have submitted so we have some issues there so I'm
not sure it will be quite ready and then that's the 15th. Then the first one in October would be a
work session and we're going to focus a lot of that towards transit...but then we'll also look at
some of these others too. And if you have something that you'd like to discuss...drive you
around and look at the project, so that will be part of it. Other issues. Oh yeah, if there's some
other issues that you would like to address, let me know.
Sidney: The church.
Blackowiak: Oh and Kate also, an update on the variance status. The status of the variances we
have either approved or denied. You started doing what has happened at Council...
Aanenson: There's a couple I'd like you to go look at too.
Blackowiak: Okay. That was not a good sounding comment...so I mean I'd kind of like to know
where we're at with that.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's helpful to go back and look at projects to say you know did it
work...it's kind of a good check and balance so we'll go out and dosome field work too. And
we might try to start a little earlier because it is getting darker.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting.
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
All voted in favor and the motion
54