PC Minutes 10-16-2012Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEE HIVE HOMES: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(R-8); PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2.16 ACRES INTO ONE LOT; AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CARE FACILITY
ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 41 AT 6330 HAZELTIN BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: TYLER & KATHRYN STEVENS. OWNER: ROR, INC, PLANNING CASE 2012-
15.
Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located west of
Highway 41, south of Crossroads, Crossroads, 7 and 41 Crossings. I’m sorry. Strip mall. There is a
residential development to the west of the subject site as well as a single family, larger lot immediately
south of the subject site. The site has an area of 2.16 acres. Currently there are 2 existing structures on
the site that are proposed to be demolished. There is a 50 inch oak tree along the east side of the site that
is proposed to be saved. There’s an open ditch that runs through this site and the drainage will be re-
routed on this property, and we will go through that in more detail later in the presentation. The subject
site is under the 2030 Land Use Plan the subject site is guided for medium density or office. Historically
this site has had some commercial types of uses on it. Currently there are 2 structures. One of them is
used as a residence. The property to the north of the subject site is commercial. Neighborhood
commercial. It contains a strip mall as well as a Walgreen’s and a gas station. The property to the south
contains a single family home, however it is guided for medium density. Staff examined this site in depth
and as part of the approval of the 2030 Land Use Plan it was recommended that the site be guided to
medium density or office. With this type of use staff is recommending that the site be rezoned from
single family residential district to mixed medium density residential district which is consistent with the
land use plan. One of the requests that are before the Planning Commission today and as part of this
overall development is a site plan approval. The building will be located west of Highway 41. There will
be some drainage, as mentioned earlier that will be re-routed on the site. A drainage pond will be located
along the north portion of the property and parking will be located along, some of the parking will be
located along the east portion of the property. The materials on the exterior of the building are of high
quality. Here is the sample of the materials. The accent material is stone. The city code requires a
minimum of 20% of the façade of the building be an accent material. In this case the applicant is
proposing 36% of the façade be of stone material which exceeds the minimum requirements of the
ordinance. The remainder of the elevation will be of a siding that is shown right here. The roof of the
building, which will be shingles, has been staggered. It gives relief to the building. Overall the design of
the building is proposed to be of high quality and exceeds the minimum requirements of the ordinance
such as transparency. Exceeds the 50% requirement for windows. It has a very pronounced entryway
into the building. This slide shows that 36% of the façade of the building consists of the accent material
which is the stone. There is a monument sign proposed to be located along the southeast corner of the site
immediately north of the driveway that provides access to the site. The sign must meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance which is 24 square feet and may not exceed 5 feet in height. It is proposed
to utilize the same materials as those used on the exterior of the building. There is also a light fixture that
will be used within the parking lot. These fixtures are all shielded and meet the minimum requirements of
the zoning ordinance. Parking as mentioned earlier is proposed to be, there are 5 parking spaces that will
be located externally. Those are intended to be the guest parking spaces. The majority of the parking,
which is for staff as well as, it’s for staff only, will be located underground so it’s within an enclosed
garage. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan request. Part of this request before you is a replat
of the existing parcel so the existing parcel is an outlot and with this request we are, we are
recommending approval of the, oh there. Part of this request will require the applicant to replat the site to
Lot 1, Block 1 and it’s a straight forward request. The easements will be expanded and staff is
recommending approval of this request as well. At this point I would like to turn it over to engineering
staff, Joe Shamla to address a few engineering issues.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Shamla: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Currently the way the
site is set up right now is it will be a right-in/right-out only. This will stay in place until the property to
the south, if the property to the south ever develops access will be provided through the property to the
south and then it will T into the intersection of the middle school so they’re kind of bringing the
intersections together along Highway 41. We’ve had discussions with MnDOT and that was a preferred
option for them. As the site exists today there’s a 36 inch storm culvert underneath Highway 41 that
goes through the property to the south. Discharges into the subject site and the blue, or the turquoise line
bisecting the site is the current ditch. This ditch has water in it when it rains but currently it is dry due to
the weather we’ve been having. In the proposed condition the storm water will be re-routed around the
property to the south so it will be maintained within MnDOT right-of-way until it enters the subject
property and then it will, it is actually shown as the green line in the slide so it will be bypassed around
the building and then also the pond that will be created for this site will connect to that also. The pond in
Outlot A is not sized for the development of this site so the developer is proposing their own pond for the
stormwater treatment. Also the sewer and water is being stubbed from the northerly property line to the
property to the south so that when the property to the south develops in the future their sewer and water is
available and it will be held short of the property line by a little bit just to maintain the utilities on this
site’s property. Now I will pass it back to Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Staff reviewed this proposal. We consider it reasonable and suitable for the site. Staff is
recommending approval of the rezoning of the site, the preliminary plat as well as the site plan request
and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Colopoulos: This is a home service retirement community. There’ll be health care services provided to
the folks. The residents.
Aanenson: I think you might want to speak directly to the, we try to answer that but let the applicant give
you more detail on that.
Colopoulos: I’ll hold the questions. Okay.
Aller: Are we intending on having the easements vacated prior to the plat or contemporaneously with the
filing of the plat?
Al-Jaff: Everything has to move concurrently. The vacation will appear before the City Council when
they review this item.
Aanenson: Are you talking about the drainage?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: That drainage is about 75 square feet. It’s pretty small.
Aller: Yeah. And then as I read everything they’re required in the conditions, to meet all other state
requirements and permits for purposes of re-routing that water and dealing with the infiltration system.
Shamla: That is correct. They’ve already been working with the Army Corps on getting those permits
and they are aware of any permits needed to re-route that water. Correct.
Aller: I don’t have any further questions right now. Anything right now? Okay. Would the applicant
like to step forward? State your name and address for the record.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Tyler Stevens: Good evening Planning Commission, Commissioner. My name’s Tyler Stevens. My
address is 6505 Fox Hollow Court, Chanhassen, 55317.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Stevens.
Tyler Stevens: I’m here tonight. My wife and I are here tonight to speak on behalf of Bee Hive Homes.
Growing up I had the privilege of living with my grandparents and basically they ended up raising me.
Growing up with my grandparents it became very apparent seeing it firsthand what this aging really is and
kind of what the processes are. What the struggles are. You know losing independence. All that kind of
stuff that goes into it so from that in 2008 my wife and I started a company called Encore Senior Home
Care where the mentality would be that we were going to take caregivers like nurses and home health
aides and certified nursing assistants and place caregivers in resident’s homes so they can stay safe and
you know and continue to live at the home that they love but then also receive the services so they’re safe.
One of the biggest things that we’ve encountered, and I’ve encountered personally just with my
grandparents is, one of the main reasons that people tend to shy away from assisted living is that in
Minnesota there really is only one model and it’s big, facility based, kind of like a hotel setting and at
least from my personal experience going through this with my grandparents is, there has to be a better
option than that so that’s kind of how Bee Hive Homes came about. People like my grandfather you
know with these bigger facilities get lost in the crowd very easily so the idea of creating a home for the
elderly where they can be safe. Thrive, which is a big thing, especially in the elderly. Sometimes you
know there are statistics out there that when they move to a big facility their life span, once they go
through the move tends to decline. So Bee Hive Homes offers a unique approach to senior living in that
it’s small enough where all the residents will get to know each other. It’s group association that you can
only really provide in a smaller setting and having a cap of 25 residents, it’s a family style setting where
you know we can tailor make the day to day schedule per the clients needs. My family and I live in
Chanhassen. We think that this would be a great asset to the city of Chanhassen. It’s currently not
something that’s being offered around, or at least not very close and I think this would be a great asset to
the community. Serving the elderly is something that I am very passionate about. I’m in this industry
already. This is something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time. The idea behind this project is you
know get people like my grandfather, including my grandfather to move into this home where a lot of
people don’t thrive in the bigger settings so this would be a caveat to that. So with that I’m asking for
your recommendation for approval.
Colopoulos: Thank you. This is though basically a facility that would provide health care services.
Tyler Stevens: Yes.
Colopoulos: For folks. So for example if someone needed help with the activities of daily living there’d
be a nurse on staff.
Tyler Stevens: Yep.
Colopoulos: That would be able to help that so someone’s fee for this service would be depending upon
the extent of help.
Tyler Stevens: Yep. Depending upon the amount of care that they would be required to have.
Colopoulos: So I’m looking at the plan here and I have to confess that even with my glasses this plan was
a little challenging for me to read. It looks like they’re single room apartments. That’s how it’s.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Tyler Stevens: Yeah. You know every room, so there’s 25 bedrooms and in every single bedroom
there’s a bathroom, a closest and in that bathroom there’s a shower, sink toilet so one of the things, the
benefit of having a house that’s like this, that’s this size is that we promote activities. We promote not
being in your room all the time. That’s one of the biggest things with the bigger facilities is the isolation
component of it so we have, so yeah 25 bedrooms. 25 bathrooms in each one. And all ADA compliant
obviously and all that.
Colopoulos: Memory care included in the model?
Tyler Stevens: Well we’re not going to be classifying it specifically memory care. We are going to take,
we’re building it, we’ve been working with Jerry Moen with the building classification. We are going to
be building it to have the capacity for memory care but because we’re such a smaller home like
atmosphere we’re going to have some clients that have more memory loss than other clients and so we’re
going to be able to treat that and have that but we’re not going to be you know like a Pres Homes that has
a, you know we have a memory wing floor. You know we’re going to have to be more flexible with what
that is to us. Does that make sense?
Colopoulos: Yeah. I’m trying to get some idea of the longevity of a stay. You know someone enters
there with a slum score of 25, then a year later it’s 15. That doesn’t mean they have to go to another
facility. They can stay.
Tyler Stevens: The only way that they would ever have to, so we’re really kind of positioning this as
aging in place so if somebody moves in, I’m sure everyone here knows that there’s, they’ve experienced a
loved one, a friend or whatever that’s had to make a move and when you’re 80 years old moves can be
devastating honestly. So the thought process with this is this is not a nursing home and if you get to a
point where you need 24 hour nursing level care, then this home isn’t going to be appropriate through end
of life. But most people towards the end of life don’t necessarily need nursing care. They need help with
like you said, activities of daily living. Bathing, showering, cooking, cleaning, laundry, medications, that
kind of stuff and that’s something that we can do all the way through end of life.
Colopoulos: Thank you.
Aller: Questions. Okay, I believe there’s a true need for this type of facility here and I’m happy, as I said
before that the Senior Commission was supportive of your application. But our business here today is to
determine whether or not this is the right location and whether it fits the location so that being said, how
is the parking going to be screened? Is there, are you going to screen any of that as far as landscaping?
Tyler Stevens: Yeah. The way we have it set up right now is basically on all four property lines we have
a buffer so a buffer to the property to the west. Property to the south. Property to the north and obviously
we are going to be planting you know trees and shrubs along the east property line which would be 41.
One of the reasons that we wanted to put the parking underneath is because we only had 5 spots out front
for a reason. We want people so when they see this home to think home. You know this home is being
built kind of like the anti-facility. It looks like a home. Acts like a home. Is built by a home builder but
yes, we are going to be, as you can see, we are providing a buffer on all four corners and it’s going to be
concentrated as you can see overlooking the parking spots.
Aller: And it appears in our report that your goal is to exceed the minimum requirements, not by a little
but by a lot. How did you come about choosing and selecting your materials?
Tyler Stevens: Well when we were designing it you know like Sharmeen had said, the 25% I think was
that the number I believe, if you go that route it ends up looking commercial. Even if you don’t want it to
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
look commercial so when we were meeting with Mike Sharratt who was the architect to this, I said you
know what it’s imperative and the one thing that I’m really, really going to hold my foot against is
making this look like a home and you do that with things like pillars and stone and things like that that
make it look more like a home. If we were to be at the 25% it would like a home for the first half of it but
the remaining 50 feet it wouldn’t.
Aller: And what about the lighting, how did you select the lighting? The type of lighting that you’re
using. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Tyler Stevens: The lighting with, from like the street? Or like in the parking lot.
Aller: Your parking lot lighting.
Tyler Stevens: Yeah we did one part, we did one spot because we wanted staff to be able to you know at
the end of a shift if parking underneath was full or whatever, that they would be able to get to their cars
obviously safe but we kept it to a minimum because again we, when people are driving by and when
people and visitors are coming, we genuinely want it to look and feel and act like a house. You know
everyone doesn’t have their own phone number. If they call one number, that’s the main number but
yeah, we wanted to keep it to a minimum so it didn’t look you know like the gas station to the north. We
wanted it to be a house. And also respect that we are in a residential area too.
Aller: Okay. I don’t have any further questions.
Tyler Stevens: And our engineer’s here if you have any specific engineering questions.
Hokkanen: I just have a question about that oak tree. Is that for sure staying? That’s a requirement. I
can’t find it in here but it is, okay.
Tyler Stevens: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to save it. There will be tree protection fencing around it. It’s one of,
when we first met with the applicant they made it very obvious that this was one of the things that they
really wanted to do. They were intent, yeah.
Tyler Stevens: Well and that tree’s kind of I mean the flagship to the site. I mean it’s right where you
drive in. The canopy goes over the home and.
Aller: And with this type of facility I wouldn’t expect there would be a great deal of increased traffic
based on the, even though you’re having residents there. 25 residents in a fairly local situation.
Tyler Stevens: Yeah the higher concentration of visit times would be weekends. You know Monday
through Friday, you know there’s going to be very minimal traffic and that was one of the things that we
had to express with MnDOT is, you know one of their caveats that this is the last thing they want is a
project that you know has 200-300 trips a day so yeah, I mean people that are, that live in this home don’t
drive and they’ll, people that will be coming in and out were just employees and you know family and
friends. And it’s small enough that we’re not going to be getting deliveries of food trucks and you know
that. It’s you know residential.
Aller: Any other conditions? I know one of the items was the waste disposal area was going to be in a
façade which is similar to the main structure.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Tyler Stevens: Yeah we’re building it to the exact same materials of the home so I mean we’re going to
be making that enclosure look like a shed, not necessarily like a trash enclosure so it’s going to have a
roof. It’s going to be built to the same materials as the house. Minus the stone obviously so it’s just
going to have the same you know shake look all the way around it.
Aller: Any further questions? Thank you sir.
Tyler Stevens: Thank you.
Aller: Okay, I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of this request. Anyone wishing to speak
for or again please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we’ll try to keep
everything to about 3 minutes.
Scott Lucas: Thank you members of the commission. My name is Scott Lucas. I’m with the law firm of
Olson and Lucas and our address is 7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 575, Edina, Minnesota 55439.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Lucas and for the record we have received correspondence from you that was
emailed today to the City so it is part of the record.
Scott Lucas: Thank you very much and I’m really here just to elaborate a little bit on that letter and to
answer any questions you may have. Of course I’m here representing Mel Brooks and Nancy Perkins
Brooks and we’re of course talking about the issues you were discussing with the applicant regarding
whether this particular lot is right for this purpose. My clients have a claim of ownership in part of the
property due to the doctrine of adverse possession. They’ve been, and alternately a prescriptive easement
and those are two legal theories that basically establish either ownership or right of use based upon a
history of use. They built a berm onto, that goes in certain places about as deep, has the width of that
drainage and utility easement that’s on the back part of the property and then they landscaped the berm.
They sodded it. Planted trees on it. Put a porch swing on it and they’ve maintained it as part of their yard
since 1994, well in excess of the statutory requisite period of 15 years. There is an issue, I’ll be very
candid with you that I’m sure the applicant’s counsel raised which is that ordinarily one cannot make
those kind of claims against property which is owned by the public pursuant to a statutory provision,
Minnesota Statute Section 541.01. Here though it’s a different situation for a couple reasons. One,
because the City’s interest is an easement interest, not title. Not record interest. Secondly because the
Brooks’ aren’t looking to oust or change the use that’s being put to the property by the City. They’ve
peacefully coexisted with the City’s non-exclusive easement for some 18 years. There’s no reason why
that can continue. That can’t continue and in fact they’re looking to preserve the status quo. In addition
to the legal issues raised in the letter frankly my clients have some concerns about the use of the property.
The proximity of a commercial building to their home. In their back yard literally and the height of the
building and all of those things. Now we’re certainly interested in and open to having discussions with
the applicant about how those issues can be resolved but I think perhaps one reason why we’re all here
tonight is that my clients first talked to the applicant late last week and it’s because they reached out to the
applicant and it’s possible that those conversations happened earlier that these issues would be resolved
but we’re still hoping to have those productive conversations. With that I think I’m probably up against
my 3 minute deadline if you have any questions I’ll be happy to, and lawyers have a hard time shutting up
so.
Aller: And quite frankly I don’t want to, I think it’s above my pay grade at this moment to kind of make
any decisions or even inquire as to any of the issues that are presented in your letter other than taking your
testimony and making it a part of the record and then letting the parties in this, what amounts to be a civil
matter work out those issues.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Scott Lucas: I appreciate the opportunity. Of course we have copied it to your city attorney.
Aller: Thank you.
Scott Lucas: Thank you very much for your time.
Aller: Thanks for your time.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair I just want to make one clarification. There is a city drainage easement on the
property that’s, so it’s shown on all the site plans. That’s, the little portion we talked about. 75 square
feet of that being vacated but this shows the easement right here. Oh, I’m sorry. There we go. This is the
drainage easement here kind of showing it. This is the outlot so this is the replat of Outlot B to, so this is
the existing drainage easement filed in 1991. The City’s drainage easement. Just, we are still
recommending going forward on this project or our recommendation. Obviously there’s some concerns
with the neighboring property owner but the City does have a drainage easement over there. We are
contemplating with this project providing some additional drainage through that City. There will be some
grading in that to provide overflow for the back of the lot to this property so it’s, it will be used as is
intended for drainage so.
Aller: And we still haven’t dealt with the finality of, it’s my understanding from what’s before us the
water issues and whether or not the approvals and permits are going to be forward so.
Aanenson: Right, that’s still part of the process. That’s standard part of the recommendation. They’ll
have to meet all those things before they can go forward. All those letters have to be in place before a
building permit can be issued but we’ve addressed what we believe based on the height, again when we,
Sharmeen briefly addressed this. I don’t want to spend too much protracted time on this but this, the
height in this zoning district is 35 feet. When we went through the comprehensive plan we looked at this
property and the property to the south. As we talked about it, it is an area of uniqueness when you’ve got
the middle school across the street which generates a lot of traffic at peak times. You’ve got the
commercial piece to the north so we really contemplated what would be the appropriate use for this,
especially with that commercial to the north. We looked at office and medium density residential which
would allow up to, you know if you look at the 8 units an acre, it could be a higher use there and so when
this proposal came forward is why we recommended the zoning change. The height could be 35 feet
coming into the 29. We felt that this was really a nice fit, a residential fit for this area and so that’s why
we brought you back that issue paper a few months ago talking about recommending the zoning change
because of the uses that could go in there, this seemed like the least intense as far as traffic and intensity
as opposed to an office or other medium density. So just the background on that and we certainly are
aware of this issue. Sounds like there may be some issues that we are not necessarily a part of but we are
going to use that drainage easement in the future so just for the record.
Aller: Thank you and I think Mr. Lucas understands that and will take whatever action he feels is
necessary in the best interest of his client so moving forward, is there anyone else just come forward to
speak for or against. Sir, state your name and address for the record please.
Greg Soule: My name is Greg Soule.
Aller: Mr. Soule, welcome.
Greg Soule: My office is at Suite 4000, 225 South Sixth Street in Minneapolis. I’m the attorney
representing the applicant. I’ll be very brief. At this point, we just got the same letter that you got today
so we haven’t had really time to react to it. We have made various proposals to the neighbors to see if we
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
can accommodate some of their concerns and we’ll continue with those conversations. At this time I
think the staff’s recommendation to proceed with it irrespective of this claim is appropriate because they
at the current time they have no legal interest in the property. If they initiate a lawsuit, if they prevail in
the lawsuit, maybe they’ll get to have a legal interest in the property but they don’t as of this time. The
people who have the ownership interest are before you properly and we’ve requested, you know made a
request to you and you’re dealing with us so I think that’s perfectly appropriate and again of course your
city attorney can comment on that. The only other point I would make is that the applicant did have a
town hall meeting where the neighbors were invited the Brooks chose not to attend and I believe the
applicant also sent them a letter informing them about the project and didn’t receive a response so it’s not
as if the applicant didn’t reach out and try and talk to the neighbors but we’ll continue to talk to the
neighbors and see if we can leave some kind of an accommodation with them but we appreciate your
continuing the process in the meantime.
Aller: Thank you for your comments.
Greg Soule: Thank you very much.
Aller: Any additional individuals wishing to come forward, for or against? Sir, come forward.
Gary Reed: I’m Gary Reed and my brother and I own the property. My folks bought the property in
1935.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Reed. For the record could you please give us your address.
th
Gary Reed: 2461 West 64 Street, Excelsior mailing. Anyway I think this is probably the best use.
We’ve been up with proposals many times with this property since my folks passed away and we’ve had
the houses rented out and a lot of the renters haven’t been very desirable neighbors and the house was
trashed by the last tenant so we had to close it up but my folks, like I say bought the property in 1935.
They moved out there in 1939 and owned the property until they passed away and then it went to my
brother and I. And I know that they would really agree with this use for the property and so. I’m one of
the neighbors and I think it will create a nice buffer from the highway. 41 is a noisy highway and so
we’re looking forward to having something nice on that property that is a residential style building.
Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close
the public hearing. Comments from commissioners.
Undestad: I think it’s a very nice plan. Very nice project. The design is, I mean it’s a beautiful building.
Hokkanen: Yes it is. It’s like a home.
Undestad: The transition from a gas station to a neighborhood, I think something of this caliber in there
is an excellent transition between the two so, I like it. It’s a great project.
Aller: Anyone else?
Hokkanen: No, I agree.
Colopoulos: I agree.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
Aller: I think everyone who knows about the 2030 plan as far as the use of the area and the zoning
factors, it fits the bill for what we’re looking forward to utilizing these properties for in the future as
Chanhassen moves forward and as our demographics change so that being said, entertain any motions.
Hokkanen: I have a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve a rezoning of the property from Singe Family Residential District to Mixed Medium Density
Residential District, preliminary plat to replat 2.1 acres into one lot, site plan approval for the construction
of a continuing care retirement facility Bee Hive Homes and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tennyson: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends approval of
Planning Case #2012-15 to rezone 2.16 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential
District to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential District for BeeHive Homes Subdivision
contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received October 9, 2012, and
adoption of the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends the City Council
approves the preliminary and final plat for Planning Case 2012-15 for BeeHive Homes as shown in
plans dated received October 9, 2012, and including the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval.
2.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
Dept. of Health, Carver County, Watershed District and MnDOT.
3.The developer must work with the City to properly locate the easements over the utilities and
over the treatment pond.
4. Storm water connection fees will be collected with the final plat. The fees are estimated to be
$12,231.20.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
the City
Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends that
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 15,681 square-foot continuing care retirement
facility, Planning Case 12-15 for BeeHive Homes as shown in plans dated received October
9, 2012, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the
following conditions:
1.Install tree protection fencing around the preserved oak at least 30 feet from the trunk. The
fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity and remain until site construction
is completed. Wood chip mulch shall be applied within the fenced area to a depth of 4-6
inches.
2.One spruce shall be added to the plantings along the west property line. The tree should be
located behind the proposed group of five lilacs.
3.Building Official Conditions:
a.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required.
c.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and
signed by a structural engineer.
d.Detailed building code related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place
when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted.
e.Demolition Permit(s) are required for the removal of any existing structures on the site.
f.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
5.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
6.Approval of the site plan applications is contingent upon approval of the final plat, rezoning,
drainage and utility easement vacation, and the City Code amendment – Planning Case 2012-
15.
7.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The
sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. A sign permit is required before
construction of the sign.
8.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance.
9.Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same
enclosure as the trash.
10.The existing buildings must be removed prior to grading. Demolition of structures must
comply with National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Minnesota Rules
7035.0805 and any other pertinent rules, regulations and laws.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
11.The developer will be responsible for all the costs associated with rerouting the storm water.
The City will own and maintain the proposed storm sewer upon acceptance by the City. The
developer must model the drainage area discharging to the 36-inch storm sewer to determine
the proper sizing of the storm sewer through the site.
12.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT right-of-way.
13.The NURP calculations and or drainage area map must be revised to correlate to the plans.
14.The roof drainage from the rear of the building needs to be collected and piped to prevent
storm water from discharging to the properties to the west.
15.Drainage maps and hydrocad calculations were provided for this site. The maps do not show
the correct drainage boundaries. The maps and calculations must be revised to meet City
standards.
16.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
17.The applicant shall work with staff on the proposed location of the new lines. The sewer and
water lines located between the existing lines and the property to the south will be city owned
and maintained. The lines connecting to the buildings will be private. Drainage and utility
easements will be required on the public portion of the sewer and water lines. Permits are
required from the Department of Health and MPCA for the sewer and water extension.
18.Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2012 trunk
hookup charge is $2,107 per unit for sanitary sewer and $5,717 per unit for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units
assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
19.The utilities will need plan and profile sheets of all public utilities. The public portion of
these utilities will be inspected by an engineering inspector. Upon completion, as-builts must
be completed to ensure that the utilities meet the specifications of the City.
20.Existing easements are shown in the location of the proposed building. A portion of these
easements must be vacated to accommodate the building location.
21.The developer must post a letter of credit or cash escrow ensuring the future connection to
the property south of this development. This connection must occur within one year of the
completion of the first lift of asphalt. Upon completion of the new access point, the BeeHive
Home property must remove the right-in/right-out access. The City will hold the letter of
credit or cash escrow until the BeeHive Home property connects to the future access point
and removes their current right-in/right-out.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
22.The applicant shall provide the NPDES Permit number prior to commencement of earth-
disturbing activities.
23.The SWPPP shall be amended such that under Project Contacts, the City contact is Terry
Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator 952.227.1168 and Chip Hentges, Carver County
SWCD, 952.466.5230 shall be added.
24.That portion of the SWPPP with the heading “Responsibility Requirements” shall be
completed in full and submitted to the City and included in the on-site SWPPP at the pre-
construction meeting or otherwise prior to the commencement of earth-disturbing activities.
25.Per Part III. A. 3 of the NPDES permit, a narrative describing the timing and placement of all
erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs must be included in the SWPPP.
26.Those areas to be protected from grading, construction traffic, material stockpiling or other
disturbance shall be clearly labeled on the plans and adequate protection in the form of
fencing with metal T-posts shall be shown on the plans and installed prior to any earth-
disturbing activities. This shall be included as part of the SWPPP.
27.Category 3 erosion control blanket is only required where slopes exceed 3:1. All blankets
shall use natural netting and stitching. Hydraulic soil stabilization would be a preferred
alternative.
28.Erosion stabilization mat shall be placed at the outfall in the intermittent channel. This shall
be classed by shear stress within the channel as described in MnDOT Specification Manual
3888.1.
29.All silt fences shall be standard machine sliced or heavy duty. In no case may preassembled
silt fence be used without approval from the city. This shall be indicated on the plan and in
the legend.
30.The legend shall be included on sheet C6: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in addition to
sheet C1.
31.The rock construction entrance shall be consistent with section 19-145 in that it must be at
least 75 feet in length unless it can be shown that it is not possible to do so.
32.The swale located southeast of the proposed building shall be stabilized in its entirety.
33.The SWPPP must identify the receiving waters for this project.
34.All City standard detail plates shall be edited so that they are legible.
35.The applicant must receive approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers prior
to working within the existing intermittent channel and provide proof of approval to the City.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012
36.Any dewatering needed shall have a plan which shall be included with the SWPPP. This
plan shall be provided to the City and the City shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to
commencement of dewatering activities.
37.Stockpile areas shall be shown on the plan and shall include the anticipated sediment control
practices which will be implemented. These additional quantities shall be added to quantities
currently in the plan.
38.Encroachment agreements are needed for any structure located in the drainage and utility
easements. This includes but is not limited to the parking lot and light poles located in
drainage and utility easements.
39.The applicant shall work with staff on minor plan modifications.
40.The trash enclosure shall utilize the same exterior materials as the proposed building.
Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same
enclosure.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for the record. This is proceeding to the City Council next Monday
nd
on the 22.
Aller: So those of you interested in following this matter before the City Council should look to
the City Council on October 22, 2012. And all these documents and records can be found on the
City of Chanhassen website. Moving onto item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WYNSONG: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.37 ACRES INTO 4
LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET, AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED AT 7042 GALPIN BOULEVARD (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SONG
ADDITION). APPLICANT: STEVE KROISS, GALPIN BLVD. PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER:
CHARLES SONG, PLANNING CASE 2012-16.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing for a
subdivision approval for the development’s name is Wynsong. This property is located on Galpin Boulevard
between Highway 5 and Lake Lucy Road. It’s on the west side. It’s just south of the Lake Harrison
development and if you go to the next slide. Too far. Just to the north of this is the Lake Harrison
development. That’s a single family residential development with a large wetland complex that this property
connects into it. To the south of this is the Woods of Longacres, the development which is a single family
detached housing with a larger area of open space, wetlands and then there’s a private park area. Originally
this property was part of the Woods of Longacres subdivision. It was an outlot for that development. The
Song’s replatted it as the Song Addition and built their home in the mid to late 90’s and then now they’re
coming in requesting a subdivision of their site into 4 lots. Each of these lots is over 1 acre in area and that’s
on a net basis so when we did our review we took out all the wetland area on the individual lots. It has a lot
of significant environmental features on the property. To the west is Lake Harrison which is a natural
environmental lake. There are 3 wetland complexes within the property boundaries. There’s a significant
15