CC Minutes 1-24-05
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL,
OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; NORTHWEST CORNER OF
LYMAN BOULEVARD AND THE FUTURE REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101, SAND
COMPAIES, INC., PLANNING CASE NO. 05-01.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jamie Thelen 366 South Tenth Avenue, Waite Park, MN
Jim Sand 366 South Tenth Avenue, Waite Park, MN
Richard Hennings 366 South Tenth Avenue, Waite Park, MN
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The Sand Company is requesting rezoning of approximately 24
acres. The subject site is, this is the new 212 interchange. This would be Lyman. Excuse me,
Lyman and the new 101. This is existing 101. Again 24 acres. Obviously this site is tied into
the relocation and the redevelopment of the 212. There’s existing wetlands in the easterly corner
and 101 will have to be vacated at this point here. As worded in your packet, kind of an
overview. We’re tying this PUD, as you recall last year we worked on the Southwest Transit
PUD and I included in your packet. This is a concept and again the concept, state law says that
the zoning and the land use designation need to be consistent. This is guided as a mixed use.
These are the only two areas in town that we have that mixed use which could be neighborhood
business or high density. Multi-family. The applicant has chosen to come in with the mixed so
while it is guided residential single, excuse me. Zoned residential single family it is guided for
the mixed use, and that’s what the applicant has chosen to do. Again they’re coming forward
with the PUD concept. The concept again, while it has no legal standing, the intent is to give
some clear direction so you notice the staff report kind of has a lot of bullet points. It’s really to
flush out the issues as this evolves because as I’ll explain to you in a minute, we’re negotiating
still with MnDot and the watershed district on some issues. But with the PUD, the nice thing
about that is we’ll get the design standards in place, so everybody understands that. The PUD
also has a little bit more stringent buffer requirements. There is kind of a built in buffer with 212
but will also has additional buffering when we have a transition between a higher density land
use and a lower density. Also with a PUD, we’re working with the neighboring properties which
is sensitive to the residential where we’ve got the low scale office building on the corner, and
providing those commercial sites. I’ll go through their specific proposal. You have this in black
and white in your site plan so it’s a little bit, I think a little bit easier to read on this. Again this is
the Southwest Metro park and ride and the, some office retail with multi-family on the corner.
So this is the subject site. When we looked at the approval of the 212, there was a requirement
that this side of the property, a through street had to be connected. There will be signalization at
this intersection so this street, while it’s rather circuitous on this map, you can see it on your’s,
that that street has to go through. That was a condition of MnDot, so they are providing that.
We need to work out kind of those issues. Again as I indicated, as part of the PUD we’ll be
doing office on this corner, one story. I think the residents are pleased with that. Getting
architectural standards, providing a good buffer. It’s not our intent to put fast food in here,
although there will be some other retail. Again anticipating that this location probably an
13
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
appropriate site for a gas station where that’s furthest removed from the residential, based on the
212 interchange. Again there will be an apartment building on this side and some strip retail on
that piece. Again that piece has the biggest amount of buffer, again trying to provide Lyman,
there’s some residential because of the configuration of the major roads. On the north side it’s
all residential. This west piece of the original 24 acres. The sticky part gets in where we talk
about Lake Lucy Drive. While this photo is overlaid on top of, there’s a median that runs
through this so the access to that is a little bit tougher. We’re working, the City Engineer, Paul
Oehme and myself have met with Jon Chiglo trying to work through some of those issues. How
to provide good access. If you look at Mr. Klingelhutz’ property, you have a private drive going
through to that property. It’s not the best situation there. Again this part of 101 will be vacated.
I showed that on my original. Be a berm put in a place there. That provides a good transition
between that and existing homes in Chan Hills. But trying to resolve what’s the best access,
because we don’t want people going around the median. Taking U turns. Trying to work those
issues out so between now and when they come back for preliminary we’re pursuing those. I
know when the 101 relocation and this interchange came up at the 212 hearing there was some
concern about cut through traffic. Again we’re trying to work through providing those
transitions. There is existing traffic counts and one of the things that we’re working on is trying
to make it not convenient for this cut through traffic. Obviously this wouldn’t be using that but
as we talk about the relocation of 101, one of the things we talked about is actually moving 101
and if we can work through that. There is an existing telecommunication building right there
that makes it a little bit more difficult, but maybe moving 101. That provides a berm. Some
transition. Screening on the backs of those. Backing the townhouses up onto those lots, so we’re
still working through that. That’s a little bit fluid still on that side and the applicant’s aware of
that. Again, the subject property could go up to 8 to 16 units an acre. As proposed on here it’s
only 12 units an acre. Again this is all conceptual at this point. We haven’t looked at total
impervious surface. Again the goal under the PUD is just kind of flush some things out as far as
the uses that we’re looking at. The staff feels comfortable with that. Again with the apartments,
probably 3 stories in height. Again the way they’re located in the site itself, the orientation I
think it works best for the least amount of impact for visibility and access. So we did point out,
the issues that they need to resolve, kind of department or by issue. One of the things that we
are working with, the watershed district. If you saw that they put out a couple of projects to
Riley-Purgatory. They were one of the projects they’re going to improve Lake Riley is that
ponding right there. We have a trail that runs along that side but we’re going to make sure that
improving that pond doesn’t force us to build a big retaining wall to get that trail in so we’re
working with the watershed and the applicants have met with them too. To make sure that we
can blend the grades on that. So the good thing about this coming forward at this time is that we
can kind of all be working together as 101 and 212 advances. So with that, oh one other thing.
We did mention in here too about, you’re looking at the apartments. You know right now we
believe that market is a little bit softer but looking at kind of where we are, some types of
housing that we maybe needed because we are in close proximity to a transit facility, whether
that be senior or they’ve looked at even some senior coop or some other type of facility that, or
type of housing product that we may not have a market nitch, so with that, we’re asking that the
City Council approve the conceptual PUD. Again kind of with the marching orders outlined in
the staff report and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
14
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Not at this time? Okay. Is the applicant here?
If they’d like to address the council on any matter. No? Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Send the check to Kate.
Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions for them? I’ve got one. As you look through the
proposed requirements of the PUD, is there anything that you see that based upon what you’re
planning to do here, the types of businesses that might become issues, whether they’re going to
be coming back looking for changes that you can anticipate now? We seem to get a lot of those
for signage and other types of needs. Is there anything that you feel uncomfortable with as this is
proposed? No? Okay. Alright.
Richard Hennings: I’m Richard Hennings. Architect with Sand Companies, and as Kate
mentioned we’re concerned about the access at Lake Susan Drive and what the highway
department is potentially saying. In their written report that they sent out 10 days ago, maybe a
little bit more than that, they actually talked about no access within 660 feet of the intersection.
Our property’s not that long and so there would be, if that was a true statement and if they
thought it out, which I hope is not the case, there would be no access allowed on Lake Susan
Drive to our property at all. And I guess our response to them will be, we’ve got to work
something else here or you need to buy the property because we can’t, you know you can’t
develop property that you don’t have access to. Would have no access on any of the four sides if
that were the case, so I think perhaps that that was maybe an over statement. I’m hoping that
we’ll get that worked out with them. That’s kind of our big concern that we have right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well that’s an issue, and you said Kate that.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yes, and Paul’s aware of it too so we’re…
Mayor Furlong: We’re pretty fluid there. We’re working on that so. Okay. Very good. I’m
sorry, Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate one quick question. On the, I’ll call parcel probably 3. With the
apartments. It’s going to have the over story or over parking, the parking garage below the 3
levels.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: On the plan here it looks like there’s only one entrance in and out. What’s
our guidelines for requiring that second entrance in or out?
Kate Aanenson: We have existing apartments that have the one way in, one way out. Up on
Lake Susan. Those are one way in, and actually we built the building there for the neighbors so
there was a break in above grade but there’s a long connected under ground.
Richard Hennings: Are you talking about one way in and out of the parking lot?
15
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
Councilman Labatt: The parking ramp.
Mayor Furlong: If you can get towards a microphone too.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. So both of those meet the current, yeah. Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, and then that.
Kate Aanenson: This was…one way.
Councilman Labatt: The road through that property, is that a public street then? Is that what?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. That was a requirement of MnDot when we approved the 212. Obviously
there’s some design issues. Some of the neighbors had concern about cut through traffic.
Obviously if you have some of this cut through, it takes some of the pressure off this intersection
which we know will have some, so that’s a good thing. But we also didn’t want to do it to the
detriment of people trying to do business in here so that was one of the things that we’ve agreed
that we need to kind of work through those issues where we use traffic calming. That it is, can
be used to cut through but not at the detriment of the existing or proposed businesses, so.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But these two touchdown points are fixed…
Todd Gerhardt: And that’s because if you have a full intersection you have to connect two state
aid road sections to that. And that would be 101 and Lyman.
Mayor Furlong: Kate, maybe a follow-up question with regards to signage. You mentioned a
possible gas station or other types of commercial buildings in that south of 212. Even with the
buffers there, what sort of visual protection will there be to the residents over in Chanhassen
Hills there? I mean they’re going through a lot of changes as it is. And gas station lights tend to
be a little more brighter in the evening.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think most of the commercial is going to be on this side. South of Chan
Hills. I think the biggest concern we heard from was the neighbors was, they did hold a
neighborhood meeting and the Planning Commission as I mentioned did recommend 5-0, but
these neighbors were also concerned about.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Kate Aanenson: So you know obviously there will be some wall signs. We did talk about
lighting, but they will have some monument signs. No pylons. We’ll recommend the monument
sign and identifying the center and once you get in, obviously the gas station is the one, which
we think makes sense. With the level of activity by pushing that one up where it’s bordered by
101 and new 212. Would have the least amount of light visual impact, and we did want the drive
16
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
through the way we have the speaker and that’s something we’ll have to work with on that too.
You hear the squawking.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And you know you mentioned Springfield neighborhood, and I’m glad
you did because they’re right down there and obviously they worked very well with the transit,
Southwest Metro Transit and that park and ride and I’m glad to hear that you’re meeting with the
neighbors, which was evident with the lack of volume at the public hearing. At the Planning
Commission and the positive so continue to do that if you would because we’re, you’re
inbetween a couple neighborhoods here that used to look out over farm fields and they’re going
to see a lot of changes as I said, in the next few years. So everything we can do to mitigate the
problems ahead of time would be appreciated. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments.
I’ll bring it back to council for discussion at this point then. Pros? Cons?
Councilman Peterson: It certainly seems appropriate for surrounding Southwest Metro Transit,
getting some services to that area. It doesn’t have any now. From a concept standpoint I
certainly think, I can’t add any positive critiques to it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m glad it’s a PUD. I guess I’d have to say for one thing, I’m
hoping that we’ll have some quality townhouses and quality apartments that will be built that we
can all be proud of. And hoping also that we can maybe have a little mixed use with potential
for maybe elderly housing or other housing alternatives because it is next to the transportation
hub, as you would have it in Chanhassen so I think it’s a good plan.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Agree with the comments. The one, the only thing that really concerns
me now is the townhouse, the apartment complex that would be right along Lake Susan Drive as
we get into the Lake Susan Hills neighborhood. We continually hear about issues of traffic, cut
through and different things going like that and to add that volume of housing right there would
be, it’s not a big enough concern for me now to say no but I think that will definitely be an issue
going forward and the big question that I don’t know the answer to is, is it better to have
apartments and townhouses there or a commercial something. I don’t know which drives, maybe
commercial drives more traffic which could be worst but certainly something that if we haven’t
heard from the residents of Lake Susan Hills, I’m sure that we will so, and again I think it’s a
great place for these types of things to be near the Southwest and near the highway so let’s just
make sure that we do it right. But I think it’s a good proposal.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I wouldn’t disagree with anybody’s comments here. I think, you
know there’s a lot of points to this potential development here that would benefit a large majority
of Chanhassen. But that northern portion, we’ll call it parcel 1 and 5. I think you know, they
have an issue there. If MnDot’s not going to give them access, off of Lake Susan Drive, so
maybe we can just direct staff to strongly work with MnDot to figure something out there with
17
City Council Meeting – January 24, 2005
MnDot to allow that to working, but with this being just conceptual, you know that gives staff
the time and the energy and resources to work with the developer on it. It comes back to us for
preliminary and I do like it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I think comments were well made. Overall I think it’s a good
concept. It’s nice to see the variety in a mixed use development like this. The access up along
Lake Susan Drive is going to be an issue as Councilman Labatt said, not just for this property
owner but for the property owner to the north as well, and I know staff is aware of that. The
owner there spoke at the public hearing and that issue has to be taken care of. Again, I think it’s
going to add some services. Some business neighborhood services to this part of town. I think
as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, you know as a PUD we get a chance to really make sure it gets
done right and I think that’s what everybody would be looking for here so this really adds to the
quality of our city which I think it has a great potential to do that and there’s a lot of work to do
but I’m in favor of, from a concept standpoint, of moving forward. That might mean that some
things get moved around if Councilman Lundquist’s comment about traffic with apartments up
there is bad, then we need to do some shifting and such to make things work but ultimately it’s
got to work for this property owner as well as neighboring property owners as well. And I’m
confident that we’ll be able to get that done, so I would support it from a concept standpoint.
Any other comments? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I’d move that the City Council approve the concept PUD with the
recommendations as outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the concept PUD, Planning Case 05-01 with the recommendations outlined in the
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL BUILDING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN LED MONUMENT SIGN; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
TH
MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 79 STREET (AMERICANA BANK BUILDING)
WALGREENS; SEMPER DEVELOPMENT, LTD AND ROBERT DITTRICH,
PLANNING CASE 05-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Neil Tessler CEI Engineering
18