03-19-97 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY,MARCH 19, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
1. *Item Deleted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Conceptual approval to rezone 102 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD,
Planned Unit Development (Residential, Industrial and Commercial) located at the SE
quadrant of Hwys. 5 and 41, Gateway, Steiner Development.
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make
every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible.the Chair
person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the
agenda at the next Commission meeting.
Item Deleted
1. Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings on one site and to allow a restaurant in a BN,
Neighborhood Business District; and Site Plan Review for a 24,285 sq. ft. shopping center
and a 5,129 sq. ft. restaurant, Famous Dave's BBQ Shack, to be located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen Commons,
Oppidan Investment Co.
PC DATE: 3/19/97 •'
CITY OF
11ANIIAssrx CC DATE: 4/14/97
• CASE #: 92-6 PUD
By: Aanenson/vc
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Development Plan for Rezoning 146.5 Acres of Property from
A-2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development for Gateway
West Business Park
Z
Q LOCATION: SE quadrant of I-Iwys. S and 41.
V
eL APPLICANT: Steiner Development Gateway Partners
3610 South Highway 101 c/o Steiner Development. Inc.
Wayzata. MN 55391 3610 South Highway 101
Q Minnetonka,MN 55343 Minnetonka, MN 55343
PRESENT ZONING: A-2. Agricultural Estate
ACREAGE: 146.5 acres
DENSITY: Not Applicable
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N- A-2; vacant
S - A-2: vacant
E - A-2; vacant
QW -A-2; Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Q WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer will be available with Phase IV of Upper Bluff
Creek Trunk Improvement Project.
•
F.F.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: This site has varied topography,including 15 acres of wetland and
10 acres of upland wooded vegetation. There are 3 existing homes
(f) on the subject site. One will be removed and the other 2 homes are
shown on a lot that is exempted from the current proposal.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: OI, Office/Industrial
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The Gateway development proposal was given conceptual approval from the City Council in 1993.
The approval never progressed because the developer had issues with the conditions imposed.
Since that time,numerous things have happened that have affected the current development
proposal. These changes include:
• sale of the westerly 31.5 acres of the site to the Arboretum
• adoption of the Highway 5 corridor study
• completion of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan
• donation of the O'Shaugnessey property leading to the plan for a natural /passive park in this
area
• request by the city and MnDOT for an additional intersection along Hwy. 5
• request by the developer to guide this property to residential
• extension of the Upper Bluff Creek Utilities to the Autumn Ridge Development
Last year a request was made to guide this property residential. Staff, Planning Commission, and
the City Council rejected that request. There were some conflicting desires for this property. While
the city wanted this property to be developed as an industrial park, the developer felt that the design
constraints were prohibitive. It is staff's belief that the current concept plan meets the objectives of
the developer. As staff works through refinement of the proposal, staff believes the city and the
developer will have their goals met.
The current proposal includes 102.1 acres that will be developed including 1,334,200 square feet of
building on 12 lots. The development will take place in three phases with the first phase taking
place this year in the southwest corner(82°1 Street). This phase includes 3.8 acres of commercial,
10 acres of industrial,and 23.5 acres of residential.
The site plan shows approximately 333,500 of square footage used for support commercial and a
residential development. In the PUD Ordinance, it states that the "PUD shall be used for the use or
uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit up
to twenty-five(25%)percent of the gross floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land
uses for which the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan, if the City Council finds that
such uses are in the best interest of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section."
Staff feels that support commercial may be appropriate,but on a limited scale. A restaurant or
convenience store/gas station may be a permitted support commercial use. The residential(multi-
family)area would be located on Lot 12. Staff believes that the mixed use is a good use of the
property but want to ensure that the site is developed in a cohesive manner. We believe this can be
accomplished under the PUD zoning as it is further developed.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 3
There are 15 acres of wetland and 10 acres of upland vegetation. A wetland alteration permit will
be required. The majority of the wetland and wooded areas are found on the eastern portion of the
site.
Because this project exceeds 750,000 gross square feet of new office/industrial development, an
Environmental Impact Statement is mandatory. The city will be the Responsible Governmental
Unit. Instead of completing an EIS, staff is recommending an Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR)be completed. The same issues will be studied under an EIS and the AUAR but the time
frame is shorter. The AUAR will provide an opportunity to develop detailed information about the
project and potential impacts. Staff will then direct the applicant on how to mitigate these impacts.
The proposal shows a water tower located on the easterly portion of the Wrase's property. Staff has
proposed that the city buy the Wrase's property allowing them to live on the site and thus allowing
the water tower to be placed on the rear portion of the property. The Wrase's are uncertain if this
proposal is acceptable to them at this time. The other option would be to move the water tower to
another site and leave the Wrase's property undisturbed with the city owning the entire 3 plus acre
lot and they could remain living in their home. The applicants will have to work with the
Engineering Department to ensure the appropriate location for this water tower as well as
acceptance and purchase of the Wrase's property(if they are agreeable to this location).
Staff is recommending that this property be developed as a PUD. While this site warrants a PUD
zoning for reasons such as traffic management,comprehensive storm water management, wetland
protection,architectural control, etc.,this plan as proposed needs to be further developed before
staff can make a recommendation on the proposed design. The site size,prominence and potential
for coordinated development are major opportunities to create a high quality, sensitively designed
corporate environment. This proposal and the review process will allow for the incorporation of
numerous refinements. Staff is recommending that the PUD concept be approved with the
conditions of approval.
Site Characteristics
The property is approximately 146.5 acres in size located south of Highway 5 and east of Hwy. 41.
The property is currently cultivated with one farm homestead along Highway 5 and two homes that
are currently exempted along Hwy. 41. The homestead, owned by Wrase's, is 3.15 acres in size.
This site has varied topography with rolling hills, wetlands and wooded areas. There are 15 acres of
wetlands. They are mostly found in the eastern edge of the property with ten acres of upland woods
consisting of maple,basswood and oak located in the southeast corner of the 150-acre parcel. The
plan proposes to include the largest wetland and wooded area of 36 acres to be included as a city
park. This property would be combined with the recently acquired O'Shaugnessey property to
create a large passive park.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 4
This property is currently zoned A-2 (Agricultural Estate). The Comprehensive Plan guides this
area for future land use of office/industrial. The proposed land uses,office/industrial, includes
those properties exempted from this proposal. The University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
is the adjacent use to the west of this proposal and it is zoned A-2. Property to the north and east of
this site it is zoned A-2 and are currently cultivated/cultivated field. The property to the south is
bordered by 82nd Street and the Chaska city limits. The property in Chaska has been developed as
an industrial park.
Overview
The proposal will be guided by the recommendations of the Highway 5 Corridor Study and the
Bluff Creek Corridor Study. Both studies recommend preservation of natural features. The plan as
proposed places the road adjacent to the open space. This will create a significant open area and a
visual edge from Highway 5.
One of the major issues of the Highway 5 Corridor Plan is to develop the frontage/parkway roads
that will run on either side of the highway. The location of the southern frontage road directly
impacts the design of this project. The proposal shows a full access onto Highway 5 approximately
1600 feet east of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 41. The city has worked with
MnDOT to allow for a full signalized intersection at this location. There will be another full
intersection at Highway 41 and 82nd Street.
This project will require a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). The City Council
had previously recommended that the AUAR process be used and staff is proposing that this
process be used again. The mandatory requirement applies when there is new construction of
750,000 square feet of gross floor area. This project proposes a total of 1,334,200 square feet. of
buildings including 335,000 square feet to be allocated for residential and commercial uses. The
city will be the Responsible Governmental Unit(RGU). As a part of the AUAR,staff is
recommending a study of the traffic issues for this area be completed. Staff also recommends that
the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of this study.
The sewer for this area will be serviced by Phase IV of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer
and water improvements. The southwest portion of this site may be serviced via gravity sewer line
from Chaska. This past year,the city took a proactive role in a joint Chanhassen/Chaska Water and
Sanitary Sewer Agreement. This agreement provides for an area in Chanhassen to have water and
sewer service provided through the Chaska utility system. This service area,on the southern
portion of the site,will be the area the applicants are proposing to develop first. However,there is a
limit of 20,000 gallons per day that the Gateway site may discharge into Chaska's system.
REZONING
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 5
The purpose of the conceptual review is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan
to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without
incurring substantial costs. Staff recommended the conceptual review so that the planning
commission and the council could comment on the changes. The ordinance requires the following
items be reviewed:
Overall gross and net density.
1. Identification of each lot size and width.
2. General location of major street and pedestrian ways.
3. General location and extent of public and common open spaces.
4. General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
5. Staging and time schedule of development.
The site plan and attached narrative meets the requirements for conceptual review. Staff is
requesting that input be given to further develop this plan.
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone 146.5 acres from A2,Agriculture to PUD, Planned Unit
Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review
criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety
of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development
costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development
plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been
the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Finding. There are 10 acres of upland wooded vegetation including box elder,willows and
green ash on the eastern portion of this site. This wooded area is adjacent to a wetland that
will be preserved through dedication of 15 acres to the city. In addition,there will be a 36
plus acre site with the vast majority of the site left in it natural state.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 6
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of
land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. This is a large area of property, and when it is approved for subdivision, it will
have a master transportation plan,and a sewer, water and storm water management plan. If
each of these parcels were to develop separately, they would not have the comprehensive
utility and traffic plans. It will also provide a cohesive and unified design theme at one of
the major entrances to the city.
3. High quality'design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding. The applicants are proposing to submit individual building plans for each
development lot. The city will utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The
approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to ensure that the site is developed
in a consistent and well-planned manner so that a higher quality of development will result.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. The Comprehensive Plan shows a required landscaping buffer with the
residential property to the east. The majority of this property is a wetland. Therefore, staff
feels that the existing topography meets the buffering requirement. Because the
Comprehensive Plan guides this property for office/industrial, staff would recommend that
buffering be considered at the time this lot is developed.
S. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for office and light industrial use. The
applicants are proposing a business park. They are requesting a mixed use area that may be
commercial, educational, office or industrial and residential. Staff is recommending that
support commercial and residential may be approved if recommended by the Planning
Commission and City Council as defined in the PUD Ordinance.
6. Parks and Open Space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a community park be
developed on the site. This park would require dedication in excess of the 36 acres,which
includes the eastern portion of the site. The Park Commission will be meeting on March 18,
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 7
1997 to review this new plan.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding. The proposed residential development has not been developed at this point but
staff would encourage the developer to consider an affordability component as a part of the
development.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. The conservation element will evolve as the wetlands,roads and building
orientation are established as part of the standards for this PUD zone that staff will be
developing. Provisions for ultimate service of the site by Southwest Metro Transit should
be incorporated into the plan.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. Staff is recommending a traffic study be completed for this site. The applicants
shall reimburse the city the cost for this study.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility,but allows the city to request
additional improvements, and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexible
standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In
return for modifying the standards,the city will receive the following(after outlined plan
modifications have been incorporated):
• Consistency with Comprehensive Plan;
• Screening of undesirable views of loading and parking areas;
• Corridor sensitivity on Highways 5 and 41, including building orientation;
• Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands and trees);
• Improved architectural standards including,uniform signs and architecture;
• Traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential for traffic conflicts;
• Improved pretreatment of storm water;
• Gateway treatments.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 8
CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
General Site Plan/Architecture
The applicant has stated that the standards for this development are critical to the quality of the
business park. The Highway 5 Design Standards will dictate the design standards for the site.
Because this is a mixed use PUD it will be important that the design has some unifying features.
These issues will have to be developed as a part to the Preliminary Review.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
a. Intent
Staff envisions this area as a well-conceived,cohesive light industrial office park with support
commercial and multi-family residential. The site has varied topography,wetlands and upland
woods. It is bordered by two major collectors, Highways 5 and 41. This site is the gateway to the
western edge of the city. All of these features should be designed to make this site an asset to the
community.
Some of the site design issues include building materials on visible sites, screening of parking lots
and loading areas, orientation of buildings along Highways 5 and 41,and the natural terrain and
vegetation should be preserved.
Staff feels that a PUD zone is the appropriate zoning for this area to ensure a higher quality of
design and a more sensitive development. The plan as proposed needs to be further developed to
reflect these concerns.
b. Permitted Uses
The proposal calls for office,warehouse,manufacturing and some support commercial. The
comprehensive plan guides this area for light industrial and office use. Staff is recommending that
some support commercial be approved as part of the permitted uses for the zone. The City Council
also stated in a work session with the developer that they may consider a residential use a part of the
PUD. The PUD ordinance states that the city may permit up to twenty-five(25%)percent of the
gross floor area of all building in a PUD to be used for land uses which the site is not designated in
the comprehensive plan. The location of the residential component may make a good transition but
the proposed site is sensitive. The development must be sensitive to the land.
c. Setbacks
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 9
The plan, as proposed at this time, is too conceptual to review the setbacks. The Highway Corridor
Study does establish setbacks,although the PUD zoning does provide for flexibility from these
standards. Specific standards will be established as a part of the Preliminary review phase.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
Not able to review at the time of conceptual approval.
e. Building Materials and Design
Because this will be a large business park with some support commercial and residential, there may
be many types of building materials being used. One of the major concerns that staff will be
addressing is building orientation along the highways.
All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. The block shall
have a weathered face or be polished, fluted or broken face. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-
up or pre-cast,and shall be finished in stone textured or coated. Metal standing seam siding may be
used as support materials, curtain wall on office components, or as a roofing material. All roof top
equipment shall be screened, however, wood screen fences are prohibited.
f. Site landscaping Screening
Again,because this is a large business park, the landscaping will be a significant unifying element.
An overall landscaping plan needs to be developed. This plan shall take into consideration the
adjacency of the Arboretum,views from Highways 5 and 41,and gateway treatments. All lots with
in the PUD will be required to submit a landscaping plan consistent with an overall landscaping
theme. Because this is a mixed use project, landscaping needs to incorporate the buffering between
the uses.
All outdoor storage shall be prohibited. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways.
Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate.
g. Signs
The PUD shall develop a cohesive sign theme consistent with the building architecture. The signs
shall be limited to one monument or ground sign only on each lot. In addition,wall signs shall be
permitted to no more than two per street frontage. There shall be no freestanding/pylon signs
permitted, especially along Highways 5 and 41.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 10
h. Lighting
Lighting again should be consistent throughout the business park. This would include street
lighting and building lighting.
Compliance Table
Lot Acres Uses
1 1.02 Support Commercial
2 2.3 Support Commercial
3 10 Industrial
4 5.6 Support Commercial/Industrial
5 4.5 Support Commercial/Industrial
6 4.3 Industrial
7 5.5 Industrial
8 10.2 Industrial
9 22.6 Industrial
10 4 Industrial
11 6.5 Support Commercial
12 23.5 Residential
Outlot A 18.1 Open Space
Outlot B 18 Open Space
Total 146.5
Grading and Drainage
The concept plan does not provide any preliminary site grades. It is assumed, due to the nature
of the topography, that extensive site grading will be necessary to prepare the site for streets,
utilities and building pads. The appropriate erosion control measures will need to be employed
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). Detailed grading,
drainage and erosion control plans will be required upon preliminary and final plat review. The
concept plan also does not provide data with regards to storm water runoff in the development.
The developer should be aware that the City's water quality and quantity standards must be met.
A detailed storm water management plan will need to be developed in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP) at time of preliminary and final plat submittal.
Utilities
In the future, Trunk Highway 41 will be lowered to improve street grades south of Trunk
Highway 5. This may result in lowering the water reservoir site which, in turn,may require
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 11
moving the water reservoir slightly. The applicant should work with the City in determining the
final location for the future water reservoir tank prior to preliminary plat. Access to this water
tower site also needs to be addressed. The developer should, if feasible, include an internal
driveway access to the water reservoir site instead of accessing the site from Trunk Highway 41.
Sanitary sewer service to the development requires the extension of the Upper Bluff Creek
Interceptor which is approximately 650 feet east of the development. Extension of the sewer
may commence in 1997. The cities of Chaska and Chanhassen have a cooperative agreement
whereby some of the development adjacent to 82nd Street can be served through Chaska's sewer.
However, there is a capacity limit of 20,000 gpd that can be discharged into Chaska's system.
The utility improvements for the site shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required
upon final platting for each phase for staff to review and City Council approval.
Streets
The proposed streets are fairly well designed from a traffic circulation standpoint. However,
without street grades it is possible that the streets may be realigned to be compatible with the site
topography. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes Coulter Boulevard to be extended west
from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41 through this site. Currently, Coulter Boulevard has
been constructed up to 650 feet east of this development with the subdivision of Autumn Ridge.
The City has plans on extending Coulter Boulevard in the future depending on development
pressure. The access points onto Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 have been reviewed
by MnDOT(see attached letter dated 3/19/96). Staff has reviewed MnDOT's comments and
concerns and concurs with their findings.
The applicant should prepare a traffic study to determine traffic warrants for intersection
signalization, street widths and auxiliary turning lanes. The concept plan does not indicate the
road right-of-way width; however,the plans scale 80 feet wide which is consistent with
subdivision requirements. Streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's design for
industrial/commercial-type use. According to City subdivision codes for this land use, street
right-of-way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52-foot wide pavement section.
This type of roadway system(Coulter Boulevard) should also include a sidewalk or trail system
adjacent to the street within the road right-of-way.
MnDOT has programmed the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 adjacent to this site sometime in
1999/2000. The developer should work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans with
regards to site grading,drainage and street improvements adjacent to Trunk Highways 5 and 41
for compatibility.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 12
The streets will need to be designed and constructed in accordance with City standard
specification and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in
conjunction with final platting for staff review and City Council approval. The developer will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial
security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee site improvements.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The eastern portion of property is covered with vegetation consisting of mainly box elder, willow
and green ash. This area should not be altered as it falls into lots with wetlands which are being
proposed for park dedication.
Landscaping, especially the treatment along Highways 5 and 41, should be given special
consideration. The applicant will need to provide the following information for the proposed site
development:
Tree Survey: All trees 12 inches and larger must be located and inventoried/numbered on a
survey map. Wooded areas, that include smaller trees, shall also be shown using an edge
outline.
Tree Survey List: Inventory list of significant trees with number, species, diameter, and if
desired, condition.
Canopy coverage calculations: Tree canopy coverage for the entire site must be calculated.
Each use will have different canopy coverage requirements, therefore individual calculations
for existing coverage, coverage required by ordinance, coverage to be removed, and coverage
to be replaced must be done.
Landscape plans: Proposed landscape plan for site including plant schedule is required.
Applicant must meet ordinance standards for each use, including parking lot and buffer yard
standards.
Wetlands
There are eight wetland basin areas identified on this site covering an area of approximately 15.5
acres. These wetlands are located on the east side of the property with small fingers reaching
west. These wetlands have been previously delineated by the applicant but have not been
presented to the City for official review. The applicant will need to provide the City with an
accurate wetland delineation for staff review. In addition, if the applicant proposes to fill or
excavate any of the wetland basins, they will also be required to apply for a Wetland Alteration
Permit (WAP).
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 13
Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)
The City of Chanhassen has developed a surface water management plan (SWMP) to protect
water quality and manage water quantity within the City's watershed. The plan identifies, from a
regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-
year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses
William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water
bodies.
This proposed development will be required to construct water quality and water quantity ponds
in accordance with the City's SWMP, or pay the City SWMP fees to have these ponds
constructed.
Park and Recreation
The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on March 18, 1997 to review this proposal.
When this project was reviewed previously, the Park Commission envisioned this area as an active
play area. Since that time, the Park Commission has modified their recommendation. The property
to the west, the O'Shaugnessey property,was dedicated to the city. This area, as well as a portion
of the Gateway property, will create a large passive park. This park is a component of the Bluff
Creek Plan. This area would then be one to the largest passive parks in the city. The Park and
Recreation Commission will be reviewing what areas should be included. Their recommendation
will be forward to the City Council for conceptual review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval for Gateway
West Business Park PUD#92-6 as shown on site plans dated February 26, 1997 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit.
Proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required.
2. The design standards be consistent the Highway 5 Standards.
3. A tree inventory be completed.
4. The multi-family development be developed sensitive to the land form. Affordability be
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 14
considered for some of the units.
5. Completion of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR).
6. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit.
7. Dedication of park land as requested by the Park and Recreation Commission.
8. The applicant should work with the City in coordinating a final location providing
internal street access for the water reservoir site in conjunction with preliminary plat
submittal.
9. Sanitary sewer and water service from Chaska to the southwesterly portion of the site will
be limited to a discharge of 20,000 gpd. The remaining portion of the site will require
sanitary sewer and water service from Chanhassen via the Upper Bluff Creek Interceptor.
The applicant should petition the City for the extension of utilities and street (Coulter
Boulevard) to service the site.
10. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required upon final platting for staff to review and City Council
approval. Erosion control measures will need to be developed on the grading, drainage
and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
11. The developer shall incorporate the City's Surface Water Management Plan when
developing a overall comprehensive master drainage plan through the site. The
developer's construction plans shall also be designed to be compatible with future
upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41.
12. The developer shall work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans for
compatibility with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41 improvements.
13. A traffic study shall be prepared by the applicant to determine traffic warrants for
intersection signalization,auxiliary turn lanes and street widths. The traffic study shall
also address pedestrian circulation.
Gateway West Business Park
March 12, 1997
Page 15
ATTACHMENTS
1. Developer's Narrative and application.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 13, 1997.
3. Letter from MnDOT dated March 19, 1996.
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 10, 1997.
5. Memo from Greg Hayes dated March 11, 1997.
6. Public hearing notice and property owners list.
7. Highway 5/Galpin Blvd. Park concept plan from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
eg:\plan\ka\gatewaycon.pc.doc
02.26.97 17:02 FAX 612 .173 7 058 STEI\ER ?Iwo/1110
5&41 (Gateway) Development Conceptual Plan Narrative
The 146.5 acre Highway 5 & 41 Property is proposed to be developed into an industrial business park by
Steiner Development under a Planned Unit Development process (PUD). The following summary
represents a conceptual outline that is the result of numerous meetings with Chanhassen City staff
resulting in a plan that responds to environmental and market concerns. This summary is based on the
Conceptual Plan dated February 26,1997 and the numbers are approximate.
The proposed plan indicates approximately 102.1 acres to be developed excluding roads, wetlands and
high park land that the City of Chanhassen will oay. Based on a floor area ratio of 30%, a planned
1,334,200 square feet of industrial buildings is possible. Under the Chanhassen City Code Planned Unit
Development District, 25% of the total building square feet can become ancillary uses to industrial and.,
consequently, 333,500 square feet will be allocated to residential and commercial uses.
The eastern part of the site which is primarily wetlands is to become City of Chanhassen park land. This
land will be added to the existing City park land to the east. The high ground running through the middle
of the wetlands and the sloped wooded hillside immediately to the west of the wetlands is also proposed to
become developed park land and park trails. The wetland totals approximately 23.6 acres and the upland
area approximately 12.8 acres, for a total of 36.4 acres that will become park land. The final amount of
dedicated park land will be 10%of developable acreage or 10 acres.
Allowing 8 acres for road right of way plus 1.7 acres for natural environmental reserve ponding(NBRP),
approximately 62.7 acres are to be developed into industrial buildings primarily accessed from a new
north south road from Highway 5 to 82ND Street. This land is presently treeless and will be graded into 4
to 10 acre parcels. The remaining 37.7 acres will become residential and commercial. The 14.3 acres of
commercial includes the 3.8 acres at the intersection of 822413 Street and Highway 41, the 6.5 acres at the
east side of the proposed north south road and Highway 5, and 4 acres to the west of the north south road_
The commercial area's include sites for restaurants,banks,professional office, convenient store and other
support commercial uses. The 23.4 acre site in the south east corner of the property is proposed to be a
residential town house development.
Phase One: 1997- 1998
Phase One is to include the land accessible from 8224D Street which includes 3.8 acres of commercial, 10
acres of industrial and 23.5 acres of residential. Utilities will have to be extended from the east to the
north south road and south to 8214D Street The Industrial Tax Increment Finance District will be
established in Phase One.
Phase Two: 1999-2000
Phase Two will open with the construction of the north south road and will provide between 20 and 30
industrial acres and the 6.5 acres of commercial at the intersection of Highway 5.
Phase Three: 2001 -2002
Phase Three will be the final development phase opened up in conjunction with access to Highway 41 at
the center of the property. Approximately 20 to 30 acres will be developed as industrial as well as the
remaining 4 acres of commercial in Phase Three. In the event that the Wrase property is developed in
conjunction with the_proposed development a roadway extension of Peavey Road would be considered
running north of 82" Street to the proposed Highway 41 connection. This alternative would provide
various water tower locations,a east west road realignment and smaller platted lots.
02.'26/97 17: 02 FAX 612 473 7058 STEINER Z003 003 0u3
Architectural and landscape standards for the industrial area will be determined in conjunction with the
City of Chanhassen planning staff. It is anticipated that exterior walls will be painted and/or integral
color precast concrete or masonry. Overall hard surface coverage is anticipated to be limited to 70%with
the remaining 30%to allow for topographical transitions between sites along with minimum setback and
landscape requirements.
We anticipate having an industrial project in the range of 100,000 square feet with Heartland America
Corporation as the anchor tenant to start Phase One. Heartland needs to occupy the building by October
1, 1997 to coincide with their existing lease termination_ Consequently, we anticipate a City approval
process to run concurrently with the PUD process for preliminary and final plat application.
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Steiner Development, Inc. OWNER: Gateway Partners
ADDRESS: 3610 South Highway 101 ADDRESS: c/o Steiner Development, Inc.
Wayzata, MN 55391 3610 South Highway 101, Wayzata 55
TELEPHONE(Day time) (612) 473-5650 TELEPHONE: (612) 473-5650
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit _ Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit
X Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review` X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 752P07
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2 X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME Chanhassen Gateway Development
LOCATION South East Intersection of Highway 5 & 41
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached legal description
TOTAL ACREAGE 150.5
WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO
PRESENT ZONING Guided industrial
REQUESTED ZONING Industrial PUD
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Agriculturial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Industrial, commercial and residential
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Start Industrial Development
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
,0111011P.,00-
--• • i/YA)
••: ure of Applicant Date
3 y- -
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
l
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: March 13, 1997
SUBJ: Review of Concept Plan for Gateway- File No. 92-15 LUR
Upon review of the conceptual plat for Gateway stamped"February 26, 1997", I offer the
following comments and recommendations:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The concept plan does not provide any preliminary site grades. It is assumed due to the nature of
the topography that extensive site grading will be necessary to prepare the site for streets, utilities
and building pads. The appropriate erosion control measures will need to be employed in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Detailed grading,
drainage and erosion control plans will be required upon preliminary and final plat review. The
concept plan also does not provide data with regards to storm water runoff in the development.
The developer should be aware that the City's water quality and quantity standards must be met.
A detailed storm water management plan will need to be developed in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) at time of preliminary and final plat submittal.
UTILITIES
In the future Trunk Highway 41 will be lowered to improve street grades south of Trunk
Highway 5. This may result in lowering the water reservoir site which, in turn, may require
moving the water reservoir slightly. The applicant should work with the City in determining the
final location for the future water reservoir tank prior to preliminary plat. Access to this water
tower site also needs to be addressed. The developer should,if feasible, include an internal
driveway access to the water reservoir site instead of accessing the site from Trunk Highway 41.
Kate Aanenson
Gateway Concept Plan Review
March 13, 1997
Page 2
Sanitary sewer service to the development requires the extension of the Upper Bluff Creek
Interceptor which is approximately 650 feet east of the development. Extension of the sewer may
commence in 1997. The cities of Chaska and Chanhassen have a cooperative agreement whereby
some of the development adjacent to 82' Street can be served through Chaska's sewer.
However, there is a capacity limit of 20,000 gpd that can be discharged into Chaska's system.
The utility improvements for the site shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard
specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required
upon final platting for each phase for staff to review and City Council approval.
STREETS
The proposed streets are fairly well designed from a traffic circulation standpoint. However,
without street grades it is possible that the streets may be realigned to be compatible with the site
topography. The City's Comprehensive Plan proposes Coulter Boulevard to be extended west
from Galpin Boulevard to Trunk Highway 41 through this site. Currently,Coulter Boulevard has
been constructed up to 650 feet east of this development with the subdivision of Autumn Ridge.
The City has plans on extending Coulter Boulevard in the future depending on development
pressure. The access points onto Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 have been reviewed
by MnDOT (see attached letter dated 3/19/96). Staff has reviewed MnDOT's comments and
concerns and concurs with their findings.
The applicant should prepare a traffic study to determine traffic warrants for intersection
signalization, street widths and auxiliary turning lanes. The concept plan does not indicate the
road right-of-way width; however,the plans scale 80 feet wide which is consistent with
subdivision requirements. Streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's design for
industrial/commercial-type use. According to City subdivision codes for this land use, street
right-of-way should be a minimum of 80 feet wide with a 36 to 52-foot wide pavement section.
This type of roadway system(Coulter Boulevard) should also include a sidewalk or trail system
adjacent to the street within the road right-of-way.
MnDOT has programmed the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 adjacent to this site sometime in
1999/2000. The developer should work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans with
regards to site grading, drainage and street improvements adjacent to Trunk Highways 5 and 41
for compatibility.
The streets will need to be designed and constructed in accordance with City standard
specification and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in
conjunction with final platting for staff review and City Council approval. The developer will also
Kate Aanenson
Gateway Concept Plan Review
March 13, 1997
Page 3
be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee site improvements.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant should work with the City in coordinating a final location providing internal
street access for the water reservoir site in conjunction with preliminary plat submittal.
2. Sanitary sewer and water service from Chaska to the southwesterly portion of the site will
be limited to a discharge of 20,000 gpd. The remaining portion of the site will require
sanitary sewer and water service from Chanhassen via the Upper Bluff Creek Interceptor.
The applicant should petition the City for the extension of utilities and street(Coulter
Boulevard) to service the site.
3. The street and utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required upon final platting for staff to review and City Council
approval. Erosion control measures will need to be developed on the grading, drainage
and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
4. The developer shall incorporate the City's Surface Water Management Plan when
developing a overall comprehensive master drainage plan through the site. The
developer's construction plans shall also be designed to be compatible with future
upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41.
5. The developer shall work with MnDOT in preparing their construction plans for
compatibility with future upgrading of Trunk Highways 5 and 41 improvements.
6. A traffic study shall be prepared by the applicant to determine traffic warrants for
intersection signalization,auxiliary turn lanes and street widths. The traffic study shall
also address pedestrian circulation.
Attachment: MnDOT letter to Kate Aanenson date 3/19/96
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
\'cfsl\volPengprojects\gatewaytconcept plan rev,ew.doc
c`�` ti Mir^esota Department of Transportation /tie 92_J 5
tMetropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
yroF TK
Roseville,Minnesota 55113
.r
March 19, 1996
Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen,MN 55317
Dear Kate Aanenson:
SUBJECT: Gateway West Business Park
Site Plan Review S96-015
Southeast Quadrant of TH 5 and TH 41
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1008
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Gateway West
Business Park conceptual site plan submitted to us by Steiner Development, Inc. We find the
concept plan acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• We request that right of way be dedicated to accommodate the proposed reconstruction of
Trunk Highway(TH) 5 and possible future expansion of TH 41. Along TH 5, right of
way needs have been identified by the project design engineer for the reconstruction
project; Jim Knutson of Barton-Aschman may be contacted at 332-0421 for further
information. Along TH 41, we request a dedication of property on both sides of the
highway to establish a right of way width of 75 feet from highway centerline(150 feet
total width). The existing TH 41 right of way width varies, falling in the range of 33 to 40
feet from highway centerline. Any questions regarding TH 41 right of way needs may be
directed to Evan Green of our Preliminary Design Section at 582-1303.
We futher request that access control be dedicated to the public along TH 5 and TH 41
right of way, except at the locations of the street entrances shown on the submitted plan
and any areas where access control has already been established. Any questions regarding
Mn/DOT's records of existing right of way and access control may be directed to John
Hippchen of our Right of Way Section at 582-1261.
At the time of platting, the preliminary plat submitted for Mn/DOT review may be
forwarded directly to Ruth Ann Sobnosky of our Transportation Planning Section at the
above address. RECEIVED
MAR 21 REC'O
An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF elliAivt ASbc.i.
I 1
Kate Aanenson
March 19, 1996
page two
• A Mn/DOT highway access permit is required for the proposed street connection to TH 5
east of TH 41 (referred to as West City Street in Chanhassen's Highway 5 Corridor
Study). The proposed reconstruction of TH 5 will accommodate a fill access intersection
at West City Street. However, if West City Street is constructed prior to the
reconstruction of TH 5, some improvements will be needed in the interim.
Specifically, a right turn and left turn lane on TH 5 will be needed at the TH 5/West
City Street intersection. Transportation improvements necessitated by development, such
as the required turn lanes, are the financial responsibility of the project proposer, the city,
or both. Evan Green, as noted above, may be contacted regarding the design of these
lanes.
Plan and cross-sectional views of the proposed street connection, showing the required
turn lanes as appropriate, must be submitted with the access permit application. Bill
Warden of our permits section may be contacted at 582-1443 for further information
regarding the permit process. The application must be submitted by the city if the new
connection is to be a city street.
• A highway access permit is also required for the proposed street connection to TH 41
approximately halfway between 82nd Street and TH 5. This connection must be limited to
right-in/right-out movements only. If there is no median on TH 41 at this location, the
connection must be constructed with a triangular center island to block left turning
movements. In addition, a right turn lane on northbound TH 41 is required.
Again, plan and cross-sectional views of the proposed access, showing the required center
island and right turn lane, must be submitted with the access permit application. Bill
Warden, as noted above, may be contacted for further information. Again, the application
must be submitted by the city if the new connection is to be a city street.
• No direct access to TH 5 or TH 41 will be allowed from any individual lot adjoining a
trunk highway. Lot access must be accommodated by way of internal and local streets.
• Where lots are located on the corner of a trunk highway and a local street — such as Lots
22, 8, 1, and 16 — we recommend that the entrance to the lot be set back from the
street/highway intersection a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection stopline. We
strongly recommend against construction of the proposed westerly entrance to Lot 8,
which is shown within 100 feet of the TH 41/82nd Street intersection.
Kate Aanenson
March 19, 1996
page three
• A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit imay be required for the proposed development.
Grading and drainage plans showing both existing conditions and proposed post-
development conditions must be submitted to Mn/DOT for review prior to construction.
Existing drainage patterns, systems, and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way
should be perpetuated. Questions and correspondence may be directed to Mary Hondl
(797-3053) of our Hydraulics Section at 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley 55422.
• Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT
permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden
may be contacted for further information.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 582-1383.
Sincerely,
TTek/t/61ai
�.J
Elizabeth Malaby
Transportation Planner
c: Frederick Richter, Steiner Development Inc.
-
CITY OF
CBANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson,Planning Director
FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official
DATE: March 10, 1997
SUBJECT: 92-6 PUD file 2(Gateway,Steiner Development)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, FEB 26
1997 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project.
Analysis:
Demolition Permits.Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition
permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic
system abandonment,if applicable,must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a
demolition permit.
Recommendation:
The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early
as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements.
g:\safetylsak\memos1plan\gatway l
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
-i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Directo
FROM: Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector dedi
DATE: March 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Planning Case 92-6 PUD File 2
I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy
requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional
plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. I have no
comments or concerns at this time.
g:lsafetylgh'siterev iew
vi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING V — �'� en11��3
PLANNING COMMISSION ,fy�i�■t►
---_,
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers 1
II690 Coulter Drive
.rrsr. . _
rIllrawr
. vl:
a.
L 9u
_ .
1-1E
SUBJECT: Conceptual Industrial ' : ••
Planned Unit Development iPa���/-
'ihara 2 dill
_/ -
APPLICANT: Steiner Development �Ill�t�""'
LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Hwy. 5 1 g
pin
and Hwy. 41 I ��'
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Steiner Development, is requesting conceptual Industrial Planned Unit Development
to rezone 150.5 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate for 12 lots and 2 outlots
located at the southeast intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Kate at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 6, 1997.
/1Lfa7
( 3
wner
wnadr , No Address
wncty, Location
ILLS PROPERTIES INC ATTN:TOM GREEN MAURICE 0 JR&JOAN R MOE
0 BOX 971 2515 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
RAINERD, MN 56401 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
4Y C DOLEJSI MICHAEL J MEADOWS
361 CHAPARRAL LN 2519 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
HANHASSEN, MN 55317 9227 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
IID AMERICAN BAPTIST SOCIAL SERVICES MARK A WAGNER
ORPORATION 2511 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
300 ARBORETUM BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
XCELSIOR, MN 55331 8003
HASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS ROBERT W&JOANN C SCHWARTZ
610 HWY 101 S 2507 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
/AYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
EGENTS OF UNIV OF MINN C/O REAL MARK A& PEGGY A ARRINGTON
STATE OFFICE 2503 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
24 DON HOWE BLDG CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
IINNEAPOLIS, MN 55455
1N LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM BOYD D & DEBRA L AARESTAD
675 ARBORETUM DR 2510 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
HASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS LON D &JULIE M LOHMILLER
610 HWY 101 S 2499 BRIDLE CREEK TRL
/AYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
,ENRY& EDNA WRASE
175 HAZELTINE BLVD
HASKA, MN 55318 9619
ROTTERS RIDGE OF CHANHASSEN
765 CASCO POINT RD
/AYZATA, MN 55391
,.••••••••••4•r••r.•-r4,-•1 e..1f.
Ill] tlotauuiW uatts4utUo .mo-ckit
(F.up t'ty4 0'..W,t•1 Jrvugc 1 f
NVId ld3'�No7 -y mn� nn,•.1NN•IP,p .
DO )11:111d 'a112 N1d1V /5 AVM-191H wi dixn7 lai ixry uo>4utsuof{ ix i ..1 2 r •
el
�
I j i
�• i
r
1_
i , \a :,) i r; . , _.-,.....,,,:...„._ -- _ _ ...-- - ...;„ -„---„ , .!................
j i F _ ,f '''.----7.---:7+_ _/' : c �,.i
> ,1
1 1 -//1 '11 :aa ,t .
1 _, 1 r ,
,,,--, ..4'j"t R r z., .
a1kt n4- L a.,•S r a .1
-. 1;' ._._ .j - . y._- ',,,,,•-,----------.....-
i1'-'4: ' -:\ - . -"C'ti 1 , i '--, ' . t
1 Ip ., I•I� � F.
'riii,i i,i; 1 i \ ', _..,
•
, ,.)i.,„, \i
I � I (ter _. \ . ;' ` �``kc.� - / /
II j t ;" i `. `.
j,. 1: �: ' ) '_ :.
III 1 � ( ( j -� � �-
! r �` '
lJ�ill
___• IO•_•_•_•�ilMjj•_ _��J••`r_
i.
i N (11 � -
I
i I I
—me r rq OC eV Mf eel oO N.n?
1 % r r N 't —N Q O. N n et M
I I _ _ _
'e7 •O
5 ii
e m - U i.5 •• G 7.5
.3 D
U Fs-‘3 U g U is GHQ U JJ
L ° e350i agt-°
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 5, 1997
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Allison Blackowiak, and
Allyson Brooks
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director and Bob Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
U.S. WEST NEWVECTOR GROUP, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 78 WEST 78TH
STREET AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 76 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER, 12' X
24' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Craig Peterson: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Please state your
name and address.
Marc Kruger: My name is Marc Kruger and I'm with the law firm of Hessian, McKasy and
Soderberg,representing U. S. West Cellular,Air Touch Cellular. I believe my partner Jay
Littlejohn was before you last time and I believe he has adequately stated our case for this matter.
But as a reminder it is our feeling that this is the most appropriate site for our tower in the search
area that we have identified and the only one which will work for us with the height that we have
proposed and we do believe that, contrary to the staff's recommendation and opinion as to the
aesthetic appropriateness for this location that as a matter of fact this location between the two
would be better because the property is in closer proximity to the high tension power lines that are
located along Hwy. 5 and so for that reason would blend in better with that aesthetic with its
location. We also believe that the property can be properly screened as far as the equipment
building is concerned so that any concern about the equipment building being less visible at the
office building site to the west,we believe could be handled through proper screening and we
would be willing as staff has recommended to provide appropriate landscaping for this screening
purpose. As for the property to the west,we have been in contact with APT,the applicant for that
site. Just today we received the proposed sublease agreement which would permit us, assuming we
can reach terms and reach agreement on the document,to co-locate on that site and we are willing
to co-locate on that site. As I believe Mr. Littlejohn has also mentioned before,we are willing to
permit co-location on our site, our tower,at its current proposed height. By code would not require
co-location and as far as APT is concerned, it would not be tall enough to permit co-locate
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
although other users could use a tower of that height. In order to permit the use by APT on our site,
of course the tower would have to be higher. We are agreeable to co-location provided we could
reach agreement with APT as to again the terms of sublease from us and also the terms for sharing
the additional costs that would be incurred in constructing the tower. I believe you have the copies
of materials I provided to Mr. Generous which address concerns Council has raised about this
particular site selection as opposed to others in the search area and the immediate vicinity, which
again, I believe indicates that this is the most appropriate available site for us in the area. With that
I will answer any questions from the Commissioners.
Craig Peterson: We talked about early on when we were doing the originally planning and zoning,
ordinance planning I should say, that we didn't feel as though that the buildings would be required.
I assume that this is an analogue site versus a digital site.
Marc Kruger: That is correct.
Craig Peterson: So this is kind of an interim. A building in reality probably won't be used in a
reasonable period of time if you move ahead to digital that doesn't require the building?
Marc Kruger: Well, there is no commitment on the part of our client to move forward to that new
technology. But yes,the building under the digital,building per se is not required. There is some
equipment required but not a building certainly of this size.
Craig Peterson: Have you done any studies as far as if you do move to the other location, what
degradation of signal quality would be there if any?
Marc Kruger: To move next door to 80 West 78th Street. There would not be any particular
degradation of the signal. It's not so much, that site happens to fall within our area and it would not
be a material change. We would have to construct a . . . well the height of the tower if we were to
be a stand alone tower would have to be higher simply because the elevations at that site are lower.
So practically speaking, we need to get to the same height that we are now and I am not certain how
many additional feet in height that we would be in excess of the 80 feet minimum for the co-
location requirement.
Craig Peterson: Comments from Commissioners. Have any thoughts, questions, further
statements?
Kevin Joyce: Basically, I don't think that with that size of tower you could co-locate with anybody
or anyone would like to co-locate with you. That's my opinion. I don't know the technology well
enough to go past that but I have a feeling that if we were to approve the site, we would have two
antennas. We would have one site over there at 80 West 78th Street and one site at 78 West 78th
Street and I don't think that makes any sense. My preference would be one behind the building. I
believe behind that building at 80 West 78th Street is behind the building. A little less dominant
2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
feature in the framework of the neighborhood there and I feel this particular site would play a very
dominant feature. Your eye,I think,would tend to go toward it, with the high tension wires. You
would have a bunch of antennas right there kind of congregated together in that area. So I am going
along with staff's finding and suggest denial.
Alison Blackowiak: I agree with what Kevin has said. I don't think we need two in that
neighborhood. I think that both companies should work together to decide on a single site and
work for co-location.
Bob Skubic: I agree with staff's recommendation also. I feel that the equipment building will be
better screened at the site to the west of this and let policy make the decision.
Allyson Brooks: I agree with Kevin and Allison. I think one tower is better than two towers and
the least invisibly intrusive tower would be the better one.
Craig Peterson: I really have no further comments from my fellow commissioners either. With that
in mind, may I hear a motion?
Joyce moved, seconded by Brooks, to recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit#97-1 for
personal communication service(PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site
plan, prepared by Design 1,dated 12/12/96,denial for a 76 foot monopole tower and
associated equipment,at 78 West 78th Street for U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. based on
the findings for conditional uses contained in the report and the discussion tonight. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated February 19, 1997 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: At the last City Council meeting, no action was taken on any planning items. The
Highlands was scheduled for that meeting and was moved to the March 10th meeting so there
really wasn't any planning items on that meeting.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: The Legion site, which you looked at last week, was tabled and we've tentatively
programmed that for the March 19th Planning Commission meeting. We have received word,
and I should be receiving a formal letter from the Legion, who is the applicant on that, that they
have decided not to sell their property so that proposal is now defunct. Now the Legion will
continue to stay the way it is. On the next Planning Commission meeting we will be looking at a
3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
conceptual plan for the Gateway property. This property was originally proposed back in 1993.
Sewer and water to the property was an issue. We're now in a place where they can get sewer
and water so we will be reviewing that conceptually. I wanted you to look at that. They're
coming in with a mixed PUD they did on a discussion level talked to the Council. When I say
mixed PUD, they wanted to add some additional commercial. The PUD didn't allow up to the
25% but I wanted to get your input on that. How you felt about that mixed. A big discussion is
there. They wanted to sell that to residential. We said no. We believe that it should remain
industrial and that's again looking at the tax base of the city,but they did want to provide some
commercial and some residential so.
Blackowiak: Kate excuse me. Where exactly, is that on TH 5? The north side of TH 5?
Aanenson: TH 5 and TH 41. South.
Blackowiak: The southeast corner?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: So again it will be conceptual then it will go up to the Council and again try to get
some read on what you think how that mix should work out. So again the conceptual is very
rough. We're just trying to formalize some issues to take it to the next level. Other things that
are going on. There's a car dealership we've been talking with for well over a year. That's still
trying to go forward. They are looking at the Mortenson property which is next to the Legion site
so you'll probably be looking at that in May. They've been working on that. And then Chan
Business Center where you'll be seeing in the next, one month from today. Probably a couple of
their industrial uses on that site. Just to let you know so kind of what we're seeing mostly now is
commercial industrial.
Peterson: That Mortenson site is zoned for the dealership per se.
Aanenson: You'd have to rezone it. It's zoned commercial, neighborhood commercial. An auto
dealership would take a rezoning of the property to require the legislative action which they may
or may not choose to do. That's all I had.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Aanenson: Okay. Bob and I were just kind of, this is really just a discussion item. What we
want to do is, as we're writing the document, we want to kind of give you some background
before we come forward with the narrative. As you recall when we were discussing it,we
wanted to have a series of neighborhood meetings which I also have discussed with the Council.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
And Chaska's kind of using the same format. They're going to have a series of neighborhood
meetings at the Planning Commission and the Council and get a read on what the issues are that
are out there. Whether they're transportation, housing, amount of commercial, tax base so we'll
try to set that up. I've indicated to the Council I'd like to get an idea what's a good time frame
for them and then we would joint host the Planning Commission and Council and it'd kind of be
an open house format where we would have a lot of maps around. Let people mill around and
look and then kind of just ask them what their feelings are of things that are happening. What's
of big concern for them and that would give us some good guidance. But meanwhile what we
want to do is try to give you some,based on some trends and things that we know,give you some
background so you can see kind of the direction we're going and what the implications are for
some of the things that we know. What we've included in your packet was a great report that we
just received from Carver County HRA and this document was a follow-up on their commitment
to the Livable Communities Act. They said they would go through this study. When they met
with us, the consultant,they asked us what issues we have and we wanted to know, one of the
things that we did ask them to look at, through our Block Grant program we've tried to do some
renovation where maybe there's some houses that have been degregated. So we asked them to
look to see if we had any blighted areas in town and then they just included us in the general
study area. So we'll go through those. But first I'd like to just talk about we've, since we've
completed the Bluff Creek study we have ultimately decided the future land uses. We wanted to
look at those population projections and kind of reaffirm where we were thought we would be as
ultimate build out. What is the rate of growth based on the building permit activity? All these
have implications as far as when a big decision will have to be made with the Council. How fast
we should expand the MUSA and what should our rate of growth be. So we want to kind of
share with you some of these trends and again,what the implications would be so I don't know if
you want...
Generous: Well the first thing we did, I just took the housing unit types and from historical data
we projected it out to 2020, which is about what we're proposing the next comp plan
amendment. And based on this,we'll average approximately 300 dwelling units a year, which is
our basis over the last 17 years. We believe that will continue. However,what the trends are
showing us, that we will not be able to continue with the detached single family style
development. For one thing we don't have enough land designated for that. We can reach the
totals that are shown on the housing units for that type. And also we're changing the
demographics that are taking place in the community and throughout Minnesota and the United
States. As the population ages,we're looking at people that want different styles of housing
units. They want the single level living. They don't want the maintenance responsibilities and so
we'll be seeing more of that and as part of the Bluff Creek study we actually, a lot of the design
elements looked towards that and said we're like to see more clustering take place in
development and so we believe that has changed. So one thing we don't have enough land to
accommodate all the single family as shown in continuing average building permit activity. And
also we don't,using the numbers,we will have to increase the density that we see in
development from what has happened previously. Especially on the multi-family side.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
Unfortunately some of our multi-family land is owned by entities that probably won't develop it
for multi-family development. Eckankar is one example. They like to hold onto their property
so we have a lot of high density land that is in essence taken out of the equation. And so where
we can,need to push the developer's up to the upper end of the density ranges that we have in
our comp plan.
Aanenson: As you recall, we discussed that in the Bluff Creek where we looked at some of those
areas. Either along 212,the new 212 where there were those pockets that we thought we could
try to get, especially where they're transit friendly, that we would try to provide those
opportunities in that corridor. But what we're saying is that we need to be looking at those
projects down the line as they come in.
Blackowiak: I have a quick question. You're talking about not having enough land for single
family. Do you define that as in terms of the Livable Communities Act?
Generous: If you follow the historical trend, we just...continue that average number of single
family detached dwelling units, we'll run out of land.
Blackowiak: So is that a bad thing or?
Generous: Well we don't think so and one of the later graphics... What we want to get is
diversification in our housing types so that we can have the whole gammet of people living in our
community. Young families and retired people.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just curious because some of the stuff I've been reading that I had
gotten talked about Chanhassen making itself to be a single family community. This is like
documents from the 80's I think or something. Even earlier. And I'm wondering if, have we
totally changed our focus? I mean you're talking 300 permits per year and running out of single
family so, help me out.
Aanenson: No. What we're talking about. Yeah,we'll talk about that.
Generous: You'll see changes in the types of units coming in. For instance we had that mixed
density development,the Highlands where it had some single family detached but then there are
the cottage units which are the detached townhouses and then the townhouse development. Plus
we'll see other townhouse projects that will start coming on line like Autumn Ridge which is 140
units. Villages on the Ponds which is 322 units. And the Highway 5 corridor,there are other
medium and high density lands that will develop.
Aanenson: I think what we want to say is that's a trend. I mean we will always be, and we'll
show you that on this chart here. We will always be predominantly single family detached.
That's our greatest percentage. We will always have that. What we're saying is that threshold,
6
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
what you're seeing is what Bob is saying is you're going to see less of the predominance of
single family. Just like 2 years ago, or actually '95 we actually saw more different types of
housing permits than the traditional single family because that market was getting saturated.
Generous: And this is where I was saying, it showed that we'll still be predominantly single
family, which is the large lot and the low density as part of the...64%of our housing. The single
family.
Aanenson: That's 64%. I mean that's predominant.
Blackowiak: No, I was just curious why you were saying that we were going to run out.
Generous: Just out of land.
Aanenson: Out of land availability.
Blackowiak: For single family?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Assuming no zoning changes?
Aanenson: Right.
Generous: They...comp plan amendment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Just as an aside. Are any communities in the metro area that are actively building
apartments right now?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
Peterson: That are actively building apartment complexes.
Generous: Apartments. We have condominium ownership because of the tax structure,property
taxes.
Aanenson: I'm sure there's a few going up but it's not a preponderance.
Generous: And one thing we're seeing, persons per household. Chanhassen is bucking the trend,
if you will. Our population per household has actually gone up compared to other communities.
7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
Historically Chanhassen in 1970 had 3.6 persons per household. In the metro area it was 3.26.
In 1980 our persons per household were 3.04. In 1990 it was 2.92 but then in '95, as part of the
study area, it went back up to 2.93 and that's because of our preponderance of single family
detached housing. We see a lot of young families moving into the community. In '95 the metro
area, persons per household was 2.59. As you can see, we're going,they're going down and
we're still staying up.
Aanenson: But part of the assumptions that we're making is that over time, as the population
ages, even in Chanhassen, that those are going to kind of come closer together. We know our
senior housing apartment has been successful and they're looking forward to maybe in a few
years out trying to do another one of those. So over time, and this is part of what Mike Munson
talked to us about from the Met Council, is that there was a huge, they missed the mark in the
80's. Households increased significantly faster than they anticipated based on single head of
household. Just people waiting longer to get married. Combining households. A lot of those
factors actually increased so you had a lot of different living types that they hadn't anticipated.
Again, people delaying marriages and those sorts of things so actually there was a lot of more
housing diversity. People not demanding typical housing types so we believe that over time that,
you know this is projecting out to the year 2020, that we're going to slowly drop down to that.
Kind of more of the metro average.
Generous: And we're looking at a buildout population of approximately 35,000 people. We
estimate right now that it will be sometime between 2020 and 2025. However some of that is
influenced if when Eden Prairie is built up and we're the next step down the road.
Aanenson: What I'd like to share with you then is, what we did is we put, based on the...break
down the percentages of the different land use. Commercial, residential. Again, low density...
adding a large lot residential. That brings us up to the 58%... What's happened is that we have, I
think waste here because the large lots are anywhere from 2 to 5 acres, and we believe that those
are going to stay that way. Based on the location that they are, demand for urban services based
on topography and their location, more than likely they will never be asked to be, have urban
services and subdivide in the future. So our large lot in the low density again is still going to be
our predominant land use. What we did is kind of compared what we had in the 1991 and that's
within your packet too. And what we looked at for the 2020 to give you an idea, there were some
changes. Part of the curve between the old land. These recommendations, or the old comp plan
and what we're looking at in the year 2020...low density residential spelled that out. We tried to
increase the amount of commercial. Office industrial. Parks and open space obviously went up
and those are some of the areas we identified along with Bluff Creek and trying to look at, high
density really didn't increase much. Medium density did. What we did then is to, why those
numbers went up is there was a lot of area unguided and a lot that was kind of designated
undevelopable. Those areas got actually placed in one of those other components. So some of
that got placed into low density. That was unguided. Some of that got placed into the medium.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
Some of it got transferred into industrial. So what we did, that was kind of the undesignated
areas and you can see kind of where they fell into place.
Peterson: Is it safe to assume that you didn't put into those percentages any rezoning? This is
just new land to be zoned.
Aanenson: Correct. Right. I mean we didn't make any assumptions if someone was to come in
and ask for something higher. This is just the minimum,right. If we could I'd just kind of like
to walk through the Carver County plan that they put together. The HRA...
Peterson: Before you go onto that, any questions on this from anybody?
Blackowiak: I have just a quick question. What's numbered as page 6 in here that looks like it's
about page.
Aanenson: That's from the comprehensive plan.
Blackowiak: Okay,yep. When were these numbers, the basis numbers taken? I mean you've
got the 212. Then we've got the.
Aanenson: Those were compiled with the 19, I would guess 1990 census because this was
approved in 1991 so I would believe those are 1990 numbers.
Blackowiak: So then they were all like the same year but they just came up with fairly different.
Aanenson: There's different methodology.
Blackowiak: The 212,yeah.
Aanenson: We just find out when we go through this,there was a group hired by Carver County
that again their numbers are higher than the Met Council numbers so we've always stated that
they're just a little bit low.
Blackowiak: The Met Council you mean?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Blackowiak: But these were all like 1990 numbers so, okay.
Generous: Between '88 and '90.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
March 5, 1997
Aanenson: And then you'd look at what Bob had put together for the City's population, we used
those to show the different high-low,but again we've kind of always felt we'd be in the 30,000-
35,000 for ultimate build-up. Again it just depends on development patterns. People that want
to increase, decrease over time and what people's desires are...development. If we can just start
at the beginning of the executive summary. There's some interesting things right in the
beginning. Again things that we already know. Again, this was geared for Carver County but
this packet is specifically Chanhassen but there's county wide things that we'll be talking about
and then things we need for Chanhassen. Although Carver County is...for population,we're
experiencing the greatest amount of growth, which we certainly know. Again this is their
response to the Livable Communities Act. If you want to turn to page 31. The demographic
information that they used includes the Metropolitan Council but they also used the growth, it's
called...and so you can see some different numbers and again it kind of helps give a perspective.
When you've got two people doing the projections. They had seen that in Carver, Chanhassen,
Chaska, Victoria, all had rates of growth greater than 20%between 1990 and 1995. In turning
the page you can see the populations on where the demographic data 2-2. I was just going to put
this on the page... You can see the trends and population. Chanhassen being the second city
down. Again this is Metropolitan Council. We're estimating our population right now to date,
17,500. And then also on 3-3, again 1995,you can see where Claris is estimating higher than the
Met Council and that's kind of what we've already said too. Met Council's always...
(Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.)
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
10