PC 2006 01 03
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 3, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Dan
Keefe, and Mark Undestad
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ADDRESSING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND DECISIONS
ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES; AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A LOCAL ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION
SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, MINNESOTA
VALLEY ELECTRIC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-30.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ronald Jabs 125 MVEC Drive, Jordan
Dennis Wolf 125 MVEC Drive, Jordan
Gene Kotz 17845 Highway 10, Elk River
Carole Schmidt 17845 Highway 10, Elk River
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Anybody? Kurt, go ahead.
Papke: Okay. On the top of page 3 of staff report you’re recommending approval of a resolution
of negative declaration of an environmental impact statement. This is a new one for me and
could you please explain the conditions for granting such a negative declaration. How did we
arrive at the fact that it was lawful and right to do this?
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Al-Jaff: First of all the environmental assessment worksheet basically looks at given standards.
Given criteria that we agreed upon, I believe it was a month ago. When we conducted the
scoping of the EA. These elements were studied, were analyzed and there were no negative
impact on the environment based upon the information that we gathered. There are some
recommendations that were made in the environmental assessment. Based upon the information
that we have in the environmental assessment, you really do not need to go into any further
study. An environmental impact statement would take this entire process a step further and go
into additional recommendations. Additional, it will take each impact. Analyze it further. We
did not see the need for that in this case. We believe that the environmental assessment that we
have addressed all of these issues.
Papke: Where I’m coming from is, let’s take a case where we would have a disgruntled neighbor
or something and they said okay you, the city planners and the Planning Commission approved
this negative declaration. What is the legal basis for this? Can it be challenged? I’m just
looking to make sure that you know this is all buttoned up and we haven’t left ourself exposed
here to any kind of a challenge of this resolution of negative declaration.
Al-Jaff: It has been published in the.
Papke: Reviewed by the city attorney or anything like that?
Al-Jaff: It has not been reviewed by the city attorney, however we have been working with the
city attorney step by step to make sure that it’s published properly. It went to every individual,
every agency that needs to review their, this environmental assessment. Give us their
professional opinion and so far every comment that we have received has been, there’s no further
need for additional review.
Papke: Okay.
Al-Jaff: And the public hearing process that you have before you today is another step in that
direction.
Papke: Okay. Second question and this may be, you may have to defer this one to the applicant.
We’re stating here, we’re justifying the variance from the 500 foot distance by saying okay, the
subject site is 200 feet from the mobile park and we’re removing the existing substation so it’s
moving farther away. Okay, that’s goodness. But this is a great drawing of the new field
strengths around the new substation and the wires but the one thing, it wasn’t clear to me from
the staff report is, if I were to go out there with measuring instruments right next to that mobile
home park, when we put up the new substation, we tear down the old one, is it possible that the
newer substation is emitting more EMF? Is the level going to go down or stay the same or go up
in the mobile home park when this is all said and done? And we’ll leave that for the applicant.
Okay.
Al-Jaff: I will let the applicant answer that question, and you will be pleased with that answer.
Papke: Okay. That’s all I have.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Good question Kurt. Jerry, you have a question?
McDonald: I’ve got a couple. The variances, I just want to make sure I know what we’re
looking at. Okay, you want a variance for the distance and also we’re looking for a variance for
the size because this is only 2.3 and you’re saying normally it should be 5 acres?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. So that’s the two variances and the other is…or to accept the EA assessment
so we don’t have to do an environmental impact?
Al-Jaff: There isn’t a variance there. I’m just asking you to, based upon what we analyzed.
What we read, all the comments that we have received, there is no need for additional studies to
be conducted, and that’s where the negative declaration comes in.
McDonald: Okay. And so there’s just two variances we’re being asked to approve.
Al-Jaff: Correct. And they are variances to the conditional use permit criteria.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. I have no further questions.
Sacchet: Thank you Jerry. Any other questions? Dan.
Keefe: I’ve got a couple. The 8 or the 10 foot conditional use, why do we need to go to 10 feet?
Versus staying within the 8 feet.
Al-Jaff: We’re trying to maximize the screening and if you give me one moment here. There
was a 10 foot, 10 foot fence or a 10 foot wall. You will still be able to see some of the
equipment. Basically maximizing the screening.
Keefe: Yeah, I’m just talking where the.
Al-Jaff: …yes they can.
Keefe: Yeah, I was wondering about why not 12 feet to screen it all out versus. I don’t know
where the 10 foot came from.
Al-Jaff: We compare it to something that might resemble a building. There really wasn’t any
other reason.
Keefe: Okay. Another question on the wall, relates to the water. Can you kind of show where
the water would flow on this site because it looks like that’s really an impervious wall.
Al-Jaff: Alyson do you want to take that one?
3
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Keefe: I guess both inside and out.
Fauske: That was one of the comments in the staff report. Engineering brought up that here’s
the proposed grading plan here and as you can see, north being this direction, this direction here,
the sheet draining coming to the west, while that was one of our recommendations for approval,
that they show us how to facilitate drainage, the sheet drainage from the pad to that infiltration
basin at that location. And it’s a simply a matter of putting in a small depression with the
structure underneath the wall.
Keefe: And it looks like it’s, the site goes from what, east to west?
Fauske: Correct.
Keefe: So on the east side, where’s the water going to go when it hits the east side? It’s going to
come down at that wall, right? Is it going to go around the outside or how is it going to flow?
Fauske: Well the flow pattern will be, actually when you look at the grading plan here there’s a
high point at this location and so you’d basically just have the pad only, for all intensive
purposes, just the pad drains, sheet draining that location.
Keefe: Okay, so the wall isn’t.
Fauske: We’re not taking a large drainage area from there.
Keefe: Okay.
Fauske: And when we looked at, they did submit some hydrology calculation showing their
existing and proposed runoff scenarios and their matching the existing that they’re putting in this
infiltration basin which we also check for capacity given the soils out in that area.
Keefe: Okay. Alright. Just a couple other questions. One, in regards to the notification on this.
We had to notify people what, 500 feet?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Did that include the mobile home owners or?
Al-Jaff: Correct, and the applicants chose to go door to door and knock on people’s doors.
Yeah, they’ve truly done their due diligence to make sure that if there are any issues they have
addressed them upfront.
Keefe: So with this particular notification card that we send out.
Al-Jaff: It was sent out to.
Keefe: It doesn’t look like, I don’t know how many mobile homes but it, I don’t know.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Al-Jaff: It was sent to the owners of the park. I believe it’s a rental park and so.
Keefe: Okay, so the owner of the property would have gotten, received the card.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: And then they notified the homeowners of the units themselves.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Okay.
Al-Jaff: I am not 100% positive that they are renters in these, but the owner of the property was
notified.
Keefe: Is that park in Chaska?
Al-Jaff: Yes it is.
Keefe: I just want a point of clarification. Are we required to notify people over city boundary
lines?
Al-Jaff: Everyone within 500 feet has to be notified.
Keefe: Okay. Last question, and this is in regards to the environmental assessment. Are you
aware of any environmental findings against Xcel? The Xcel station that’s already there.
Al-Jaff: No.
Keefe: Any jurisdiction on any environmental?
Al-Jaff: It’s being, it was looked upon as a structure that will be removed and definitely an
improvement.
Keefe: But it hasn’t been cited for any environmental issues that you’re aware of?
Al-Jaff: Not that I’m aware of, no.
Keefe: Okay. That’d be all.
Sacchet: Mark?
Undestad: No.
Sacchet: Debbie, any more questions?
5
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Larson: Yeah I’ve got actually, the one that’s there currently that’s going to be taken down, I
assume it looks that it’s smaller that what we’ve got going in.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Larson: So I guess my concern was, and I’m sure the applicant will explain this but I just want
to make a point of it that even though it is farther away from where the residents are, it’s going to
be stronger than the one that’s currently there, I assume.
Al-Jaff: I will allow the applicant to address that. Again I think you will be pleased with what’s
happening.
Larson: I’ll go with that. That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Okay. On the staff report on page 8, your statement, finding 2.4. The proposal will be
an improvement to the planned neighboring uses. Other than the removal of the Xcel substation,
are there any other improvements that you could list?
Al-Jaff: You’re taking out a substation. You’re replacing it with landscaping. It really is going
to clean up the area.
Sacchet: So that’s aesthetic solely?
Al-Jaff: From an aesthetic standpoint I think that it’s going to be a great improvement.
Sacchet: Okay. Then there is some mention of lighting. There’s actually also a condition on
lighting. We need lighting plans.
Al-Jaff: I didn’t see any, I contacted the applicant. You know if there was anything such as a
security light, motion light, we need to make sure that we take a look at these plans. That they
meet ordinance requirements.
Sacchet: And that’s still pending at this point? We can ask the applicant.
Al-Jaff: Yeah.
Sacchet: Yeah. And under the conditional use permit for the fencing we say security fence.
Does that mean the chainlink fence as well as the wall?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: That covers both?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear about that.
Al-Jaff: And one of them is more aesthetic than the other.
Sacchet: Indeed it is. That’s all the questions I have, thank you. Thanks Sharmeen. With that I
would like to ask the applicant, if you want to come up and add to what we’ve heard from staff
and we may have a few questions for you, as you already heard. If you want to state your name
and where you’re from please, for the record.
Ron Jabs: Yes, very much appreciate the opportunity. My name is Ron Jabs. I’m with
Minnesota Valley Electric and with me this evening I have Denny Wolf with Minnesota Valley
Electric, Gene Kotz which is with Great River Energy and Carole Schmidt who is also with
Great River Energy. I guess I’d want to point out that Carole did a considerable amount of
research in responding to the EA portion and so she’s our expert when it comes to those sorts of
things. I guess I’d like an opportunity to respond to some of your questions. Hopefully I can
answer them but there probably are some other things that I’m going to defer off to my other
experts that I’ve got along here so. Should I?
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Ron Jabs: Okay. I just threw together some scratchy notes here but one of the key things, well
let me start out in essentially the site right today is an old gravel pit, basically unreclaimed and
uneven terrain and so forth and of course that will be cleaned up in that process. There are also
two sets of transmission lines that run right across the site where the substation will be placed.
Right underneath that transmission line. The substation itself, just the mere fact that there’s a
transformer within it doesn’t really create any strengthening of the EMF potential, and one of the
things that is quite important to understand, I’m not sure exactly where our spot is here but this
demonstration here just uses a copying machine as an example. Basically if you go up to any
outlet within your home, any electrical appliance is going to emit a certain amount of EMF. The
point being that if you’re only 6 inches away from this copying machine, you’ll probably have
around 90 milligauss. However if you get out to 4 feet you’re down to 1 milligauss so it
dramatically decreases. By the same token within our substation we have the transformers and
gear and so forth centered within that, but once you get to the perimeter of the property, the
levels are, equate to normal background level so they aren’t really any higher once you get off of
the acreage. Maybe one thing I should point out is that we are, we’re developing a 2.3 acre piece
of property that we acquired from Gedney. We also acquired an additional half acre, .5 acres
from Xcel and we’re actually, although we’re not merging the legal descriptions together, we
own both parcels and the entire complex will be landscaped and incorporated. The mobile home
court right now has a 69 KV transmission line that goes across it. It has a 115 KV transmission
line, and a 230 KV, and quite frankly those influences far exceed the influence of the new
substation that is going in. The mere fact that we’re getting rid of the old substation removes it
away from the mobile home park. It also removes it visually from right off of Stoughton
Avenue, and our landscaping and so forth that will be incorporating is going to significantly hide
it. The fact that there’s about a 10 foot wall there will pretty much cover up a majority of the
equipment. Most of the equipment is about 12 foot tall. There are a couple of incidental pieces
that get 15, maybe even 17 foot tall but most of it is, well it’s modular in nature and pretty well
7
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
low profile so we do expect that that will do a good job of blocking the view, plus the trees and
landscaping that it will be breaking it up. Typically this is the first time that we’ve gotten into a
wall type situation on, I think we’re up to like 13 substations or so on our system. This will be
the first wall. Typically we’re only about 8 foot, well by code we have to be at 8 foot for
security and keeping animals or kids or whatever out of the premise. I guess we do feel the 10
foot is adequate. I guess you could argue pretty much any height. It’s probably an endless kind
of a question there but, one point was made about the watershed and the way this is designed,
basically it’s a pier channel. A pier with channels in it and the walls actually float in that channel
but the whole bed of the substation, including an extension out around the substation is a course
gravel rock. And so any rain that would drop within the substation will flow naturally slowly out
of that and then travel the normal courses over land into these retention ponds and so forth so it
won’t be caught within, to any great degree. It will through this course rock it will actually filter
out across the property, so hopefully that is satisfactory. If not, if we need to make some special
piping or something like that we could do it but we didn’t anticipate a true need for that. In
terms of lighting, we don’t show any. It wasn’t necessarily included. We do have substations
where we do have a, now a downcast security type light. It might be nice to have one of those
within. It’s not a make or break kind of a thing but if we did have that, if it were necessary we
could have a switch on it but at this point nothing is, nothing is proposed so that’s why we
haven’t included anything in that, addressing that. There probably were other questions but
hopefully that addresses a few of them. How else can I?
Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions from the applicant? I think you addressed them very
well. Yes Mark, go ahead.
Undestad: Actually you answered one of my questions, was how many of these have you done
with this wall system around there. The other question I had in that, most of these are left open
or with chainlink fence or cyclone fence. Are there any concerns with locating this down there
where the only chainlink area goes out to the woods and now you’ve got a nice 10 foot wall
encasing all this down there with no lighting? Going to be climbing around in there but, a 10
foot wall. Maybe a 12 foot wall. I don’t know.
Ron Jabs: It’s been used on other systems, other electric utilities have used the 10 foot and I
think that’s where the number came from initially. It was felt that that was high enough to
comply with the National Electric Safety Code and so forth.
Undestad: So are they going to have security lighting in there or something?
Ron Jabs: Yeah, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have lighting. We appreciate the idea of using the
downcast type lights versus something that’s going to disperse out and affect the neighbors.
Highly unlikely because of the nature with you know, cemetery there and Gedney. I don’t see
that we would have any concerns. As things develop to the north being commercial, they’re
going to have some lighting as well. It’s far enough away from the mobile home park that I
wouldn’t expect it to have any impact but you know. Like I say, in some of our substations we
do have them and there are some advantages to having that in there. One of the reasons that we
did want to have at least one site open is that air flow into the area around the, into our, around
our transformers is beneficial. It was all dead air. There’s no other exchange of air other than
8
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
going out the top. It tends to heat with them and so that is also another reason for having one
side open.
Undestad: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Yes Kurt.
Papke: In the landscaping plan, you currently don’t meet the code requirements for like I think
you intend to up your tree count somewhat in order to meet that?
Ron Jabs: It was suggested and one of the concerns that was pointed out in the write up is that,
tall trees can grow up and interfere with the transmission lines from a maintenance and a
reliability problem, and so it was proposed that we put some understory, some additional
understory type shrubbery in there and quite frankly I forgot if we had prepared a drawing of that
nature or where we’re at with that.
Denny Wolf: I’m Denny Wolf with Minnesota Valley Electric. I’m not, I think, I thought we
had met everything that required but we’ll review if we need to put more shrubbery and stuff in
there, we’ll take care of that. I know we’ve had fun working with Sharmeen and her, people
from the city here so…
Sacchet: Thank you. Dan, you have a question too?
Keefe: Yeah, just one quick question that I asked staff and I’ll ask you as well. Are you aware
of any environmental findings against the Xcel facility there?
Denny Wolf: We are the, we would have the same concerns being that there was an unknown
nature what was happening in there. Both a Phase I and a Phase II environmental study. The
Phase I we’re just basically looking at the area, is there any possibility. And because of the
aerial photos taken back in about 1940, we could see where the depression was in there and what
work had been done there. It looked like digging and I think as Ron mentioned, there’s probably
just a gravel area in there. So we did a Phase II in there whereas we went in, dug up the site.
Took the soil samples around various points in the site there and that’s from the Gedney property
and that all came out okay. We also were concerned with the Xcel site there because of previous
oil containment in the area there. We also did a Phase I and a Phase II in there where they
analyze soil in there and those all came out okay. They’re well within the limits of the area there
so. I was going to bring the report along. It’s a very lengthy report but I would have them just
give us a cover letter too… Basically we don’t have to do anything else in the area. Everything
is okay as far as they’re concerned according to the environmental study.
Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Did you want to add anything else or?
Ron Jabs: The only thing maybe I should highlight, since he brought up the environmental.
There is a, Carole has prepared the EA and there’s an index and there is, there’s a multitude of
different agencies that we’ve already gone through DNR and quite a number of different
agencies and most of those have opportunity to respond and indicated that there’s really a lack of
9
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
any concerns whatsoever. I guess if you want to, if you’d like to get into the specifics, I’m sure
Carole can address more of how it’s.
Sacchet: Do you want to give us a 2 minute summary Carole?
Carole Schmidt: I can do that. We contacted, I’m Carole Schmidt… We contacted several
agencies. The Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Natural
Resources... The Corps indicated that they did not require a permit. There are no wetland issues
on the site. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the bald eagle is documented in
Hennepin and Carver counties but not in this particular location, and that the project would not
adversely affect the bald eagle. The DNR, which runs a sensitive area…and there were some
known occurrences of rare features in the area, but it’s pretty close to the river and they said at
this particular site they wouldn’t see that it would affect any of those resources. So the DNR
signed off. There were no properties eligible for historical, the register of historical places. And
the construction would not affect any prime farmland soils according to the NICS. So it’s really,
if I were to pick a…it’s a pretty prime location. It’s tucked away and actually the mobile home
court is…the road so they’re not going to be able to see it very much anyway, especially with
that wall up there. So I thought it was a very good site from an environmental standpoint.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Alright. With that, I’d like to open the public hearing. If
anybody here would like to comment to this, please come forward now and tell us if you have
something to say. Seeing nobody getting up, I assume there’s nobody that wants to address this
item. I’ll bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any comments,
discussion? Are we all clear about everything? I have just one little comment. In the staff
report, let’s see where it was. Page 12. When it looks at the findings for the variances, which is
the size of the acreage as well as the setback. The first criteria that we look at is whether there’s
a hardship and staff report doesn’t necessarily touch on hardship. It just tells about the reasons
why it’s alright, and I would actually say it would be a hardship to enforce the code under the
circumstances. Just to address that straight on. I think that’s the only comment I have. Does
anybody want to make a motion please.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Site Plan 05-30 for an electric substation as shown on the plans dated Received
ndth
September 2 and November 30, 2005 with variances to allow access off of Stoughton Avenue,
maintain a 200 foot setback from existing residential neighborhood and construct a facility on a
2.35 acre parcel based on the findings of the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 6. I also
like to recommend approval for Conditional Use Permit 05-30 for the construction of the electric
substation and a 10 foot wall with the one condition as listed in the staff report, and also
recommend the City Council approve Resolution declaring no need for an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Minnesota Valley Electric substation.
Sacchet: Thank you Kurt. Do we have a second?
McDonald: I’ll second.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Actually I wonder whether for the site plan
recommendations, condition number 2. Whether we should specify the plans must identify the
proposed drainage outlet? I mean outlets is little bit, could be outlet for different things, even
though it talks about drainage at the end. Could it be misunderstood?
Fauske: If I could Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: Please.
Fauske: A recommendation would be that the applicant submit some information regarding their
proposed material for their pads to, so staff can verify that there is positive drainage across.
Sacchet: So then the friendly amendment would be that condition 2 would be replaced by the
applicant will provide additional information about drainage to staff for further review. That
would it suffice with that?
Fauske: Yes it would.
Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable Kurt?
Papke: Yes.
Sacchet: I assume there are no more other friendly amendments.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan 05-30 for an electric substation as shown on the plans dated Received September
ndth
2 and November 30, 2005 with variances to allow access off of Stoughton Avenue,
maintain a 200 foot setback from existing residential neighborhood and construct a facility
on a 2.35 acre parcel, based on the findings of the staff report subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building Official Conditions:
a. Permits are required to construct the perimeter wall and fence.
b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
The applicant will provide additional information about drainage to staff for further
2.
review.
3. Annual maintenance shall be performed on the infiltration basin so that it will function as
modeled.
4. The applicant must meet minimum ordinance requirements for bufferyards and submit a
revised landscape plan to the city for approval.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
5. Overstory plantings shall be added to the understory totals for bufferyard plantings.
6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted including photometrics and type of light fixture.
The ordinance requires no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line. Only downcast
shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. Any security (motion detection)
lighting should also be shown.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
for Conditional Use Permit 05-30, for the construction the electric substation and a 10 foot
wall with the following condition:
1. A security fence as specified in the National Electric Safety Code shall surround the
Distribution and Underground Electric Distribution Substations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve a Resolution Declaring No Need for an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Minnesota Valley Electric Substation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
JACOB’S TAVERN: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 6,808 SQUARE
FOOT RESTAURANT BUILDING ON 2.02 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND CENTURY BOULEVARD, TRUMAN HOWELL
ARCHITECTS, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-40.
Public Present:
Name Address
Truman Howell 17815 Hutchins Drive, Minnetonka
Jacob, John & Joan Howe-Pullis 1385 Wildflower Lane, Chaska
Scott Thorpe 6716 Point Drive, Edina
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Yes Jerry, do you want to start?
McDonald: Okay, you talk about the gables. What’s the difference between what you’re
proposing and what we have on these drawings?
Generous: It’s just the type of roof element. Instead of having, a shed dormer has this flat roof
that comes off the building. What I was proposing was that they provide gables, basically taking
12
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
this element and putting it above the windows so you’d have separate units. It would help to
maintain, what we were looking at was the continuity of these peak elements and also this
elevation. However again the applicant provided this type of roof treatment specifically and I
want them to be able to address that to you.
McDonald: Okay. The only question I have.
Sacchet: Debbie.
Larson: How about, before you go away. Sorry. So, is it just a design feature or is it a feature
of how it functions?
Generous: It will be aesthetic. A design feature on this. So both of them.
Larson: Okay. So it’s your opinion against their’s at this point?
Generous: Correct.
Larson: Okay.
Keefe: I’ve got some.
Sacchet: Go ahead Dan.
Keefe: Am I next?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Keefe: Okay. You know on page 2 and you talk about the height of the roof is 37 feet however
the building height is calculated as 29 feet, since by code only half the roof height is included in
the building height calculation. I’m not sure I understand what that was intended to mean.
Generous: It’s just a technicality. We say that the building height is 29 feet but it’s actually, if
you go to the peak of the roof, it’s 37.
Keefe: But you don’t take the 37, you just go.
Generous: No, because you take out half of that roof elevation basically…
Keefe: Okay. Then.
Generous: Either way it complies with the ordinances.
Keefe: The façade transparency section on page 5, I’m not sure what is meant by that. It says
due to the use of a wrap around veranda, almost 100% of the western elevation, visual
transparency is viewed by the public. I’m not sure what.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Generous: Well normally when we look at a building, if you take this north elevation we would
only, we would count this entire space and this would have no transparency. By adding these
elements you’re creating an outdoor room and so you’re giving that depth of visual perception of
looking into a building so you have the opening that would be required under our ordinance, and
we only say half of it and they provided an entire wall basically with that opening.
Keefe: I see what you’re saying. Alright. The parking easement for the use of 9 stalls with
Holiday Inn Express. What are the hours of operation that they’re proposing for the restaurant,
do you know?
Generous: I’m not sure. Maybe you can ask the applicant.
Keefe: Yeah, I guess the one question I have in regards to that would be whether, I’m not sure
whether the Holiday Inn is ever at capacity in the evenings and whether we may end up with
some capacity issues on that site for parking. What’s your sense on that?
Generous: Well to date whenever I’ve been out there, there’s lots of vacant empty space.
Keefe: Right. Yeah, but if this restaurant, say this restaurant really takes off…
Generous: Hopefully they’re also staying at the hotel and restaurant and visiting other facilities,
and that’s the whole idea that this is very convenient for the hotel to have this there. People can
be staying there and you’re walking over and then they take up space so if someone came there,
theoretically couldn’t go in anyway.
Keefe: Right. The intersection, in terms of the level of service, I mean currently is that, what is
that intersection? Are we talking about the corner of Century and 5?
Generous: No, it’s the median opening that, for the two driveways off of Century.
Keefe: So if one goes over to the daycare facility…use the bank right, and is that a straight curb
cut then?
Generous: Yes. It’s straight across from, this is like an intersection and initially staff was
concerned about that. What the turning movements and so right now it’s still operating at an A,
very good level of service but you don’t have full development out there.
Keefe: Alright. How is the 5, and I know we talked about this a little bit I think when Lifetime
came in, in terms of the level of service of 5 and Century. How is that intersection operating?
Generous: I believe it’s still good. Actually, one of the future items we’re going to look at is
past traffic studies and what’s the reality versus what was…
Keefe: So adding this particular use.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Generous: It was contemplated under the entire project and those improvements out there were
designed to accommodate that. Our only issue wasn’t at 5 and Century. It was down in the site.
Keefe: Right because if you get a lot of people turning in at a particular time, and they use the
restaurant and/or the hotel, you’re going to back up potentially to 5.
Generous: And that was the movement that was the worst was the left turn out from the retail on
the west side of Century from the original studies.
Keefe: Okay. But at least as we know now, the traffic patterns are still operating pretty well and
we don’t anticipate that this, we don’t know exactly what will happen but what we think might
happen isn’t going to degrade it substantially or what do we think?
Generous: We don’t believe it will but we wanted to continue that condition 4 just because they
were, the applicants weren’t involved in that original subdivision. We wanted to make sure they
were aware that this had been an issue at one time.
Keefe: Let me just take it one step further. If we find out, and how do we determine whether it’s
operating fully or not? I mean just the number of people or accidents or?
Generous: Alyson maybe.
Fauske: At one of the future Planning Commission meetings staff would like to get Planning
Commission’s direction as far as what you would like to see as the follow-up on some of these
traffic reports that we’re getting for some of these sites. That’s one of the questions that we’ll
get direction from you at a later date. As far as answering your question, how do we determine
that, that’s something we can discuss at that meeting but it would require a traffic count.
Typically what we get in traffic counts right now is just straight through traffic. We don’t get
turning movements, so we would have to look at putting out some more traffic counts to count
the thru traffic. The turning movements and such and from there determine the level of service.
Keefe: Okay, so in order for the condition that you’ve got in here which would, what would
happen if the condition was found to be a level of service that wasn’t appropriate? Wasn’t good.
We’d not allow that curb cut? Would we put in a semaphore or some sort or what would be the?
Fauske: Well, we could look at the recommendations from the original traffic report and then as
far as the costs are concerned, it says the businesses in there are assessed 100% of that cost so the
taxpayers will not be incurring any of those costs.
Keefe: So it could be that that median becomes solid all the way across in the long term but I
can’t imagine that wouldn’t, either you’d have to get all the business’s agreement to that right?
Generous: No, it’s not based on this. It would be true through the review of the, or accidents or
stacking. You know instead of closing it completely, a directional turn may be one of the results
of it to eliminate some of the conflicting turning movements.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Keefe: Alright. Good, that’s it.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: I guess it’s great to see a project like this come to Chanhassen but I’m really struggling
with the fake silo. What kind of feedback have you received on the aesthetics of this silo? And
you know, it just seems very incongruous and I’m a little concerned with the big berm there. It’s
going to look like a missile silo peaking over the top of the hill. I’m just curious if you’ve
received any feedback on the aesthetics.
Generous: I’ve had it both ways. Some people don’t like it. Others say you know, the site used
to be a farm site so it sort of goes back to that heritage.
Papke: It also harkens back to the other fake silo on.
Generous: The one up here on Village on the Ponds, yes. That’s what I looked at when I saw
that. Oh, finally book ends to the community. Just a little bigger. Actually there’s different
things they can do with this you know. Maybe it’s a decorative element and during the holidays
with lights on it.
Papke: On a not totally unrelated vein, is there any need for any lightning antenna because this
might be a great candidate for a lightning strike there.
Generous: We can have the applicant, architect answer that if you don’t mind.
Papke: Okay. What, is there any city code or regulations surrounding that sort of thing? I don’t
recall.
Generous: There may be building code requirements and that our building official would review
and the architect may know.
Sacchet: Is that it for questions? Yeah, I think what’s left of question is for the applicant so with
that I’d like to ask whether we have an applicant. If you want to come forward please. If you
state who you are. Where you’re from and if you want to add anything to what staff presented
and we may have some questions for you.
Truman Howell: Thank you very much lady and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My
name is Truman Howell. Truman Howell Architects and with me tonight I have the owners of
the project, John and Joan and Jake Pullis. They’re here tonight to observe our city in motion.
The comments I think I can try to address any questions that you have. We probably will maybe
have some disagreement on some aesthetics apparently but the initial direction from my clients
was that we take the vernacular of the area, the upper Midwest and do something unique with it.
Something stylized. I’m not sure you’re aware that the silo is not a closed structure. It is open,
as well as the peaks on the top of the back portion of the building. Those are also open and in
steel. The idea quite frankly for those came from French cities, and I don’t know if you’ve seen
photographs or been there or whatever, but there were many French towns that had for steeples
16
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
on their church, these very lacy and very nice steel, just steel cupolas and tops. And so when I
was dealing with the farm feel or the farm look to this, it suddenly dawned on me, if that silo, is a
strong element but to make it useful and attractive we would open it up and we’d put some fabric
at the top and so that fabric at the top of that, not metal. Okay? So we’re trying to keep it light.
In reference to the windows, the, and I don’t know if we can use either one of those I guess.
What I would like to do, can we look here? Okay. You’re moving, I’m moving. Great, okay. If
you can imagine now this building is going to be seen in 3 dimension so you’re not going to see
ever probably this face just as you see it here. So when you’re arriving you’re going to be seeing
this enormous cupola or basically an A-frame looking element. And as you come around the
building then you begin to pick up pieces of this. Now if you’ll take a look, and if you were,
imagine in your mind that you’re going to take those 3 windows and you’re going to put dormers
on them. Now all of a sudden in my mind it takes away from anything we’re doing with the silo
and anything we’re doing with these two elements on the back. We wanted to keep it low key
and something that would enhance the look of these other elements there. And so that’s why we
didn’t use that. As a matter of fact in one of the early designs we did use some dormers. We put
them in a somewhat different location but again it began to be what we see, what I see a lot of
today which is dormers on top of dormers on top of dormers on top of dormers, and I finally, I
rebelled and fortunately my clients agreed with me. So we’re casting no aspersions to anyone
else’s feelings about it because I think you know aesthetics is always very personal. I understand
that that is another way to do it. We happen to choose to do it this way and we think it’s
simplifies an otherwise potentially very busy element. In terms of the parking, cross parking for
the restaurant and the hotel. You’ll find throughout the country that hotels want restaurants and
restaurants want hotels and they do, the timing works out well for them. I’ve done about 200
hotels and boy, let me tell you. Every time there’s one, the first thing you look for is where
that’s restaurant to go next to it. And well we’ve all done that when we’ve traveled, and so I
think that, and certainly the parking part of that, while there are some situations where it is not
good, this one in my mind and in my experience is going to be very adequate to handle both
functions, because they really will be working at somewhat different times, even though they do
overlap slightly. I’m open to questions.
Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant? Mark.
Undestad: Yes. With the gable up on the roof there, the length of that upper windows across
there.
Truman Howell:Yeah.
Undestad: Okay, if you’re looking at that, the length of that and you were to put that gable on
there, how tall would that be?
Truman Howell: On all 3 of them or 3 of them individually?
Undestad: Well, what were you thinking Bob? 3 individual or one?
Generous: I was thinking of separate, individual ones.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Truman Howell: Well, boy I just don’t, I see if you put them compatible with the, say the two
elements on the left hand side there. You’re going to be coming pretty close to the peak I would
think.
Undestad: Right, so that’s why I’m looking at here when you kind of pencil that out on your
peak drawing, if you brought those up, that kind of comes almost to the top of there.
Truman Howell: Yeah, yeah. Because I don’t think you’d want to, I don’t think you’d want a
low one. Similar to the slope on the bottom there. Again in my mind but.
Undestad: And I think you’re right. It’s that vision coming straight into.
Truman Howell: Yeah, because that’s going to be a ponderous thing coming in the front of it.
You’re really looking at something, this thing is very strong.
Undestad: And the top of the silo you said was a fabric.
Truman Howell: Yeah.
Undestad: What type of fabric? Just a canvas?
Truman Howell: What does Hoigards make? Awnings, yeah.
Larson: So does that need to be replaced at some point?
Truman Howell: Sure. Yeah. Yep, probably. Get Bob up there and change it. Sure. I’m sure it
will over time. It will fade. I have one over my office entry and we’re due. Been a couple-3
years.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt?
Papke: Lightning rod?
Truman Howell: Oh, oh lightning rod. You know I don’t know. I’m sure our electrical
engineer is going to ground this baby. I know you’re right. Maybe we’ll, I wonder if the radio
station, do you have a radio station? We could do that but I definitely, if that’s a requirement by
any code, believe me there’s no way in the world we want people in a hazardous situation, and
we definitely will look into that for you.
John Pullis: I wonder if the commission understands the functional aspect of the silo.
Truman Howell: Oh, sorry. That was a big part of the design. Thank you John. Well, if you
look at the plan, it’s on A-1 on your drawings. Here I’ll try to, this is a very light drawing on the
screen. Can you see that? Okay. Now do you see up towards this upper left hand portion. See
this element here? Okay, that is the bottom of the silo. Those individual pieces are the steel that
starts at the core there, and goes up, and it actually frames 3 fireplaces. The one fireplace is at
18
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
the bar area. The second fireplace is in the waiting area. The third fireplace goes out onto the
deck, which then based on the site plan you go right out to the, I think Bob displayed or talked
about the fire pit outside, and so that is all related and that’s why, that’s kind of, I should have
said that’s part of the silo.
Larson: Is there like a skylight or something or does it just come out of the smokestack?
Truman Howell: No. No, it comes right out of the roof.
Sacchet: So you can have sausages and smoke them.
Truman Howell: The lighting is going to be fabulous around that. It’s going to be amazing.
You should see his menu. His menu is unbelievable.
Sacchet: Yeah, what’s the menu? In fact I want to hear, what kind of restaurant are we getting
here? Wow, they come prepared. No kidding. I’m impressed. I love it.
Truman Howell: Yeah, this will make your mouth water. This stuff is.
Larson: And then does the Planning Commission get like a free meal there?
Sacchet: Now we’re getting in trouble.
Truman Howell: It might have something to do with the outcome this evening.
Sacchet: I have another question for you. Site furnishings, like staff made a statement that
they’re assuming there would be a good weather seating during the warm season on the patio. Is
that an accurate assumption?
Truman Howell: Sure, yes.
Sacchet: And then there’s actually a condition about site furnishings, benches, bicycle racks,
tables, I guess that’s a given because we want to confirm with you where you stand with that.
Truman Howell: Not a problem.
Sacchet: No problem there.
Joan Pullis: We don’t have numbers on that. It’s not specified how many bike racks or how
many benches or…
Sacchet: I think that’s for you to figure out.
Truman Howell: We’ll be able to do that.
Sacchet: Yes Kurt, you have something more?
19
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Papke: The fire pit, any safety issues with the fire pit? Is there going to be any kind of railings
or what?
Truman Howell: Yes. There is a railing around it, and I think it shows on the site plan if I’m not
mistaken. Oh boy. Okay. Now this larger circle is actually the fence around it, so nobody can
just walk up. The fire pit itself is actually a raised element so it’s not sitting down in a pit. No,
you can’t fall into it. You walk around it. Actually they’re commercially made now. I was
amazed.
McDonald: I have one question for you. On the skylight, or on the lights. The function is as a
skylight, help light that forward area. It’s the 3 windows that we’re talking about. So we’re
talking about dormers, okay. Thank you.
Sacchet: I’m studying the menu. Forgive me.
Keefe: Do we know what the hours are?
Truman Howell: Ah, that was a question, was there not? I think it’s noon on, right?
John Pullis: No, we’re open earlier. 11:15. 10:00. 10:00 or 10:30 maybe.
Keefe: I have a question in regards to the site plan. It references in the report about needing to
tie into the existing paths. There’s a path system on the south side and on the west side.
Truman Howell: Yes.
Keefe: And I’m not seeing where you do that on your plan. Maybe you can kind of.
Truman Howell: I can show you where those are. This is a sidewalk here. Here’s the drive
under for the hotel, okay? So you’re probably familiar where it actually exists. Across that
driveway, this is the driveway here. Across there is this upper, or the northern walkway. It
actually walks clear around this enclosed outdoor area, and comes around to the front of the
building. On the south side it goes past the entry into the dumpster area, trash enclosure area and
goes along side of that and along the south side and across and up to the front, as well as if you
can follow my finger here, going across here. Across the parking lot, out to I believe there’s a
walkway.
Keefe: Okay. And then that walkway will then tie into the, ties into that path on the south, is
that right?
Generous: Well there’s nothing on the south. It goes to Century. Remember there’s a sidewalk
on the, or a trail on the both sides of that. And then just to the south, there’s a trail system
th
around the wetland complex that is part of the 6 Addition we had the developer put in and it
tied it over to the east side which had been started with Autumn Ridge development.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Keefe: Right, so in regards to tying into that trail system, the way that we would tie into it has
really gone to the west here.
Generous: Right, out to Century and then down.
Keefe: Via this walkway which essentially is a walkway through the parking lot and then across
to the sidewalk, correct?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Anything more you’d like to add from your
end?
Truman Howell: Nothing.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. With that, I’d like to open the public hearing. If there’s
anybody here that’d like to address this item, this is your turn. Seeing nobody that gets up, I’ll
close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any
comments? Any discussion?
Larson: A comment.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Debbie.
Larson: Okay, regarding the windows. Okay, I’m a designer by trade so I’m looking at this and
I’m thinking I really like it and I’ll tell you why. What they’ve done is they’ve taken an old idea,
an old concept that to me looks like an old farm house or an old church or an old something, and
they’ve put a modern swing to it. And it looks a bit more contemporary on the side, which
brings it up to current times and that’s why I personally like the flat window look because like
the applicant, or architect. What are you?
Sacchet: Architect.
Larson: Architect said. You’ve got round. You’ve got square. You’ve got you know that
cupola. But this particular site tends to have more of a modern look to it to me and the front
tends to be more old fashion looking and I think it’s just a wonderful blend of both. So as it
stands, the silo is a little puzzling to me other than the fact that it’s kind of cool looking and like
you said, bookend for the other end of the city. I think it’s neat so with that said, I think it’s
wonderful.
Sacchet: Any other comments? Jerry.
McDonald: Well I guess the only comment that I would make is that you know the whole thing
about the windows to me is a design issue. I don’t know the first thing about design. I say that’s
up to the applicant to put in what he wants at that point. There’s nothing in the code that I’m
aware of that would really dictate that we get into this. So I guess I see this as more of a non-
21
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
issue. You have a silo and it’s an interesting concept. So I really have no problems with the
design of this. I mean it meets everything as far as code. It’s probably going to fit in at that area.
We’ve got a lot of different architecture going on down there and I think this kind of helps to
stand out a little bit and also this with the silo, the one thing you’ve got going for it, it will
become a landmark. So you know, from that standpoint I’m perfectly acceptable with the plans.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Anything else? Just to echo a little bit the design part. I think that’s, in
this case is I would think is an applicant thing. I would also point out that from the western
elevation, it actually the harmony with the flat roof is a nice touch, and that’s really the main
elevation that’s going to be seen. Whether we have the dormers, I think would actually take
away from that look that you put together there. So I would think that condition number 4 could
be struck out. And it’s just wonderful to see a restaurant coming in there. Really excited about
that. So I’d like to have a motion. Yes, you have another point or? You want a motion. Go
ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
Planning Case 05-40, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Incorporated dated November 10,
th
2005 for a 6,808 square foot restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6 Addition,
subject to the following conditions, 1 through 35.
Sacchet: 31.
McDonald: 31. And I would accept a friendly motion about number 4.
Sacchet: So you strike out number 4? Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second.
Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Any friendly amendments?
McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan Planning Case #05-40, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated
November 10, 2005, for a 6,808 square-foot restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum
th
Business Park 6 Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
th
2.A recorded parking easement for the benefit of Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6
Addition for the use of nine stalls on the Holiday Inn Express site (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
th
Business Park 6 Addition) is required as part of the site plan.
3.The developer shall install site furnishings including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
4.All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
5.Mechanical equipment, either roof-mounted or at grade, must be screened.
6.The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
7.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
8.The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
9.Pedestrian ramps shall be provided in all locations where the sidewalk ends at a curb.
10.The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard is allowed. However, should the driveway
cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owners of Lots 1 or 2, Block
th
1, Arboretum Business Park 6 Addition, or Lots 1, 2 or 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business
th
Park 4 Addition, or if any of the following conditions are met, the property owners of Lots 1
th
and 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6 Addition and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
th
Arboretum Business Park 4 Addition shall be assessed 100% of the costs incurred to correct
the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen:
a.Level of service “F” at the intersection during peak AM and PM times.
b.Level of service “D” or below at the intersection during non-peak times.
c.Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection occur that
indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection.
11.The slope located along the southern property line shall be seeded with a native grass mix
and left natural. The applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if
necessary.
12.Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the existing downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
13.Two details for silt fence are included on the detail sheet. The old detail for silt fence (Detail
5300 last revised January of 2003) should be removed from the detail sheet. The plans
should be revised to show inlet protection around all storm sewer inlets.
14.Wimco-type inlet controls should be specified for inlet protection. Inlet protection shall be
provided for existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project.
15.During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer,
temporary caps or plugs should be provided until the installation of the pipes and inlets are
complete.
16.A temporary cover of mulch and seed is needed within 14 days of final grade for any
exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period.
23
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
17.Any sediment tracked upon paved surfaces must be scraped and swept within 24 hours.
18.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of
Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
19.A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
20.The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with storm sewer drainage map prior to building permit issuance.
21.The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
22.Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City’s Building Department.
23.Add the latest City Detail Plate Nos. 1004, 5214, 5300 and 5302.
24.The site will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of
building permit issuance. The 2006 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,575.00 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $4,078.00 per unit for water.
25.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited
to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
26.On the utility plan show all the existing utility sewer type, size, slope and class.
27.Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots.
28.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
29.Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and location of signs to be installed.
30.Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policies.
a.#1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems,
b.#4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans,
24
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
c.#7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings,
d.#29-1992 regarding premise identification,
e.#34-1993 regarding water service installation,
f.#36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing,
g.#40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHRISTENSEN SUBDIVISION: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY
INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6710 GOLDEN COURT AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, APPLICANT
ROBERT CHIRSTENSEN, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-44.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Kurt?
Papke: The staff report, bottom of page 5 you state that the driveway to Lot 2 must be shifted so
that it is at least 10 feet from the property line. Could you point out where that short coming is?
I wasn’t quite able to make it out.
Fauske: Here’s your pipe for drainage and utility and the driveway is a couple feet from that
location. At this location and it’s a difficult plan to read. The dark brown line here shows the
actual property line, following my pen here. That’s the 5 foot drainage and utility. Here’s the
driveway. So our ordinance reads 10 feet from the property line. That’s where we’re getting
that from.
Papke: So if you shifted, what to the north, are you going to run into the same thing? Do you
have enough space?
Fauske: No. 10 feet right here so we can shift it over a few feet to meet ordinance.
Papke: You’re not going to have them narrow the driveway? There’s enough room to move it?
Sacchet: Any other questions? No other questions from staff? Thank you Sharmeen. With that
I’d like to ask if we have an applicant? If you want to come forward. If you have anything to
add, please do so. State your name and address for the record please, and if you can pull the
microphone towards you so we get the sound. Yep, there you go.
Robert Christensen: Robert Christensen, 6710 Golden Court. I think the question was, that
number 5, moving, it was Lot 2 which is where my house is located.
Sacchet: There it is.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Robert Christensen: …over in Lot 2 and I think this one had to be shifted, or not shifted. It’s
just got to be 10 feet away from the property line, but this is the actual shift here.
Sacchet: Oh, it’s that one that gets shifted. Is that accurate Alyson? Because that’s the existing
one, right?
Al-Jaff: Lot 2 would be existing.
Sacchet: Can we ask the existing one to be shifted?
Fauske: Well the existing one should be brought into conformance unless there’s a necessity to
bring it as a variance. We can look at, it looks like it might be pretty close there to shift it. I
mean they’re already getting some changes, some realignments with that existing driveway to
bring it into conformance so, it’s not a huge plan change. It was just more of a housekeeping
item to make sure that we had everything up to code.
Sacchet: Is that an issue for you Mr. Christensen?
Robert Christensen: No.
Sacchet: You don’t have an issue with it? Okay. So even if that driveway, the existing one
needs to be shifted, you don’t have a problem with it?
Robert Christensen: No.
Sacchet: Well then it’s not an issue. That’s very good. That’s easy.
Robert Christensen: I just thought I’d correct that.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you’d like to touch on?
Robert Christensen: No, I guess not.
Sacchet: Do we have questions for the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a
public hearing. Does anyone want to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing somebody
get up, yes there we go.
Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I’ve just got a question on the plan here.
Sacchet: Can we switch on the plan Nann please? Thanks.
Janet Paulsen: First of all, what is this driveway here?
Sacchet: Is that access to the Martinka property?
26
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Al-Jaff: That’s an access. These are existing situations. Our ordinance clearly states and State
Statute states that if these are existing situations, you don’t.
Sacchet: It’s pre-existing.
Al-Jaff: Yes, and this subdivision is not intensifying this use.
Sacchet: Okay. So in other words that driveway to the southern property would stay off of that
driveway for the time being? No, I see you shaking a head.
Robert Christensen: Mr. Martinka said he will abandon that driveway because he has another
new access out to Golden Court.
Sacchet: So he’s going to access directly for Golden Court and so that access driveway will be
closed apparently.
Al-Jaff: When Mr. Martinka subdivides his property, that is correct.
Sacchet: Not right away. Okay.
Janet Paulsen: So why not make it a private street?
Sacchet: Well we’re not really changing that are we?
Al-Jaff: No.
Sacchet: Can you address that Sharmeen?
Al-Jaff: Everything is remaining as is. The southern portion where the neck is, is remaining
undisturbed. Currently there is an outlet out there and the outlet is maintaining that setback that
you see from the edge of the driveway. The applicant applied for a neck lot and that’s what
they’re getting and that’s consistent with a previous recommendation.
Sacchet: Does that answer your question Janet? Sort of.
Janet Paulsen: Not really.
Sacchet: Not totally but a little bit.
Janet Paulsen: I would think that a certain safety issue with traffic going onto a public street, a
private street would probably serve it better.
Sacchet: Yeah, but this is not the issue in front of us. While we could argue it’s sort of in front
of us but what’s really in front of us is a neck lot above it.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Janet Paulsen: And then the next question was on Lot, on the upper lot. Where is the front
property line there?
Sacchet: How do we measure property line Sharmeen, can you point that out?
Al-Jaff: …property line right there.
Janet Paulsen: And that is because why?
Al-Jaff: In looking at the way the ordinance reads, it’s the closest property line to a public street,
and it is our interpretation that this is the closest property line.
Janet Paulsen: Well I would just like to say that that’s the convenient one because you have to
have a 30 foot front yard and a 30 foot back yard and that’s the way it sits.
Sacchet: How would you measure it Janet? I mean do you have an alternative way to look at it?
Janet Paulsen: I guess you can just choose because these are two lines, I mean.
Sacchet: Well you couldn’t measure the width of the flag.
Janet Paulsen: I just don’t think that the home that’s shown on there would have a 30 foot front
yard and then a 30 foot back yard if it had the east/west line be the front property line. I guess
it’s just choosing which line you want and which is convenient. That’s all I had.
Sacchet: Go ahead Mark.
Undestad: I think when you measure the lot thought, we do not include the flag portion in that
lot. Is that right?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Undestad: So you would use that, the flag portion wouldn’t be considered a lot line out on the
street there. Does that make sense?
Janet Paulsen: The front property line should be the line that’s closest to the public street.
Sacchet: Right, I think that’s.
Janet Paulsen: I guess that one is. That’s all I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Janet. Anybody else? Yes indeed.
Deb Lloyd: Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’m just questioning whether this is within 1,000
feet of Lake Lucy.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Is it within 1,000 feet of Lake Lucy? Can we answer that question?
Al-Jaff: Yes it is and.
Deb Lloyd: Because there’s no notice of the impervious surface requirement because it would
be considered shoreland and typically that would be noticed.
Al-Jaff: It will maintain all requirements of the ordinance as far as hard surface coverage, as
well as building height. These are things that we do look at.
Sacchet: And would there be a difference? And that would be looked at with the building
permit? Not necessarily at this time.
Generous: However they are the same, RSF in the shoreland districts have the same impervious
coverage for single family residential property. 25%.
Deb Lloyd: I’m just noting it because typically it would be included in the report. Also I, you
know I look at this and I know, you know we’re typically adverse to private streets but there is a
safety aspect here. Whether or not the existing driveway is there, you’re subdividing and you are
looking at a variance condition.
Sacchet: How do you see that we’re touching the existing situation.
Deb Lloyd: How are you touching it? You are approving variances for two flag lots. You
could, as a condition make that a private street if you so chose.
Sacchet: And what would be gained by doing that? I mean.
Deb Lloyd: You’d have one access which would be wider, 20 feet along a 60 foot here. Versus
two accesses on the 60 foot into.
Sacchet: Oh you mean it would be one access instead of two.
Deb Lloyd: I’m just.
Sacchet: Yeah, I just want to understand where you’re coming from. How would you then
reconcile that the third access is going to go away within the very foreseeable time.
Deb Lloyd: There’s no guarantees from prior reports which weren’t mentioned, this was all
brought up a year ago. Burlwood was the subdivision and Martinka said he had no intent on
selling. So everything is hearsay.
Sacchet: That’s true, okay. Well, do you want to address that from the staff viewpoint at all?
Al-Jaff: There are case studies and I have talked to the city attorney about what impact and what
type of conditions can you attach to a subdivision and had I know this was going to be the case I
29
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
would have attached the case study that they, he had emailed me. If you have an existing non-
conformity and if the subdivision is not intensifying this non-conformity, then you cannot require
it to be, you cannot require it to be eliminated or removed. As far as what’s in front of us today,
we have a request for a neck lot. This is a dead end cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: There’s not a lot of traffic.
Al-Jaff: No, there isn’t a lot of traffic. If this was an arterial or collector, then we would be the
first to say, limit the number of access points.
Sacchet: Isn’t it also that, I mean the concept that was chosen like 10 years ago was to make
those two kind of neck type lots. That’s why they were two outlots created in front of it, so by
all of a sudden putting in a private street and then adding the third lot which apparently doesn’t
want to be part of it in the long run anyhow, we would be deviating from that overall original
plan, wouldn’t we?
Al-Jaff: That’s absolutely true and the sketch that I brought in, that I showed earlier was from
1995.
Sacchet: Yeah, and I mean I don’t mean to brush to the side your comments Debbie and Janet
but we struggled with this when Burlwood came in and we found that it’s with this pre-existing
decisions and directions taken, unless there is really a clear way to go a different route that is
obviously bringing a lot of benefits, it’s best to build on what decisions that were made before.
So that’s, I think that’s something that needs to be looked at as well. Alright, the public hearing
is still open. Anybody else? Jerry, last option. Alright. I close the public hearing. I bring it
back to the commission for comments and discussion. I see a shaking head here. Another
almost shaking head. No? No comments. So if no comments, then how about a motion.
Larson: Recommendation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion. Approval of preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-44 for Christensen Subdivision for 2
lots with variances to allow flag lots as shown on the plans dated received December 2, 2005
subject to the following conditions, 1 through 9.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? Do we need to say allow two flag lots in the
description? Just to be specific.
Al-Jaff: We can definitely do that.
Sacchet: I would ask that as a friendly amendment. Is that acceptable Debbie?
Larson: Yes.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-44 for Christensen Subdivision for 2 lots with
variances to allow two flag lots as shown on the plans dated received December 2, 2005, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of one tree (2 ½” diameter) is required in the front yard of each lot.
2. All areas outside of the grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot and located
at the dripline or beyond whenever possible. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed
or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
3. Silt fence shall be installed along the grading limits along the east edge of the site from the north
property line to the rock construction entrance. Two silt fences shall be installed in “smiles”
perpendicular to the flow line upstream of the 18” CMP leaving the site to slow the water and
prevent discharge of sediment from the site.
4. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
5. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.05 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $1,680; the water quantity fees are approximately $3,045. At
this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $4,725.00.
6. Prior to City Council consideration of the preliminary plat, the following changes must be
incorporated into the plans:
a.All plans must be signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
b.The plans must show the proposed lowest floor elevation for Lot 1.
c.A separate utility plan must be submitted and must resolve the apparent conflict of the
existing 6” watermain over the existing sanitary sewer manhole on Lot 1.
d.The utility plan must show the lateral sanitary sewer within the east-west portion of
Golden Glow Court to the manhole within proposed Lot 1.
e.The utility plan must show the sanitary sewer service to the Martinka property.
f.A 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement must be platted over the existing 6”
watermain on Lot 2. The easement shall be centered over the watermain.
g.Drainage and utility easements must be platted over the existing sanitary sewer and
watermain services to the house on Lot 2 and the Martinka property. The easements
shall be 15 feet wide and centered between the sanitary sewer and watermain services.
h.The utility plan must include notes where conflicts between services and/or culverts
appear.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – January 3, 2006
7. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the developer must comply with the
following:
a. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development
volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100-year rainfall events.
b. Hydraulic calculations verifying the design of the driveway culverts must also be
submitted.
c. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be
designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
d. Soil boring information must be submitted.
e. The driveway to Lot 2 must be at least 10 feet from the property line.
8. Building Official Conditions:
a.Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot.
9. Fire Marshal conditions:
a.Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premises Identification (Copy
Attached).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 6, 2005 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
32