05-40 PC Minutes 1-3-06
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