PC Minutes 2-7-06Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
approach, which you’ve said you can’t live with, and at that point yes. Your alternative is to take
this and appeal it to the City Council. The City Council can make those kind of variances and
grant those, you know grant what you’re looking for. This commission I’m afraid can’t do that
without further information that we just don’t have time to get. At Lake Riley we had requested
this and the applicant in that particular case I’m thinking of, withdrew their application so that
between city staff and us we could go back and re-work everything. It came out not exactly the
way they wanted but I think they got something that was very livable and was better than what
they had before. If the applicant wish to do that and negotiate a little bit with city staff and work
on those things, we could certainly look at that. Otherwise I’m afraid the only alternative you’re
going to have is to go up to City Council and ask for other variances there where they can be
granted. With that said, does anyone wish to make a motion?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance
number 06-04 for a 19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback
variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a
lot zoned single family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and
the following. Number 1, the applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two
stall garage.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #06-04 for a
19.61 foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05%
hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a 3 stall garage on a lot zoned single
family residential, RSF, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two stall garage.
All voted in favor except Commissioners Keefe, Larson and Undestad. It was a tied vote of
3 to 3.
McDonald: So we have a split, 3-3. Okay, at that point then this needs to go to the City Council
and what they can do is resolve the dilemma at that point. Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GATEWAY NORTH/GATEWAY PLACE: SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND A SITE PLAN REQUEST
WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING ON
PROPERTY ZONED PUD-MIXED USE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 101 AND FUTURE 212, CHANHASSEN GATEWAY
PLACE, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-05:
30
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Public Present:
Name Address
Janice Schutter 8691 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
Jacob Wert The Shelard Group
Daren Laberee Westwood Professional Services
Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Go ahead Dan.
Keefe: I have a question around parking. Is our ordinance, I’m not sure why we’re short
underground because of the predominance of 2 and 3 bedroom units versus 1 bedroom units?
Al-Jaff: That is what.
Keefe: Seems like our ordinance should be able to reflect a product that is more 2 and 3
bedroom units than maybe 1 and 2 bedroom units.
Al-Jaff: It definitely is something that we can take a look at.
Keefe: Because you’re talking about the project and market demands more 2 and 3 bedroom
product and just have some static parking number for underground, that really reflects a certain
mix of product, right? I mean again, so the ordinance doesn’t allow us to sort of have the
flexibility in our product…
Al-Jaff: Correct. If you wish to direct us to take a look at the ordinance, examine what other
communities are doing as far as requirements for underground parking versus surface parking,
we’ll gladly do that.
Keefe: Yeah, because I mean we’re in a situation where we have a variance so to look at the
hardship on it, so then I think well is really the ordinance set up to accommodate a product of
this type, you know which really is predominance of a larger, or more better use. I wonder about
that a little bit so. That’s really the only thing I have.
McDonald: Well if you want to direct staff, we can certainly do that. I mean I kind of agree
with you that the ordinance.
Keefe: Well I think it’s something we should look at, yeah. I think it’s something we should
look at and, at the appropriate time so. I don’t know if there’s any urgency…but it’s definitely
something we should look at.
McDonald: You can put it off on your list for this year. Mark. Deborah. Debbie.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Zorn: Sharmeen, related to that, how does the park and ride actually help the parking situation?
Al-Jaff: If you need to, residents of this building will have a choice. You can definitely be
dependent upon your own vehicle, but in this specific situation you will have an alternative. If
you need an alternative method of transportation, you have another solution. You do have the
public transportation. You can take the bus.
Zorn: So it’s the transportation. That’s not really helping the parking deficit?
Al-Jaff: Yes, if I lived there chances, and I lived in a 2 bedroom or a 3 bedroom, I might opt not
to own a car because public transportation is available to me and maybe whoever was living with
me would have a vehicle.
Zorn: I understand. I’m too tied to my car so I didn’t think of that one.
Al-Jaff: Aren’t we all.
McDonald: Kurt, any questions?
Papke: Yeah, kind of continuing on that same thought. You know one can envision two
possible scenarios here with the park and ride next door. One of them is I don’t buy a car. The
other one is, I have just as many cars but they stay parked all day long so, you can also look at
the possibility that that actually makes the situation worst, which would even require more need
for underground parking. Do we have any data, any market studies or statistics that would bear
out a decrease in need for parking when you’re in proximity to a park and ride? Do you have
any data to make this decision on?
Al-Jaff: The only situation that I am aware of is the one in Eden Prairie and I can promise you
that before this item appears before the City Council I can check into those numbers. But I don’t
have those on me today. And again, the overall number of parking spaces exceeds ordinance
requirements. It’s the underground parking that is short.
McDonald: I have no questions for you. Oh, okay.
Larson: So if it exceeds on the outside, and it’s deficient on the inside, is that per unit?
Al-Jaff: The way this ordinance reads is, for the 2 and 3 bedroom, 1 ½ have to be enclosed. 1 ½
parking stalls.
Larson: How do you do that? Share a car with your neighbors.
McDonald: The problem with fractions.
Al-Jaff: If you turn to page 8, bottom of page 8.
Larson: There it is.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Al-Jaff: How the ordinance reads per 1 bedroom unit. 1 ½ of which 1 has to be enclosed for 1
bedroom unit and then for a 2 bedroom unit, 1 ½ has to be enclosed. So for 1 bedroom, 1 has to
be enclosed. For 2 and 3 bedroom, 1 ½ has to be enclosed.
Larson: That’s dumb.
Papke: Sharmeen, is it safe for us to assume that this is statistically based that on the average
you need 1 ½? I mean obviously no one’s going to be allocated 1 ½ stalls.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: So statistically on the average it evens out. Perhaps a question for the applicant later
would be how will those be allocated to the units.
Al-Jaff: Sure, and that’s something that we have discussed with them and it’s 1 stall per
apartment.
Keefe: And the other question would be whether they are taking up the entire footprint on the
foundation in regards to parking stalls. At least it looks to me like they are. I mean I’m not sort
of taking the underground garage and just sort of cutting it in half and seeing what I can install.
They’re getting as many, it looks like they’re putting pretty much as many car stalls as you can
down there. So that then brings up the question, just sort of the size of the units and the
appropriateness of the 1 ½ to those types of units.
Al-Jaff: They will be able to provide…
Larson: So we’re basically going on the assumption that some people will have 2 cars, some
people will have only 1 or none. So it all averages out really to 1 ½.
McDonald: Okay, moving along. Is the applicant here to present the case?
Richard Hennings: I’m Richard Hennings. An architect with Sand Companies. Developer of
the project. I think I would probably speak directly to the parking issue and part of the, I was
actually surprised when I read the staff report because I thought I had so carefully followed the
ordinance. Actually when we started the project I downloaded all your ordinances. It turns out
that I should have updated them because you changed your parking ordinance, not in terms of
total quantity but in terms of the number inside and so I, that left me short but, and when I read
the new ordinance, Sharmeen is correct. I was at first then thinking gee, I should have been able
to design this to fit enough in and so I went through a little exercise, and I’ll just hand this out
and it might be in support of what you’re saying here. And because our building is a somewhat
complex shape, I thought well perhaps that’s what’s doing it. It’s not a very efficient way to
park, and so the little exercise I undertook, mostly to show to myself whether I was being
deficient or not said if you just took a typical 48 unit building and you said let’s just make a box,
you know that has to be as efficient as could possibly be in terms of parking. It doesn’t make a
very good building. And in this case I said you know, the building’s need to be 64 feet wide.
33
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
That’s how you can park on both sides and if you subtract a 6 foot corridor, that tells you the
apartments are 29 foot deep. Simple math, and then if you look at typical sizes of 1, 2 and 3
bedroom apartments, that really tells you how long each one is and I listed those there. Without
even putting a pencil to paper you can kind of predict how long this building is and you can see
then that by simply adding up the apartments, allowing a little bit of space for stairs and an
elevator lobby, trash room and entrance, you get a building, 330 feet long. If you jump to the
basement of that building with a garage area and presuming that the stairs need to come all the
way down, as does the elevator and the trash area, and you take just a minimum amount of space
for mechanical room and electrical room, I actually was able to get 62 parking spaces in that one
so it’s just a little bit more efficient than our building but I think, I hope not as, quite as nice
looking. So I think if the logic says that we understand that 3 story apartment buildings are
something that meets the market, I’m probably not the only one that can’t meet your ordinance
there. And I’m not sure, I was going to do the exercise with a whole bunch of 1 bedrooms to see
if it helps because remember the 1 bedrooms are all smaller units and so I’m not dead sure that
you could make it with 1 bedrooms either. You might get closer though, so I would just you
know if you’re, that’s kind of an illustration of why we can’t get more parking spaces in.
Obviously there are architectural solutions that would do that. A building that was full two
stories and only had half the units on the third floor, or something could probably meet that
requirement, or a building where the basement was bigger than the building.
Keefe: Two level parking.
Richard Hennings: Pardon?
Keefe: Two level parking.
Richard Hennings: The other, someone asked the other question about how the parking spaces
are allocated and with the rental of the 1 space will be allocated to each apartment within the
rental. Then and we haven’t decided fully yet but we’ve done this in other buildings, we
basically do it either on first come, first rent, first serve basis or on a lottery basis, the additional
spaces are allocated to people who want them. We don’t have a way of charging for them so
they won’t be charged for it so they should therefore go to the people who need them to the point
you know, when there are no more available so 48 from 61, there will be what, 13 units that are
allocated the second space. And I guess with that I’d just ask if there are any other questions of
us.
McDonald: Any questions for the applicant? Dan.
Keefe: Yeah just, can you give us a sense on sort of your target market is for this product?
Richard Hennings: Yeah, this is a project that will be financed under the Minnesota Housing
Finance tax credit program and so it’s at a moderate income base. One of the reasons for the 2
and 3 bedroom units of course is we’re aiming this at family housing and the, one of the rental
requirements would be that people be at the, that the rents be no higher than 30% of the median
income in the area, and that’s part of the requirements to qualify for the tax credit basis. And
that’s working families I guess I’d say.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Keefe: Gosh, I really like the architecture on it. This product type. I think it exceeded our
requirements for landscaping, which I think is terrific and.
Richard Hennings: I did want to point one thing out too about the stone product because it has
another feature to it. The sample doesn’t really show it. One of the things that we were
interested in, and Sharmeen was interested in is not having it look like concrete block. A lot of
that product looks like concrete block, and the sample doesn’t demonstrate this but the product
comes not in just 8 by 16 pieces, and so it will be laid up in what we call an ash or a pattern. The
pieces are available all the way from 4 by 4 up to 16 by 24 and that’s what really is going to
make it look like stone is that it won’t, you know every piece won’t be 16 inches and it will not
have horizontal coursing marks on it so. This particular product is from Master Block Aggregate
Industries but, right over on Highway 169. Anchor Block makes the identical product so there’s
the manufacturers of it so.
McDonald: Mark. No? Deborah? No? Debbie? Kurt? No? I have no questions either. At
this point I will open the meeting to the public. Anyone wishing to make comment, please come
up to the lectern. State your name and address and we will listen to your comments. Okay,
everybody’s here for the next one. At this point I will close the open meeting and I’ll bring it
back up to the commissioners for discussion and comments. Dan.
Keefe: Well I think you’ve done a great job in working with us and coming in and, over a
couple of time periods and sort of prepping us on this thing. It’s great. I like the architectural
design. I like the…which is great. I like the top off. The access to the trail system is a good
thing so I support this 100%.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: I agree with Dan.
McDonald: Okay. Deborah?
Zorn: I agree.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: Yeah, great job. The first time we saw this I was really taken aback. It looked like this
huge one long bunker along Highway 101 and I think you’ve done a great job of breaking up the
sight lines and provide angles and as long as we don’t misconstrue that area, the tower out in the
front as being a silo like some of the other proposals we’ve seen, I think we’re in good shape.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: Just one point additional question for staff. On item, under the site plan number 3 it says
additional information must be submitted pertaining to the site. What additional information
being what, just a clarification on that.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Al-Jaff: What page was that?
Keefe: I’m sorry, that would be page 16. You just say you’re looking for, or what are you
looking for there?
Undestad: On the fence.
Keefe: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: Oh, on the fence.
Keefe: So you’re looking for what? Just as additional information looking for what? A plan?
Are you looking for, what are you looking for? Page 16 of 18, number 3.
Richard Hennings: …I actually brought some copies, just another perspective to happen to show
that.
Al-Jaff: Yeah, it’s just, I need the height of the fence and the materials. Just we wanted to make
sure that it’s compatible with the building.
Keefe: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Well I guess the only comments that I have is I agree with everything the
commissioners has said. You put together what looks like a very good product that will fit in
that area quite well, and also I guess our hats are off to you for pointing out a weakness in our
ordinance for parking, which we will revisit and we will see about coming up with something
there. Okay, do I have a motion? And I think I’m looking for two.
Larson: I’ll do a motion for you. Is that this one?
McDonald: That’s the first one.
Larson: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning
Case 06-05 for Gateway North as shown on the plans received January 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions 1 through 16. And the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Site Plan with a variance for the reduction of 9 enclosed parking spaces for Planning Case 06-05
for Chanhassen Gateway Place as shown on the plans received January 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions 1 through how many have we got here?
McDonald: It looks like 20.
Larson: 1 through 20.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
36
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Keefe: Second.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-05 for Gateway North as shown on plans received
January 6, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.Submit storm sewer design calculations with full-size drainage map for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event.
2.Work with staff to revise the pond design calculations for the 10- and 100-year storm event.
3.Realign Lot 1, Block 2 full access perpendicular at Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive
intersection.
4.The applicant is required to coordinate with MnDOT on the full access at Lake Susan Drive
and the storm pond outlet control sewer construction.
5.The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with all regularity agency permits:
Watershed District, MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Health Department, etc.
6.On the grading plan:
a.Show an emergency over flow.
b.Show stormwater pond easement.
c.Show silt fence Type II around the proposed pond.
d.Extend Type I silt fence to the north along the west side.
e.Show minimum 75-feet construction rock entrance.
f.Add a bench mark.
7.On the utility plan:
a.Show the watermain within the street Right-of-Way as a public utility.
b.Revise the existing sanitary sewer flow direction.
c.Add a note that any connection to any existing structure must be core drilled.
d.Show all utility sewer pipe type, class, and size.
e.Show all utility manholes rim and invert elevations.
f.Add a gate valve to Lot 1, Block 1.
8.Plan and profile views are required for the entire public utility.
9.To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City
with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow and enter into a
development contract.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
10.On the plans, show the pedestrian ramps and a sidewalk connection between the south and
north sides of proposed Lake Susan Drive.
11.Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading.
12.The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval.
13.If fill is coming from and/or going to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit
will be required for the other property.
14.All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched
within two weeks of site grading.
15.Add City Detail Plates Nos. 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202,
3101, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, and 5301.
16.On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls and driveway widths.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of site
plan with a variance for the reduction of nine enclosed parking spaces for Planning Case 06-05
for Chanhassen Gateway Place as shown on the plans received January 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1.The applicant shall replace the Colorado blue spruce specified on the landscape plan with an
alternate evergreen species.
2.One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake Susan
Drive. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
five feet in height. These signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property
line.
3.Additional information must be submitted pertaining to the height and materials used for the
privacy fence located east of the tot-lot and picnic area.
4.Details on the storm sewer connection to proposed Lake Susan Drive and proposed TH 212
should be provided. An emergency overflow for the proposed pond should be illustrated.
The applicant should submit a routing plan for any pond overflows from the site to a public
water body.
5.Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all storm
water infrastructure, including any emergency overflow structures. The storm water pond
should be platted in an outlot.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
6.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open
Steeper than 3:1 7 days when the area is not actively being worked.)
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
7.Rock construction entrance shall be installed as illustrated on Chanhassen Detail Plate 5301.
8.Wimco or similar inlet protection shall be installed at all inlets that may receive storm water
from site per Chanhassen Detail Plate 5302A. All inlet protection shall be inspected and
maintained to comply with NPDES requirements.
9.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
10.Temporary stabilization of the exposed area shall include a straw or hay cover at a rate of 2
tons per acre, disc anchored into the soil, including the area around the apartment building.
11.To minimize tracking and erosion around the apartment building during construction,
temporary cover of straw or wood chips shall be placed around the building in amounts
sufficient to control rutting.
12.The plans shall be revised to show a concrete washout area, BMPs for containment and
potential stockpile locations.
13.Silt fence (Chanhassen Type 1) shall be installed around the north and east side of the pond
within 24 hours of permanent outlet installation.
14.The plans shall be revised to show inlet protection for sediment during construction for the
trench drain at the garage and shall include a detail.
15.Submit a detailed lighting and signage plan consistent with the Chanhassen Gateway PUD
Development Design Standards.
16.Building Official conditions:
a.The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
39
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
b.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
c.An accessible route must be provided to the building, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d.All parking areas, including parking garage, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces.
e.Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building
Code Chapter 1341.
f.The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
17.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a.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.
b.Yellow curbing and “no parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact locations of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
c.Builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division
policies. Copies enclosed.
c.1 1-1990 regarding fire alarm systems.
c.2 4-1991 regarding notes to be included on all site plans.
c.3 7-1991 regarding pre-fire drawings.
c.4 29-1992 regarding premise identification.
c.5 34-1993 regarding water service installation.
c.6 36-1994 regarding proper water line sizing.
c.7 40-1995 regarding fire protection systems.
c.8 06-1991 regarding fire lane signage.
c.9. 52-2005 regarding commercial plan review submittal criteria.
d.Show on utility plan location of post indicator valve (PIV).
e.The hydrant on the south end of the loop shall be moved approximately 30 feet northeast.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and approval.
f.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2000 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4
g.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
18.Approval of this site plan is contingent upon approval of the final plat for Gateway North.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
19.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement.
20.The building shall comply with the Planned Unit Development building setback
requirements.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE): REQUEST FOR A SITE
PLAN AMENDMENT (2003-07), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (2003-04),
AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT
PLAINS BOULEVARD (HIGHWAY 101) AND PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT: JOHN
KOSMAS – PLANNING CASE NO. 05-39:
Public Present:
Name Address
John Kosmas KKE Design, 6112 Excelsior Blvd., St. Louis Park
Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
Sandy Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
Erik Olson 9855 Delphinium Lane
Dennis & Nancy Mills 9510 Foxford Road
Tom Jessen 9570 Foxford Road
Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road
Elizabeth Smith Mikkelsen 9591 Foxford Road
David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road
Steve McMeen 9391 Foxford Road
Kathy Asplin 541 Pineview Court
Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court
Tom Gertz 10001 Great Plains Blvd.
Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Blvd.
Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Blvd.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Okay. Dan?
Keefe: Let me start with the lighting. How many light standards are we talking about in the
parking lot, do we know? How many light standards? I presume they are on poles and would be
cast downward, correct?
Al-Jaff: Correct. If you turn to the last page of your staff report…
41