PC 2006 05 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator;
and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 73-2 Laredo Drive
OATH OF OFFICE.
Chairman McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Debbie Larson.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED PLAN
(CONTINUED FROM 4/4/06).
McDonald: We had started at our last meeting to start the review process for our Surface Water
Management Plan and we had held an initial public meeting at that time, and this is an ongoing
part of that process. We will pick up and begin to review again the surface water management
plan, and with that I would ask staff to come forward and start the discussion.
th
Haak: Chairman McDonald and Planning Commissioners. On April 4, 2006 the Planning
Commission opened a public hearing on the agency review draft of the city’s second generation
surface water management plan. That document is here. We received comments from two
members of the public at that time, and verbatim minutes were included in the staff report. The
Planning Commission then continued the public hearing to this meeting. And so that’s why
we’re here before you again this evening. Comments will continue to be received until the end
of the agency comment period on May 30, 2006, and at that point city staff will work with the
consultant, SEH on responding to those comments and incorporating any germane comments
into the surface water management plan. The draft plan is available on the city’s web site as well
as at city hall and the Chanhassen Library during regular business hours, if members of the
public would wish to review that. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any
additional public comment on the second generation surface water management plan at this time.
Upon receipt of comment from all persons present wishing to address the matter, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and then the commissioners
would make their comments at that time and following the receipt of all those comments, the
commission would table action on the surface water management plan until it can be reviewed.
Those comments incorporated and then it would be brought back to the Planning Commission.
th
Staff anticipates that that item would appear on the June 20 Planning Commission agenda. But
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
of course that depends on the number and severity, if you will, of the comments received. So
again we recommend that you move at the end of the public hearing and the Planning
Commission comments to table action on the plan until the comments can be incorporated. With
that I’d be happy to take any questions you might have.
Papke: When we met jointly with the City Council, the mayor was quite insistent about getting a
set of specific projects into this surface water management plan. Do you have any updates since
then as to the status of any specific projects that have been entered into the plan or are being
considered for such?
Haak: That’s one of the things Commissioner Papke that will be addressed in the next, when we
come back with the response to those comments. The consultant did take a shot at that, but staff
is still not really comfortable with the level of detail in that, so that will be one of the comments
that’s submitted. Actually what we’re kind of looking for, and what staff has suggested that the
consultant include is kind of a top 10 list of the top 10 things that we really need to focus on, and
that is still in the process of being developed.
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? I guess I have just one question that had been
brought up before. I’m a little unsure, where do the ponds within the city fall into, the ponds that
we have for water collection and those types of things. Where do we look, again silt
accumulates in those and at what point do we look at cleaning those out so that they become
effective again?
Haak: One part of the request for proposals Chair McDonald was actually the development of
inspection criteria, and them maintenance criteria and maintenance procedures for these ponds.
One of the things under state law now actually, and a permit that the city has received within the
past couple of years is that 20% of our infrastructure needs to be inspected every year, and so
one of the, again one of the things in the RFP for the consultant, and that actually is not included
in this draft, is an inspection schedule and then kind of a check list of how you might determine
whether a facility needs maintenance or not. And so those will also be included, and that’s in my
comments on this particular draft.
McDonald: Okay, thank you very much.
Haak: You’re welcome. No one else on the council has any comments, I guess I would open it
up. We go to public hearing at this point. I would open up the podium to the public and anyone
wishing to make comment on this plan, we would ask you to come forward and make your
comments. Okay, I guess everyone’s here for other items. At that point we will close the public
hearing on the matter and I guess what you’re requesting us to do is to bring it back to the
council and to table the issue until the next meeting?
Haak: Yes, if the Planning Commission has any comments on the plan, if you’ve had a chance
to review it and do have comments, we’d appreciate, staff would appreciate those at this time so
that they can be incorporated before that final consideration by the Planning Commission.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
McDonald: Does anyone on the council have any comments they wish to feed in? Okay. There
are none. Then I would accept a motion from the council at this point to possibly table this issue
th
until June the 19.
th
Haak: It would be the June 20 meeting.
th
McDonald: June 20, okay.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d make a motion that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the surface water management plan until such time that all comments are reviewed, which was
th
June 19?
th
McDonald: 20.
th
Papke: 20.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Surface
Water Management Plan update until the June 20, 2006 meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT A2, TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, PUD-R; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS
AND ONE OUTLOT WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE
THAN FOUR HOMES ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
TH
ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78 STREET AND WEST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARD, APPLICANT EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-13.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gerald P. Wolfe 7755 Vasserman Trail
Tom Ernst 7749 Vasserman Trail
Charles & Gail Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail
Larry Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail
Bonnie Anderson 7732 Vasserman Place
Mark Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail
3
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone on the council want to start with questions?
Papke: I’ve got a couple. Page 2 of the staff report describes, there’s a paragraph in there, under
a perfect scenario the use for open space and storm water ponding in conjunction with the
southern parcel allowing us to get an intensification of the use on the parcel adjacent to Highway
5. Could you provide a little more color and background to that? I mean it sounds like we’re
settling for something other than the optimal.
Generous: Right. Unfortunately the developer has chosen to split these two projects. While the
site is developable, they’re not taking any of the density credit that they could have or
impervious surface credit out of this thing so right now we propose only to look at this one so we
have to look at first, what’s the appropriate zoning on the property and whether the subdivision
that’s proposed complies with that zoning.
Papke: Okay, so to kind of sum it up in my own brain here, the developer has a choice of either
developing the plat on the south side of the frontage road very high density and then leaving this
open, or kind of spreading out the density between the two and he has chosen to do the later.
Generous: To do the residential along on the north side and then, they have a concept plan for an
office park on the south side…impervious cover on density of development.
Papke: Okay. It was kind of in the staff report about the narrowness of the, the area between the
private street and the public street and issues with snow removal and not banking up. Are we
well within all of our design standards for the width of that strip of land between the private
street and the public street? Are there any issues or concerns with that or any precedent on
something of that size? I mean it looks pretty darn close to the public street.
Fauske: Commissioner Papke. The ordinance doesn’t specifically stipulate that back from right-
of-way to public, pardon me, to a private street. Staff’s intent was just to bring this to the
developer’s mind that this is an issue in staff’s mind and that they need to accommodate snow
removal within their development. Typically in a development like this they will be trucking the
snow off the site just because there’s the constraints of the site that they have right now. We just
wanted to make sure that that was just a concern staff had and to have a plan in place for snow
removal.
Papke: Okay. On page 4 of the staff report, under the rezoning it mentions an exchange for the
enhanced flexibility. Your expectation will result in a higher, significantly higher quality
standard. Where, can you comment on where do you feel we are gaining this equality on this
particular development? Where are we getting the up side?
Generous: Well the up side we believe is the providing of the design standards that the
individual units would have to comply with of stone, brick and access material on the front…
they have windows in the garages.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Papke: Okay, and are all those things stipulated in what we’re reviewing tonight or are any of
these just things we’re going to hopefully.
Generous: Well under the development design standards which begin on page 5 and 6 and
they’re under building materials.
Papke: Okay. We don’t have any examples of what they’re doing or anything at this point?
Generous: Not at this point because they’ve not given a site plan so we were trying to develop
what we’d like to see as a part of this as opposed to, to the subdivision…
Papke: Okay. Page 6. Streets and access. First paragraph. We have this interesting little cul-
de-sac right off the, you know that makes up part of the private street off the main street. Is it the
intent that there will be an access into the office industrial area directly across from that when
that is developed and what’s in place to make sure that that happens?
Generous: That’s being hampered by what’s in place that as part of our review will require that.
Papke: Okay. Question on page 8 of the buffer yards. I didn’t quite understand where you state
in the report that the applicant has submitted less boulevards but the spacing is preferable to 30
feet. Can you explain why 50 foot spacing is better than 30 foot spacing? It seems counter
intuitive.
Generous: What I got from Jill as to why the, in the median areas to be filled with understory
type growth as part of this development proposal rather than just having…tree every 30 feet
versus our standard boulevard design. It was more natural feeling and worked through the whole
development. Especially what’s required that they provide additional native plantings in the rear
of the site.
Papke: I’m not quite following that because in the proposed column of the table, all of the
understory numbers are well below the required numbers, so I’m not computing how that adds
up. How you’re saying, you know you’re saying that we’re getting more understory stuff but all
the numbers don’t add up to looking like that.
Generous: And I knew they’d have to, they’re going to have to bring up those understory
numbers to meet the minimum for that.
Papke: Is there, I don’t recall, is there a condition in here to stipulate that?
Generous: Only that they provide the revised landscaping plan.
Papke: Okay. So only another.
Keefe: Well the 30, which was the applicant shall increase understory plantings with the buffer
yard areas to meet the minimum number.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Papke: Okay, okay. So that’s it.
Keefe: Condition 38.
Papke: Okay. But I still, even if they bring it up to the required amount, I don’t see how just
making the required amount offsets the increased depth between the trees. I’m still not.
Generous: I believe Jill’s thought is, you know move space between the overstory trees you’ll
get a healthier and larger tree as it grows because they won’t be crowding each other. Our buffer
yard requirements can be pretty stringent, especially if you confine it to a narrow area.
Papke: I’m just not used to having less trees being better. Okay. We’re going to have to come
back to that one at some point. I think this is my last one, hopefully. Page 9 of the staff report.
The last sentence here says that storm water ponding must be constructed for the additional post
development runoff when the property south is developed. Who does that? How do we
guarantee that? How does that happen?
Generous: Well the developer would be required to provide ponding on the south side of the
road when that develops that would not allow, increase the impervious runoff to the north.
Papke: So the storm water ponding would be on the south side. It kind of reads like you’re
expecting more ponds to go in on the north side when that’s developed on the south side. It’s
just kind of, am I just confused how I read it?
Fauske: I apologize Commissioner Papke, you’re correct. That should have read that the storm
water ponding must be constructed on the south parcel for the additional runoff under post
development conditions. Thank you.
Papke: Okay, got it. That’s all I’ve got.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: Yep, under the recommendations number 2, a cross access and maintenance agreement
shall be recorded over the private street. What are the usual, what are the terms of that? Or what
would.
Generous: Specifically that the benefiting properties are responsible for snow plowing and
maintenance of the path and they share the costs over the…property. Or over the entire
development.
Dillon: So that means that the city would require that, the developer with the owners of the
property?
Generous: Well the only way they would as part of their agreement, as part of purchasing their
property they’d enter into the association and they be responsible for all the maintenance with
that. But then it also gives them the rights to use it…across the common open space.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Dillon: Okay. And there’s going to be 12 homes accessing the private road. What’s the usual
number that you get from just like one per driveway? Is that the?
Generous: Well under single low density you get single family homes, we have 4 and that’s part
of the application…because we treat twin homes like single family. So they have 12 total
coming into this. If we go to townhouse development, then there’s no such prohibition and you
can have as many…the development has proposed in there within reason to get…under, even
though we consider a lot…
Dillon: So on the private road, and they’ve got an agreement in place. How does the, you know
years from now, when the road might be needing repairs and stuff like that, how do we ensure,
how does the ensure that it’s properly taken care of even though the city residents wouldn’t
necessarily be driving on it every day. It could be an eye sore or something like that if it wasn’t.
Generous: Primarily it will be the association responsibility but the city does have a property
maintenance ordinance that requires that if things are left in disrepair…and the city will be able
to go tell them that there’s too many potholes there. But primarily the association would give
them, when you’re in an association you pay a fee into your association for maintenance and
upkeep. Part of that is for capital replacement costs.
Dillon: That’s all.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I just had a couple. The PUD-R, there’s a trade-off of setback. Relaxation of setbacks
for increased design. What will that allow us to do on that? I’m not sure.
Generous: Well yes, because under the PUD they don’t have to make the lot meet a specific
rectangular area so they’re just platting around the unit and creating more common open space.
Under a typical zoning and subdivision like for R-4 you need 10,000 square feet per unit or
20,000 square feet so you create a rectangle that’s 20,000 square feet of that and yes, what they
th
did is they… Right now we have a 50 foot setback from West 78 Street to the structure and
under that you would be able to do…
Keefe: Okay. And then what we get back is a better design.
Generous: And we believe that will give a higher quality structure.
Keefe: Okay. The condition 44 and 45 address the grading, you know and raising the lowest
floor elevations. I think 45 it says, the developer must modify the 100 year elevation for Bluff
Creek. What is the 100 year elevation for Bluff Creek, do we know what the number is?
Generous: No. They need to verify it.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Keefe: I’m just a little concerned that we don’t know what that elevation is and that what if it
comes back at 965 now? I don’t know what the number is. I mean does it need to be at 30 feet
above the high, 100 year?
Generous: When that’s…final plat they have to verify that.
Keefe: So I’m just wondering if these zoning, instead of stating the actual number in there, does
it need to be 3 feet above the 100 year elevation?
Generous: Well we believe the 100 year elevation is lower from that. We’re going from the
wetlands…
Keefe: Yeah. I’m just wondering what this site, and it’s a fairly, you know all the way across it’s
kind of low. You don’t have a lot of and so, you know I presume they’re based against the
lowest elevation, you know 957 it looks like. Are we going to have a water issues particularly in
light of what we saw last summer? And even here the last couple of days. I don’t know if we
got just as much in the last couple of days as we did in September, but I guess, so…it has to be
above the 100 year.
Generous: Well our ordinance already states that. They need to meet a 3 foot separation. That
is based on our current information. I believe 958.5 will satisfy the…
Keefe: Okay. I think, isn’t there a sidewalk going across the north side of this? Is there a
requirement to replace that or how does that?
Generous: Yes if they destroy it…
Keefe: Is there room to do that give you know where we’re at here? I mean it looks like the
private street goes, it looks like a bituminous path is there already. I just want to make sure that
we’ve got. It just seems like there’s a lot going in but it does look like… If we state in the
conditions…that they need to replace the pad. I’ll look for it while we…find it.
McDonald: Okay, Debbie.
Larson: Well I just have one, because I think pretty much everything else has been covered.
Regarding the, oh are you done?
Keefe: Yes.
Larson: Oh I’m sorry. Wetland buffer listed on page 9, towards the bottom. Talking about the
16 ½ to 20 feet must be maintained around Wetland 3, and then I’m looking and I’m not clear
on, it looks as though, now is Wetland 3, is that the one that’s the most north?
Generous: Yes…Outlot A.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Larson: Okay. Then there’s a pond that’s just adjacent to Lots 3 and 4. Does that not apply to
that, because it looks so close to those two units. And I can’t see.
Generous: There’s no buffer requirement from storm water ponds. We did push for…as part of
their revisions…was our concern that the unit was getting too close to the storm water pond.
Larson; Okay.
Generous: Yeah, then ponding next to the wetland, we do that all the time because that’s the
recharge for that too so…overflow and this would go right into…
Larson: Okay. That was the only concern I had.
Undestad: I’ve just got one question for you Bob. The southern parcel on there, how many
th
accesses onto 78 in that?
th
Generous: They only have one onto West 78, and I believe one onto Galpin.
Undestad: And will that line up with the one?
Generous: Yeah, we created…
McDonald: Thanks Mark. Dan, do you want, what you wanted to ask?
Keefe: He answered it.
McDonald: Okay. I’ve got a couple of questions for you. When this originally came before us
and we were shown some preliminary drawings there and everything. There were fewer units.
We’ve increased the density on this particular site, and I know that was one of the concerns we
had before was even with the numbers that were presented before, we thought that may be, it’d
been crowding it but again because it wasn’t any kind of final drawings we withheld judgment
until we could see some detailed plan. Now it comes back and there’s more units and you begin
to look at this and it does look as though you’re trying to fit 5 pounds in, or 10 pounds into a 5
pound box and what’s the trade-off for us? Why, I mean is it the design standards? Are they
allowed to do this per the ordinance or what’s the thought process here of allowing this to
increase in density?
Generous: Under the concept plan you are correct, they did show 10 units. 5 twin homes.
However there was no approval on the number of units there. The conditions were show that
…appropriate but show that you can comply with all the ordinance requirements. …and it looks
like it complies with the ordinance except for some changes to the elevations.
McDonald: Okay, because I guess I’m really concerned about, you get to Buildings 3 and 4, the
way that they’re in there next to you know Buildings 1 and 2, and that got me starting to the
thing about setbacks and everything. How does this begin to meet those? What are the
requirements there for spacing between homes?
9
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Generous: There’s nothing specific in the ordinance on that. It’s more a building code issue
from, if you’re within 3 feet of a property line and you have…If this is platted, this individual
lots under R-4, you’d have a 10 foot side setback…10 foot separation. Basically we responded
to the applicant’s proposal, given that the criteria we had…Bluff Creek Overlay District and the
thth
West 78 Street, and meeting the 50 foot setback from West 78 Street. And this is what..
McDonald: Okay. Okay, you may have kind of answered my next question because you said
something about the impervious surface area and that if we looked at the entire lot, I think you
said they were only at 27%. Is all of this kind of one lot? I mean we’re not looking at putting a
percentage of hard surface on a particular area? Are there lots here for these twin homes or are
they really kind of shared one lot?
Generous: Each of the units would have it’s own lot around it, but then they have Lot 13 which
we’re proposing they designate as Outlot B would be a common lot. And that’s where the
majority of the driveway is. So it’s averaged over the entire project. Like I stated currently,
they’re under I believe 23% right now. As they’re proposing it with all the house pads and all
the driveways that they have, including the minimum 25 foot deep driveway, and my analysis
was, if they were to fill each of these lots fully, 100%, they wouldn’t meet the 30%. They
wouldn’t reach the 30%.
McDonald: Okay. And then you said one of the things that we were doing as far as going along
with this is that we get a say in design standards. Then you mentioned about windows in
garages. We had a discussion last week with a builder that was in here where we tried to get
windows in garages put in there and we couldn’t do it. Why now can we do it with this
development?
Generous: Because that’s the design standards we’re proposing. He can accept it or not.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: Part of the zoning.
Generous: Yeah, this could become the design standards for the zoning for this property…
McDonald: Okay. Thank you for your answers. I have no more questions. Does anyone else
back on the commission have anything before? Then at this point I guess we’d like to hear from
the applicant. If you’d come forward and state your name and present your case.
Mark Scholle: Good evening commissioners. My name is Mark Scholle. I am the engineer on
the project and I’m here representing Epic Development tonight and basically I took some notes
on some of the questions that were brought up and I can kind of clarify some of that stuff from
my standpoint, and then from there if there’s any other questions, I’d be willing to take them
after that. One of the concerns that was brought up was the grading and the adjustment in the
low floor elevations on the units. We have taken a look at the grading plan scenario and we are
planning on making those adjustments. The high water level elevation on the Vasserman Ridge
10
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
project is known, and we actually tried to find out what the high water level was for the Bluff
Creek corridor and we were actually told it was the 955 elevation, so that’s why the low floor
elevations on those units are up at the 958.5, so that’s where that came in. The question on snow
storage. We did lay out, even though the way the site is platted doesn’t really clearly show the
different setback from, or the minimum widths for the private street or setback from that. We
incorporated the setbacks that were in the concept staff report, or the standards that were set with
that staff report with a concept approval, so we incorporated all the conditions that were in that to
do this layout. There was a question about you know why did the developer choose to bring the
north side versus the south side. Really I’m kind of speaking for the developer here so I hope
I’m correct but I know that the developer wanted to bring in both at the same time. However,
due to the city wanted to undergo a market study, city wide market study so we were asked to
hold off on making further submittals on that to see what the results of the market study would
be. So we proceeded with the north side since it was residential. Since we were proposing
residential and it met the zoning. Other than that, I think if there are any other questions I’d be
happy to answer.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Papke, do you want to start? No questions?
Dillon: What is the target price range for the homes that will be put in here?
Mark Scholle: I personally can’t really answer to the target price range on the homes but I do
know what is planned to be put in. The type of unit that would be put in there would be similar
to what’s over on, to the west on Vasserman Ridge, but I can’t, I guess I can’t speak to the
pricing of the units.
Dillon: Okay.
McDonald: Dan? Debbie? Mark?
Undestad: I’ve just got one for you. Raising all those units, you know some of those 5 feet or 4
feet down there. Do you have material on site to balance that out or is that, you going to bring in
a lot of fill on that thing to raise those up?
Mark Scholle: Well I anticipate that we’ll be bringing in some material to not only bring up the
units a little bit but also there’s going to be some correction involved with that site anyways.
There’s some, there is going to be possibly some excess material on the east side of the site that
we can bring now into that area, but I would anticipate that we’re going to be importing material
to bring that in.
Undestad: Okay.
McDonald: I’ve just got maybe a questions for you. One of the concerns about the private
street, and the way the driveways and everything come off of that is, what do we do for guest
parking? Has any of that been accommodated in the plan?
11
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Mark Scholle: Well I know that the, we have laid the plan out in regards to the standards that
were set. The width, I think what the plan would be for that is a guest could park in the
driveway.
McDonald: Could guests also park across the street then? Would that be part of, and then walk
across?
Mark Scholle: Yes.
McDonald: Okay. That’s going to be all the questions I have at this time then too. At this point,
with no further questions we would now throw this open for public comment. We would invite
members of the audience to come forward. State your name and please address the commission.
Larry Martin: Chairman Keefe, commissioners. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725
Vasserman Trail. On your diagrams there I am Lot number 8 in Vasserman Ridge. I want to
speak to four items tonight. They are the density, the issue surrounding the private street, the
landscaping and tree situations, and also the power line issue that I think is severe. In my
comments I will be referring to the finding of fact items and I will be relating each of my items
to a finding of fact item where you can interpret the situation to the finding of fact. First let’s
talk to density. As Bob talked earlier, this area is guided for low density. R-4 would be 10,000
square feet. RLM 7,200. These are numbers that are in your report there. And the proposed is
3,750 square feet per unit. So you can see each unit is substantially below what the zoning
things would be and I agree that PUD-R is probably the right classification for this and in order
to go forward with it, but the density is very high. This is a 6 acre site, but if we look at some of
the spaces, if I can have this put up here. The peak units there, actually occupy about 1 acre of
the 6 acres. The outlot, area outlined in yellow is another what, 2-2 ½ acres or so, and the green
area is another 2 ½ acres or so. So I don’t know how you do the math and things like this.
There’s probably standards for doing that in the industry and in development and stuff like this,
but it looks like you’re putting 12 units on 1 acre. That is a substantial density. We think that
the spacing on those units is not consistent with adjacent units, and I’d refer you to finding of
fact items 7(j) and 5(b) to refer to that. On Vasserman Ridge I’m blessed to have a larger unit. I
have 17,500 square feet in my townhome unit. I don’t think there are any under 10,000 in
Vasserman Ridge, so when we’re looking here at 3,750, it’s also the way these units are placed.
When you place the air conditioning units and other mechanical units outside of them, you’re
really going to be putting things together. Some of the drawings that you have show you what
the blacktop pavement into the garages are. If you look at that, you’ll see that substantially all of
that area in front is blacktop. There isn’t much room for grass or plantings or other things. So it
would give a very what? City feel to it. A downtown Minneapolis feel to it or downtown some
city. We think that the density on those is overly crowded. As Chairman McDonald brought up,
the original was for 10 units. We’re now at 12 units. Another item I’d like to address is the
private street. As you know the guideline for that has been stated is no more than 4 homes.
There are 12 units put on this private street. We hope that there will be a homeowners
association there, and I’d like to suggest that as part of the developers agreement, the covenants
for that homeowners association be included so that this snow removal doesn’t get to be a
problem. It was brought up by, I think it was Commissioner Dillon there that the distance
between the street and the homes is minimal. Keep in mind what we’re going to have here is
12
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
we’re going to have a boulevard. We’re going to have a trail system. We’re going to have
another separating item. We’re going to have a street, and then driveways and the homes. The
driveways will be substantially smaller than driveways in adjacent places so, there might be, well
there will be an opportunity to park one car in there, but you’re right. There is no opportunity for
guest parking. The private street here that they’re putting in is 1 ½ football fields long. About
450 feet. That’s a long street. For snow removal you can imagine that overnight if we had a 10
inch snowfall, the person who’s living down there in Unit 12 is going to have quite a difficult
time getting from their townhome unit out onto the street. The way they have designed this little
cul-de-sac going into the unit, looks like a round bubble going into there. If we did put a
development across the street, and I think that is proposed, that’s probably going to have
medians and turn lanes in it. Across the street here you’re going to have another unit that’s this
bubble that’s going onto there that people can go, so the traffic isn’t channeled very well as it
goes into there. Also I can foresee that when that office complex goes in, some type of traffic
control might have to go in there. Be it a 4 way stop or whatever. I think those considerations
should be looked at and should be taken care of as part of the initial plan here. The amount of
blacktop I think on the driveways and on the private street would have very little aesthetic
th
appeal. Let’s see. We have up at Galpin Boulevard and 78 now a U turn problem, and I know
when we talked about the office complex, your right-in/right-out, left-out’s and everything,
they’re going to all get confused and so there’s going to be a substantial U-turn situation that’s
created there and that would be opposite this street into the townhouse. The landscaping,
presently there are 4 to 5 large willow trees on the west hand side of the park property. My
understanding is, and I could be corrected, the object is to come into the site and clear cut the site
of every tree. That’s going to have to be done because of the filling and things that they’re going
to have to do. We’re happy that as part of the agreement they are looking at landscaping on the
west hand side there, but the other thing which concerns me is the whole landscape maintenance
in what’s now Lot 13 and also Outlot A there. On the west side of the property is a power line.
If you look at Unit 3 here, I believe that power line, the roof of that would be about 20 feet from
the power line. Somebody could reach up with a long pole and touch the power line. Don’t
know what Xcel Energy’s requirements are for that. They have the easement under the lines
there but I think that this is being crowded into that power line. The private street, I would refer
you to items 6(d) in finding of fact. We talked about that. Also item 4(f) and item 7(h). In
conclusion, I feel that granting a private street here of this length is problematic and in the years
to come it will, we would look back and see that that is not probably the best way to go. As far
as the density is concerned, I feel these units are right on top of each other. They talked about
the raising of the units up 3 to 5 feet or whatever works out. If you look at your plans you’ll
notice that the pad heights on the first floor of the home are now about 4 feet above the street, so
in 50 feet or so we’re going to be raising up 4 feet or so. It was talked about for some of the
units, I think 1, 2, 3 and 4, that they might have a different architectural design on there. Well
there goes the benefits of our PUD out the window if they’re going to have different architecture
there and different architecture for the other units. I think that goes out the window so. In
conclusion, I think the density is too high for the site. It’s not consistent with the area. It’s not
consistent I don’t think with Chanhassen’s neighborhood communities. There is no
neighborhood of these townhouses. They’re just units that are put there. I don’t know where
children would play. I don’t know how families would get together. There’d just be blacktop in
front. A private street is problematic. I’m not happy that they want to clear cut those existing
13
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
willow trees that are there. And I think the power line issue needs to be looked at further before
any approval is granted. Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Thank you for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and address the
commission? Okay, seeing no one else.
Gerald Wolfe: I’m Gerald Wolfe. I’m on 7755 Vasserman Trail. Lot number 2 that’s even with
the property. I think I’d just like to reiterate what Larry said for the most part. I do, I’m
concerned about those willow trees. If you’ve been out to the site at all you’ll realize they’re
probably 30 feet tall, if not taller than that. Whatever they replace them with, it will be 25 to 30
years before we’ve got trees that size again and I probably won’t be around to see them. There’s
a statement here under grading and drainage on page 8 that says the soil bore reports says there’s
approximately 2 feet of peat that exists south of the wetland and that that’s all going to be taken
care of. We had the benefit of snow on the ground, what little bit of snow we had this past
winter, when they did these soil bores so we saw where the truck drove around the area when
th
they did the soil bores. All the soil bores were done on the south side of West 78. There were
no soil bores done on this property. That I was aware of. If they did them, they did them very
lightly on their feet, because there were no marks from trucks. I question where the high water
mark was in the 1987 super storm. Did we go above the level that they’re planning to build these
basements? Let’s see, what else did I write down here? Oh, the setback, the 5 foot between the
private street and I suppose the trail. I find it hard to believe that you can plow snow and only
have it be in a 5 foot width. And hauling out of there is going to be extremely costly to an
association of only 12 units, and I am also upset about the 12 units since we had a 10 unit
proposal in November. I work with a person who lives in a oh gosh, is it 12 or 14, no 10 unit.
She lives in a 10 unit townhouse complex over on Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie just, or Baker
Road actually. Just north of Valley View Road on the east side. And they’re very nice
townhouses. They sell in the $450,000 bracket right now. And I asked her today about their
association. And she has lived in it since it was brand new. They did not until this year, and
that’s like 15 years now. This is the first year that they are now starting with their association to
build up a reserve. In the past they have not done it at all, and even without that, their
association dues are $230 some dollars a month. And for the most part they individually take
care of all the sealcoating of their driveways. They take care of all of their own personal
landscaping. Pay for anything they want done to that, so none of that is included in their
association dues. They just do that all above and beyond so this could become a pretty costly
association for these people in my opinion, so that’s my piece. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you very much for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and
address the commission on this item? Okay, at that point then I will close the public meeting and
I will bring the issue back before the commission for a discussion and a vote. Mark, would you
like to start the discussion?
Undestad: I think the densities seems to be an issue all the way around. Although with a PUD
you know they’re allowed to, we get the clustering of the homes in order to spare the green area
elsewhere on there, and it sounds like even if they did hard surface on everything out there,
they’re at what, 21, 27 percent. They do look like they’re jammed in there a little bit though. I
mean I don’t know if things were looked at with the applicant going back to a 10 unit
14
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
development back there, but it might be something to take a peak at. There are some issues in
there. The snowplowing and the maintenance issues. The minor green area between the walking
trail. I mean you can kind of get an idea of how that might take place and it’s going to go off the
driveway, off the green area and the next road over is the walking, the bike path trails in the
winter time on there. On the other hand I have to go back to, it’s being created as a PUD so the
standards that have been set in the negotiations with the city and the developer as the PUD then,
I’m okay with those. I think the only issue I’d have maybe is possibly looking at that density
yet.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Debbie.
Larson: Okay, I’ve got a couple things. Who was the first gentleman that stood up? Mr., thank
you. I was also somewhat concerned about taking out all these willow trees, especially if they’re
as large as they are and I don’t know if there’s any way getting around that. But that would be
something that I would like a little bit of looking into. He also pointed out that there was no
green on the front but the way I’m looking at the picture, it looks like there’s green inbetween,
unless I’m looking at this wrong. Are the driveways in the middle or are they on the sides? And
I was under the impression that the driveways are on the sides of the units, with the exception of
1, 2, 3 and 4, but the other ones tend to look like they’re on the side so that would look like a
green area inbetween, to me. Let’s see. And the other thing is, are there any things put in place,
ordinances or whatever or would it be just at the discretion of the owner to put trees in the front
yards of any of these because it doesn’t look like any of those trees, other than the ones
inbetween units 6 and 7 are out front. So I can understand how it would, we’re going with not
much in the way of planting in front of the buildings and is that something that can be considered
or?
Generous: There is a condition that each unit have a tree in their front yard.
Larson: Okay, because I’m not seeing it on here.
Generous: No it’s not on the plan. It’s a condition of approval.
Larson: Oh I see, okay, okay.
Generous: So they’ll revise it. They’re supposed to revise it…
Larson: Alright.
Generous: To incorporate any conditions in the final plat documents, construction plans.
Larson: Okay, but is there any way that we can save any of these willows? I’m sure if they’re.
Generous: That would be grading.
Fauske: Yeah. In that area it’s really area it’s really a challenge. I believe, and I apologize. I
just have the small plan set but I believe the willow trees are on the west side there on the
15
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
property line. And that’s really a challenge when you look at the grading operations. They also
have a storm sewer proposed through there, and in order to build that site up for the 5 foot match
in at the property line, get your storm sewer and that, tree preservation is certainly one of the
most difficult things along those areas so that was the challenge I believe.
Larson: Okay. I mean because willow trees, I mean I have some that grew from, I think I
sprinkled some pussy willow seeds probably 7-8 years ago and it’s quite large in my back yard
now. I didn’t realize that’s what it was. But I think they grow a little faster than 30 years to get
up to the height you’re talking but. Anyway, that was all I had.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan.
Keefe: Bob again, just a couple questions for you. One of the questions that was brought up was
the length of the private street and the number of houses that can be on a private street. Is there
any limitation associated with that?
Generous: The length of streets are generally the fire marshal’s concern. He didn’t have an
issue on this. Especially that they’re going to be sprinklering these.
th
Keefe: And it’s right along 78 so.
Generous: Yeah, accessibility wasn’t an issue as far as the fire marshal was concerned. It was
more aesthetic. We were concerned with…and that’s also one of the reasons we made them redo
the landscaping plan to show that buffer yard in there.
Keefe: Yeah, but there’s no, nothing zoning about the number of houses which can be on a
private street?
Generous: Our ordinance was recently revised to allow a maximum length to 800 feet. For cul-
de-sacs.
Keefe: Right. It looks between building 3, 2 and 3, there’s like, I don’t know what the distance
is between those two buildings. It looks like you’ve got, I think it’s a zero setback between
buildings or something in there.
Generous: Two property lines, it’s, the way it’s…we’re saying is there’s zero setback on the
individual lot. There is separation requirements though for the lot to the house like you get in the
fire codes and stuff.
Keefe: That’s what I was wondering in regards to those. Do those meet, do they meet by the fire
marshal?
Generous: Yeah, as far as he could at this level.
Keefe: I don’t know how you navigate in there.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Generous: Also the lot lines look a lot different than the actual structure because they’re actually
separating their structures from the lot lines because remember they’re building from the
common line out.
Keefe: Right. Okay. And other requirements for an association that we could add as part of the
PUD, is that typical?
Generous: Well it would have to…directed towards the association. Because the development
contract conditions go with the property.
Keefe: Just in terms of comments. I just feel like this is, I think it probably meets, well from our
perspective it probably meets what we have to approve but I’m uncomfortable with just how
tight the site is and all the various issues. Private street. Easement associated with electric. The
low condition of the site. Access to the site. Willow trees coming down. I’m just generally
uncomfortable with it but I don’t know that we can, if it meets the conditions I guess we’re in a
position we have to approve.
Generous: It’s a planned development so you do, your interpretation could be that. What our
expectation is different than this… What I drafted in here is a starting point and I wanted
everyone, including the developer, is acceptable.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: Do we need to be more stringent? Less. I thought they were pretty good with
developments over time, but they’re…changing technologies have evolved. Market conditions.
Things change.
Keefe: Right. Okay.
Dillon: My only comments are, I’m still just curious as to what the target price is going to be
and who the target market is going to be and just you know someone to answer the question why
would they buy a home in this development versus some other one. I just, maybe that’s not the
role of the commission so much but just a bit of curiosity that I have is, and it just helps to go
into the decision making process so, the next time around if someone could answer those
questions, that would be great. And also just to comment on a couple of comments on, you
know it does seem like a pretty long street. Not that many houses. You know I think the owners
will just have to have their expectations set properly. They probably won’t be inexpensive in
terms of a local fee to keep that thing, but that’s again probably not necessarily the concern of, as
a commission member but we, I am concerned about the overall, if we do this, the overall
marketability of the project. That people will be able to, you know won’t, they’ll go buy it and
just won’t sit there and sell.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: I’m really struggling with the density of this one. In a lot of cases the Planning
Commission is kind of getting to what Commissioner Keefe was alluding to before, our hands
17
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
are tied when we don’t have much discretion when the developer meets all the setbacks and so
on. I want to make sure I understand what our discretion is. What discretion the Planning
Commission has in this case to accept your recommendation of the PUD-R. I’m concerned
we’re giving this developer a diesel power shoe horn to fit a dozen tiny little lots on this very
th
small, wet site that’s bellied right up to 78 Street in perfect vision as you come down that street.
What discretion do we have in rejecting your recommendation for this zoning?
Generous: You can, the recommendation that this comply, it should be limited to 10 units. It
should be limited to 8 units. It should not be…PUD but straight zoning. Those are all options
that the Planning Commission has.
Papke: Okay. I’m tending, I’m feeling like in this case that we’ve settled for the lowest
common denominator here. When we saw this concept proposal before there were 10 units. We
had concerns with the density. We come back with 12. I don’t get it and we went the wrong
way. And like I said, we’re giving the developer a shoe horn with the PUD-R to put in anything
they want to, and it’s not, at the 3,300 or whatever the average density is, boy that’s, that’s pretty
darn tiny. So I’d, you know I’m an advocate of rejecting the PUD-R. I mean if we were, if our
hands were tied behind our backs, I’d say sure, you know. I think the developer’s done a good
job of meeting the constraints that we put down here, but you know we don’t have to accept this.
McDonald: Okay. Well I guess with my comments I’ll echo some of what you all have said.
It’s, I don’t see where we have a lot of discretion based upon this. It’s, we take this as it is or we
have to go the other way, which we can do and we’ve done before. I think based upon this plan,
I don’t see how you can do it without a private street. I don’t care for the private street in this
particular case because I think parking’s a problem. And again, City of Chanhassen has to
enforce parking problems when people start to call in. Yeah, you can park across the street but I
don’t think residents are going to do that so I do believe that there needs to be some fore thought
for the fact that people will have guests on the site, but again within the PUD-R it meets the
requirements so I would go along with it. The density, yeah I’m a little kind of concerned about
that too because it was, it was 10 and I thought it was a little bit packed at that point but again it
wasn’t a detailed drawing and we were going to work some things out because there were some
issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay area but everybody knew where that was at and we’d come
up with something. Looks as though we have again, I don’t know. You get into marketability. I
think to answer one of Commissioner Dillon’s comments about that. That kind of begins to put
us into a little bit of a design mode which we’re really not, but yeah it’s a good question to ask
but we really shouldn’t be setting price points. It’s up to the developer to take the risk of putting
something on a street such as this, and you’re right. I don’t think families are going to buy into it
th
because West 78 Street’s just going to become worst. I raised concerns before about the U-
turns down in the other outlot, but that’s not part of this development so I won’t bring it up, but
traffic is an issue and I think that we had given staff a directive, you need to look at Galpin
Boulevard as part of this whole development area. Yeah, if we’re going to have an access
directly across from this, what do you do? Is that going to be a traffic signal? Stop lights? I
don’t know but you know traffic becomes an issue. And it’s just, if I sum it up, the problem I
have with this is density. That’s it in a nutshell. I guess it’s up to the commission to decide what
they want to do about it but if we’re going to go along with staff’s recommendations. I do not
see where we have a lot of leeway because again they’ve met the requirements for this type of
18
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
development so it would be up to us to look at something else. With that I will now take motions
from the commission on this project.
Keefe: What do we have 3 motions? Take them individually or together? I’ll make a motion.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning
the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes project from A2, Agricultural Estate District
to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential incorporating the development design
standards contained in the staff report.
McDonald: Okay, do you want to take this one at a time and vote on it one at a time?
Generous: It’s up to you. Well depending on what happens with the rezoning with the rest of it.
McDonald: Okay. Let’s take them one at a time then. Okay, you’ve heard the proposal that’s
before us. It’s a recommendation A. All in favor signify.
Keefe: It needs a second.
McDonald: Oh, I’m sorry. Got ahead of myself. I need a second.
Dillon: Second.
McDonald: Okay. It is so seconded. We have before us recommendation A.
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes
project from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report.
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Larson, Papke and Undestad who voted in
opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3.
McDonald: Okay, I think that’s 3 nay’s and 3 aye’s. So tie 3-3. Okay.
Keefe: Move on, I take it probably a tie. Well, we’ll just take one at a time. Letter B. The
Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots
with a variance for the use of a private street and for more than four homes accessed via a private
street, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006,
subject to conditions 1 through 62, correct? Since you added one.
Generous: We added one.
McDonald: We have 62? Okay. Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Platcreating 12 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street
and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan
Engineering, dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Designate Lot 13 as Outlot B.
2.A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street.
3.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.
4.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
5.Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant
to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
6.Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to City
Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code
Exception
Section 503.2.5. (: the code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150
feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2
or 903.3.1.3).
7.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protections shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to
Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
8.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
9.The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed to street
name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3.
10.An additional fire hydrant will be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of required additional fire hydrant.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
11.Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
12.The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over
8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold.
13.The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the
Building Official.
14.A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before building permits
can be issued.
15.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction.
16.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
17.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
18.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
19.The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
20.Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.
21.All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is
permanently protected by vegetative cover.
22.All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek shall be stabilized within 3 days.
23.The plans shall be revised to show all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
24.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds shall be provided. The EOF could consist
of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control
blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
25.Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation
26.Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of
installation of the inlets.
27.Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls
should include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control
and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
28.The proposed storm water ponds shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show
how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed
to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a
temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail
for the temporary pond outlet.
29.An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be
shown on the plan.
30.The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The
grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the
site, including the 20-foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls
shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading.
31.The grading plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction
entrance.
32.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
33.The estimated total SWMP fee based on 2006 fees, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $28,670.
34.The owner/operator of the proposed development 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.
35.At least one tree is required in each front yard.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
36.A landscape plan denoting areas of sod shall be submitted to the city. Common areas must be
sodded and provided with irrigation.
37.Native plantings will be required along the northern edge of the development parallel to the
wetland and Bluff Creek. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek
Management Plan planting list. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat
approval to the city for approval.
38.Applicant shall increase understory plantings with the bufferyard areas to meet the minimum
number of plantings required.”
39.The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within the
MNDOT easement.
40.The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed
grading within the sanitary sewer interceptor easement.
41.Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the overhead utility easement on the
plans.
42.The building footprint must not lie within the overhead utility easement.
43.The developer must comply with any setback requirements the overhead utility company
imposes.
44.The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
963.1’. This condition may require a different housing type (SE, LO, R).
45.The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
958.5’. Developer must modify 100-year elevation for Bluff Creek.
46.The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the
proposed pond.
47.The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%.
48.The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will
not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots 11 and 12.
49.The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide
minimum five feet of boulevard space.
50.The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping
towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12.
23
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
51.Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway.
52.The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps.
53.Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm
sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can be
captured.
54.Prior to utility installation the developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council to
connect to the interceptor sewer.
55.The storm sewer installed with this project shall be privately owned and maintained since it
does not serve public property.
56.Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during the watermain connection must
comply with the latest addition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
57.The developer must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of
th
West 78 Street and the bituminous trail.
58.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are
collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of
these fees.
59.The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
60.Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right of way.
61.Storm sewer manhole at west driveway entrance should include a 3' sump.
The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat recording.
62.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
McDonald: Okay, recommendation B fails 5 to 1. Next.
Keefe: For item C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1 and
2.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Larson: Second.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
2.Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
McDonald: Now, we’ve been here before and I want to ask before I move on, what do we do
next? Do we need to make counter proposals to this or does it go back as far as we look at
things, or it goes to City Council?
Generous: …do you have a recommendation on how they should go forward?
McDonald: Well I thought A failed. We were in favor of the Planned Unit Development, or it
was a tie so you’re right. 3-3 so it in effect fails. Well the options are we can propose something
that we would like to see, and that can go forward along with our recommendations here to the
City Council. Or we can send strictly our recommendations forward at this point that we turned
this proposal down. I would look at from the commissioners, do we have any counter proposals
that we would like to put on the table? So we would substitute on A, instead of PUD, vote for an
R-4 is our recommendation for going forward. Okay. Does one wish to make a proposal? Or do
we wish to have discussion on this?
Keefe: Well I don’t think we necessarily have to propose anything. I think we can summarize…
so that they can go back and re-create…or they can take it to the City Council and over turn.
McDonald: I would ask you, because of what happened before, what we, we tried to send what
was a message in our proposals going forward. If we go with, we rejected this, as I see the
options, our options are to go to the City Council and do a review there. The City Council can
vote on it as a final say. Or we can propose what we would think would be a better use for this,
and then you and the developer, or the developer can then make up their mind which way they
want to go.
Keefe: It’s in their court.
McDonald: It’s in their court at that point.
Keefe: Yeah, we can just guide in terms of what we think and it’s in their court to re-propose.
We aren’t necessarily proposing…
25
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Undestad: I think the PUD is still a good issue. I think it’s…as an issue of the…
Papke: R-4 or…more or less dense.
Undestad: But they still do a PUD and come back with a less dense development. PUD can
control the design standards.
Larson: In the PUD.
Generous: Other zoning R-4 would control lot area only. So yes, they meet the 10,000 square
foot per unit, and it’s possible they could come in with and show 12 units if they do that. I don’t
know, it’d be up to them. It gives them an idea how the Planning Commission feels. Also the
commission…
McDonald: I think the direction that we’re going ahead is lower density.
Papke: Less than 10.
Larson: But I like the PUD idea if we can have a little control as to what they put in it. How it
looks…
McDonald: I’m not sure that we can do that. That’s where I’m having trouble. Yeah, you can
control design, which is where we’re at now but we can’t control density, which is where we are
with the other, and then you lose the designs so.
Papke: What are you really getting, and that was my very first question. What were we getting
for the PUD? We’re getting a couple windows on the garages.
Larson: Okay.
Papke: I’m not dancing in the streets over that one.
Keefe: I think our issues are, is the density is an issue. We want to see fewer units on the site.
We’d like to see some consideration for the willow trees on the west end of the site. What were
some of the other items. The private street is a concern. Rear yard, well I don’t know…
McDonald: On this particular lot, that’s the only way that’s going to work. Unless you’re going
th
to create a real traffic problem with West 78. I guess the only thing we would do, is we need to
look at giving guidance so that we would prefer lower density and then allow the developer to
come back at that point and show us a design based upon that. So I think what I’m hearing is,
we would need to go with an R-4 is our recommendation for this lot. And I think we would need
a motion for that.
Keefe: You could do PUD if they came in with fewer houses on it.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Undestad: Aren’t we just providing guidance with what we want to see?
McDonald: Strictly as a guidance. Do we want to give guidance that we want to see lower
density? If we do, the only way I think we send a message, R-4. If you’re saying that okay, we
want to see lower density and we trust you. At this point, it doesn’t look as though we have a
good feeling with this developer because of what happened before. We’re shown 10 and we get
12.
Keefe: What if he came back with PUD and 8? With 8. With townhomes on it.
McDonald: Yeah, I mean it’s just something with lower density on this with the constraints
you’ve got would probably be more preferable than what’s there now.
Larson: Okay, can I make a comment?
McDonald: Yes.
Larson: As opposed to that. Bob had made the comment in his opening statement about it, there
is a bit of a transition going from Vasserman to this unit to Galpin. And getting closer to a busier
intersection, if you will, and I don’t see a problem with this being a little tighter as you get closer
to a major, an arterial road. And so I don’t know if that’s as big of an issue as if it were further
in where it’s not as close to things and so maybe I don’t have so much of a problem with the
density. I do somewhat because it looks like they’re touching each other but you know, I don’t
know if they really are. But I don’t know if that’s something to stop it from moving forward.
Papke: But the closest one…have you seen the one up on…and 41. We approved a year ago?
th
That’s no where near this kind of density… It’s right on 78. Right at the intersection.
Larson: Except that this is two major streets versus one.
th
Papke: It’s right on 41 and 78.
McDonald: I guess the thing is.
Larson: Oh, oh. I think, yeah.
McDonald: I guess the thing is…sufficient for the record that we have stated what our feelings
are. That the issue is density. How it is solved, it is at this point it’s up to the developer. He’s
got a choice to make as to which way he wants to go with this. Either go back, work with staff.
Address the issue of density and then resubmit something or he has the option of going forward
with the City Council as an appeal process for our decision at this point. So I guess with that, I
would close this case as far as the Planning Commission is concerned and it is now up to the
applicant to make a decision as to which way he wants to go. Our concerns are in the record.
The City Council will have those. They can make the decision at that point, or the developer can
make the decision to redo this. At that point we’ve met our requirements I believe. Okay.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
25,300 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69
ACRES OF LAND ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1,
TH
BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 5 ADDITION, 2970 WATER TOWER
PLACE, APPLICANT STEINER DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 06-16.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joe Smith 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Jeff Conkling 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Todd Mohagen Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Commissioners, I’ll bring it back. Kurt, want to start?
Papke: Just one or two here. You mentioned, staff is proposing that parapets above the
entrances be raised to help define the entrances. Could you sketch on there what you’re
proposing? I’m not quite sure I understand what that is.
Generous: We were looking originally at raising this whole area up, but they’ve come back with
another, this alternative that they projected it out and then they revised the color so all we wanted
was to enhance those entrances on the building and so they really stand out and we think their
architect came back with a good plan. Additionally, above each of these doorways there are
canopies so you’ll really be able to notice it. This could be a multi-tenant building. It could be a
condo. It could be one user that takes it all. But right now this provides the most flexibility.
They can create each, two units at each door.
Papke: So that proposal for a parapet is a moot point? That’s been removed to construct, okay.
The only other question I had about signage. When we see a sign over the window per unit like
this, sometimes the developer comes back and says, we need another sign somewhere else
because we don’t have enough visibility. You know we just saw that down here by the theater
and with the bank and so on. Any discussions or issues with the signage here?
Generous: Not that I’m aware of. The applicant hasn’t specified anything. He’s pretty
confident, the west elevation is the primary visibility.
Papke: From 41?
Generous: They are permitted to have two monument signs on the property. One on 41 and one
on the Water Tower Place. Again, right now…
Papke: They’re not going to ask for a sign on the water tower or anything?
28
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Dillon: I don’t have any questions.
Keefe: Just two quick questions. One, just following on the signage. Is it proposed to be
consistent signage package all the way across or do they vary from day to day, from. Do you
know what I mean? Do we take control of that? I mean I think it looks nicer if they’re kind of
consistent and so.
Generous: It’s more a management. We have our standard ordinance they have individual
dimensional letters on there but you know, that can be varied by tenant. It’s usually the
management company that has the most control…
Keefe: Alright. Where does the sidewalk go? I mean it comes down to the street and then?
Generous: Yes, and then on the south side of Water Tower Place there is a sidewalk that goes to
Century Boulevard and that connects into our trail.
Keefe: Alright, so that whole sidewalk is on the south side.
Generous: Yes, it will go down to Century right now.
Keefe: Okay, that’s it.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Only one. Looking at page 6 where it talks about parking. For the park, it requires 76
and they’ve got 119. Is that normal? Okay? What?
Generous: They’re over parking the site but their assumption was.
Larson: Is that better I guess?
Generous: Well as long as they convert it all to office space, there’s more requirement for
parking for office in there. Right now they have certain assumptions that they’ve built in to
come up with that 70. We did come up with 76. I think they’re hoping some of their people they
talked to, that it may be more office. And if it is, they have to be able to meet those standards.
Larson: Gotch ya.
Generous: And what they don’t, they can lease them or sell it.
Larson: Okay, that’s all I had.
McDonald: Mark. I have no questions for staff at this time either so, is the applicant here?
29
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Joe Smith: Hi, good evening. I’m Joe Smith. I’m with Steiner Development. We’re the
developer of the property. Just to address the couple questions that I heard. Signage. We built
several other buildings in the park and our signage has been consistent. It has been the block
letters. We don’t want different colored letters. Different fonts. Those type of things. We just
think it looks a lot better. It’s more consistent signage so that’s our plan. Occasionally we’ll
fight with tenants on that but typically we’ll adhere to those standards that we’ve got in our other
buildings. To the parking issue, it’s flexibility. We’ve over parked it just for the fact that we
don’t know who’s going to come in the door. It may be an all office user so we want to make
sure that we’ve got the adequate parking so we don’t have parking issues. Anybody have any, I
guess one other question. I saw in the notes about roof top screening, as far as screening roof
top, HVAC units. I know that in the past we have not had to do that. We’ve either painted the
cabinets or we’ve ordered the cabinets with kind of a camouflaged, so they blend in. And the
screening gets to be a maintenance issue. It’s very expensive to do on the front end. We would
prefer to either use low profile roof top units or go with a painted cabinet so they blend into the
roof of the building so we don’t have to go through the maintenance and the additional expense
of using screening materials. This is Todd Mohagen. He’s our architect.
Todd Mohagen: If I might interject a little bit. Todd Mohagen, 1415 East Wayzata Boulevard.
What we’re finding as a trend, the roof screening is becoming more and more unpopular just
because of the maintenance that’s involved with roof screening. They do tend to get damaged by
the wind. At times they do damage the roof. What you will find in a lot of city ordinances now,
that they are accepting painted roof top screening on the equipment itself. For me personally I
think it’s a cleaner look than having the screening that’s around there. Typically kind of that
charcoal gray is a nice color. It blends in nicely with the roof, especially when you have the road
that’s higher than the site itself right now. And then also from the ground, when you see the
charcoal, it disappears. It tends to just go away. You’d think blue would be the color but it
really is the charcoal color that works the best, so we’d like you to consider that.
Joe Smith: Any other questions?
McDonald: Any other questions from the commissioners? Mr. Papke?
Dillon: Who are the perspective tenants? I mean what type of customer would you have?
Joe Smith: Office warehouse users. Smaller office users. We are actually talking to a couple of
all office users for the entire building. Just a, they could be manufacturer’s rep type companies.
They could be small assembly type companies. It could be an all office type of a use.
Dillon: That’s the only question I have.
Keefe: Just getting back to your mechanical that goes on the roof, or at grade. So are you, in
talking about grade, both on the roof and on grade or just on the roof or?
Joe Smith: Our rooftop, our air conditioning and heat units are located on the roof.
Keefe: You wouldn’t have any mechanical units on grade level or?
30
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Joe Smith: No, typically not.
Keefe: …on roof top. And then do have parapets on this building or not. I mean are there any?
Joe Smith: Yeah, it’s 9 inches probably.
Keefe: Alright. And so, it won’t, I guess one of the concerns is, you know as you’re kind of
walking up to it, I think one thing because you’re up so high, you know 41 is up so high, looking
down. I don’t know, typically how would you screen it anyway? Would it be fully boxed or?
Todd Mohagen’s comments from the audience were not picked up on tape.
Keefe: Right, yeah. Okay.
Papke: How much higher is 41 than the grade here?
Generous: Well it varies. It’s about 20 feet.
Papke: So you’re practically at the roof top there.
Joe Smith: But it won’t be 20 feet above the top of the building.
Generous: Right, no. From grade.
Papke: From grade.
Joe Smith: It’s 20 feet above grade.
Keefe: Right. I guess I could see you know screening from sort of grade as you come in to have
it being set back far enough where you wouldn’t really get a view of them. I mean I don’t know.
Joe Smith: From the grade you won’t see the units at all. From the road you will. But they will
never be fully boxed because there’s ventilation that has to happen, so they’d never screen the
very top. It’s just around the sides.
Papke: What’s that on the All About Lights building? What do we have there?
Generous: I think they have a higher parapet.
Keefe: So the point is, you can’t see it from grade. So I mean I think we get.
Joe Smith: The other 3 buildings that we built there and then the Vanger building, those units
are not screened.
McDonald: Okay.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Keefe: But you’re open to that, painting?
Joe Smith:
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may. The design standards do specify either screening or
camouflaged…
McDonald: Okay.
Undestad: I think even metal flashing around there, you can get your units in that beige color too
can’t you? The low profile on each rooftop units and put them back far enough so that nobody
sees them anymore.
Todd Mohagen: Yeah, I mean I just found if you use the charcoal gray it really disappears.
Especially if we have a roadway that’s up higher. Typically the rock that’s used on the roof is
kind of a grayish tone so it works great.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: I think all of my questions were answered so I have no questions for you.
Joe Smith: Thank you.
McDonald: At this point I will open up the public meeting portion of this and anyone wishing to
make comment, please come forward to the podium. State your name and address and address
your comments to the commissioners. Seeing no one come forward, we’ll close the public
meeting and I will bring this case back before the commissioners for discussion, review and a
vote. Who would like to start? Kurt? Kevin? Dan no? Debbie?
Larson: It looks fine to me.
McDonald: No? And I have no comments either, so I think we’re ready. At this point I would
accept a motion.
Larson: Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan adopted
by Chanhassen, oh that’s all. Is that it? No? I’m reading the wrong thing.
McDonald: Page 8.
Larson: Page 8? What am I?
McDonald: Well you must be on findings of facts.
Larson: Okay, what am I reading? Oh thank you. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case Site Plan #06-16 for a 25,300 square foot, one story office showroom,
32
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
warehouse building. Plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group dated March 30,
2006, subject to the following conditions 1 through 18.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe: In regards to the mechanical equipment it says city ordinance requires it. Bob, kind of
looking at you on this. Can we put in a statement around that and the condition and say oh
something along the lines, we agree that camouflaging it with paint. That’s what I’m wondering,
do we add that or do we?
Papke: The report says…
Keefe: It’s just in the report? Okay. That’s what I was wondering.
Generous: …the design standards was that yes, that’s appropriate. You can add a condition that
it be charcoal gray and they use low profile…be specific.
Keefe: Right, okay.
McDonald: We don’t have to do anything.
Keefe: Yeah.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case #06-16 Site Plan for a 25,300 square-foot, one-story office-showroom-
warehouse building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated
March 30, 2006, 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.
2.A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5.Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
33
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
7.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8.The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt fence
installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate all
sediment control measures on-site.
9.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
10.The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES Phase
II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11.The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12.The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
14.All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15.A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16.The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17.The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots’
consumption.
18.As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
McDonald: Okay, this motion passes 6-0. So the motion is carried and will go forward with the
recommendation to City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 18, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
35