Loading...
1i. Planning Commission Minutes Dated 11/5/97 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1997 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blacko\Viak, Allyson Brooks, KevinJoyce, and LuAnn Sidney MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson ST AFFPRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; Sbarmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer BUELL CONSU1.TING ISREOUESTll19 A SITE PLAN ,REVIEW FOR AN. ACCESSORY BUILDING FOR CELLU~TOWER E9lJIPMENT.. THE ANTENNA WILL BE LOCATED ON THE WEST76. . STREET. WATER TOWER. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question, The buildingthat's currently Qn there, or being built, it says in the report that it had a pitched roof and I was out there today and Idid not see a pitched roof. It is being in. the process of being put on or? Kirchoff: On the plans for the Nextel building, it does have a pitched roof. Blackowiak: No, not the Nextel building. The building that's right, the U.S. West building. I did not see a pitched roof. Kirchoff: Accordingto the plans that we have, it appears to have a pitched roof. That's what we based the recommendation on. It does have a slightly pitched rooffor..the ice and water. Blackowiak: How do you define pitched then? I mean like less than 12. inches or? Kirchoff: Well it doesn't have a flat roof. It's a pitched roof. Blackowiak: In the center? Kirchoff: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. It wasn't apparent. I mean I went to the street but there was construction there and it was kind of, they were working on it so I didn't dare go back there so. I just didn't see any pitched roofso. Okay. /~ - Aanenson: The pitch 1$pr6bably.~~de of~~ldh1g.! Planning Commission ~p.~.;;: November 5, 1997 ...... ,: . Sidney: That was thes8111e.'q~on I had. Y~;kttow what kind of pitch,are you talking about. Similar to the U.S. West']' ',' , ',' ,'. ,-,- Kirchoff: The plan shows ~:,is~:die.U~S~W~t shelter.... 'r ".,' . -;.; - - ' . Joyce: OlQly. Is-the applic~nHl~'~liket(),a~s the. Planning Commission? State your name and address and C(>mpanY,pl~. '.;:.;';",,"F;- . . '. . , ~,_ ....', ~; . ' ~, .' - -. -, :'0- _ ' ~, Bill Buell: Yes. Mr. Chai~,:1Xletnbersot " < *ion, my name is Bill Buell. I'm with Buell Consuking~a$4,we'rCp." '~~l . whose address is 9401 James A venue in Bloomington. '.~' . .,'M.ybe I'can explain the pitched roof. The existing U.S. West bdildittg building tQ, the building that we have, that we're planning to use. There 'is a pi!C~ . ut 2 iDbbes over across the width of the roof. I believe the plarisI saw oft,beV.s. West b: g s~wed a pitched roof that is a metal ice bridge. It's going to be,a rtleud root;a&I~~ ik~it doubles 'as to look like a pitched roofbut it's also to ~t ~fafung i ." thew. towet. We don't feel that's necessary because whenthe" 'of \vater it " . '.". : aM our building even if there was ice . to fall, it would not" roof., 0;' '11 with an ice resistant roof. And I've read the report and we)with tbereport. willing1o',Change our landscaping plan. Although I woul<l ask tliat we not be req . , a pitched roof on our building because we don't need the ice proted16J)>and I tb,j~1('. 'the buildings are arranged, if I could, let's see I have mu1e()n a 8~Jtll.Can '1 put fhatonfhe? Thisis the site plan. For the view from the road, if we had a flatrQOf, tbeviewYbU~a~~tfrom all the buildings would be of just a flat, or you loww the horizontalsicJo~.A~:'sO OUf'f1at roof W'OUldn't look out of place. If you look at it from a sitJe.view,W.s::ib ,eidea.BeCaUse of 'the way OUTbuilding is turned, I don't know ifit wQu1d'maie tbit'rou' il~~ceifit'spitchCd or flat We'Yf: also already ordered thebu' ~.' ~tb:oytaktJ~to;$w.fb;,milreand that would.sei us back quite a while. Becausetlie bull' ( . "e tiat;i~dik~~U.s.viestrpof;or U.S. West building. y ,~;~_>," . ,,:,i:: ,'_: ._: ",_"".; _:._:, '_;{~,".~;:~_,,' .:_',1 f.. Joyce: Is this an aesthetic situatjo,n:or? "f!" _ '~ ~ Aanenson: I believe so.;'We triedtc)ifnak~it_idenPaI in character to match the neighborhood...?', '. ...... "2' ., ...., ....." ..' '. . Joyce: And you're$a~thiswould set.~titningbac!c? '..-.,,,...... ,"j"r ,"~"",:,( ,\". Bill Buell:' Yes~tc6uld'if'~e~ed(Qo~'inewbuilding and we're not sureifwe canjust add a pitched r~ftothebUil8irlg"ihav.e.' 2 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Joyce: Okay. Bill Buell: Then as far as the landscaping plan, of this plan, the plants chosen were chosen to match up with the U.S. West landscaping plan. We agree that the dwarf arborvitae probably would not provide the screening that the upright 4 to 6 foot plants would provide so we're willing to change those. Although I think the number should probably be reduced. I don't know if they would all fit in there because the midgets are so much smaller in diameter. So perhaps if it's approved, the landscape plan, the number of plants could just be as approved by staff. I mean we're certainly willing to try to jam them in there but I think it would look, it would cover up the nice rhododendrons and the potentilla. I think we should change the arrangement a little bit so you can take advantage of those. Joyce: I don't see a number in the report. Is there just? Bill Buell: The plan we submitted calls for 22 of the midget arborvitae. But if we go to 4 foot or 6 foot uprights, they would, I don't think they would fit in. The 22 wouldn't fit in there. But I'm just asking, we don't need to, I don't think we need to decide on a number. We'd be willing to go along with whatever staff recommends. Joyce: I think a recommendation is that the landscape plan be revised to accept what we need as far as the arborvitae. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Bill Buell: Thank you. Do we need to call this for an open? Aanenson: No. You can ask if there's anyone here to speak but technically it's not a public hearing. Joyce: It's not a public hearing. Aanenson: But there may be people here. We did notify people so. . . Joyce: Oh okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak regarding this issue? Okay. So we bring it back to the Planning Commission then? All right. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. Well I guess I have a question for staff about the pitched roof. If this is an aesthetic thing, in this case, how well shielded are the buildings from the neighborhood at this point? I'm sorry I didn't go out and look at the site but is it really going to make a difference whether or not the roof is pitched? Kirchoff: The buildings are immediately adjacent to a garage. They will be noticeable. We just wanted to make it more neighborhood like rather than utility building with a flat roof. 3 Joyce: Any problem with the pitched roof or keep it the way it is? Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Sidney: Do you stick with your recommendation for a pitched roof? If it is visible.. . concerned about that along with staff. And then also I guess about the landscaping. Just.. . make the number of plant materials. Joyce: Yes, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Nothing to add. I agree with the staff report. I think the applicant should work with the staff to revise the landscape plan. I agree with the applicant, we don't need to cram in more than what's necessary. Conrad: I think we should keep it pitched. I think that's real important. Joyce: I think so, yeah. Conrad: Ijust can't believe that a minor, we're not talking about a major pitch and we're not talking about a major building. I can't believe that's going to delay anything. But regardless, if it is or not, we should have a pitched roof there. Joyce: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree with...1 don't have anything new to add. Brooks: I don't have anything to add either. Joyce: I basically echo those feelings. I'm glad to see the co-locating on the site. And I just think that once we get involved in this situation with these antennas, that we have to keep an idea of what we're doing in the neighborhoods and keep the aesthetics up on some of these buildings that are going to need to house this equipment so I'm going to go along with the staff on this. So we need a motion. Sidney: I make a motion that Planning Commission approve the site plan for the construction of an accessory building for cellular antenna with the following conditions, 1 through 3 in the staff report. Joyce: Thank you. Can I have a second? Brooks: I'll second. 4 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Sidney moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for the construction of an accessory building for a cellular antenna with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a lease agreement with the City. 2. The building shall incorporate a pitched roof. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A HAM RADIO TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL EST A TE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 1905 STOUGHTON AVENUE. STEPHEN KUBITZ. Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Okay. Why don't we open it up to a public hearing. Can I get a motion to open it to a public hearing? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Thank you. Would anybody like to discuss this in front of the Planning Commission? Then I make a motion to close the public hearing. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Ladd? Conrad: Nothing. Now that we have the National Weather Service here, I always like a back-up for them. No. No comments. Blackowiak: No comments. Brooks: No comments. Sidney: One comment. Joyce: Oh, okay. 5 Joyce: Sounds good to me. Can we have a motion please? Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Sidney: I guess, when I saw condition to the applicant, let's make the tower inaccessible. I guess I thought well, we need to be more specific. For climbing and add that as part of the condition because inaccessibility implies you can never have access to it which you may need to at some point. So that would be my one comment. Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in the staff report, and the following stipulations with 1 through 4 with 2 being amended to say the applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing. Joyce: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in staff report and the following: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit. Engineering design for radial ice and tower structure is required for the permit. 2. The applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing. 3. Compliance with Section 20-915, amateur radio tower standards. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit when the tower is increased from 48 feet to 64 feet in height. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.300 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD. WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Sharmin Al-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item. 6 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Joyce: Is that 11 conditions now? Is that what we're talking about or 15? 16? It's the circled ones. Al-Jaff: It's 12. Joyce: Excuse me, 12. Yeah right. 12 conditions, okay. On the amended number 5, you have revised parking lot layout. Al-Jaff: Correct. Joyce: I didn't see that in the report. Al-Jaff: It's in, it is an attachment to a memo from David Hempel and this is the plan. Joyce: Okay, that's it? That's it? Okay. All right. All right, are there any questions for staff at this time? Sidney: Sharmin? I guess to the parking lot. Could you go over the changes. I guess I couldn't really tell on the drawing what the changes were. Al-Jaff: Dave, do you want to address that? Hempel: Sure. Maybe I can just throw it up. The proposal is to have a curvilinear drive aisle to a very large open area.. . Famous Dave's. In this area here. Staffs proposed to modify that area so that to.. . Joyce: So you're getting rid of the sidewalk? Hempel: No. Just move it over. It's actually. Joyce: Oh, I see. Okay yeah. I see it now. Straightening it out. Okay. Hempel: There's a very sharp curve as well with this... Joyce: Slows everything down. Okay. Thank you. Does that answer it? Sidney: Yes. Joyce: Anything else? Questions? Questions for staff? Brooks: At this point I don't. 7 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: No. Not at this point. Joyce: Kate? Is this a public hearing? Aanenson: No. You actually held your public hearing and closed it but if you wanted to take public comment, that's fine. Joyce: No, that's all right. Since we tabled it we're just getting them. Aanenson: You still have the right to open it again but you did hold the public hearing. Joyce: Is the applicant here and like to address the Planning Commission? Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vernelle Clayton and we'll just kind of go backwards a little bit. Since you talked about the drive aisle, just so you know where we were coming from it and where we're coming from it now. We'll make the change if you wish but it was done deliberately. What he was trying to correct was done deliberately so that we're trying to avoid having traffic swishing around through the area so that was a traffic calming technique that was. He's trying to open it up. I mean ifhe thinks it should be opened up, we're not going to have a big problem with it. I just wanted to explain what we were doing. Cutting up and around. . . Joyce: The way I understand it Dave is you're going to slow the traffic down by doing this, aren't you? Hempel: In either case you would be slowing traffic down. Joyce: Well I mean obviously we're doing this to slow traffic down. Isn't that the purpose of it? Hempel: Well it's to function better and more defined. Define better the traffic aisle. With the previous or the site plan that you have before you, it's kind of a wide open area to be turning there. Where this defines the path of the traffic better. Joyce: My opinion is a car can go around a curve easier than ifit has to go like this. So that's my OpInIOn. Vernelle Cla~on: That's why we had done it that way so you couldn't, actually you came up and you kind of had to drive around instead of.. .but we're not here to.. .just to explain it. We have what we think is a really nice plan to talk with you about tonight. I think though before we get into that, and so when we're done talking about the elevations, we can be done, I will just say that with respect to the landscaping. I'm not really going to spend much time on it unless you have questions but I'd be happy to answer questions. It gets a little confusing because we've complied with some of the conditions and so what you see doesn't relate to what we're asking 8 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 anymore in a couple cases but we're, while it does also get confusing in the development agreement, sometimes when it's already been accomplished, I think we'll work with staff with the understanding that for example one of the conditions is that we replace the coniferous trees with deciduous. So let's work with that so we have a development agreement that states clearly what we're doing. And with that we're comfortable with the conditions. We've got three folks here that are involved with Famous Dave's and we have Mika Milo who is the architect. We'll let Mika perhaps come up and explain what he's done and I'll say goodbye. Joyce: Okay. Mika Milo: Mika Milo, architect at Milo Architectural Group in Eden Prairie. This is my pleasure to present this plan of that second or third go around on that Famous Dave's Restaurant. We really appreciate the good input that we received from you at the last session we had. I think it was very appropriate. We have been working with their existing prototypical design, which is nothing wrong with that. It just did not quite fit with the Village image that we had projected from the beginning and striving for and we have been a little bit twisting and tweaking that design and trying to do something we thought maybe something sufficient but then really we realized more and more through the presentation last time that it really needs a little bit more of a fresh approach in the design. And that's what we did basically. We said okay. What do we really would like that to look for the Villages on the Pond, and just kind of tried to, for the moment leave the design on the side. However, we had to still to observe the function ofthat restaurant and the floor plan that has been really worked out very well for many years for all these locations that they have so we worked with the floor plan. We almost did not touch the floor plans still so we, that and the floor plans certainly determines the architecture to a great extent. We also have maintained some, tried to maintain some sense of warmth that they are trying to achieve through use of the wood and so I think that the overall colorful add here on the building is suggesting that type of warmth still is there. And that also works well in the Villages because if you remember the building #4, or I mean the retail building next door and the other buildings that we are showing always in presenting the Village, I think that they are showing a nice variety in the forms and materials but still projecting some human scale and feeling and warmth and that's we are trying to achieve with that building as well. That materials that we used, we are still using wood siding to great extent. However, we are covering that with a solid stain which is going to be a departure from the initial design that they had really a woody, woody design like a north woods shack in the woods or so. That was more like that type of design but did not fit very well for the Village. Then we also had the last time we had. . . was here that the building was looking more like, and still like a Wyoming. Small cowboy town or something like that. Very rustic and so we were really departing from that. I think we now have, we are using wood siding. Weare using the stucco. There is no more block here that you see around anymore. It used to be block and wood basically was, where now it is wood that is heavily covered with stain and also there is no block. It's stucco and the nice and warm and checkerboard like a roof shingle. Asphalt shingle roof that is grayish but has also some of the 9 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 yellow and blue so that I think it provides a nice blend and is going to be similar to our. . . that we were trying to develop here. I don't know whether you have seen that. Pardon? Joyce: It was fine right there. Mika Milo: But how about... Joyce: That's fine. I wanted to see the materials for sure. Do you have the other two elevations like this Mika? Mika Milo: Now the two elevations. We do have but didn't color all of them. I mean you have the elevations but they're the back side where the kitchen is and these are the two main elevations that we colored that. But the other two sides will be equally good looking and the same coloring following up and I mean we can color up the other two elevations. We just felt that this sufficiently depicts the intent and the color coordination. The overall building is more of a quiet background. There are no strong colors on the building itself. The stucco is light beige. Wood is some kind of a grayish, beige color and the roof is also gray and some beige in it. So it's fairly a neutral building background but then we use the awnings to again have a, give really a spark and a contrast. The awnings is a warm yellow, slightly orange but I would say more gold yellow awning with some red vertical stripes. That would be on the front portion of the building. Weare suggesting on the back side where the kitchen is, just to have awnings. . . back side of that building now anymore. Joyce: Are those cloth awnings? Is that what they are? Mika Milo: Yeah, cloth awnings. Yes. Maybe in brief to say, oh. We have another. .. that you see on the material board is some blue green type of dark blue green accent color here on the windows, as well as the exit doors which would seen also a very heavy. . . so that is unusual door. I think it fits well and emphasize the exiting. That's the end of the story. I hope that this time we did a better job in starting practically from scratch and coming up with that scheme that I believe really works well with the Village and with the surrounding area. Joyce: Okay. Are there any questions for Mika? Sidney: I have a question. I was wondering about the ventilation and you know, fans and air conditioning units. Are they going to be on the roof and if they are. Mika Milo: They are in the kitchen area on that flat roof area which has a parapet and are hidden completely from any view. There is no way you can see them. Sidney: Okay. 10 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: No questions right now. Joyce: I have a quick question. On the south elevation you have some wood paneling and then the stucco, I'm looking at here. My copy. I'm just curious. It looks like the wood paneling is kind of an afterthought. Mika Milo: I see... stucco face with the accent doors and also maybe.. . and the yellow and the yellow awnings. I just felt that just leaving plain stucco with these two vertical glass elements would not be enough. I felt, I just felt that it is good idea to have these two vertical elements with the wood siding and bring some.. . symmetry and proportions to that back side...I think it could work well with just plain stucco but. Joyce: I agree with you. It's just that it caught my eye. Mika Milo: .. .add the detail because the detail is the key for our Village. We want to have variety. .. Joyce: The other question I had is, is there an outside dining area, a patio area or anything incorporated into this? Mika Milo: Yes. Definitely the front area of the building and facing the lake from here to.. .here is the entry side here from the parking. This is the... but it is definitely an integral part of the building. You don't see anymore than... Joyce: So they'll have seating out there and you'll be able to enjoy the pond. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. This isn't a public hearing but anyone else would like to address the Planning Commission on this issue right now, certainly feel free to stand up and let us know your point of view. No? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commissioners. Allyson. Brooks: I think this is a vast improvement. I really, really like the building. I think it's still fun like Ladd wanted the buildings to look like. I wanted to make the point that Vemelle had said that when we signed up for the Planning Commission we didn't sign up to be architects. Well, that's not true. We signed up to be architects and naturalists and historians and environmentalists and transportation planners and I think this really shows that when we draw the line in the sand, especially over something like architecture, the incredible improvements that we get, and I think this building not only will make us much happier, but I think it will make your planned unit development much better and it fits much better with the design standards. It's still a fun building and in deference to Dave's barbecue shack, I still think you get the feeling of the road house. Of the barbecue shack with a really nice architectural design. Thanks Milo. You did a nice job. Joyce: Alison. 11 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: I don't have that much to add. I totally agree with what Allyson said. It's a big improvement. It's much better than the plan we saw last time. I like the colors a lot better. I think it fits more of what we're looking for in the Villages on the Pond and since this is along Highway 5, it's important that we have a nice looking building and I think you've accomplished that. Sidney: Looks great. Thanks Milo. Good job and I think the City will be real pleased with the architecture. Mika Milo: ...from everybody... Sidney: Absolutely. Joyce: Yeah, I don't have much to add. I think that what you did is it looks like you've given the added value to the building and we're going to go through this time and again so don't take anything personally when we feel that we have to kind of work on this but it is a vast improvement. I'm proud of having a part of the Villages on the Pond. So with that, we can make a motion and get this moving along. Brooks: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 10120/97, subject to the following conditions. Conditions I through 8 with the extra conditions that were handed to us, 1, 4, ,5 and 7. Joyce: Okay. Can we get a second on that? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 10/20/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 2. Add three ornamental trees to the north side of the building. 3. Add 3 overs tory trees to parking lot landscaping plan: one on each side of the trash enclosure and one in the northwest comer of the parking lot. Enlarge islands on either side of trash enclosure to include planting space for trees. Enlarge landscape island at the north 12 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 end of the parking lot to accommodate trees. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 4. Change 5 spruce trees to 5 deciduous trees on west side of building. 5. Add landscaping (shrubs or hedges) to north side of property to screen parking lot from Highway 5. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed sign plans for staff's review and approval. A separate sign permit shall be applied for by the applicant. 7. Lights that do not appear on the elevations plan shall not be permitted on the building. 8. The eyebrow window along the east elevation shall match the other windows and contain the same decorative element. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 10. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. 11. Revise the parking lot layout per staff's design (see attached). 12. A building permit shall not be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition is recorded and the access driveway meets fire code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Ladd Conrad removed himself from the Commission for comments and voting on this item.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated September 17, 1997 and October 15, 1997 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: 13 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Aanenson: Yes, our next meeting on the 19th. We have moved ahead the car dealership issue and that's tentatively still on for a discussion item. We also have a public hearing scheduled for Bluff Creek overlay district, depending on.. .more discussion tonight. And also taking another element of the comprehensive plan... And also we have Pillsbury's requested a silo for flour so they've.. . Blackowiak: We've got one over at Villages. Joyce: I was going to say, put it in Villages. Aanenson: .. .60 feet tall so I think it needs to come through the Planning Commission. Brooks: This is over by their plant? Aanenson: On Audubon, correct. So that should, that would be.. . Council action last time, the only issue that was planning related was related to the.. .issues were addressed to make sure we kind of scoped what they wanted. My recommendation is that it come back to the Planning Commission based on the fact that. . . for the first one in December. Brooks: Is that historic district.. . historic preservation office or is that just a local? Aanenson: That's a local thing. There is no architecturally significant... What it is is really.. . St. Hubert's Church and old City Hall maybe but we're talking about roots of the community... changing that old St. Hubert's.. .Pauly/Pony/Przymus site and taking... That was identified in the Vision 2002 and we've kind of talked about some, maybe some additional standards... We wanted to get your insight and really. .. And I did also put some articles in. . . Joyce: I missed the last meeting. Did we get a Planning Commissioner? Did we decide on somebody? Aanenson: That's scheduled for November. Thank you. That one is scheduled for a work session.. .on November I ih. And then also, on December 15th I'll be sending you.. .there's going to be discussion on the road connection south of Highway 5. The Park Commission.. . Planning staff and engineering staff want. . . Joyce: To go to Gateway? Aanenson: Right. So I'll be sending you a letter on that... we're going to kind of just do a work session.. .Now that's all. Brooks: I have one thing. There will be an open house on the transportation plan at the Chaska Community Center on Thursday, November 6th. And I believe it is from, that is tomorrow. 14 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 That's right. I think it's from 6:00 to 8:00. Let's see, 6:00 to 8:00 or 5:30 to 8:00. Anyway, it's an open house at the Chaska Community Center. And SRF, the consultant will be there as well as representatives from MnDOT and Met Council. That's it. Conrad: Is somebody from Southwest Metro Transit going to be there? Brooks: I don't know. Aanenson: They met originally, preliminary meeting with all the jurisdictions that were involved so they have met with them to kind of get out their issues. I'm not sure if they'll be. My understanding with SRF is doing.. . getting some public comment out there and refine their plans but they have met with all the agencies and jurisdictions... Joyce: Okay. Open discussion. OPEN DISCUSSION: BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Mark Koegler: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I guess we ask now that you take off your architect and naturalist hats and put on your ordinance expert hats because that's what we want to spend just a little bit oftime on tonight. There's a draft, Draft #2 that was in your packet that I trust you've had a chance to take a look at. The changes were relatively minor that we made to that based on some of the comments received from the commission last time. I'lljust review those real quickly and we can come back to those and focus on questions that you might have. We modified a couple things. We added a cluster definition and added a purpose statement that related to cluster. I didn't think that was quite strongly emphasized enough in the previous draft. There was a conflict clause that we cleared up. We wanted to make sure that the regulations that are offered as a part of this ordinance take precedence over other aspects of the Code within this defined area of the Bluff Creek Watershed. We reworked the text on some of the density transfer language. I don't know that it changed substantially but I think it reads a little bit smoother. And then there was a modification of the setback, if you recall that we looked at from 30 feet to 40 feet so it was consistent with the number that's used commonly at least in terms of wetlands. One of the things that we talked about last time and we've done some additional investigation of some of the sites to see how these provisions fit, and bear in mind we're doing that still on somewhat of a general sense but I think it gives us a pretty good feel, and I want to run through just a couple of the scenarios and then comment where we'll be working with some additional ones prior to the public hearing. And specifically some sites that have a little bit more detailed information may be available than the ones I'm going to talk about here. Let me spend just a moment ifl can at the overhead to go through a couple of scenarios. Oh, it didn't end up backwards. It usually does. We looked at a residential site previously and this is, this is the one on Audubon. A piece of property that's about 80 acres in size that has wetlands. Has a variety of topography. As you recall when we applied the primary and secondary corridors it looks something like this with the primary being the lined cross hatched. 15 16 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 The secondary being the dot screen pattern so the site is heavily impacted. However, it does have a bare area within the middle that is outside of both primary and secondary areas. Primary is about 30 acres of the total site and secondary is about 16 acres. This particular property in the land use plan has been identified for residential development and if we were to kind of quickly pencil in a traditional lot pattern, utilizing the City's PUD provisions, and about a 15,000 square foot average lot like you were to blanket the area with single family lots. A pattern like this could evolve. This represents about 160 single family detached lots on that piece of property that's about 80 acres in size. Ifwe are to apply the overhead, or excuse me the overlay provisions of the code into that piece, such that we now are precluding development from the primary area and still allowing development within restrictions within the secondary area, a pattern like this might evolve. This pattern seeks to keep the same lot style, single family detached homes. There is an impact here in that the total count of lots drops from about 160 to 140 and the average lot size also drops down below the 15. Probably closer to about 11,000 square feet. The alternative in this case that could be easily explored is you could paint a picture with larger single family lots if you so chose or even smaller ones and perhaps a mix of attached type of housing too. Somewhat along the line of a lower density townhouse unit. You could easily get an equivalency back to roughly 160 acres or 160 units that we looked at on the other plan. The second property that I want to just kind of flash in front of you for illustration purposes is an industrial site. It's the piece if you recall that we talked about as being entirely impacted by the Bluff Creek corridor. That's probably best exemplified by this graphic. Again the cross hatch being the primary area. This portion. The shaded area being the secondary corridor area as identified in the Bluff Creek management plan. So this site is entirely engulfed in one of those two classifications. The land use plan shows the majority of this site, kind of the northern edge being in an office industrial, a potential category, ifnot open space. It shows the southern end being in open space. For sake of argument, if we took a look at this particular site and said how would you develop that in a traditional industrial park kind of environment, here's just one quick scenario about how that might happen. What this looks at is placing a series of lots that are just. . . conformance with the zoning code. Various types of industrial office warehouse, showroom kinds of uses that would comprise first of all the site itself, I skipped over that. In terms of size is 70, just a little bit over 70 acres. The primary corridor area is 23 Y2. The secondary corridor area being the balance, about 46 Y2 acres. The impervious cover that this type of plan represents is about 37 acres in size. So if we were to, say we're going to concentrate that amount of development, that amount of impervious surface area back within the area that's secondary again on this graphic up in this portion of the site, there is a fit that we look at as we talked about before. That the impervious cover would be looked at for the entire property if you were to focus only on the area within the primary corridor, obviously that number would go up above the 75% threshold that is code. But if you look at the site as a whole, we're able to preserve the resources that have been identified primarily in the plan by compressing that development if you will up within the northern portion. As a part of some additional follow-up, we look to, you're probably familiar, another piece of property that we'd like to examine a little further prior to public hearing is the Erhart property which apparently many of you are familiar with. It happens to have a substantial amount of wetlands on it. It has highway right-of-way, Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 both from TH 101 and from 212, and it has primary and secondary corridor areas. I think that will be another good test of residential. We'll be doing some analysis. We got some information tonight that will allow us to do that prior to the public hearing so we'll have another example that we can use at that point in time also. So with that we've been through this a number oftimes. I don't have a great deal to add. Certainly would be pleased to respond to questions or direction that you would like to offer based on your further review of the issue. Joyce: Any questions or comments for Mark? Blackowiak: I have a question I guess. In the last example you were talking about allowing the impervious cover in the secondary zone to be increased to more than 75% to protect the primary zone and my question would be, and I guess not only for this piece but in general, what effects does increasing the impervious coverage or do you have any idea what affect that might have, not only on the secondary zone but also on the primary zone in terms of runoff and how that will affect the creek itself. Mark Koegler: The short answer to that is I don't think we have a good comprehensive feel for that. Obviously a lot of that will be, you know the ordinance makes reference to best management practices and some of the other techniques that are commonly applied to control those site specific design implications and I think those obviously will have to come to play here. In terms of the ponding requirements and other things that will be necessary to prevent the sediments and things from getting into the creek. But I think that level of detail has to be addressed at the site plan basis when that comes in. Blackowiak: So you don't feel that there's any need to talk about it here or just? Aanenson: Well let me try to answer it this way. What we've done is, you take the overall, it would still maintain the 75%. But what you've done.. . similar to what we've done such as the Target site. Target exceeds 75% but if you average it with the rest, you've got the trees in back and.. .so what we've done is taken the primary.. . and that's really going to be our open space or the landscaping and in order to achieve that without having to buy it outright to get that increased.. .would be less than that on the other site but it would still overall.. .you still have to have stormwater ponds. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, I guess that's more of my question. You feel that the site could still handle that impervious coverage in excess of75%? That's really I guess what my question is. Aanenson: ... we'd be reviewing when they... sure, right. Joyce: So it would go site by site and then Dave, or Phil would be involved in as far as. 17 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Aanenson: Right. And it'd be the same way. . . the site itself would have so much capacity. . . overall site would still be the same. ...that's what Mark's saying. Blackowiak: Okay. Mark Koegler: The point he raises is a good one though that water quality ponds for example would not be allowed within the primary corridor in accordance with the plan. It's essentially in an undisturbed condition. So that all of that does have to occur outside of those boundaries. I think the other benefit we have is the cases we've been looking at are by far the more extreme ones and there are a variety of other sites that are impacted by this that have smaller percentages. First of all the primary, smaller of secondary but more importantly a higher percentage of lands that are not within either of the corridors, which will allow more flexibility. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Conrad: Mr. Chairman. How do you manage density transfer? What are the guidelines that tell us when it's good transfer and bad transfer? Is it. Aanenson: It's a good question. Conrad: Is it a right that goes with the property or with the project and I guess I don't understand how it's handled in. I don't understand how we're handling that. Aanenson: That's a good question. I did speak to the City Attorney about that. When a property is zoned a certain, or guided for a certain amount of. . . there's no guarantee you're going to get that number of units. I mean that's what ultimately. You are still obligated to provide a pond. Still obligated to. . . preserve the bluff. If we said you had to dedicate so much park. All that is a factor in.. . density. So when someone comes in and says I've got a perfect square and I can get 300 units. You're obligated to give me 300 units. That's not true because they would still have to do, of the things by ordinance we would require. So under this scenario we've given the southern end of the city, for example let's take Mr. Erhart's property. We've guided it for a certain density. He can only get what the threshold of the land will hold, and in talking to the City Attorney it's probably better to call it not necessarily a density transfer. Kind of what we're saying.. .but really what we're doing is clustering the density. So they can get as many units on that, we believe and that's. ..taking the worse case scenario is where we probably it's the most encumbered by primary corridor or probably the most difficult piece where you have the most to try to push onto something else and to compress that. We believe that, Roger says... We wanted to make sure that when we did all that... would it work and we believe that you can achieve. Now marketing wise, does that mean that somebody wants to do it exactly that way? Would they maybe choose to take less units? Are we obligated to compensate them? No. They may choose and say well, that's not the type of project we want to do. We'd rather have, instead of maybe 18 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 averaging 10,000 square foot lots, we'd rather have less lots. Make them bigger or maybe they wouldn't choose to say we'd. . . that's all within the realm of possibility. Conrad: Is density transfer a function of a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Is it a function of, but not exclusive to a PUD? Can I take, can any parcel, a typical subdivision. It can be, it can take advantage of density transfer. Aanenson: I know but they'd have to come under a PUD. Conrad: Ah. That's my question. In our PUD ordinance, and I didn't look, I'm talking out of ignorance now. I don't know what the guidelines are that regulate the transfer. And the issues that, I really do like density transfer. It's the way to protect what you want. This is, but on the other hand I'm also concerned about the regulation of it and. Aanenson: You're on the right track Ladd because as we indicated before we have to change.. .to accomplish this. Right now our PUD ordinance says the smallest you can go is, unless.. .11,000 averaging in a traditional low density zoning. So there are... what we want to do is get this ordinance in place.. . that's encumbered by the primary zone so we will be following that. Conrad: Okay, well that's real important because we get into housing styles. It's a lot easier to make up for the units you lose by putting a new housing style in there which could be an apartment. Which basically goes with the different, typically a different zone. So you're playing in single family and really the really neat way to solve a problem is to put a multiple unit dwelling in there which, but that's not what that zone was there to do. So you've got to take me through the rationale for some of those things and we have to, we need some guidelines in our ordinance to tell us what we're looking for when we allow density transfer. Aanenson: I think when we do Erhart's property. . . because we're going to identify high knoll areas. The wooded areas. The wetland areas. We're going to show exactly what would happen if we. . . Again what we're trying to do with the southern area of the city and that is not traditional rip and tear subdivisions but really something sustainable... Does that mean we're going to have some smaller lots? Yes. But we're going to.. .that's what we're trying to... Mark Koegler: As of right now the tools that you have to kind of guide and address that are the ones that are in place. In fact through the PUD standards that you used, I think pretty successfully in the Walnut Grove subdivision for example to achieve this kind of thing, and there was no probably specific road map for which types of units and how they would look. That became the subject of deliberations in this body. 19 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Conrad: It was really arbitrary. Mark Koegler: Okay. Conrad: It was fueled by the neighborhood. And it shouldn't be. Absolutely, it shouldn't be. So that means there's got to be some guidelines for us because I just don't want to be in there, you know that's arbitrary. We are not, yeah. That's just arbitrary stuff and that's what happened there and it did work out but that's really what I don't want to have happen when we start screwing around with density transfer. Mark Koegler: But I think the point that will be made, perhaps with a better examination of the Erhart property is these patterns and forms. What types of housing are you likely either want to have or have to have to achieve comparable densities. On the sites we've looked at so far, it's easy enough to do with probably relatively low density products still. I mean by typical appearance. Townhouse type developments and so forth. We're not getting into large masses of buildings. It's not though to preclude that somebody wouldn't think that that's the proper approach. Conrad: I want to explore that you know because that does solve some problems. Now it also raises a whole bunch of problems with the neighbors but if, I just want to pursue those issues. Joyce: Okay. Nancy, did you want to? Nancy Mancino: Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. I'm not as up to speed on this as you are at all. Mark, do you have a map that shows primary and secondary zones? For that area. (There was a discussion over the map between Nancy Mancino, Mark Koegler and Kate Aanenson. ) Nancy Mancino: Boy, that's helpful. I guess I just kind ofread this and I had a few questions. Number one, I'm a firm, I must say on record, I'm a firm believer of clustering and I certainly like this approach and I know it's being done in other places in the Twin Cities. It's working out very well. In the single family areas, will there be a minimum lot size, even with the clustering? Aanenson: That's something.. . follow up with.. .how that balances out.. .can't transfer that, then what happens? . . . Nancy Mancino: And if we do medium density, like we have Lake Elmo's there is 50/50. They have to have 50% open space or green space and they can develop on the other 50% in their clustering. Aanenson: No it wouldn't because it would.. .that's the deciding factor of how much... 20 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Nancy Mancino: And what if there isn't very much but somebody wanted to do clustering? Will we have some clustering guidelines for the other areas too because you know, in fact I think it would be good, I'm reacting to what Ladd said about you know neighbors. Neighbors might feel more comfortable because there is green space around them or there is a green boundary or buffer strip because they're doing clustering. The medium density or the high density next to them is, has got this green space so if it's high density, they can go obviously vertically up to some degree and yet we're saying 50% of that high density has to be green space. I don't know if you can get. Aanenson: That's what we had to.. .into the PUD but that's something again we've talked about that.. . Nancy Mancino: There are a couple I guess terms or words in here that leave it open to me. Significant natural features. Preserving significant resources. To the greatest extent possible. A lot of those I would like to see further defined. I mean what is a significant natural feature that we're preserving? What are preserving significant resources? What are those resources? And what does preservation of the natural conditions found in the primary zone and to the greatest extent possible, what really does that mean? And then where areas where density credits are available, what are density credits and how do they work? Do I get any density credits in a traditional? Those are some of the questions I have. Then it says, you know about suitable natural habitat. To endangered or threatened species or fragile ecosystem. Again, I think we have to be pretty specific about what those are and try to be proactive. I mean our list might not be complete but we should start one. Kate Aanenson' s comments were not picked up by the microphone. Nancy Mancino: The only other thing that I would like to see about clustering put in and an intent statement, is something to the overall benefit a cluster development has to use, a benefit statement or something to use that whole green space for the entire development versus more, you know just one lot of land that has a bigger, has a big lot. I mean all of a sudden there's a tremendous benefit for that whole development to have the green space around it. And developers will go on record to say that the whole development, they make more money on it or they can, the potential for profit is there developing this way. And there were developers that came to the, what was it, the sensible land use seminar who talked about that from a development point of view. And the actual financial profit that they made from looking at development this way versus a traditional. I'm not sure we want to put that in an intent statement but some sort of a benefit also for the developer. Joyce: I think that's a good idea. We need cooperation from a couple of sides here and I think that's a good idea. I really do. 21 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Nancy Mancino: Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Would you, since you're talking about density transfers and density in general, just the value of the land, I can't imagine you're targeting a political football like affordable housing in something like this. Or is that a possibility or how would you handle something like that? Aanenson: There's always a possibility. Joyce: There's always the possibility but if you're clustering in a piece of land that was, I just throw that out. I don't know if that's. Aanenson; If a project came in and it was large enough and they were able to work out a percentage in there affordable and ask for some assistance... just again they have to come within a certain price range so we're not trying to... that's going to increase your value. Joyce: That's what I'm saying is. Aanenson: But there might be some that are adjacent to significant traffic... Again I look at this as an opportunity... Joyce: That's another element of problems we'll have with the neighbors as well. What is this project actually going to be? I mean I can think of some just beautiful properties and you have apartments, but I mean they're going to be very expensive apartments. Aanenson: Right and. Joyce: Townhouses or whatever they are. Aanenson: Again, the comprehensive plan just dictates density. It doesn't talk about... Joyce: No, I understand. Aanenson: .. .home prices.. .number of units would be...1 guess based on the comments that were made, we tentatively talked about having a public hearing.. .I'd like to spend a little bit more time kind of going through how.. .Mr. Erhart's property. Show you how that would work with density and maybe address a couple of the other questions that the Mayor brought up and work on an intent statement. . . Joyce: Well I think it's important. A good idea to me. 22 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Mark Koegler: The thing I would like to add is this really takes this approach to a different scale than is commonly done. I mean we can talk about clustering and you look at the examples, Lake Elmo, Woodbury has some clustering. They're very low density. We're not dealing with low densities here in a relative sense. Woodbury has an ordinance that is very similar to this where they actually identify some primary and secondary corridor areas, but when they talk about densities they're talking about 6 units per 20 acres with some credits that will get you up to 10 units on 20 acres, so I per 2. We're looking at a different scale here and it really, it's somewhat different reason for doing that and not just their summary...so that does create some challenges. I don't think anybody else that we found that we're aware of has had to meet that. Chanhassen is trying to do and I think the points that were brought up tonight are pretty good ones. We'll have to.. . standards in light of things too. Push this all together in one form, what are the guidance for the form? Joyce: Still need the flexibility though too so you're got to balance the flexibility and the standards but Ladd has some very good points. I mean the way I read this it says density transfer shall be allowed as a tool. Tool has to be a little more defined. Okay. Thank you very much Mark. Mark Koegler: Yeah. Joyce: Am I on time yet? Conrad: You did a nice job. Joyce: Make a motion to adjourn. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 23