Loading...
1d minCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 5, 2001 Mayor Jansen called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Peterson,. Councilman Ayotte and Councilman Labatt. STAFF PRESENT: None PUBLIC PRESENT: Melissa Gilman (Chanhassen Villager), Steve Berquist, various others through out the meeting. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT INTERVIEWS. The half hour prior to the interviews commencing was spent having a brief review of some of the questions that council members were going to be asking to avoid duplication and to insure that a breadth of issues were covered. Council members also reviewed the selection criteria: Financial Acumen, Organizational Participation/Management, Public Interaction/Communication, Planning/Land Use/Development and Technology. Each interviewee was asked to take the first five minutes to tell a little bit about themselves and why they were interested in serving on the council, which was followed by questions from the council members and a five minute wrap up for questions or comments from the applicants. Each interview lasted 30 minutes. The interviewees in order were: Jim Andrews, Mark Kroskin, Tom Furlong, Mike Mason, Rod Franks, Gayle Degler and Kathleen Peck. Following the interviews the council agreed to rank the seven candidates 1-3. Three being the top score. (Tally sheet attached.) Out of 12 possible points, Mark Kroskin was the top vote getter with 9 points/from four council members, followed by Rod Franks with 4 points/from two council members, Gayle Degler with 3 points/from two council members and Mike Mason and Tom Furlong with 3 points each from one council member. Council then discussed scheduling the second interviews tentatively planned for Tuesday evening at 7:00 pm. The top three candidates were the subject of the discussion: Kroskin, Franks and Degler. There was a strong consensus that a second interview with these candidates would not be necessary, the half hour interviews and resumes were sufficient background to reach a decision. Council then ranked the three finalists. (Tally sheet attached.) Out of 12 possible points, Mark Kroskin was the top vote getter with 11 points/from four council members, followed by Gayle Degler with 6 points/from three council members and Rod Franks with 4 points/from two council members. The council agreed to appoint Mark Kroskin to the open seat on February 12, 2001. Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Prepared by Linda Jansen, Mayor. Cca02-05-01 // uos.~olod m?qe'-I t uosuef 1 uose~ a>I.rl/g ~ u!>Is°'~>!,>t-heN ( ~tum~ poM~ . L tlOSP, ,r~j ..'0 >UTAr ~~. guo[-mzI mol - ( m>ISm~I >I~IN " \ · ImoJ. uos~alad uosu~f olloXv s~o~ptr,V CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2001 Acting Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak and Deb Kind MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director Public Present for all items: Name Address Barbara Fransdal Janet & Jerry Paulsen Linda Landsman Mark Uptherap Sandy Beaches Deb Lloyd Steve Berquist 6200 Murray Hill Road 7305 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Trail 7207 Frontier Trail Laredo Lane 7302 Laredo Drive Frontier Trail PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN ESTATES 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8004 AND 8006 ERIE AVENUE, ROBERT PAULSEN. Public Present: Name Address Dan Lorinser Jennifer Macfarlane Greg Paulsen Terri Lee and Bob Paulsen 8020 Erie Avenue 3800 Leslee Curve 5766 W. Glen Moor Road 8006 Erie Avenue Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I do have 3 questions. Just to tack on a little bit more on the precedence because I think that's an interesting situation, precedence. You say there was one of those other 5 duplexes that was allowed to subdivide. However that one has a garage on both sides so the subdivision ended up having, both had a garage and so the lot was split more in the middle? Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: So the lots are more than 6,000 square feet. They're more like, about hoxv much? Hoium: The resulting ones are one is 7,300 and one is approximately 7,400. Sacchet: Okay, so in the 7,000's. Okay. Now that's one question. The other question, the other precedence where a variance was granted, you say it's the same configurahon basically tike the applicants? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: And you say however the applicant has that, I mean in that particular case the people that received the variance chose not to exercise it? Hoium: Yes. For unknown reasons they chose not to build. Sacchet: My question then is, since a variance xvas granted at one point, could they still exercise that variance or is there an expiration on that? Hoium: It's expired. Sacchet: 'It's expired? Hoium: A one year expiration date. Sacchet: So if these people xvould xvant to do a garage theY couldn't do it based on that variance that was granted in the past? Hoium: No. Sacchet: Okay, that's significant. Now a very fundamental question. In your recommendation in the staff report your findings are basically based on the zoning. On the current zoning. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: You don't even bring it to the level of looking at the variance findings? Hoium: No. Sacchet: Can you say something about that? Hoium: I think the reason was, it was dependent on which variances would need. There are so many alternatives, other options. Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. That answers it for my satisfaction. Now, if I may ask a few more questions. Cun'ently what's there is, it's conforming except for use that it's a duplex. Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 Hoium: The use is non-conforming. The lot is conforming. Sacchet: But otherwise in terms of setbacks and everything they're fine? Hoium: Yes. Saechet: Now if we leave that lot as is, it could potentially be a conforming use at some time in the future. If somebody would replace the duplex with a single family house, it would conform to all the require~nents in terms of building pad and size and setbacks and what have you. Hoium: Correct. Sacchet: Now on the other hand if we allow this to split, do we have any way to assure it stays 2 units and not all of a sudden becomes 2 separate units? Hoium: They would be legal lots of record. We could possibly add a condition that they would have to be only used as twin homes. However, somebody could come back and sa3, we have a single family lot, we want to build a single family home. We have a legal lot of record. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you. Conrad: Okay. Alison? Blackowiak: No questions right now. -. Kind: Mr. Chair yes, I do have a question. Is subdivision the only option that allows for a two owner occupied home? . Hoiuln: You mean for the process to. Kind: Have two separate owners on either side, is subdivision the only way that that could be achieved? I'm thinking, here I'll tell you where I'm going. I'm thinking some sort oftownhome agTeement where. Hoimn: Condominiuln or. Kind: Yeah. Is that something that the city gets involved with or is that something the homeowner can do on their own? Hoium: That would be a private, a way for the applicant, it would be a private process that they would convey that lot's property rights. The city has no regulations over that. I have a copy of Minnesota State Statutes that shows that we cannot prohibit condominium process and I can give you copies of that. Kind: Okay. And then on the comp plan it says that this lot is guided for R-4, and R-4 does allow twin homes. Does it make sense for us to take a look at least at these 5 parcels and add it to our list of properties that we're looking at to bring it into compliance with the Met Council's requirements to have our land use match our zoning and at least have it be R-4 which does allow twin homes? Aanenson: It is consistent with the comprehensive plan as far as the density, so that list that we're doing was between inconsistencies between the land use and the zoning. So it is consistent. The only two we Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 would have would be to rezone it to a PUD which does require our PUD ordinance says 5 acres. Which my understanding and Julie, in looking at all those houses wouldn't accommodate the 5 acres. So xve could still give relief to that if you felt strong about that and come back and rezone it. I'm not sure it's going to solve this immediate problem as far as splitting it and the garage situation. Because again the greater concern is you come back and whoever owns that property now is going to come back and ask for an additional garage so you're maybe setting yourself up for a future. Kind: Rezoning it to R-4 though would allow for twin homes to be there, whereas right now even the fact that there's twin homes does not comply whereas R-4 at least allows {win homes. Aanenson: Correct. Right. But tile>, would still be undersized because of the 10,000 square foot ITlUnl, yeah. Kind: Yeah, instead of 20. Okay. In the staff report it said that staff was unable to, on page 2, the background paragraph it said staff has been unable to find details as to why these duplexes were allowed in an R-1 district back when they were built. And then in the applicant's report, which `,vas nicely done by the way, it talks about that `,`,,'hen they were built twin homes were allowed to be built on the edge development. Were you able to find anything? Hoium: We weren't able to find any documentation that xvould provide that information. That was, we had had discussions, trying to figure out how these were built. Possibly the ordinance, this was platted in '71. This duplex was built in 1977. One of the other duplexes was built before tile '72 ordinance. We're thinking maybe possibly as a buffer between single family and the commercial uses might have been the reasoning but we don't have documentation. Kind: Do we have other neighborhoods in the city that have this? Aanenson: The rest of them on Chan View. Just down from city hall here that have duplexes on some of them. Kind: So this would perhaps be setting a precedent for other areas of town as ',,,,ell? If we did a lot split here. Okay. I think that's it Mr. Chair. Conrad: I have nothing to ask staff. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Terri Lee Paulsen: My name is Terri Lee Paulsen and I live at 8006 Erie Avenue, and this is my husband Bob. First of all I'd like to thank Julie and Sharmin for your help. When my husband and I first started looking into subdividing our duplex a few months ago xve expected it xvould be a fairly routine process. It wasn't too long however before we realized there was nothing routine about it. Quite simply the 5 duplexes on Erie Avenue should never have been built where they are. Unfortunately little information is available about the...behind the decision. It's really no surprise they don't meet the city's current comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. Actually nothing could be done to our property to make it 100% compliant with today's comprehensive plan and ordinances. But as the city code says one of the purposes of the non-conforming uses division of Chapter 20 on zoning is to "recognize the existence of uses, lots and structures which were lawful when established but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements". And as the division on variances in this same chapter states, "the intent of this provision is not to allow proliferation of variances but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre- existing standards exist". Nothing can better sum up our situation we face today. The design of the duplex itself is unusual with two single car garages on one side. We want to continue living on the Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 property we have invested so much of our time and effort in over the last 10 years but we no longer want to be landlords. Therefore we want to subdivide the property, sell one unit and live in the other. To us how this is accomplished really doesn't matter. If we're required to build a garage, we'll do it. If the city would rather see easements, that's fine too. Upon speaking with a real estate attorney we were assured that easements are common solution to this sort of situation. We're extremely flexible given the limitations of the property and have shown we're more than willing to work with the city to get this accomplished. I must point out that what we're proposing to do isn't unheard of. In fact the city of Chanhassen has approved the subdivision of two duplexes in the past, including one in our neighborhood. The 8016 and 8018 Erie Avenue property was almost the exact same size as our's is now, so variances for lot size and fi'ontage were required. The only real difference is that the design of the duplex has 2 car tuck under garages below each unit. Another duplex at 7611 and 7613 Iroquois was subdivided in 1990. This one too needed variances for lot area and frontage, but you see from that photo that this 7613 property only has a single car garage like our's. And in 1985 the city approved a variance for a neighboring duplex on Erie Avenue to build a garage on the side of their property. One of the solutions we're here pursuing today. Allowing us to build a garage would ensure that one of our two units would conform to the now existing ordinance requiring 2 car garages. If the city allows us to subdivide our property it would be creating 2 affordable single family homes. At a time when affordable housing is at a prelnimn, this just lnakes good sense. And statistics have shown that property that is owned rather than rented is better maintained. Being owner occupants we're able to keep a better watch over the property, smnething a new rental owner might not care about. Also, turnover is certainly much less when it is owned. Currently the rental units in the neighborhood seem to go through renters on a yearly basis. If this subdivision isn't approved the ciD' is forever making this rental property. And just to reply to your questions about the townhouse. We consulted an attorney and he thought it was a very problematic solution and probably not the best choice. We did pursue that. My husband will speak. Bob Paulsen: Hello. I'm Bob Paulsen. We sent out a packet to everybody. Our two main issues are, one we want to live in Chanhassen. And two, we don't want to be landlords. We've o~vned the propelW fol' 10 years and I just want to give you an example, I'm not trying to bash renters but in the last year I've had someone run over my mailbox. I found drug paraphernalia on my yard. Beer bottles. Someone burnt, put a cigarette butt out in my new siding. I'm just, the idea of being a landlord has it's pros and cons but no one cares for their property. No one cares for what they're renting. I'm just partly frustrated. Partly nervous but I want to give you a story that you don't see, you see rental property and there's a flip side that I want to live in a neighborhood where there's a sense of community and I've never had that having renters and I just want to throw that out to everybody so. Other than that I just want to thank everybody for your time. That's all we have. Conrad: Thank you. You made a nice presentation, nice kit. Thanks very much. Is there a motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing ~vas opened. Conrad: Anybody would like to make any comments on this issue? Jennifer Macfarlane: Hi. My name is Jennifer Macfarlane and I live at 3800 Leslee Curve, and I've known Bob for several years and he had told me that he was planning on selling half of his duplex. When I heard about this I was really excited. I work in Chaska and it's very hard to find affordable housing in this area. My parents live in Chanhassen and I've been looking probably for about 2 years for a place to buy and it's, the prices are, they're pretty high so when I found out that he was selling off half of it, I figured that was in my price range and something that I could afford. I've been a renter for 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 years and to go with what Bob ,,vas saying, it's rental property are, it's, they're not as nice as your own property. You know to have upkeep done on them, a lot of times I'm finding with my landlords it xvas a little bit harder to get them to do it because it is a rental property. And so to own your own property I think is great and it's great for the neighborhood and great for the sense of community. And I also would be excited to have a back yard of my own. And I grew up in this community. I've lived here for about 25 years and I've watched it grow and I would like to remain a resident of it. And that is all ! have to say. Conrad: Good. Any other comments? Anything else? A motion to close the public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Comments. Kind: This is tough. I want to figure out a way for them to be able to sell the other unit and right now I am stuck between encouraging them to do the townhome way, or going with the fact that a precedent has been set. And I am leaning toward the townhome method because the 2 lots are so different in size. One comes very close to meeting our ordinance for the twin homes, for which this property is guided, which is at 10,000 but the other one is 6,000 and I have big concerns about having a lot of record that is around 6,000 square feet. I also don't think that the applicant meets the requirements to subdivide. Conrad: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree too. I was struggling for a way to make it work but we as a planning commission have fairly strict rules in terms of what we can and can't do and if it doesn't meet our subdivision requirements then we basically have our hands tied. We cannot go ahead and approve something if it doesn't meet these requirements as much as xve may like a project or not like a project. We've got guidelines to follow and therefore I have to agree with the staff report that the subject property does not comply with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Conrad: Uli. Sacchet: I believe it's relatively clear case unfortunately from the criteria that we have to look at it. The framework that we have to look at so I agree with Deb and Alison. And I asked about the precedence because I felt well, a precedence have an influence on this of course and I would be very hard pressed to approve those things that were set as precedence and I think that somebody would come with that variance request that has expired, I can't really envision how I could approve it based on the fi'amework under which we have to look at these things. You have done a fantastic job of putting this project together and staff looking at all the different possibilities. It doesn't fit. It doesn't fit and moving forward with some of the problems I've seen in my time on this commission when we have to deal with lots that are 6,000 square feet and people want to put a house on it, it's a nightmare. It's not good and I think in that context especially I have to say I could not approve this and recommend approval of this. Conrad: Anybody feel that there has been a precedence set? In my world it's probably not something that feels comfortable, but if there has been a precedent set, I think we have to look at that. This is one of those cases you know and we play that game all the time, and usually we're looking at the wrong precedent. This is a case ,,,,,here. Kind: It's just down the street. Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Conrad: If there is a precedent set, we legally we broke the ordinance if we set the precedent so my question is, do we find this comparable to the precedent? Do we need an attorney to, our city attorney to advise us or are we pretty comfortable this is a unique situation that's different than the other situation? Sacchet: I think fundamentally it is similar, but there is a difference at the same time so maybe consulting the attorney would make sense from that angle. Conrad: Once you make a, this is almost like a speech. Once you make a' variance, it changes the ordinance. It says, that person did it. Anybody else ~vho equals very similar that same situation, you've got to allow it and that's what I don't know. I don't know how close we are to the other situation, any other situation there. I'm opening that up for anybody to maybe not make a decision tonight. Maybe have staff come back and tell us with an attorney as far as if a precedent has been set. It's so close that we should really seriously consider this. That would be my only comment to this case. I think in general it's not comfortable. It's not what we intended for that zone. It's, and we'd be granting more variances that we don't like to do. It's really quite contrary to what we like, how we like to interpret our ordinances. Once you start breaking them, then you have none. Then it's sort of potluck so, my position is that it's probably not what I'd like to do but on the other hand if something has been done before, they have legal right to come in and sue us. And I think we may want to, if you see, if the Planning Cmnmission sees a precedent being set that's close, maybe we look at that. Or staff, you could advise us on that. That's my only comments. Aanenson: We did speak to the city attorney on this. It's a very complex, I've been here 10 years, it's the first one I've seen of this come through. The other ones were in the mid 80's so there's not a lot of !~istory on reports and what was done and what the rules were in place at that time. I think ify6u're leaning towards some ~;elief, the best thing to do xvould be to go back and do a PUD and try to put some standards in place where the units have to remain attached. We do have lots that are 5,000 or 6,000 in other PUD's. I think, from my understanding, ~vhat the homeowners are looking for is they want their own yard. If you go the condominium, it's common ownership then it goes with both properties. I think that's what I'm hearing is why that doesn't work for them, the condominium. They want their own yard. So even though it's under 5 acres, that's still is a possible relief to go back and examine that. Put conditions in there with the density allocation and the units have to be attached and try to build that. But we did speak to the city attorney on the possible, but the specific question of precedent wasn't asked but xve tried to explore all the options. We spent a lot of time trying to find a way that would make, yeah, yeah. Conrad: ... and none of them seemed very good to me. Aanenson: No. I guess that's what I'm saying, the PUD, going back and rezoning all those units and putting some standards in place so they all kind of are falling, kind of going back to saying was there a precedent so they're all following the same rules. Conrad: But why would we want to do that Kate? Aanenson: Right. Conrad: ...it's like spot zoning. We don't want to spot zone. That's dumb. Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 Aanenson: Except it was already done. The spot's there. We're trying to give some relief to make it fit with xvhat's happening today. When it was put in place tile same rules aren't in place. Conrad: But hoxv do we benefit? How does the city benefit? Is there more control? Is there, xvhat is the benefit? None to the city. Aanenson: Well you're giving separate ownership instead of a rental. If that's important or not important. And we're not trying to increase the density but allows different oxvnership. That would be the only thing. If you xvant ownership change, and people to have the ability to make modifications to the units. That's why we recommended no because we went through this same struggle, but the question wasn't specifically asked and it's my understanding that if there's a lot next door doesn't, each case, you look at on it's own merits. So even though there was one granted in the past, I'm not sure what the criteria was given under that one but you look at each case separately. Sacchet: May' I ask a question? Conrad: Really? If we did allow a similar thing, that sets the precedent. It does. Aanenson: I believe on that one too they had the 30 foot, they met the side yard setback. Blackowiak: I was going to say, it wasn't for, it was for a garage variance 15 years ago. Aanenson: It was for a garage setback. They met some of the standards. Blackowiak: Yeah. that was the 80, no I'm talking about to the east of that one. Kind: I think this is the one Ladd's talking about. Blackov,'iak: Oil, that'k got the 2 tuck under garages though. Kind: The only difference with this one is that there would be a cross access agreement. Otherwise it's the same as this. Or similar. The resulting lots are quite a bit different size though. That's my problem with this. So really this precedent doesn't really apply because of that. Sacchet: A question. Kate you say that maybe a PUD could be a solution to anchor in that it has to remain duplex. But in order to make it a PUD all the owners of all 5 duplexes would have to jointly apply for rezoning or i mean, is that even a possibility? That's my question. Aanenson: The city has the right to rezone someone's property. You would hope that they xvould want to rezone it but you have the right, the City Council has the right as a legislative body to rezone property. Certainly we would want to hold a meeting first and explain to them. See if there's concurrence but it's opening up a bigger, right. Sacchet: So in other words it is a possibility? A real possibility. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Because in terms of the precedent, the fact that there are 2 precedents, one for subdividing a similar size, irregardless of the, regardless of the garage, and then you have the other precedent of a Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 variance that was granted for a garage in a similar, even though it wasn't exercised. Still a variance was granted so between those two types of... Conrad: Okay, so what do you want to do? I would entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Yeah, well I will just make one comment too. I think PUD is like overkill in this situation. I mean we're talking about one duplex that we need to deal with and I don't think we need to go and rezone the whole thing. I don't think that that's, why should we be doing that? I mean you asked the question before, what does the city gain? I mean what do we gain? Conrad: I don't know. I don't know of anything. Blackowiak: Yeah, and my only concern would be, I feel that I really believe that the staff report is well done. I agree with what they say. I concur. My concern again with what you brought up would be, has there been precedent set? Yes or no, so I think that's the issue. So I would say we should table it until we get a answer to that question and we get the attorney. Aanenson: Can I say one more thing on the PUD. All those lots are non-conforming so what you gain is you fix something that, all those lots are wrong so that was the, we bounced that idea earlier just to say that you fix, because who's to say they're not going to over time come in. That was the reason we suggested that. Conrad: Kate, if we do table this, ~vill you come back and advise us on that because again I don't know what we gain by, again a spot zoning. So who cares? You know the intent of that neighborhood is-single family. That was the intent, wasn't it? - Aallenson.' Yes. Conrad: I might have even been around. I'm just not sure what we gai_n by making it a PUD. If we have any more control. Any more anything. Bringing it into conformity, who cares? We've got control at the single family level right now. We did have control. We have the lot sizes we kind of thought we wanted. I don't know but advise us. I think if somebody motions to table this. Blackowiak: Okay, so then I will make a motion that the Planning Commission tables preliminary plat for Subdivision 2001-2 for two single family lots as shown on plans dated February 13, 2001 for the reason that we would like the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not precedent has been set in similar cases. Conrad: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Conrad: Any questions? Any comments? Blacko~viak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission tables preliminary plat for Subdivision 2001-2 for two single family lots as shown on plans dated February 13, 2001 for the reason that we would like the City Attorney's opinion on whether or not precedent has been set in similar cases. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Planning Colnmission Meeting - March 20, 2001 MS&R PRESENTATION OF THE NEW LIBRARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Pat Mackey: I have some materials I'd like to pass out and then I'll be presenting at the projector. My name is Pat Mackey. I'm from the architectural firm of Meyer, Scherer and Rockcastle or MS&R. We're the Minneapolis architectural firm who's been retained to design the new library for Chanhassen. The site that we're looking at is directly adjacent to this building. And there are extra materials here if anybody would care to take a look. We've been involved in a series of public meetings to kind of kick start the design process here and I'd like to pretty much re-present what we presented at our last, or second and most recent public meeting which was March l0th here. Kind of with any project of this type, we started to take a look at just what are the characteristics of the site and this aerial photo, if everybody can see, shows essentially that the configuration maybe in a way that xve're not used to in plan. Maybe the way that we think of this site but it shows the relationship of this to the rather heavy traffic of West 78th Street, the Byerly's, the city, hall building which is right here, Coulter or City Center Drive coming through here. The site which is where the library is being planned and the adjacent businesses and buildings. What you can see kind of as a really quick analysis of here is that the site as represented here is really, coming from the east there's really kind of invisible until you get past the bank canopy and then suddenly this great open space opens up. Contrary, or on the flip side of that as you come from the west, you've kind of got due to the Byerly's parking lot and then the more setback characteristic of building doxvn here, you've got kind of a long vista on here as you come around the curve just off this photo. We've got a couple of things here to draw on, or to reference. One which we pointed out is kind of the designed for the worst case scenario parking lot of Byerly's which basically this will handle the worst parking situation, say the day before Thanksgiving. Everybody will be able to find a spot at By_erly's, even if it's right there. You'll be able to get, it's a big parking lot and big building. We've got some smaller buildings down here where the parking relationship is secondary to the street presence of the building on the main arterial here whereyou actually go past the building part and then enter even on the back, or in some cases back around the fi'ont. This is just a diagram showing some of the really rough and basic forces that play here. This is the format again. We're sho~ving you the plan because we're going to be showing you 8 schemes here so I'll try not to beat them to death. We've got 8 schemes here and this is the format we're going to be presenting but this shows the existing conditions on the site. These dashed lines represent grade changes in 5 foot increments. Again this is the green space. This is an existing building which is slated for demolition we're assuming for the sake of this discussion that that building is no longer there. And then some rather important factors on the site being the parking and Coulter Road. There's 70 spaces in what's considered to be an under utilized parking lot to the northwest. 23 spaces right here which are primarily library parking. 15 spots shared which is our assumption which we've worked out through some conversations with the city and the library, and 23 spaces really none of which are practically applicable to parking down here. One thing that is proving to be kind of a formidable variable here is that there's 30 spaces and a great convenience on Coulter Road or City' Center Drive. The elimination or closing of which provides some design challenges. I'I1 start noxv with the schemes, in no particular order other than numerical. This is kind of where we started. We investigated putting a one story library on the southwest comer of the space. Closing off City Center Drive. Increasing this northwest parking lot with a new extended parking deck, which I should explain is not a parking ramp per se but more of a cantilevered structure. It differs fi'om a ramp in that you're not accessing it fi'om below. This is access from up here and then there's parking underneath it. A technical difference but it's not quite a parking ramp. I only explain that because you'll see this in some other schemes. We've got expanded parking off what used to be Coulter and let me also explain that in the schemes you'll see, you'll see this dashed red line which represents the southern most curb of Coulter as it exists right now, or City Center Drive. Just to give you a datum or a reference to ~know how far we're 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 encroaching into the existing green space here. We've actually moved and then expanded the parking along this and provided a drop off cul-de-sac. We're still able to utilize the shared parking here which we believe is a reasonable distance, especially in light of what's considered to be a reasonable distance, just for sense of colnparison. What we're talking about is walking from there to there, which puts you about in the middle of the Byerly's parking lot. It just again, for reference there, these are the scales we're talking. That's scheme 1. Another thing we looked at in each scheme was, we arrived at a recommended number of parking spaces for the library of 94. That's based on a 1 stall per certain amount of library square footage. It's a formula that's fairly well tried and we do quite a few libraries. It's our assumption right now, perhaps there can be some discussion ofthht and there is some discussion opening up at these public meetings, is that enough? Is that too much? Etc. This scheme falls short of that 94 to 86 parking spaces. This is the second scheme where we look at putting a free standing 2 story building on the southeast, basically southeast corner of the available green space. What we found is that we're no longer able to utilize the shared parking at the northwest and as a result of that we really need to add quite a few more parking spaces. We maintain the through street at Coulter, but basically turn it into a double nose in parking lot. This library you can see, or this scheme really is the extreme of disassociation with city hall. You'll see in some other schemes we get much more cozy and in some cases intimate with the city hall building with these schemes. Again, even with this great amount of parking that's been added, we still come to only 67 spots for this scheme. This is scheme 3 where we start to look at sharing some space and some adjacency and some use with the city hall. Not necessarily overlapping program space but sharing entries and kind of contributing to a larger civic single building rather than 2 distinct entities. What we do is again close off City Center Drive, create 2 parking lots and a new parking deck to arrive at a parking total of 97. We get somewhat of a compressed linear green space here, which we can discuss in the next scheme but what we~ve got between the library and city hall is a covered conditioned atrium space xvhich would act as common space to the library, the senior center and whatever city functions move into the existing library on the other side of this wall. Other things we can look at investigating are new entries to kind of make up this grade, differential for somebody to enter high and come down low. As I said, we're about 10 feet higher from this side of city hall to this side. That's one kind of natural amenity that's given Us some opportunities with the parking deck. This is scheme 3A. It's not it's own thing because it's basically a variation on what I just showed you, taking what was a one story scheme here and turning it into a two story. Reducing the footprint to about 17, ~vell 16,000 square feet from around 32. Increasing the amount of green space and then we've looked at different parking configurations here. One of them again is in the previous scheme. We have a parking deck and then a different shape of the side lots, the surface lots. That gives us a total of 81 parking spots but a nicer green space as far as what the setback and what the kind of positioning of this as far as a gesture of kind of civic building should be. The fourth scheme we looked at puts the library right here. Has a si~nilar adjacent or common entry to the city hall building and the library but as a result of displacing both this parking lot and some of the Coulter parking, and not really being able to practically utilize any of the ghared parking we had to maximize the parking. You put in a pretty large surface lot right here and still only get to 71 spots. Not one of the better solutions there. Scheme 5, and forgive the scribbles. These occurred after the meeting. Similar to scheme 1, we've got a one story, very long linear library. We've got no parking deck here. We're able to maintain this parking lot here and kind of move what was Coulter parking into this turn around drop off loop and maintain a decently proportioned green space in front of the building. For this scheme we get to a total of 88 parking spots, which isn't 94 but we're looking at it as close. And I'm sure there will be further discussion on this. This is scheme 5A. Very similar to scheme 5. We've taken the one story building here and separated offprogrammatically what we're seeing. This is the one that gets maybe closest to more than a box diagram. By creating this kind of entt3~ spy and cutting through there, and severing off this space, we've created a good opportunity for a piece which you're finding more and more in libraries and even just public buildings in general as kind of a retail coffee and other public use space. Kind of accessory to the library or the city hall or the 11 Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 senior center. We've got the access from two sides. No through street again. Able to maintain this shared parking and this shared parking with again an enclosed stair along side of city hall and along the law' enforcement side. We get to a total of 92 spots and we'll leave it at that. This scheme is probably the most ambitious. It's a rather large new parking deck off of the upper parking lot. This northwest parking lot. There's a thru street, or the thru way at Coulter or City Center is maintained with the library service being able to dip off to the south here. It's a two story library with an entry on the green space essentially but with covered entry wings out to here, accessible from both the parking deck and underneath and from a rather short xvalk from city hall. These xvere the 8 schemes we presented and xve had handed out score sheets to the attendees of the meeting and asked them to rate each scheme on a scale of 1 to 10. We then just tallied that score and really only counted anything over 6. Assuming that anything under 5 was a negative. 5 was ambivalent and 6 was a positive reaction. So counting those numbers above 6, or at 6 and above we arrived at schemes 1, 5A and 3A. When you look at schemes 1 and 5A, they're actually pretty similar. They both take a similar placement and a similar treatment of parking and a similar relationship to city hall, so xve decided to, as a point of moving forward, we're now acting on combining schemes 1 and 5A and then developing a secondary scheme or an equal scheme of 3A, which was the next runner up if you will. The two story adjacent to the front of city hall. We're developing these two schemes in tandem with both schemes we're looking at different parking applications, different green space configurations and still investigating the one versus two story question which affects the library largely in xvhat it will cost to staff. Staffing a 2 story library means you're doubling your security. Your staff needs to basically be redundant for each floor, etc. So we've got a number of different factors that play here, but as I said we're developing kind of a hybrid of 1 and 5A and 3A, as you can see in the packets. The discussions that have kind of risen out of the schemes being presented are what is the nature of this green space? What exactly is this green space that we've been looking at and quantifying in square footage terms? When xve first started some public meetings there was questions xvhether it would be a festival grounds. Something that would be essentially a large, open, flexible space for the 4th of July celebrations, etc. What we've been finding out over the course of these meetings and some other meetings xvith the city is that the land immediately to the north of the city hall building has largely been given over to that kind of function right now and that any space down here would likely not have to, or be asked to serve that function down the road. Another factor we're wrestling with right now is the one versus two story scheme for the reasons I had explained. We're in some conversations with the library right noxv on that and then probably maybe most germane to this meeting right no~v is whether to close off the thru way of Coulter or City Center Drive. It was brought up several times in the public meetings that this is a very convenient thru way for people in and out of Byerly's and in and out of the bank and the post office and to sever that or to block that xvould mean quite a lot of either traffic diverted to West 78th and a trip that used to take 30 seconds can now take 3 or 4 minutes if people had to wait for stop lights. Or it xvas pointed out that there is a city plan from the early 90's to investigate looking at this, looking at severing this and taking this thru way to the north through what is right now the rink and basically following a rough arc along here. We're not exactly certain what the details of that plan are but we're working under the assumption that that is still a possibility. Particularly in cases where we've closed off Coulter. One reason that again we rather strongly agree with is if the library is to exist on this site and the parking for the library is to be across Coulter, which can be a pretty speedy street if somebody's making the shortcut, you're mixing pedestrian traffic, specifically small children and cars and, it doesn't seem to be that great of a mix. The discussion that came up about the nature and the extent of the parking, it kind of focused on how much are we willing to design our environments to cater to the automobile. To provide convenience versus something for this site at least for a civic and public institution as something that's appropriate to the character of this space. Do we continue to kind of put the car in front, in which case it's a fairly simple proposition with the parking right here off West 78th and then the library homed in between the library, between the parking and city hall. Or do we want to take a look at different xvays to get people in and out of the 12 Planning Com~nission Meeting- March 20, 2001 building in different priorities. The final, or one of the final pieces that needs some explaining here is if this green space isn't going to be simply a lawn or public festival ground or some concern was that it not be a playground. Specifically that it be kind of an adult space. Not to the exclusion of children but something with a character that was more park, more urban and less playground. What we're looking at with our landscape architect, landscape designer, Damon Faber and Associates, also from Minneapolis, is the approach of making these green spaces in the various schemes more objects than planes. Something that you'd see with a wooded grove, you know kind of ordered on the urban park aesthetic that the green space itself becomes part of the design. Part of the building. Part of the presence on the street. This one no more, no less than the others but that's the approach we're taking at this point. Is that it's not necessary to look at this green space as a lawn to be maintained and kept at 2 inches. It's something more, you can generate some form. Generate some extension of the building and some character of the civic core here that this is becoming by using that landscaping in a 3 dimensional way. Are there any questions? Conrad: Are there any questions? It sounds like you've done some good work here. Got some good input. Kate, what's our role tonight? Just to be aware? Aanenson: I'm not sure exactly what the public process is going to be for your reviewing it. There's been discussions that it would just, may not go through site plan review. I just wanted you as, in your role to give opportunity for input so. Conrad: Okay. Park and Rec is here too. Okay, good. Well with that, anybody have some comments? Steve Berquist: I have one. Completely offthe wall question. The lot across the street, the Byerly's lot is quite under utilized... Is there any practical usage of:that space and this space? Pat Mackey: Yes. Obviously that's a matter to be dealt with Byerly's or we're not even entirely certain right now whether Byerly's owns their building and their lot, or their lot at least but that's a good point. Brought up the worst case scenario of the day before Thanksgiving, that Byerly's would be full. Well the library's going to have similar worst case scenarios. If an author comes to do a reading at the new Chanhassen library, parking could be expected to shoot way past this 94. We feel it's again to avoid the big lot that it's I think in everybody's interest to look at a cooperative use of resources of parking, especially at Byerly's. You do get some pedestrian crossing of Kerber. It provides a couple small challenges like that but it's certainly, it makes very good sense to share resources like that rather than everybody build enough cars or build enough stalls for their worst case scenario. So that is something we're going to be looking into. Steve Berquist: Is there anything in the mission of that district Kate that addresses the possibility of that happening? That you know of. Aanenson: Yes, T.F. James owns that property. There is additional lease space above Byerly's that is not completely leased out. It could have a very high use. It's a two story building. We did approach Mr. James about putting something in the comer to pul1 that comer and if you recall the discussion that we went through when that came in, because it had a loading dock, we pushed the building into the hill. There was a lot of discussion about pulling it forward based on the size of the building and what you'd see coming down Kerber and the view so we actually made the decision, looking at the different scenarios, to push that building into the hill. The fact being also that it was two stories and the large presence it xvould have on main street, but we have talked to them about putting something else in the 13 Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 corner themselves. Exactly, right in that area. And they have looked at that and I think it's in their long term plans. Just give a little more energy down there. Conrad: Anybody with questions? Audience: This is my very first time...but I do like the concept of 3A with the t~vo story and...but I frequently go to the Excelsior library and when the children are there, you know the children are all over the floor and the...and I like that. Not only that, over the 35 years I've watched Minnetouka City Hall grow, and they keep adding on, adding on. I would think that this concepl~ here needs more growth where maybe in time the city hall needs more room and the library moves or something, I see this as a... Conrad: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Well I'll jump in. I agree. I think 3A is a lot smarter for long term growth, and my first thought as I looked at that was, instead of totally. Well let me step back and say the idea of looping Kerber Boulevard or Coulter Boulevard or xvhatever we're going to call it, City Center Boulevard to the north I think is just ridiculous. It xvould just wipe out all the fields that, I was on the park task force. We spent a lot of money on getting extra fields. Extra open space and to put a major road through there I think is just ridiculous. So that said, I like 3A for a couple reasons. First, I think it's much more compact. I think it fits better with the city hall. I don't like the idea of entering it on either end. I think especially the southwest corner, it just looks too contrived just to stick a long, fiat one story building there. I think a two story building would really allow you to have a lot more character and also a lot more addition spaces if that should be the case in the future. Coulter Boulevard, as I look at your entrances off of both Kerber and Market on your 3A option, I would say that, would there be any possibility of wrapping Coulter to the south? And having the road go to the south of the library in front. Adding some parking along that road and then getting rid of some of that corner parking and maybe opening up a little bit more green space. I think that would invite people in. Get them a little closer as they drive by. And I think that two stories is just a much nicer looking ideal Like I said, the southwest especially, when I was looking at your sun, you know all your sun data. Most of that eastern 2/3 of the lot xvould be in the shadows all the time and I really don't think that that, you know you don't want to leave city hall in the shadow. You don't want to leave all that grass in the shado~v. I think by pushing it up closer to city hall you're going to have a lot more opportunity to keep it, give it a more open feel and a fl'iendlier feeling than this dark building right on the corner and I would certainly hope that we could look at doing something with the Coulter Boulevard to the south possibly just to keep that open because it is an important link and I do use it a lot myself. And finally, you know the two story thing, I agree with her comment about the kids and kind of separating it and I think that granted that security may or may not be an issue but if you're going to be having some kind of coffee shop or some retail, put the retail on the second story. It could have it's own security. It's own staffing. Put maybe some rooms up for the author talks, the kids room, whatever. Keep your main area downstairs for :>,our books, etc and I think that might solve some of the staffing problems that you're looking at with a single story option only. Pat Mackey: Right. It's a matter of finding the right segregation of uses for floors and maybe I didn't put the factors in the proper order. We haven't really figured out the proper order of what is the most pressing thing here. The two story and the staffing issue is one of them but kind of as with everything else you have to kind of xveigh all the expenses, or the advantages and disadvantages of each one. And that's kind of right where we are right now. What we were, by the end of the second public meeting, and most recent one, starting to refer this as this is a more traditional, symmetrical. The library is in the middle of it's green here versus the other one which was a little more, as you can see, more pressed up to the corner. More pressed up to the street. A little more pedestrian access oriented. 14 Planning Com~nission Meeting- March 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Well yes and no. I mean, but there's no parking right there where the pedestrians might be walking so, I don't know if I'd. Pat Mackey: Oh you're right. Being the entrance is here. No. We're more presence on the street. Blackowiak: Yeah, more presence on the street but again I think 3A really accentuates the library a little bit more. I think it xvould give it a better feel. Pat Mackey: It gives you a setback to it .... Blackowiak: You know it's like there's the library. There's no question as to what the building is and it's there, it makes a statement. Whereas on the comer it seems to me it's more like oh. What's this building? I'm sure it would be signed properly but, you know I just have a real strong preference for 3A. Conrad: Okay. Any other thoughts? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I too strongly, strongly, strongly favor 3A. I think the smaller footprint is really important and I love the green space as a community space. Being on the main street of Chanhassen. I flfink our festivals that we have right in the core, the heart of our city are really important and putting them back out behind city hall just doesn't cut it for me. I was thinking about the 4th of July parade and the 4th of July celebration, and I know those are one day a year celebrations but they are really neat to have on that green space so I would like to see that maximized. I'm okay with getting rid of the road in favor of maxilnizing the green space. I think there's probably a compromise between 3 and 3A as far as the parking goes. I think the parking on 3 looks like it would Work on 3A and I like that idea of getting the parking out of that green space. And I also like the idea of a sidewalk on 3 that goes on the south side of the building, which kind of encourages pedestrian movement closer to the library and makes it easy tO get around the building. So those are my comments. Pat Mackey:' Right. Your sidewalk comment is a good one. There's no reason that you couldn't pick elements out of. Kind: I always do that. I never like any, I always pick (d), none of the above. Pat Mackey: Well what we were trying to do is show kind of a range of factors. We think we have the major ones and now it's a matter of finessing. Some of the conversations about say for example re- locating the thru way to the north of city hall are really just at the what if or could we kind of things. We're not, we certainly know that we haven't talked to the right people about this and we know that we need to so, as well as the Byerly's issue and one versus two stories so we're really still kind of stirring the big mix here. Conrad: Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, with this two story version, the 3A. Pat Mackey: Yes. Sacchet: What would happen with the current front of city hall? In other words, what's to hide the relationship between the library and city hall? Can you go to that at all? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 20, 2001 Pat Mackey: It xvould be, the library would probably be taller than city hall. Sacchet: It would be taller? Pat Mackey: Yes, certainly. This building has a fairly short floor to floor height, and the library, the way we're going now is typically we'll get a t4 foot, 16 foot floor to floor. Once you get your roof and your parapet on there you're, even a one story building is going to be close to 20 feet tall. 18 feet really is about as low as you can go xvithout sinking the grade below exterior grade. So what we're looking at here is, even xvith a one story building is something close, say 3A as tall as the existing m,o stories city hall. Sacchet: So by going one story versus two stories you would not necessarily leave that much more open for city hall. Pat Mackey: Right. Right. Sacchet: And noxv what would be between city hall and the library is this amount of space? Pat Mackey: Yeah, about 12 is about as narrow as you'd want to go. 12 to 24 feet of a covered walkway, seating space. Space that the senior center could bump out into. The library lobby could bump out into. Library meeting room, etc. If that xvere a one or two story space, there could be a catwalk across or a walk across at the second level. Again right now just really looking at the basic configurations without getting into specific design, what that does represent is some meddling if you will or some getting involved with the construction of city hall and certainly this connecting link that obviously you don't have with a completely flee standing building. So there's some program and some available fund issues there and some timing certainly issues and disruption to some of the uses in this building while that was happening. So it's kind ora xve'll cross that bridge when we select a scheme that calls for it thing for it right now but we're trying to take all these things into account while we're weighing ofxvhat's worth. Sacchet: What I see is a lot of trade offs. Every situation here is a trade off with something else. I .personally like the idea of a smaller footprint. I think that has a lot of value. I do like the thru way of the City Center Drive, and then that's another trade off because it's nice to have the small footprint kind of centered to the property. Noxv if we do have City Center kind of swing around on the south side, obviously we're impacting the green space. What would be good about it is that it could be, the parking situation could be expanded possibly as needed. I was kind of curious, you keep coming back to those 94. Is there any simple explanation of the formula that you arrived at 94? Pat Mackey: Based on, you're forcing me to do math in public here. It's based on 1 stall per a certain amount of square footage. I believe it's. Sacchet: It goes by square feet? Pat Mackey: Yes. Yes. Sacchet: Okay. That's good enough. Pat Mackey: I'd know it if I was sitting at my desk but. 16 Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 Sacchet: Because I wondered, sometimes when we look at development proposals come in, we have this concept of proof of parking which basically means there is space that parking could be expanded if need be. Pat Mackey: Yes. Saechet: If there would be like a Coulter Drive or City Center loop going south of it, maybe it could be designed so that there could be this proof of parking that as needed it could be expanded depending what can be worked out with the Byerly's parking lot and those different variables. It would impact a little bit the green space utilization because I agree with that, it's awfully nice for Arbor Day we actually use it too. To have the tent there and the activities there, it's certainly preferable to have it hidden behind city hall. But personally I get a lot of use out of this road down there so I would hate to see it go. Pat Mackey: I do too. Okay... And again, that's something that could be taken from scheme to scheme. That xve could minimize surface loss at the beginning and anticipate room for expansion. Conrad: Anything? I probably disagree with everything that everybody said here. But I think the alternatives are the ones that people have seen are decent. The parking spaces are the big deal. 94, or 84 seems like a lot so that's an issue. I go to all the libraries and I never see 84 people, but that's your business. Not mine but there's got to be a way to, like Uli was saying, if we grow. If you build it they will come I guess is what you're saying. Right now we don't have 84 cars filling this library so you're saying we build a bigger building, they're going to come. That's your business and not mine but. Pat Mackey: We're trying to minimize the amount of parking. We're not necessarily hung up saying that ifxve don't hit 94 it's a failure. In fact that's quite the opposite of our real feeling is that we would like to, I don't think, if somebody couldn't find a parking spot at the Quiky Mart, they might go down the road to the next one. Well there's not a library down the road here. If they're going to get in their car and got o the library, they're going to do what it takes to park near the library. We would like to see, and we're investigating the number ourselves. If we believe that 94 is really. Conrad: I just want you to think about a smaller footprint to begin with and the capability to expand. That's the point. The street going through there, I don't agree with that. It's a convoluted street. It's a strange street. You know it goes for a block. Tums left. Turns right. It's a bad street. I just wouldn't have it. If we have a chance for a city complex, let's get rid of the street and get rid of some of the pavement. We really don't need it. That would be my point. Nobody else agrees. Kind: I agree. I said ditch the street. I did. Conrad: ...the green space, as we start building on green space, I don't think the green space counts a whole lot anymore. It's not a functional area. It's a grassy area. If you build stuff there, you're taking it away. You need volume to encourage city events so the green space is not a big deal. We always preach up front buildings in downtown Chanhassen. We preach it all the time. Kate preaches it all the time. Bring the building's forward. Now we're both putting it back so here we are, we're telling all the developers that come in, put your buildings on 78th Street and we're saying okay, we're going to put our's back. So that's a public deal. We always do that. Public has different rationale than the private sector. Therefore I like the one that brought it forward a little bit. I see the benefits in the one you have on the screen but it doesn't do me any good for the downtown community. It loses it so it's a split. In my mind it's a 50/50 deal. I like the one where 5A, where you brought it forward. It's what we preach. It's what the planning department preaches and you're not, you know if we go a different way than we're not 17 Planning Commission Meeting- March 20, 2001 folloxving what they say. I think there's some economic reasons and some good reasons to tie it into city hall so I can see that too. Anybody else? Anybody? Okay, thanks. Good job. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet moved to note the lninutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 6, 2001 as amended on page 19 by Uli Sacchet and changing to include Rich Slagle as present at the meeting. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Thank you. I did put in the packet, the prioritization that the council had recommended. Those have been noticed for public hearing. All of them so I'll make some decisions, xvhether we want to recommend or push them up to the council. Kind: Mi'. Chair I do have one question about the priorities. Number 2, private streets, private drives. Was that one that we suggested or is that a new one that's coming down fi'om council? Aanenson: That was a new one. It's part of the flag lots. Kind: It seems kind of related but. Aanenson: They are related and we've segmented them out but we've done issues xvith how they inter- relate so. Kind: So they'll probably be presented at the same time? Aanenson: All those have been noticed that are in. 1 through 5 have been noticed. That's what will be your next Planning Commission agenda is right there. Kind: Thank you. Aanenson: And that's all I have. Conrad: Any discussion? Anything? Somebody can close this meeting if they wanted to. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Acting Chairman Conrad adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson CommuniU, Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18