3 Site Plan Review/Chapel Hill
3,-~ ,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 12/1199
8/1100
CC DATE: 1/10/00
8/28/00
CASE#: 98-12 SPR
By: AI-JafI/Hempel:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Site Plan Review to allow a 16,680 >'1""''' foot d""><VVll1 ",..1" 2,eoo b'lLUU" f""t
library 40,000 square foot addition to an existing building and a Variance to allow a
30 foot Front Yard Setback, Chapel Hill Academy.
-
7707 Great Plains Boulevard, located south of West 78th Street, East of Frontier
Trail, and west of Great Plains Boulevard.
~
ë
)
j
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Chapel Hill Academy
th
306 West 78 Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: Dan Blake 988-8202
.
ë
PRESENT ZONING:
01, Office Institutional.District & RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE:
4.58 Acres
DENSITY:
N/A
(
-
~
J
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family & Vacated Chan View .
S - 01; Office Institutional, West 78th Street, Old St. Hubert's Church and
Cemetery.
E - RSF; Single Family & Frontier Trail
W - CBD & 01; Central Business District, Colonial Square and Office
Institutional, Country Clean.
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site.
-
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.:
The site contains an existing church, 2 houses, 2 garages, and a
playground. There are a number of mature oak trees scattered over
the easterly portion of the site.
-
)
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Public/Semi-Public
·~Jlll~
I~L
~'& ~" IT, -fJ- I- I 'ì
-: C'Ý J- -5 '" r !------¡::
...., è}f Cï) J ù: ~
1 " I ~
I' ' -A-
~~n a F~ T U I , ¡:;
-'" S' -U
lJJ~r 1.6 h it . I
I
v---
on -å
.;::;.;.
-A-
~ -I.
::J
I -~
L: -.:=::
~ J
~iew
~
'~~
....,
I î
1
78 th
W
~~~ J
~ IT]
-
1
St
~
.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 2
On June 22,1998, the City Council approved an Interim Use Permit #98-1, with a variance to
locate a modular structure 8.5 jèet from the northern property line for Chapel Hill Academy. One
of the conditions of approval required the applicant to submit a complete site plan application no
later than one year after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Another condition stated that the
Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council or until the
expansion of the school is completed, whichever comes first. The Certificate of Occupancy was
issued on September 3, 1998, and the plans were submitted on August 31, 1999. The applicant has
given the City an extension to process this application by January 25, 2000.
On January 10, 2000, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. They
directed the applicant to return to the Planning Commission and submit revised site plans and
elevations for the gymnasium and the north elevation. They also requested alternative
building materials.
At the January 10,2000 City Council meeting, staffpointed out that the city is at the end of
the time period needed to process an application. The applicant stated, "Hereby grant you
whatever it takes." Staff has scheduled this itemfor the August 28, City Council meeting.
Staff met with the applicant and we note that all the significant issues have been resolved.
The staff report has been edited to reflect changes. New information will appear in bold.
PROPOSAI.lSTTMMARV
The applicant is requesting site plan review approval for the construction of a 40,000 square foot
addition 16,68e >'LUU" fvut ,,1""lvv1U <Uld" 2,000 >'LUU" fvvt l;blwy adJ;¡;Vll and a 5 foot ITont
yard setback variance to allow the addition to be located 30 feet ITom the ITont property line. The
addition is planned in 4 phases. The first phase will include a 16,680 square foot classroom
and a 13,300 square foot gymnasium. The total area of the building after all phases have
been completed, including the existing building is proposed to total 111;> ;> tll" f.l>t I'll""" "f"
77,260 square foot "^I'<Ul>;Vll. The 16,680 square foot classroom addition is proposed to be located
along the south portion of the site, adjacent to West 78th Street. The 13,300 square foot
gymnasium is proposed to be located along the northwest corner ofthe site. 111" 2,OOe >'LUU"
fouL I~L!a.lY a.dd~Guu ~~ pivpv3\..d tv L\..< IO\..<akd alullo tll\..< VV\..<;)~111 pUd~Ull uf tll\..< ;).ít~ (;)\..<(., ,,11\..<\..<l PIll).
The majority of the site is zoned 01, Office Institutional, while the easterly portion is zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family District and is within the Highway 5 Overlay District. The site is located
north of West 78th Street, west of Great Plains Boulevard, east of Frontier Trail, and south of
vacated Chan View. The site has an area of 4.58 acres. Access to the site is gained via Great Plains
Boulevard. The site contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom building, 2 houses,
2 garages, and a playground.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 3
Staff has been working with the applicant for approximately three months. This site has been
discussed on several occasions as part of Vision 2002 and Old Town. Design concepts were
generated for the area. They are as follows:
21. Form a compact center by creating a series of rooms throughout the downtown.
22. Complete pedestrian connections that lead to and through the downtown.
23. Create a distinct downtown district through architectural forms and the shape of
vegetation.
24. Reinforce the sense of the street as a room by reflecting the setback of existing
buildings in new development.
25. Locate buildings close to the street, with parking behind or beside the buildings.
26. Create a strong relationship between buildings, pedestrian spaces and the street.
27. Offer pedestrians safety and convenience by providing entries ITom both streets and
parking areas.
28. Select building practices and architectural elements to reinforce the historic character of
West 78th Street.
The site has some challenges, however, the plan for the school expansion was designed to meet the
design concepts enumerated above. The existing building was built in phases and as each phase
was constructed a different building material was used (brick, wood, fluted block, and glass
blocks). The goal of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance,
and build an addition that blends in with the area.
The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of
the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three four phases. It
is possible for this project to be completed in 5 or 10 years. At this time, the intent is to complete
phase one within the next two years. This phase has to blend in with the existing building, provide
a transition and set the ITamework for the ultimate expansion. The proposed addition uses rock face
block along the base of the building (below the windows) and brick over the remainder of the
structure. The colors include the same shade of red brick used on the base of the western elevation
of the existing building. The applicant will then introduce a gray projecting windowsill topped by
beige block brick. The color combination will blend in with the existing building since the west
wall adjacent to the proposed phase one expansion is glass. 'fll" I'lvbJ..w 1"1,,t<,> tv tll" >;= vf tll"
Llv.....l tl¡\.< appl~"'aJ.lL p.lv}JV".....i) tv U;;)'"'. TIk"" luajvl~t.Y v[ du., buad~J.lö" VV;tl~l tll'-' 0.1'...." U"I;; i)t.d.ldcud
Jilll.....U;;)~Vll b.l.~"'k.. VI ~~d~uc. (2 A 8 ~.l.l\Jl bl~..l., Ul 4 tv 6 ;ü.....ll ,,;d;uõ)' TIn.. appl;.....aul ;" P.lVPV;::';U5 tv yo:)""
8 ^ 16 ;ud. blu....l. "vVç !õ;;iApla;u""d tv tlu~ appl;""w1l dId! ;;)u<..h ihab...l;¿d~ w.... aLc.....plãbk ;u au.
;uJu"b.;cd/ VVa1dlVu;:)\.. J;"ta.;.....t Lúl 1101 ;u tI.u...lJ~(Ul of a ......ò);J.t;;.LI.Gal Q.1\..a. 'f;v'f;y~ H.......VJ.ll.L.l.L.....1.lJ tlì(" The size
of the block >l.vuIJ 110t """""d is proposed to have dimensions of 4 x 12 inches and have a
smooth face. Entrances into the building are well defined with a projecting pitched element.
Windows surround the building with the exception of areas screened by trees. The gymnasium was
discussed at length. The school is a one story, low profile building, which is proportionate to the
residential area. The gymnasium is equivalent to a large box two-story building. The applicant
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 4
located the gym along the northwest comer of the building. This location sits 8 feet below the
single family homes located north of the subject site. The applicant also introduced projecting
columns and windows to break up the wall mass on the gymnasium. The landscape plan shows 4
evergreen trees along the west side of the gymnasium to break the wall mass. The
gymnasium is proposed to utilize block along the 27 foot high wall portion of the building
(west and north) and brick along the south elevation. The east gymnasium wall is proposed
to have a smooth painted finish. At this time, the gym is proposed to be a detached building.
When Phase II (the cafeteria and new main entrance addition) is completed, the gap between
the gym and the main building will be closed and the east gym wall will become an internal
wall. The use of block on the west and south elevations is acceptable since the applicant is
providing screening through the use of increased landscaping and added architectural
elements such as columns and windows.
There is an existing Service Driveway via West 78th Street. This driveway will be closed and
replaced by two service drives via Frontier Trail and Great Plains Boulevard. Tll" I'I<Ul> d" HVt
.[tV"" 01" Iv""I;vll vf II." h""I. "l1du>w~. The trash enclosure is proposed to be located along the
north side of the property and utilize block as the exterior material with wood doors to match
the building.
An existing chain link fence is located along the south and southeast comer of the site. This fence
will be removed. In order to accommodate the expansion along West 78th Street, the single family
home and detached garage, located north of the existing play area, will be removed. The play area
will replace the single family home and the addition along West 78th Street. The plans reflect a
fence around the relocated play area. The applicant intends to use a chain link type fence. We
encourage the applicant to use a more decorative type fence.
The ultimate expansion of the site will reduce the size of the parking lot drastically. At the present
time, there are 132 parking spaces, which far exceeds the needs of Chapel Hill Academy. The
ordinance requires one parking space for each classroom or office room, plus one space for each
one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be
used as an auditorium. It~;) tIn... ã}Jpl~"a1.LC;) l""';)1-"-'ll;)~baa'y tv J""'luvu;)D.át\.. tllaL ti."" p_a.Lk.~llö w~ll L~
aJ¡;;y.udk £"'1 lln.. u:1L~luab.... "'^PCU.l.,;vu uf tlJ¡;; ;:)o;tç. fCük..;.ul:; vv;ll1x.. a"";;:);L",,,J. Qu.d 'õ;váludkJ Q.3 1;,.0.",1. vf
tIl,,", l\",.lUa;U;uõ plia.;)!;;;;) app¡¡;;(U;) £VI ;);OC pIau a}Jplvvc:d. S;u,"",.., tin:; rla.111"';uõ CUüUü;;););VJllW""",t;ue, the
applicant submitted a breakdown of the gathering spaces in the building at the time of ultimate
expansion. It appears that the site will require 72 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 84
spaces. Parking will still be examined to ensure compliance with the ordinance as future phases are
reviewed.
A sidewalk is located along the southern and eastern portion of the site. The sidewalk along
Frontier Trail is approximately 3 feet wide. The sidewalk along West 78th Street is 6 feet wide.
Approximately, 150 feet of the sidewalk along the southeast portion of the site, facing Frontier Trail
is missing. In order to complete pedestrian circulation around the site, the applicant must construct
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 5
that portion of the sidewalk. Plans submitted by the applicant reflect that connection.
There are setback variances associated with this application. The ordinance requires a 35 foot ITont
yard setback. The site is located within an established neighborhood with buildings that maintain a
substantially reduced setback. In order to reinforce and reflect the setback of existing buildings,
reinforce the established character, and be consistent with the Vision 2002, we asked the applicant
to bring the building closer to West 78th Street. The building maintains a 30 foot setback ITom
West 78th Street and 32 feet ITom Frontier Trail. While there is no hardship to justify this variance
and it is purely an aesthetic and design issue, staff is recommending approval of the setback
variance to reflect the established standards of this area and to implement the vision of the 2002
study.
The overall concept plan is well designed. Staff is recommending approval of phase I, and the
master plan of the Chapel Hill Academy with ITont yard variances with conditions.
RACKl;ROTlND
St. Hubert's Church has had a presence in the community that dates back to its early history. It has
operated as a church and school pre-dating today's ordinances and requirements.
On November 3, 1975, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for the parish of St.
Hubert's to erect a complex consisting of a rectory, parish offices, meeting rooms/classrooms and a
church structure. This involved the relocation of the church ITom the south to the north side of
West 78th Street. In 1997, St. Hubert's Church completed a new structure in Villages on the Pond
th
and vacated the complex located on West 78 Street.
Chapel Hill Academy leased the space to operate a private school. They needed additional
classroom space to accommodate the increased number of students. The ultimate plan is to
construct an addition over the next few years. They requested approval to locate a temporary
classroom building on the site until they completed their addition. The City Council approved an
Interim Use Permit, which allowed the temporary classroom for a time not to exceed 5 years, or
when the expansion is complete, whichever comes first. The approval was also conditioned upon
the applicant submitting a Master Plan and application for the site within one year of occupying the
building. The applicant has complied with the conditions of the Interim Use Permit.
HIl;HWAV;¡ STANDARDS
A meandering berm with landscaping, 2-4 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the
south and southwest portion of the site. The building is located 70 feet ITom the north, 32 feet
ITom the east, 30 feet from the south, and 185 feet from the west property line.
As mentioned earlier, this development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay District and
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 6
must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Office Institutional District
Standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site
design through improved development standards within the corridor. The design standards
should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The plan and design of
the proposed development meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features:
· The architectural style is unique to the building but will fit in with the area character. The
existing building utilizes several materials. The new addition will provide a new image
that will gradually transform this area by updating the image, bringing it closer to the
street, unifying the materials on the building, yet maintain a low profile neighborhood
character. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality.
Samples of the materials as well as a rendering will be available at the meeting. Staff
believes the color scheme is proper for the building and the area, llvw~v"l, tlI<;; u>" vf "'18
^ 16 ~udl1UUgll fat"...\;.> blu\..l. ~.:) Hut a'"''"'~.l-'LcíLl,", auJ luu;,l b", 1",du,",,,,,d tv a UJa.A;UIWU ;';.£.I;; uf 4
^ 12 ;11"1.,,>. The use of a combination of block along the base of the building and a
4 x 12 inch brick over the remainder of the building will allow the building to fit and
blend in with the neighborhood.
· The site is level. A revised landscaping plan incorporating staffs recommendations will
provide an increased number of plant materials throughout the site. The berms and
landscaping materials will be concentrated along the southern portion of the property.
Landscaping around the rest of the property will include boulevard trees, parking lot
landscaping and buffer plantings along the northern property line. Some of the mature
oaks and maples, many over 20 inches in diameter, will be saved maintaining the
traditional look of the property.
· A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and
height. A detailed sign plan which includes lighting method will also be required.
· TIn; ;,;Lç piau. J.uu.:)l ;""'V.lpVlál..:; ha.:)l. ~1J.I"JV;)Ul'"';).
SITF. PI.A N FINOINr.S
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 7
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor
design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
review requirements with the exception of the ITont yard setback. The reduced setback
was requested by staff to bring the building closer to the street reflecting the reduced
setback of other buildings within the neighborhood and to meet the guidelines set by the
Vision 2002. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. The site design is
compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the
approved development for this area. The use of a 4 x 12 inch smooth face block will
create a harmonious relationship between the proposed building and existing buildings.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 8
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. Based upon the foregoing, staff is
recommending approval of the site plan and variances with conditions outlined in the staff report.
VARTANCF,
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is
not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria.
·
The nature of this variance is to allow this site to blend in with the existing
neighborhood. The majority of the structures within the area maintain a setback that
ranges between 10 and 30 feet. There is an established standard and granting the
variance will allow the building to fit better within the neighborhood.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
·
The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable
generally to other properties within the same zoning classification.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the válue or income
potential of the parcel of land.
·
The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
·
The difficulty or hardship is not self-created. A standard was set in this area and the
building needs to conform to that standard. Staff advised the applicant to build the
addition toward West 78th Street to comply with the vision 2002 guidelines.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 9
*
Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
*
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It
will not increase the traffic.
MISCF.T ,I ,A NROIJS
The plans propose a series of additions to the existing Chapel Hill Academy site. Phase I of the
proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition and the gymnasium. This addition will
have very minimal impact to the City's existing inrrastructure or street system. However, the
remaining proposed improvements in the master plan will affect City inrrastructure and traffic
circulation. These items are not addressed in this report, but will be as future phases are
submitted for approval.
r.RAOTNr.
Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in a loss of some
of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to be filled approximately two
feet to match the existing building elevation and then slope towards W est 78t~ Street and Frontier
Trail. The plans propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock
construction entrance will also be required.
nRAINAr.R
Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line rrom the catch basin at the
intersection of Frontier Trail and West 78th Street to the interior of the site. The applicant will
need to supply the City with pre- and post-drainage runoff calculations and verify that the
existing City storm sewer system in Frontier Trail can accommodate runoff generated from this
expansion. In addition, the applicant will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of-
way permit rrom the Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan,
no surface water management fees will be applicable.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 10
TTTH ,ITTF:S
According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed with the proposed
addition. If additional utility service is required rrom West 78th Street or Frontier Trail, staffwill
need to review and comment on the plans, The applicant may be responsible for additional sewer
and water hookup fees at time of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water
hookup fees based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Commission.
It has been determined that an existing sanitary sewer line needs to be relocated with
expansion of the gymnasium. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation as a
condition of the site plan approval. All utility construction shall be in accordance with city
standards and detail plates. The construction plans for relocation shall be submitted to
staff for review and formal approval by city council. The applicant shall provide the city
with security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee relocation of utilities.
STRIŒTS
Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to accommodate the
expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will dramatically impact traffic circulation
on both Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street. Staff has had conversations with the
applicant regarding a right-in/right-out only at West 78th Street which staff believes would not
propose a traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the right-
in/right-out for better traffic delineation.
T.ANßSCAPING
Minimum landscaping requirements include 2,744 sq. ft. oflandscaped area around the parking
lot, 11 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along W. 78th St. and neighboring
property lines. The applicant's proposed landscaping, as compared to the requirements for
landscape area and parking lot trees, is shown in the following table.
Item .
Vehicular use landscane area 2744 sn. ft. 10 200 sn. ft.
Trees/ Darkinl! lot 11 overstorv trees 6 10 overstorv trees
W. 78th St. Boulevard trees 14 overstory trees 7- 12 overstory trees
(J ner 30 feet)
South buffer yard B - 20' 6 overstory trees e 12 overstory trees
(75% of total shown)* 9 understory trees Z 9 understory trees
15 shrubs e 15 shrubs
North buffer vard B - 20' 5 overstorv trees e 5 overstorv trees
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 11
(Including residence in NW 8 understory trees 8 understory trees
corner) 12 shrubs e 12 shrubs
(75% of total shown'*
* Accordmg to City buffer yard ordmance. the project developer IS responsible for only 75% of the reqUired plantmgs. Abuttmg
property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. Shown in table is the 75% required.
The applicant has a deficit ofplantings in the following areas: one tree in the parking lot, and
two boulevard trees, llVltll alld >VUtll buff"l Yald>. There is limited space on the site to
provide the required plantings. The applicant has provided a satisfactory number of trees
considering the space limitation. Staff recommends that the proposed landscape plan be
accepted. a.ppl~""cuJ.t ~Ú....!....a¡),,", pla.L1.l~uõ" ~u old",. Lv lIJ.~çllU~U~lUU.lU V1J~UCUJ.""'" .lÇ'iU~lÇ1UÇ1J.t¡).
I.TGHTTNr.
Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded
fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than II, foot candles
of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be
submitted when building permits are requested.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - 01 DISTRICT
Ordinance
Chapel Hill Academy Phase I
Building Height
2 stories
I-story
Building Setback
N-15' E-35'
S-35' W-35'
N-50' E-32'
S-30' W-185'
Parking stalls
30 stalls
89 stalls
Ultimate Parking
72 stalls
84 stalls
Parking Setback
N-50' E-35'
S-35' W-35'
N-55' E-260'
S-30 W-20'*
Hard surface
Coverage
65%
58.8% at ultimate expansion
Lot Area
15,000 square feet
4.58 acres
*
The zoning ordinance requires a 35 foot parking setback, however, this is existing parking
and the applicant is improving an existing situation.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 12
PI.A NNINr. COMMISSION A Nß CITV conNcn. nPßA TF.S
On December 1,1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this
application with conditions. Issues raised at the meeting included:
. Parking: The Planning Commission questioned the fact that the building is being increased in
size while the parking lot is being reduced. Staff explained that the previous use, which included
a church and a school, required the parking. The proposed use will require substantially less
parking. Staff also explained that it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to the city
that parking requirements are being met. Since then, the applicant submitted a detailed letter
providing a breakdown in square footage of gathering places after expansion is completed.
Based upon these numbers, the building will require 72 spaces. The applicant is providing 84.
Size of block: The applicant proposed the use of8'xI6' block. The Planning Commission
recommended the applicant utilize a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material. This
size will blend in with the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Elevations: The Planning Commission was concerned with the north elevation facing the low
density residential area and expressed that they will be critical of the design. They were also
concerned with the design of the gymnasium building. They concurred that the proposed Phase I
addition fit the busy downtown
On January 10,2000, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. They
directed the applicant to return to the Planning Commission and submit revised site plans and
elevations for the gymnasium and the north elevation. They also requested alternative building
materials.
On August 1, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this item and recommended
approval with a vote of 3 to 2.
The issues that were discussed were as follow:
Roof design: The Planning Commission asked the applicant to consider changing the
existing roof (the chapel root) design. The applicant has not considered removing the roof
or replacing it, however, he indicated that they would consider other color alternatives to
make the roof blend in better with the building.
North elevation: The commission directed the applicant and staff to study whether
windows on the south side of the gymnasium are needed since this is the elevation most
visible from West 78tb Street.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 13
Music Room: The commission was concerned that the music room was two close to the
residential neighborhood which might disturb them.
ST A FF RFCOMMFNDA TTON
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
'The City Council approves Site Plan review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I
of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan, as shown in plans dated received July 24, 2000 Au~u>t
J 1, 1999, with the following conditions:
1. Im."I~a':;"" plaHGl1!5~ [VI Luffü laid (U~a;) ~H vld~1 tv IUf.:,,,,l Old~llaH\,..."" lÇ\fU~1~111~l1b.
2. Iw..H...a;),-, pla.lIGüo'-" Eu! Luul~valJ tH...(..i) ;u old"'l tv 111"",,",,L uIJ~lIam....,,", IC<{U~l"'ll1""'llt;).
J. Iln.,H;¡~¡;; .t-'laJ..lL~l1e;) [uJ. l-'alk~l1o lut au.,a ;u old",!. tv Ìlll.....I,..L uIJ~uam...1,;.- H..QU~l"lh,.üt~.
4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior
to grading.
5. Any trees removed in excess of the submitted plan without City approval will be replaced
on site at a rate of 2: I diameter inches.
6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-development storm
water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains
Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion.
7. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work
within City right-of-way or easement areas.
8. If utility connections and/or relocations/extensions are required with the proposed
additions, staff the city will need to further review in greater detail and approve the utility
service proposal.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units
determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
10. Building Official Conditions:
a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout.
b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 14
of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost.
c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
Il.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFP A
13.
b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine
if additional hydrants will be required.
12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail >1.,,11 b" W11H"d~d Lv tl,,, >;d" ",,,II.. "lvll~ W,,>t 78th-
SLl"d. Th" 11~'" >;d"",¿dk. shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down
in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. Tll" 11"" >;d"",,,Ik.
;:,lluulJ \">Ulll.1""",l vv~lll Ll.L"-' ò3tuJ"'J.1l \..utta.11"''''' vu Ll.1\.- '-'aò3t ;:)~JI,., uf LIJ.l~; PIUjJV;,,,,,J adJ~t~où.
13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree
cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances.
15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be
the same as those used on the new building.
16. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to
use a decorative fencing.
17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements (landscaping, utility
extension/relocation, grading, and erosion control measures).
18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch brick and rock face block as indicated
in the staff report, for exterior material.
20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast comer shall be removed.
21. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new
curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street.
22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances.
Chapel Hill Academy
August 28, 2000
Page 15
23. The modular units must be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is
issued for the classroom addition along West 78th Street.
24. No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, except for lighting and
HV AC upgrades, will be permitted within any of the areas designated as Phases II, III, or
IV, unless the exterior walls are included with the remodel.
25. The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of gymnasium
are visible from the parking lot and from West 78th Street.
26. The applicant will consider changing the color of the roof material when replacement
of the roof is necessary."
A TT ACHMFNTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated November 23, 1999.
2. Memo rrom Steve Torell, Building Official dated November 22, 1999.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated November 22, 1999.
4. Memo from Dan Blake, dated November 23, 1999.
5. Application.
6. Letter from Dan Blake, dated December 29, 1999.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated December I, 1999.
8. City Council minutes dated January 10, 2000.
9. Letter rrom Dan Blake dated July 20,2000.
10. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1,2000.
11. Letter from Dan Blake dated August I, 2000.
12. Plans dated Received July 24,2000.
1J. rIa..;:» Jah...J .l""''''t;;~v",J AU5U~l 31, 1999 auJ .l"",v~~,,,d. l1ft;.,,,, ~JJ.v",utV.ly/pl"";:)'Çlval~UÍl pIau JakJ
l¡¡;;\",Ç~V,,",J JauUal] 6,2000.
g:\plan\sa\chapel hi1l\chapel hill academy expansion2.doc
CITY OF
:HANHASSEN
0,CmterDrÙ'e, POBox 147
¡flOSsm, Minnesota 55317
Pholle 612.937.1900
'eml Fa.<612.937.5739
¡ming hx 612.937.9152
<" S,ifc0' F.IX 612.934.2524
1I·/('l{~ci.(hlllh1.iml.lllII,lIj
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer~
November 23,1999
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Review of Chapel Hill Academy Expansion
7707 Great Plains Boulevard
Upon review of the plans prepared by Westwood Engineering dated September I,
1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
The plans propose a series of additions to the existing St. Hubert's site, Phase I of
the proposed expansion is the southerly proposed addition. This addition will
have very minimal impact to the City's existing infrastructure or street system.
However, the remaining proposed improvements in the master plan will affect
City infrastructure and traffic circulation. These items are not addressed in this
report,
GRADING
Additional grading will be required for the proposed addition which will result in
a loss of some of the existing trees on the site. This area of the site is proposed to
be filled approximately two feet to match the existing building elevation and then
slope towards Wesf.78th Street and Frontier Trail. The plans do propose erosion
control fencing around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will
also be required.
DRAINAGE
Phase I improvements include extension of a storm sewer line from the catch
basin at the intersection ofProntier Trail and West 78th Street to the interior of the
site, The applicant will need to supply the City with pre- and post-drainage runoff
calculations and verify that the existing City storm sewer system in Frontier Trail
can accommodate runoff generated from this expansion. In addition, the applicant
will need to apply for and obtain a construction right-of-way permit from the
Engineering Department. Since this is an expansion to an existing site plan, no
surface water management fees will be applicable.
UTILITIES
According to the plans, no additional sanitary sewer or water service is needed
with the proposed addition, If additional utility service is required from West 78th
Street or Frontier Trail, staff will need to review and comment on the plans, The
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Chapel Hill Academy Expansion
November 23, 1999
Page 2
applicant may be responsible for additional sewer and water hookup fees at time
of building permit issuance. The city collects sewer and water hookup fees based
on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services Commission.
STREETS
Phase I improvements will not require any additional street modifications to
accommodate the expansion. However, future phases of the master plan will
dramatically impact traffic circulation on both Great Plains Boulevard and West
78th Street. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding a right-
in/right-out only at West 78th Street which staff believes would not propose a
traffic impediment. However, staff will require a traffic delineation island in the
right-in/right-out for better traffic delineation.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-
development calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system
in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being
generated from the proposed expansion.
2. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit
for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas.
3. Ifutility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will
need to further review in greater detail the utility service proposal.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in
accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be
based on the number of SAC units detemlined by the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services Commission.
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:\cng\dave\pc\chapel hil].doc
CITY OF
0HANHASSEN
ryC"'terDriv"POBox 147
¡lwI"', MÙ1I1(Soto 55317
Pholl,612.9311900
'1(rol FI1X 612.937.5739
1(erillg h, 612.937.9152
,Sf/}' Fox 612.934.2524
ll'll'Il~ci.(¡'l1l1hIlSS('} .IIlIl.I/S
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shannin AI-Jaff ~ ~.
Steve Torell, Building Official ~ I
/'
FROM:
DATE:
November 22, 1999
SUBJ:
Site plan review for: Chapel Hill Academy
Planning Case: 98-12 SPR (file 2)
I have reviewed the plans for the above project and offer the following comments.
These should be included in the conditions of approval as necessary.
1. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler
system installed throughout.
2. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as
necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total
project cost.
3. The other issues are too numerous to mention but include exiting, allowable
building areas, and types of construction. These are significant issues; the
owners and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections
Division as early as possible to discuss these.
G/safety/stlmemoslplan/chapelhill
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Cmt" Dri"" PO Box 147
OJ4IlhilSStn, Minl",ora 55317
Phonr 612.937.1900
Gm"al Fax 612.937.5739
EI/ginrmllg Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safrty Fax 6t2.934.2524
m·b ll'lI'l ~ci.(htll1IJilSsf1l,mJ1.IIS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
November 22, 1999
SUBJECT:
Request for a site plan review to allow an expansion to the existing
building on property zoned Office Industrial and located north of
West 78th Street, East of Frontier Trail and West of Great Plains Boulevard,
7707 Great Plains Boulevard, Chapel Hill Academy
Planning Case: 98-12 Site Plan Review (File 2)
1 have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items
will be addressed.
1. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13.
2. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if
additional hydrants will be required.
g:\safety\ml\plreview98-12
1/23/99 09:01 FAX 6129367839
CENTE;X HOMES
~001
November 23, 1999
Ms. Sharmin AI-Iaif,
City ofChanhassen
690 Cowter Drive
Chanhassen Minnesota
By fax @ 937-5739
Re: Chapel Hill Academy - Site Plan approvals
Dear Shannin:
After much discussion and review of exterior matorist for our proposed building additions, we have
concluded at this time to stay with the all masonry exterior.. originnlly proposed. All material is proposed
to be 8''x16'' colored rock face block with matching mortar color. We wi11 use a precast "sill" to delineate
the base block from the top block. We will 20100 be adding the detailing at the two-story gym walls as Bm
Lawrence showed you. These plans wiH be to you by the end of today. We wi)! continue to evaJuate the
costs and the look of smaller masonry block and/or "utility sized" briek construction for the upper portions
of the walls.
I also understand that you discussed phasing with sm. It is OUT intent for the City of Cha.nhassen to review
Ibe phasing as presented in the architectural plans originally submitted. The initial phase one is the
southerly classroom wing. Phase 2 is the Gym addition. As I mentioned, phase one and phase two may be
constructed at Dearly the same time.
I appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review process.
Sincerely,
Chapel Hill Academy
~~J
-
Daniel A. Blake
Director
..
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
~ k",,,,he.L~V1 I MkJ
TE1..EPHONE(Daytime) 9<¡'l- Yzoz.
Mr. [)e,y¡ ,ß(¿¡j:.~
C ~c;~¿.\ Hìll Ac.cJe.W\~
~Ob W Îß~ s+ru.. t
?!:> ~/ì
OWNER: -Sc<W\,e..
Þ.PPUCANT:
ADDRESS:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
_ Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
_ Intedm Use Permit _ Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit
_ PJanned Unii Development" _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits .
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
-fS- Site Plan Review" -1L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"" I
z50,f- ":>~D bOD oß. ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARflNAPlMetes
:: and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB)
_ Subdivision" TOTAL FEE $ -t,-'< 0 ~
A Tlst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan revIews.
'"'Twenty-six fun size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an BY2' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
_ Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
.,.__,,___ _.- M_M"""" '''ð O"M,,.,r;otp fp" ~hall be charged for each application.
. NOTE - When muniple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME (! hCt,/Jd fI;1I IIca-JeW//.
.OCATlON 61't~1 P(c,¡Prs 8/"J a. W 78"tJ S-fl"':~+
.EGAL DESCRIPTION
'Se.c... Su("'<-",
I
'RESENT ZONING OI
1EQUESTED ZONING 0 I'
'RESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION fv blìc. ( SewlÌ - R·b \~ c..
iEQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~v\;,\ì<.1 $.amì - Pv"'l~<..
,
!EASON FOR THIS REQUEST W\.Qjf4i' S ~ [VlII1 ~V((.IAJ
his application must be compieted in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and roost be accompanied by all irdormation
nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this applica1ion, you should. corder wnh the
Janning Department to determine the specffic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
his is to certffy that I am making application'for the described action by the City and that I am responsible foi complying
·ith all City requirements wnh regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party
'hom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
Nnership (enher copy of Owner's Duplicate Certfficate of nle, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
:Jthorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
lderstand that additional fees may be charged for consuning fees, feasibility studies, etc. wnh an estimate prior to any
Jthorization to proceed wnh the study. The documents and irdormation I have submitted are true and correct to the best
. my knowledge. .
also understand that after the approval or granting of the permn, such permns shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
~ainst the title to the property for which the approvaVpermit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
flice and the original document retumed to City Hall Records.
~~oJD
gnature of Applicant
<6/3( l q"l
Date
~c.--f &~ - b'lrolc.:t·o1 <6/3' )qq
'Jnature of Fee Owner Dafe
<::::. 0'):) á-/., )~" Recel'PtNo.IO,:."c
plication Received on u"'f' ':: ¡ \,'. Fee Paid ~ ç¡ . . v "- .::>
:h~ ~n"nr"~nt c:1"''''''IIllrf f'"nfe"'" r-4!"1U ,,.. ... ___.. _, no.. __.~__~__
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1,1999 AT 7:00 P,M,
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for
an Expansion
APPLICANT: Chapel Hill Academy
LOCATION: 7707 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area: The
applicant, Chapel Hill Academy, is requesting site plan review to allow an expansion to the
existing building on property zoned Office Institutional and located south of West 78th Street,
east of Frontier Trail, and west of Great Plains Boulevard, 7707 Great Plains Boulevard.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ex!. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 18, 1999.
"
, -<' \ ' \, '-.. '- .
-D---' , _ -"'--"~ ............. ---. ~
-::J...!li... ~ ,---\<i.,cv:-'"' \ ~- "'~--'
1\'0::- _,'OJ' \ ~ .,-= ""' ~ \'
_,'''' " ,~--. '--.$",6 ~-: \------ \._~
\ "'''-.......~ r-~ ;~-:-~, t-:'_': \ :---- ~ - \.
_._......'-.... ¡C/)I' '(/): íu. ¡ ,,_1;.._ I ' ' I' r--', '
,.-....,..-_/¡-...., 1...-...l.....!1..:~~.--~,I.:.--1 - "--;1 ,"'
: : ! ~anta!Fêh"raill LJ ~ rE i \ \ U~.
LJiie.st 76th Sf : ¡ . ~ ~ eÎ! I , ~ 'i8J'l
-jlJji-: :i I ,i !¡l"II¡; ~,~~>~~
~ 'I'll U ' ~,' ~'~
,gJ " ".' , > 'I, I U77th>]St H ~~~
~ 1 'W~. i'"
---iD~~Wi I~ I u [ill!: i~i! i",\
Ch :..' i iev, ~ -i j chãh f.Jlfm U '
I a I I _ I í
h' I I DlTìI! Iliil
; _ -----4. : l__ ~¡:.!...I ""¡
1 I I 'I---¡-;---!' ¡ HiT·. .
'.1 .' I . I",! \
~,W 78th~ St ~::--_. /
i C~~~·¡/--
~\ 1 /~ '-.:::-~<
.J i -----. r:::.:::....--- j// '
~~~·_~1IW~St1,i .'
- ,<>\ -:::::'=---:, \
__ ,--- t"\.~ .<.-( - \ " '--- I ¡
J-
.', '",' ,
'. ,
, '
L-' l-
b\
~-----.: .--.
A BOVY
'RONTIER TRL
HASSEN, MoJ 55317
1 R HILLMl\N ESTATE ETAL
l\NCY E HILLMl\N ETAL
JINE MILE CREEK PKY
MINGTON, MN 55437
LD A & JUDITH M SCHMIEG
)X397
HASSEN, MoJ 55317
AGE PARK APARTWENTS
~IES & TALLE M3MT INC
'TH ST W
¡X 250
-lASSEN, fvt. 55317
LD F MCCARVILLE
VARNER LN
D, MN 55364
IVERSON
-lASSEN, MoJ 55317
-lASSEN WEDICAL ARTS LP
~IES & TALLE ENTERPRISES
TH ST W STE 260
-lASSEN, MoJ 55317
v1BERG COMPANIES INC
oX 730
-lASSEN, MoJ 55317
_D SCHLENK, JEAN VON BANK
Y GOETZ
TH STW
~ASSEN, MoJ 55317
'ROPERTIES LLC
OEHNEN CIR
SIOR, MN 55331
PAUL F & RITA M ROJINA
220 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY
306 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
BERNARD & HELEN KERBER
221 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN,MoJ 55317
MARK A PEARSON
207 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
DANIEL W & AUDREY E FUELLING
222 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
GREGORY J & KAREN J ODASH
221 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
DANIEL J & JEANNE M BURKE
225 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
RONALD & ELAINE ROESER
222 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
LINDA LENORA KEELER
304 77TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
BARBARA A HAML TON
224 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
VIOLA BUSCHKOVVSKY
206 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN,MoJ 55317
PATRICIA ANN BERKTOLD
226 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN,fvt. 55317
JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS
220 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
BLANCHE M SCHUTROP
302 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX
222 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
GEORGE P SHORBA
306 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA
21101 OAKDALE DR
ROGERS, MN 55374
FRANCES M JACQUES
308 CHAN VIEW
PO BOX 44
CHANHASSEN, fvt. 55317
GERALD W & LOIS A SCHLENK
225 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN, MoJ 55317
JAMES M & PATRICIA D Ml\RTIN
3740 UNION TERRACE LN
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
PHILIP R HILLM6.N ESTATE ETAL
C/O NANCY E HILLM'\N ETAL
4900 NINE MILE CREEK PKY
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437
JOHN E & KAREN M KRAEMER
7703 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
MARY E JANSEN ETAL
7720 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
RICHARD A & ELIZABETH MNUSTAD
7721 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
BRIAN P & COLLEEN S NUSTAD
7791 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DONALD D & MARY GOETZE
7610 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
JAMES S JR & DIANE D BURANEN
7616 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL & CHARLENE BOGDEN
7617 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD & KATHY GAVERT
7701 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
LARRY A & KATHLEEN A SCHROEDER
7720 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLARD & KATHRYN PAULY
7721 FRONTIER TRL
PO BOX 8
CHANHASSEN, MIJ 55317
KEITH R & LISA KUPCHO
7723 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MIJ 55317
STEVEN R NELSON
7725 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL G EIDEM &
ANDREA F GRIFFITH
7727 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN,MN 55317
DEAN A ROERICK &
JENNIFER L STODOLA
7604 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DOUGLAS J & WENDY K SUEDBECK
7605 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CARLOS M MARROQUIN &
KIMBERLY L M6.RROQUIN
7606 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIJ 55317
WILLIAM P HANSON
7607 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MIJ 55317
TRACY L & JANE M MESSER
7608 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DOUGLAS J KOCH
7609 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES M & PATRICIA D M6.RTIN
3740 UNION TERRACE LN
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
JOHN T BUSCH &
GARY M CHRISTENSON
7607 HURON
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARTIN H & BEVERLY J RICKER
7608 HURON
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JASON L & MONICA A LEMCKE
7609 HURON
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT T & SUSAN J WELLIVER
7611 HURON
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
12/29/99 11:09 FAX 6129367839
CENTEX HOMES
141001
December 29,1999
Ms. Shannin /\'I-Iaff,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen Minnesota
By fax @ 937-5739
Re: Chapel Hill Academy - Site Plan approvals
Dear Sharmin:
Your staff report dated December I, 1999 identifies parking as an item to be evaluated with the future
phases of approvals. The proposed master pian relies on the assumption that the pròposed parking layout
and quantity meet the City's requirements. I would like to get staffaccept.ance of the master plan parking
scheme as part of our initial approvals.
The ordinance requirement is for one parking space for each classroom or office room, plus One space for
each one hundred fifty square feet of eating area, auditorium Or gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used
as an auditorium. The current auditorium including aisles, excludIng the mge, is approximately 6300
square feet (42 parking spaces). The master plan calls for a reduction In the auditorium to about 4000 sf.
(27 parking spaces). TIle master plan gymnasillll1 is 6300 sqUate feet (42 spaces) and the master plan
cafeteria is 2600 sf (17 spaces). The master plan has 22 classrooms and approximately 8 office rooms.
Basing the parking requirement on the largest meeting Brea, the existing auditorium or the future
gymnasium each require 42 parking spaces for a total of 72 required spaces.
The proposcd master plan parking layout provides for 84 parking spaces. While this exceeds the ordinancc
requirement by 12 spaces, it does not meet the actual needs for special programs held throughout thc year.
We are confident that the nearby municipal parking plus adjacent on-street parking will adequately handle
these special event parking needs. Additional on-site parlei"g could be provided on the eastern portion of
the sire, but that would require removal of existing mature trees and is not desired by Chapel Hill Aeademy,
or tbe City.
J appreciate all of your efforts throughout this design and review process.
SIncerely,
Chapel Hill Academy
U~~Ò{ .
Daniel A. Blake
Director
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND
LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. EAST OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND
WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Dan Burke
Dan Blake
7720 Frontier Trail
225 West 77th Street
306 West 78th Street
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: That begs the question. It doesn't seem like enough. We're growing and reducing
parking. There's a lack oflogic.
Al-Jaff: Right now, and we've been monitoring this every time we drive by. It's not scientific
the way we have been monitoring the parking lot, but I have not been able to see more than 30
cars at any given time and I'm talking about the times when kids are dropped off or picked up
and at that time the teachers are usually at school as well. So there isn't a parking problem out
there today.
Peterson: We'll double the size.
Al-Jaff: We're going to double the size. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate to us
that with the ultimate expansion of this site the parking will still be adequate.
Aanenson: Can Ijust add one thing? The original use was for the church, which is going to a
school use with different standards and I think that's really why we're allowing it to be. The
church had an overlap...
Peterson: Are you inferring or stating that they have convinced you that 84 's going to be
enough? We have to do that now because we can't start this and assume that 84 is going to be
enough.
Al-Jaff: One of the things that we have talked about is activities. Evening activities that will
potentially generate additional traffic for a concert or a game or after school activities. We have
a parking lot right across the street and then the Medical Arts parking lot is available also. In the
evening those parking lots are pretty much empty. So is there an alternative? Yes there is but at
this time with this proposal, with the classroom addition, there is enough parking. I don't have,
we don't have enough information at this time to tell you what the ordinance requires with the
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
ultimate expansion, but it's going to be pretty close. One of the things we talked about when we
were discussing old town was having the addition come in this direction to cover the parking lot.
However, this would mean losing more parking spaces and there was an option to put the parking
on this side. We wanted to separate the parking, vehicular area rrom the residential area so, and
it would have also meant cutting down large number of trees in this area so that is one of the
reasòns why the addition came to the northeast side.
Sharmin Al-Jaff continued with her staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin, did you want to include a condition about the
size of the block?
AI-Jaff: Condition number 19 reads the applicant shall use a smooth face block not to exceed 4
x 12 inches.
Peterson: Other questions?
Burton: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, I'm sorry. On the variance part, my understanding. Just
make sure I've got it right. The City's asking that they move it closer to the street. The
applicant.
Aanenson: Well I think it was mutual.
Burton: It's mutual? Okay. Okay.
Aanenson: And we believe it's co~sistent with the neighborhood standard.
Burton: Okay. A couple questions about some of the conditions. On condition 14, we talked
about the detailed parking and built in lighting plan. Is it necessary to add language that says that
which complies with city ordinance requirements at the end of that? Or is it.
AI-Jaff: Sure.
Burton: Condition 16 talks about a fence.
Aanenson: Can we go back to that one moment?
Burton: Yeah.
Aanenson: I think too, based on where this is, I think they want to have something that's
residential in character too. That was one of the things we talked about in the old town plan as
far as height. So it may be something you want to look at in a different phase because they're not
doing that parking lot. No changes at this time to the parking lot so that may appear in a different
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
phase. Is that correct? So that might be something, that's a good point. I think that's something
that we'd want to look at. The neighborhood situation.
Burton: On the condition 16's talking about fencing around the play area, and I wasn't sure or I
didn't know if the City had an ordinance dealing with fencing around play areas. I think this
came up at a recent one too and I can't remember what happened.
Aanenson: Chain link is acceptable.
Burton: But do we have an ordinance on that or no? No?
Aanenson: The only ordinance on fencing is if it's adjacent to a street where you may block sight
line and that's generally where it's more opaque. So under the circumstances I don't believe.
Burton: Sorry to keep rattling off these questions here but the, we have the right-in, right-out
suggestion by engineering and it looks like they had incorporated that but I don't think it's a
condition and I'm just wondering kind of out loud here if that should be a condition.
AI-Jaff: It's not part of the, they're not planning to put in the right-in, right-out with Phase I.
Burton: They're not? I'm looking at a map or drawing here that shows right-in, right-out right
there.
AI-Jaff: Yeah, it's part of the ultimate master plan. At this point with Phase I, the only change
that's takin~ place as far as the driveways go is closing off the driveway, the service driveway off
of West 78t and putting in a new driveway off of Frontier Trail.
Burton: Yeah, I guess I have a question for engineering as to whether we should require it at this
point with the addition of the Phase I here that it be right-in, right-out.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I put it in the staff report just to make everybody aware of the overall
master plan. How it was going to impact traffic and that we foresee that a right-in, right-out
would be acceptable at that location of West 78th Street. It's my understanding that there are no
improvements or changes going to happen to the existing parking lot out there so at this time it
would not be appropriate or necessary to include that as a condition. We just wanted to make the
applicant aware and the commissioners aware that sometime down the road it will happen.
Burton: Okay.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, while we're talking to engineering I have a question about that removal of
that existing drive. Would the applicant be required to get rid of that curb cut that's on West 78th
and replace it with a regular curb?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, that's correct. We would require a full restoration of
the boulevard and curb along the street. Similar to what's out.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
Kind: Should that be a condition?
Hempel: Typically we require a construction and right-of-way permit any time they're working
out in the city's right-of-way and we would address it through that method.
Kind: Okay, thanks.
Hempel: Good point though, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: A question... I guess in past applications when we've had a demolition we've had a
condition stating that the applicant should obtain...
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I don't think I can address that one. It's more ofa
building issue. They may require some sort of a demolition or removal of the modular units so.
Sidney: Correct. Do you think that's redundant to...
Aanenson: I think it puts them on notice. That's fine. You can just leave it open and say secure
any necessary permits.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: I have one Mr. Chairman. Ultimate buildout shows a 43.2% hard surface coverage
compared with 65% under ordinance. What are they at right now and what do you feel about
43%? Is that?
Al-Jaff: It's in compliance with ordinance so they exceed what ordinance requires by 20% so
it's truly not an issue.
Blackowiak: Just for some reason to me it just looked like it was.
Al-Jaff: More than that?
Blackowiak: Yes. Much more than that.
AI-Jaff: It is for the play area and then you have all of the green space around it.
Blackowiak: Okay, good. It looked deceptive. The next question, I think you characterized the
sidewalk along Frontier as being substandard. Would this be an opportunity when the Chapel
Hill connects from West 78th to Frontier to do some upgrading at the time of the demolition?
Because you know that there's probably going to be further degradation of the sidewalk when
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
you've got heavy machinery going across and that type of thing. Do we need to address that as a
condition?
Al-Jaff: When I went out there three times to really look at what are we going to lose in the
process, there are some mature trees that add so much character to that area. So it's a choice
between an upgrade sidewalk or mature trees.
Aanenson: Let's clarify upgrade. Talking width. There might be some...that are damaged but
as far as making it the standard width of 5 feet, that would change the character by the loss of the
trees. It's our recommendation narrow. There's some substandard areas that's something else
we can look at.
Blackowiak: Okay, I was thinking it was just sort of in general substandard.
Aanenson: Well we can certainly look at that and make that recommendation.
BIackowiak: About another condition. Do we want to add a condition that the modular building
seemed to be removed upon completion or is that addressed in a prior condition?
Aanenson: I think it goes back to what LuAnn was saying and we're just going to cover that by
adding a condition that secure any necessary building permits.
Blackowiak: So that covers the removal of the modular buildings then?
Al-Jaff: On the Phase I sheet that shows what they are going to accomplish within the first
phase, they are showing that they are removing those modular buildings. That's why we didn't
put it down as a condition.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just didn't want them to move them and not remove them so. And I think
that's it for me, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Music room backs up to the neighborhood so how do we manage
sound?
A1-Jaff: One of the neighbors says it's there now.
Conrad: Is there special acoustics in that part of the building? Are there doors that should,.we
have to manage that and it doesn't matter if it's there now or not. We just have to manage that.
It's a bigger, I'm assuming it's a bigger music area and it's more important and blah, blah, blah.
So that has to be managed for future neighbors, or the current neighbors. Going back to
something that was said, Kate. You talked about condition 16 and the fence. Your condition 16
says show the type of fence. Staff report said decorative but we can't enforce decorative, is that
what you said?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Aanenson: No, I said a chain link is permitted currently.
Conrad: It is permitted but decorative was what the staff report said we'd like.
Al-laff: Correct and it...
Conrad: Chain link, my definition chain link is not decorative. Let's make that real clear.
Aanenson: Like wrought iron or something like that.
Al-Jaff: That we encouraged.
Conrad: Encourage but that's not in the staff report so I'm assuming we can't, we can't enforce
that.
AI-laff: That's true.
Conrad: We can't?
AI-Jaff: We can't enforce it.
Conrad: The service road to the north, how is that buffered from the neighborhood or do we treat
that like an alley or what is the, what are our standards for the service road that goes in there
Dave?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I really didn't look in too great of detail on that part of
it yet being that it's a future phase. I guess I apologize for not addressing that.
Conrad: Okay, it will be an issue when it comes in. I like the footprint a great deal, and you're
not asking for whether I like this or not right now but I like it a whole bunch. I think there's
some really good things. What I don't like are not part of what we're approving tonight, and I
don't get involved with design but I really don't think that, and I think the applicant's going to
have to persuade me in the future that this is really fitting the neighborhood. I like the south
elevation. I think the elevations that are working for the city are really good and those elevations
we can approve tonight. I think those work. In terms of our conditions, fitting into the
neighborhood. Making it work with the neighborhood. I don't buy it yet and somebody's going
to have to, I don't need to belabor the point. I'm making the point right now. That the east
elevation, if that doesn't fit to the neighborhood other than a low profile but everything else says
it's really different from the rest of the neighborhood. I like the trees. I think you're doing the
right job protecting the trees on that site. I don't think the chain link fencing is doing us any
good over there other than we need fencing for those areas but my point is when it comes back,
I'm going to be real critical of the north elevation. Anything that's facing the neighborhoods.
They don't look to me today like they're fitting. Okay. I think the elevations that are being
approved tonight fit. They fit the busy downtown. They fit the commercial side of our business.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
Those are okay. They're fine. There are constraints but I don't, what I'm seeing in terms of the
long range is not acceptable.
AanCDson: Can staff just comment on that real quick? I guess that's part of what Sharmin was
trying to ITame up is that what we're doing tonight is setting in place some other, you know
trying to unify the theme and location of the addition so while that first phase may work, it has an
implication for the rest of the site.
Conrad: Okay Kate but.
Aanenson: But I guess I'd ask you to evolve that a little bit further.
Conrad: Well you've done a nice job or the applicant has on the south elevation. There's some
break-up. There's some elements that are reflecting roof type. Not a flat design. You know
we've got a flat roof here. We're putting a flat roof in and that doesn't reflect the neighborhood.
You break it up on the south elevation that faces West 78th Street. I think that's good. And so
you've got the flat but you've broken it up with some architectural detail which you do on all
other commercial projects that come in to this city. Then you take the north elevation that faces
the residential area and you're saying well it's because it's their back yard we may be able to let
this work. And because maybe it's probably down 6 feet or rrom whatever their elevation is, it
may work. I could be persuaded on that but it's not very pretty. Doesn't fit right now so based
on how you set me up in the staff report, what we're trying to do in the old town, it doesn't work.
On those elevations so I would be critical on those elevations. I want it to work. I want it to fit
into the neighborhood. I want those additional details. They may even be non-functional which I
don't like but they may be non-functional but they have to reflect or echo the neighborhood and
maybe it's just going to be a different staff and applicant presentation at that point in time to
show me how it will break up the visual and trees break up the visual and that might work for
me. But again, I don't want the applicant rubber stamping the long range future because I'm not
here. I think the staff and the applicant is presenting on the brick, I think that's fine. But I think
we just need to take another look at those two elevations in the future.
Peterson: I feel like we're doing our pre-vote.
Conrad: Yeah, and I'm sorry about that.
Peterson: No, that's fine. Because I felt, my comment to Sharmin before you made yours was,
I'm not convinced I like any of the elevations. I think, as I looked at them and whether it's the
presentation to me or whether it is missing something. I think it's probably a little bit of both. I
think after your comments Ladd I look at the south elevation and I think, I do like that the best. I
don't know whether I'm all the way there yet because the gymnasium's still a lot of building
there. Without, and I can't, with the drawings that I've got, I really can't get a good feel as to
whether it's broken up enough or whether we can do more in there. But I didn't feel good about
what I saw and I don't know whether it's the drawings that aren't there or Ijust can't put the
pieces together yet. But something is missing. I don't know what. I will in the next 20 minutes.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
One technical question Sharmin. One of the materials you passed around was the roof material.
Is that, is the roofing?
Kind: No.
Peterson: Yeah it was. Burgundy.
Kind: Oh that's the standing seams.
Al-Jaff: Canopies.
Peterson: Just over the entrances right? Part of what I didn't like, and I couldn't picture it again
was working with the asphalt and the straight roof. It seems like it's kind of plopped in there but
again it's tough to visualize it, particularly on a small drawing but anyway. Pictures are good.
AI-Jaff: Please keep in mind this is just a mas!}: There aren't any windows on this.
Landscaping is not shown. There are a lot of things missing.
Peterson: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name
and address please.
Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Dan Blake. I'm on the
Board at Chapel Hill Academy. I guess our address there is 306 West 78th Street. Sometimes
called 7707 Great Plains Boulevard. One of those two. Chapel Hill Academy is a 28 year old
organization or institution, a school. It's been in the southwest metro all of that time but in
various locations. We started leasing the Old St. Hubert's building partially in 1997, fully then in
1998 and we have purchased the building now in 1999. Chapel Hill Academy is a kindergarten
through 8th grade non-affiliated ChHstian school. We currently have about 323 students. That's
about 200 families. We, our vision is to grow to somewhere between 425 and 450 students
which would be two classes of each grade. Right now we have two classes in some of the
younger grades. One class in the older grades. As I said, we've been using this property for a
couple years now and I think, anyway I haven't heard differently that we've been very good
neighbors so far. What we've submitted, as Sharmin explained, is a master site plan. It was a
requirement of our interim use permit. It was a good exercise for us to go through though to kind
of forced us to go through the steps maybe sooner than we would have to think about what is our
needs for amount of building on the property. How do uses flow together and where ought they
be because otherwise we likely would have said, well we need to add something so let's build it
and then figure out what to build next. This way by going to a master plan really helps us work
towards a long term goal. And our long term goal is to accommodate those students. The things
we need to accommodate our students are classroom space and gymnasium space. The master
plan, this model, if we can get that back. Classroom wing. Gymnasium area. Talking about
Phase I, but I guarantee you Phase II's going to be right behind, only because we're not quite sure
how much money we have and exactly how things go together. Are we not talking about the
details of every phase but it will be very shortly that we're going to be back talking about at least
the gym space. Some of the other parts of this fulfill much more of a want than a need to our
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
, organization. The current site, you know you're obviously all aware of it, has a lot of history. As
Sharmin mentioned, the building was built, I have a ton of photos here and I'm not going to put
them up on the screen. I don't know how well they'd show but if anybody wants to look at them
we can. The building was built in a few phases with many different materials and architectural
styles so that really represented a challenge on how to add to it and how to come up with a long
term plan that fit things in. So when I hear a couple of comments, or a comment about like the
existing roof. Well it's there. It's difficult to say well we'll just tear it down. We'll straighten
the flat roofto match the rest or make everything else. It's not'a pitched roof in the sense that
most of the architecturally pitched roofs exist and that it really doesn't have enough slope to it. I
don't think at least to totally fit in to a theme of pitched roofs. You know we have the cemetery
across the street rrom part of it. The Old St. Hubert's church building. Those are the kinds of
things, strip center to the west. The Country Clean store and start getting into the apartment
buildings as you go along the south side. A wide variety of things around us to try to relate to so
you know it does become an interesting challenge to figure out how to make the various parts of
the building fit together with the surroundings. We're talking about Phase I today, but it's
critical for us to get a strong feeling towards the master plan because if we don't have a strong
feeling towards the master plan, we would not be comfortable going forward with Phase I not
knowing what the rest of the phases are because they're all integral parts and like I said, they'd
likely follow soon behind once we get the classroom and we put the gym space right up to the
gym is very old. Very non-conducive I guess to the classrooms surrounding it. And so those are
what we've identified as our immediate needs. So you know whatever input we have towards the
master plan I think is important. One, for us to hear and two, to be on the record because we're
going to have some amount of reliance on what you're telling me. If things aren't okay, we want
to hear that. I'll address some of the specific comments I did hear. Parking. My interpretation
working with our architect, interpretation we believe we need 70 parking spaces. This shows 84.
I think by nature elementary schools don't need much parking but never have enough for a big
event and then you look at well where does it spill over? I think staff kind of addressed how that
would work. So it really is the change of use rrom a church to a school that's driving the parking
down and making that acceptable. Second specific item that I heard and will comment towards is
the relationship to the properties to the north. Again I have some photos but those properties sit
anywhere rrom 8 to 13 feet higher than what our, the base of our building. And are full of very
large mature evergreens and deciduous trees. We've met with those neighbors, the ones that
chose, or were interested in meeting with us and talked to them, I don't believe we have issues
with those neighbors to the north as to how this building is proposed. You know there is a
building there now so yes, we're adding to it but there is a building there now so it's not as
though it's a new use being plugged in there. We do have one particular house to the east that is
obviously very sensitive to what goes on because that house is located very close to the existing
building and as well as anything that we've proposed and the Schroeders are here tonight and
may choose to comment to that regard. But I think that's where the critical side relative to the
adjacency to a residential but I think one of the things I would ask you as planning
commissioners to remember is this piece of property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned for
an office or institutional use. I understand the need for transitions and respect for adjacent uses,
but I think we have to be careful not to try to apply residential standards just because it's next to
residential. We're getting, we get commercial really fast as we go next door and there will be
less of a concern with transition the further we go. And so I think that comes into the overall
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
play. The last thing, I guess I'd like to ask if anybody has any questions before I talk about
exterior materials because I'd like to address site plan or building footprint issues if that would
be okay.
Peterson: Questions so far?
Dan Blake: Okay, that's just fine. I want to talk a litt1e'bit specifically about exterior materials
and I know that this is an important issue to the city and it's important to us as well. Our
obligation to comply with the ordinances to be compatible with their surroundings and use
appropriate materials. There isn't anything specific in the ordinance that says small brick, big
brick, block, stone, glass, whatever it be. Ifwe were in Eden Prairie, it would be easier because
their ordinance is more specific. So our charge is to be compatible. There is very little brick in
the residential next to us. Mostly siding. A little bit of stucco. The residential to the, the
apartment buildings as you go to the west, and the closest one is stucco and brick on the corners.
As you go further beyond that it's wood siding with brick. The adjacent commercial uses are
siding or, the visible side we see of the strip mall.. .across the street, which I think is a fairly
unfair comparison for anybody to try to match. That building was built some 100 years ago or
so. We struggle at Chapel Hill with what can we afford to pay to provide an education to
students. We tried to come up with a plan that was mostly functional but hopefully wasn't
distasteful. You know there's architectural elements, some of these little metal roofs that stick
out there, that serve absolutely no function. We know that that was important to the city to add
those kinds of things to the picture. They cost money. That means that something else doesn't
happen. Brick versus block is a big dollar item. Look around at what's being built. The use of
colored rock face block is very common these days. Certainly more in industrial applications but
you have it in your downtown. Not whole búildings but you have portions of it. The new or
relatively new Waconia High School is built completely out of rough face block in an 8 x 16.
The big picture that Sharmin holds up, that's what a block, that's the size ofa block. You have
that size block in your town all over the place. The new CSM office industrial building on Dell
Road that is adjacent to single family is being built out of that kind of material. It adds a lot to
our cost and it means if we don't go that route, it means we have to reconsider what we can do.
How much building we can build. How fast we can grow. And whether we can even, whether
we ought to even try to exist in this location. I really do understand the city's desire to start
something that is very desirable in this location and that this is, sets a trend not just for the rest of
our building but for any other redevelopment in this end of downtown. And if somebody wanted
to contribute the difference, we'd love to put all brick on the building. And maybe we would
end up doing it anyway even if you approved a rock face block scenario because we don't know
how much money we can raise yet to do that, and I'd certainly be willing to make a commitment
to try to make that work. But I doubt that I can come back later and say well now go to block if
we've agreed on a brick material for now so. My first choice would be that we approve, that the
City approves a, allows the 8 x 16 block material, rock face block with the color schemes as
shown. And that we make a commitment to try and figure out how to accommodate as much of
the smaller materials as possible. And thoroughly investigate the cost of such. Let me just
explain a little bit on a construction side. Generally, especially on a gym wall like this, generally
that wall is a masonry construction. In build it out ofrock face block I build a block wall. The
outside is the outside, the inside's the inside. In am required to put brick on it, I build a block
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
wall and then I build a brick wall next to the block wall. The brick costs almost as much as the
block and it serves no purpose other than decorative, which is a purpose certainly. But the block
is structural. Becomes a structural and an outside finish in one piece as opposed to two walls
next to each other. And that's why the cost is so much higher. It's not the cost of these bricks
versus these blocks. It's two walls versus one wall. As an alternative I would be willing I guess
to offer, if we were to look at, you can go back to this picture. We could go with rock face block
in the reddish color and along the bottom, all along the side.. . and we'll go with the brick and the
lighter color on the side that.. .along 78th Street... back wall, the side wall and the back and then
the back around the building be the block material with the color scheme to match so that from a
distance you can't tell. But rrom close up you obviously can and I think that's true and a worthy
point that rrom a distance it's difficult to tell block versus brick. With the types of materials
available to day, but obviously from up close it's a different feel. I know that your job as a city is
to try to set flavor and tone for the, what's best for the city as a whole. We just have to be careful
to not regulate things out of existence. You know there's a building there now. It's built out of 4
or 5 different materials. I don't know if you consider it an eyesore or not. I guess we thought it
was okay enough to buy it. But that's what's there. It doesn't make the newspaper that this is
just a horrible building so as much as we'd like to build the ideal, maybe other alternatives don't
have to be bad. I guess I'll leave it there. That was a lot and answer any questions anybody has.
Peterson: Questions? Thank you.
Kind: Actually I do have a question. I was waiting for Ladd. Mr. Chairman, I have a question
of the applicant or for you. I was wondering if you considered bus turn around areas, having that
be separate at all on this master plan? I know that we're just, we're looking at the master plan
and specifically Phase I but.
Dan Blake: Well the bus turn around or the concept was really what drove the additional parking
lot connection to West 78th Street. It allows a bus to turn in right, follow the edge of the
building. We do have some busing. Not a lot of busing. Most of our stuffs still carpooling.
We only get busing from the District 212. 112. People and I think it's one or two buses total. So
it's not like a typical elementary school where there's 12 buses lined up. We have one or two, so
that's why we wanted to create a smooth flow for the buses to drop off at the curb side. Why the
sidewalk plazas and then straight back out and form a loop so not internal to the parking lot but
we try to create a nice loop for that.
Kind: My concern is people who are doing the car pooling, fighting with buses to get to that curb
but you anticipate future use won't even be that much busing or?
Dan Blake: We don't think there will be a lot more busing because it's not available, it's not
really available to us rrom outside the district. Our students are spread around Eden Prairie,
Minnetonka as well as Chaska-Chan. What our design is if you look at the master plan is a
whole bunch of sidewalk and curb side that follows that whole edge of the parking lot
intentionally so there was a lot of bus and parent space for drop off and pick up. We also have
designed into the plan a main entry and then like a young grade classroom entry so there are two
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
doors that different students would be dropped off at so they wouldn't all have to be dropped off
at the same door. To spread that out a bit.
Kind: I also have a question about the existing roof, which on the plan is specified that it's an
asphalt roof. I was surprised when I went out there to look at it that it's actually kind of a rock
aggregate.
Dan Blake: It's asphalt, not like a roofing shingle.
Kind: I thought it was an asphalt shingle is what I expected to see.
Dan Blake. It's too flat to have shingles on it and shed water. It's asphalt like a flat roof would
be with gravel spread on there. I suppose mainly decoratively.
Kind: And your plan is to keep that long term.
Dan Blake: That roof was recently redone. Our plan is to keep it generally in that configuration.
It is, it's too flat to put an asphalt kind of shingle. I'm not sure how the wood shingles work,
which is what's on the church part of the building.
Kind: Right. That was my next question.
Dan Blake: But the choices are a smooth roof or that kind of asphalt roof with the rock on it and
primarily for decorative purposes.
Kind: So long term you might consider standing seam?
Dan Blake: Well I would consider it but you know that standing seam metal roof costs as much
as this whole addition probably so we wouldn't, that would be a logical thing to look at when we
go to rebuilding that area I guess and to make it match some of the other stuff.
Kind: And the sanctuary roof, any long term plans on that?
Dan Blake: Well, most of it starts to become hidden because we're building out in front of it.
You can see a little bit of the peaks left. We would probably replace those with similar wood or
go to the same material that we have on the, on this roof for the portions that are visible. You
know nobody sees the building rrom this view either unless you're flying by. From the ground
it's tough to see that roof even now. One of the things I want to add, talk about that we didn't,
that isn't overly evident and you can't even tell in this model. We chose to design a higher, a
little bit higher wall than we needed to and we choose to make that outside wall be all of our roof
top screening as opposed to maybe more like a 10 foot wall and then have separate screening up
above. We think with that it will, it makes the rooftop, any rooftop equipment even less
obvious. Obviously it's still there but.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Kind: I like that. Another question about, what was I going to ask? Shoot. I lost my thought.
Oh, the windows. On the elevation it looked like they're glass block. Are they regular windows
with grids in them?
Dan Blake: Regular windows with lines in them, yes. Not glass block. Most likely they
wouldn't be operable. We'd have air handling in there. You know I guess I'm learning this as I
go but in the, in days gone by there was a lot of glass and classroom windows and now schools
are rebuilding those walls. Taking out most of that glass. They don't have so much heat gain
and then replacing it with better air handling internally so you don't have to have the windows
that can open and you have a more secure environment and that would be our long term plan for
the existing portion of the building as well as the new stuff.
Kind: That answers my questions on why there's less windows than what's currently out there.
Also I noticed that your plans are for Phase II to be the gym and Phase III to be that area that
connects it. How do you propose to get the kids to the gym?
Dan Blake: Well the Phase II plan, which why we're not talking about it specifically tonight is
because I don't have all the detail for it. We're proposing to have a temporary link of some kind
to connect the structure, and that's as opposed to putting the gym next to the building because
we're trying to put the gym where it makes sense for the master plan and the master plan has a
cafeteria which will kind of be the lobby to the gym and an auditorium. Instead of putting the
gym right next to the building, so we would build a temporary link that would connect the two
buildings. Probably have some entrance into the length and it would become the activity
entrance until there's a front administrative area. The details of how that would get built I didn't
show staff so therefore they said well we can't really address it now. But it'd likely be some kind
of nice looking contemporary material I suppose. Whatever that means.
Kind: I guess that's all for now.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Just one...
Dan Blake: The need is somewhat out of convenience. I don't know, I have to be careful what I
say I suppose relative to a variance. When we started talking with staff, let's go back even
further. Before we bought this property we had some architectural work done to determine
within the bounds of city code, are we sure we can fit enough building on this piece of property
to work. We concluded yes. The building expansion that was proposed by that particular design
scheme was completely... where a couple of the existing houses stand. It didn't take long for the
neighbors and staff to say, there's better ways to do that expansion, and we never intended that to
be the plan we were going to build but it was a spot to start discussing. We heard rrom staff that
there was a desire to move closer to West 78th Street. More like the commercial stuff to the west
and somewhat consistent with the residential further to the east. Personally I think staffs
direction was probably to be out even closer than we were. I'm thinking they were expecting
more like 10 or 15 feet from that sidewalk instead of30. We designed a building, a classroom
25
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1,1999
wing which was basically a 30 foot by 30 foot classroom and a 12 foot corridor and a 30 foot
classroom next to it. It got out to that point. We've got some of those little architectural
extensions out there and that's where the variance came in. We were working to put a bunch of
the building out that direction. We didn't go as far as maybe staff wanted to so that's the reason
for the variance is to bring it closer to what else is out there. I guess sometimes we use what else
is out there as a reason, the excuse for the variance. In this case maybe our design was to match
what's on both sides of us. Even across the street that building is probably in the neighborhood
of 10 or 15 feet rrom the property line. So I guess that's the why. Right now if you were to ask
us can we live with 35, it would drastically alter the entire design because I can't cut 2 or 3 feet
off of those classrooms and still make them functional so we would have designed it very
differently if we thought we were trying to strictly adhere to the design standards.
Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Larry Schroeder: I'm Larry Schroeder. I live at 7720 Frontier Trail. We're right on the comer
that would be the northeast comer of the property. We're the neighbors of Chapel Hill. We've
lived there for 30 years. There's always been a school there. I have no problem with the kids,
the music room. I kind oflike it. I open the windows and it's god awful but it's nice music. It's
kids. So I think Dan and Chapel Hill are doing a great job. I have no problems with it
whatsoever. Thank you.
Peterson:, Anyone else?
\
'.
Dan Burke: I'm Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th which is around the comer on 77th Street.
From the designs that I had seen before, I think this is a great improvement. It does a nice job I
think of cutting the block diagonally. Setting the back side more residential. And the rront side
more of the commercial side. I think by doing that we really will be able to get a nice division on
the block and in the neighborhood. My concern is in the lighting on the back side. I would like
it to be more on the residential, we have much more of a dark neighborhood and would like more
down lighting versus broad lighting. That's my.
Peterson: Anyone else? Close?
Burton moved, BIackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one?
Blackowiak: I'll jump in. I agree with much of what Ladd said. Although we're just looking at
Phase I this evening, I do think we have to kind of look to get an overall flavor of the project
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
because what happens in Phase I is going to directly affect Phases II and III and I don't think we
can take Phase I without at least considering the other, the implications on the other phases. The
north and east elevations do seem to be lacking. South and west look good. There could be
some more interest. I do realize it is an 01 zone. I understand that. But we also need to
understand that it's in the Highway 5 corridor. We can expect a little higher quality standards.
And we also have neighbors to consider and it is a residential neighborhood so I don't think it's
being unrealistic to ask for more interest and to try to make something that the neighbors are
going to be happy with and the city will be happy with too. And I think, when I say city is the
community. Not just the city staff. I think you're going in the right direction. I do like it.
Specifically regarding the block. I don't know that I feel comfortable requiring totally smooth
face block, and I'll throw this out. I might say maybe, we set a percentage. Maybe 50% or
something. I certainly can understand that the smooth face block on the gym might be cost
prohibitive and not necessarily expansive. But I think there are trade-offs to be made if we go
that route and offer smooth face block on a portion of the building. Then I think that in return it
is fair to expect some increased interest on the northeast elevation. I don't know exactly what
that would be. I don't want to tell you what that would be but you know, as long as we can all
work together I think we can come up with a nice product. Overall I don't have, I really don't
have any problems. I think that the staff report adequately addresses the issues that I have. And
at this point you know, given my comments, I'm very comfortable with what I see.
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: Sure, Mr. Chairman. I'll jump in. I agree with Alison's comments regarding the brick
. face. I think it's important to get it to be not that industrial size. I'm wondering if it would be
acceptable to have just the buff colored areas on those elevations, on the one story elevation be
that 4 x 12. Is that the size? And that that bottom red, the rock face. Just kind of throw that out
as a possibility. I kind of like actually the contrast. I don't know. That might be a compromise
way to go. What else? But I do feel strongly that it needs to be that smaller size on the bulk of
the building. I agree with that big time. What else? I'd like to see more windows. I understand
the energy conservation aspect. Maybe that doesn't really apply to this phase but on the future
elevations I think that would be something that I'd like to see, especially on the gym. I think it's
very common to have those high, I call them kind of skylights and to get some natural light in the
gym. I'd like to see that on the gym. But that's future so whatever. And then I have a few
suggested additional conditions that I'd like to throw out for discussion and see what the rest of
the commission thinks of them. That we, number 16. I know Matt said something about this,
with that fence. And we talked later about the chain link aspect. I think because we're in the
Highway 5 overlay district that we could request a higher quality fence because of where we're
talking about. And maybe the language is that we strongly encourage the applicant to use
decorative fencing or I don't know. If that's a must thing or not. I'd be interested in other
people's comments on that. But the chain link fence that's there has got to go and I'm glad to
hear that it is going. Right along West 78th Street. And then the other addition that I'd like to
add is the possibility of mixing the brick. I'd be interested in other commissioners' thoughts on
those two things.
Peterson: Other comments?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman...I do like the building... I agree with staff's recommendation...
almost industrial looking.. .
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I forgot a couple things regarding pedestrian friendliness. The sidewalk
that's being added along Frontier Trail that connects up with our cute little 3 foot, will be
extended down to West 78t" Street. I'm wondering if the applicant would be willing to add the
proposed addition student entrance on the east side had that sidewalk go directly out to the new
trail. I'm just thinking for pedestrian access to the student entrance that it would be silly to walk
all the way down to West 78th and then go back up to the student entrance. So that sidewalk I
think needs to be added there. And then also for future phases, I'd like to see a sidewalk along
Great Plains on the east side. I'm having directional problems tonight. On the east side and I
know that's a future phase but I'd just kind oflike to put that out there for part of the master plan.
AI-Jaff: West side.
Kind: It would be west side?
Peterson: East side of Great Plains. West side of the building, east side of Great Plains.
Kind: Are we talking about the same place? Okay. It would be on the east side of Great Plains
Boulevard. Right?
Peterson: West side of the building.
Al-Jaff: West side of the building.
Kind: Yep. And that's probably a future phase. That's all for now.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple brief comments. I think it's a very nice project and
welcome addition, well it's already an addition to the community but I think these are nice
improvements to the school. I again mirror the comments of my, of the other people on the
commission. I can't really weigh in on the materials on the size of the blocks. I don't have a
very good, personally a good idea of what visual impressions would be so I really can't add
anything to that and I'm not sure how I feel about it because I don't really have a good grasp of it.
With respect to the lighting I do think it's important that we make a condition that it has
residential character, especially on the neighborhood sides. I do want to add that I do like the
phases that we're looking at. I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight
and I think that the comments on those were good. I guess that's really it. I don't want to repeat
everything everybody else said but those are my general thoughts. I think it's a nice project and I
think the staff comments are good.
Peterson: Others?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Conrad: I'll just, I probably segwayed, or I probably said what I believed in halfhour ago. It is a
good project. The footprint is right. The variances are right. The variance is correct. That's the
right thing to do. Phase I is good. It's everything else that we're not sure of, which is a make
that a real positive signal. I think everybody here is concerned with the sides facing the
residential community. It's not where it can be so you're okay in Phase I. I don't see that
changing your long range plan. Us approving Phase I tonight but it does say the long range plan
has to be altered in tenus of its architectural detail as it's projected or presented to the neighbors.
I think whoever makes the motion has to really deal with the brick issue. I haven't heard
anybody really deal with it very well yet and I'm not the one that's going to deal with that so.. .or
come up with an absolute recommendation on that. My last point is on the gymnasium. I'd
really encourage you to when that gets built in Phase II I think it will be fairly critical again
because you're bordering neighborhoods. The neighbors and we'll want to see how that does fit.
It's a bigger wall and I'd really like you to encourage you to look at the smartness of putting
windows on that. And that's way beyond my scope of expertise but lighting and a gynmasium,
I've been in those that are lit and it helps. It helps. It would also help break up that wall I think
so that's just a future to what's presented tonight. I would hope that somebody would give clear
direction in tenus of the brick.
Peterson: My comments about that dissimilar to my peers. Architectural interest is a consistent
theme we've heard. Certainly one that I still have. Secondly, I am genuinely not comfortable
with the existing asphalt roof. I mean, and I don't have a resolution to that. It's a very unique
roof now and we're basically boxing around it and... that's the best alternative. .. . convinced that
it is. Drawings now don't do it justice as to its unique drawings here...as a nonual pitched roof
and it looks distinctively different than what the drawings are... And I don't know if there are
any alternatives but it will be interesting to see other versions that may... As it relates to the
brick, I feel strongly about using the smaller ones, primarily because of, the smaller I believe
have more of a residential feel to buffer, nicer transition versus a larger being an abrupt
commercial kind of a. .. The property CSM is doing, I wouldn't want the CSM building in this
neighborhood. CSM isn't in a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood. We have issues and
possibilities that go along... I'm offering more...than I am positive but I've got, with those final
comments is there a motion and a second please?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion can I just get a feel from my fellow commissioners
as to how you feel about the larger block on the reddish portion. Or do you think it should be all.
Peterson: I think it should be all smaller brick but that's one opinion.
Kind: Okay, I'll venture a motion here. I move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #98-12 and rront yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel
Hill Academy master plan as shown in plans dated August, received August 31, 1999 with the
following conditions. 1 through 19 and then I have a couple amendments and a couple to add so
here we go. Number 5, these will be conditions that Shanuin has that we don't have in front of
us. So the number 5 will be the changes that Sharmin had. Number 10, add a (d) that says
obtain a demolition penuit and secure any necessary penuits. Number 12. Add a sentence at the
end that says the new sidewalk should connect with the student entrance on the east side of the
29
Planning Commission Meeting - December I, 1999
proposed addition. Number 14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that
incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. Number
15. Show the location of the trash enclosure for Phase I and the materials used to build the trash
enclosure should be the same as those on the new building. Let's see, number 16. Show the type
offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a
decorative fencing. And then number 19, Sharmin will you read what you have for that?
Al-Jaff: The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material.
Kind: On Phase I. So we don't have to deal with the gym aspect at this point?
Al-Jaff: This would reflect this...
Kind: Let's have 19 be that way. Number 20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast
comer will be removed. Or shall be removed. I guess that's a better language. Number 21. The
existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to
match existing curb on West 78th Street. And number, I'm up to 22. A detailed sign plan. We
didn't talk about so I'm just throwing this one in here freelance. A detailed sign plan including
lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. And number23. The modular units
must be removed.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Conrad: I'd second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion to that?
Conrad: So the block issue is per staff recommendation?
Kind: Correct.
Peterson: Other discussion?
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy
master plan as shown in the plans dated received August 31,1999, with the following
conditions:
1. Increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements.
2. Increase plantings for boulevard trees in order to meet ordinance requirements.
3. Increase plantings for parking lot area in order to meet ordinance requirements.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
4. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior
to grading.
5. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on
site at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
6. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre-and post-development storm
water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains
Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated rrom the proposed expansion.
7. The applicant shall obtain rrom the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work
within City right-of-way or easement areas.
8. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review
in greater detail the utility service proposal.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units
determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
10. Building Official Conditions:
a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout.
b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost
of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost.
c. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
11. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFP A
13.
b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine
if additional hydrants will be required.
12. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall be connected to the sidewalk along West 78th Street.
The new sidewalk shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width
as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. The new sidewalk should
connect with the student entrance on the east side of the proposed addition.
13. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
14. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree
cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances
31
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
15. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be
the same as those used on the new building.
16. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged
to use a decorative fencing.
17. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements.
18. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
19. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch block for exterior material.
20. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed.
21. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with
new curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street.
22. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city
ordinances.
23. The modular units must be removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS.
\
Peterson: Any old business Kate?"
Aanenson: Yes. I have old business. AT&T tower has been continued until December 13th.
They have acquiesced and they are redesigning their tower to fit some sort of a cross theme. We
haven't seen it yet but they figured out a way to make that work so we're very pleased about that.
Unfortunately we haven't seen exactly how it's going to look yet but it should be coming in this
week and it will be going to the City Council on the 13th.
Sidney: You said the...
Aanenson: Yes. The tower next to the church. It will be incorporated with the cross in the
design. We don't know, we haven't seen it yet.
Peterson: A 300 foot cross.
Sidney: That's what I'm thinking it's going to be.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1999
Aanenson: Yeah, we haven't seen it yet. Then I believe there was questions last time when I
wasn't here about what was going on with Pulte. The Council did reconsider it for conceptual
approval so it still has to go through, back through another public hearing with you regarding
preliminary approval and as a part of that we're working hard to come up with some different
designs on the homes that you made suggestions on. The different types of products so there will
be five products so we're working on that. So that's kind of the status of some, the old business.
I have quite a bit of new business if we can jump to that.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: We had tabled tonight the Lake Susan Hills Apartments. Sharmin's been working
hard on that. It's now been called, just to break up the confusion with the other apartment
building which appears to be back on track too, it's now called Powers Ridge. Unfortunately the
other one had the Lake Susan name but somebody else got it. So that one's called Powers Ridge
right now. Just for your edification, I don't know if you received notice of that but there is a
neighborhood meeting at St. Hubert's tomorrow night regarding this project. We haven't seen
the revised drawings. Sharmin's been working hard on the one building that faces the majority
of the neighborhoods, we've asked them to break it up. It does have underground parking so we
asked them to put a break in the building.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate, Powers Ridge is Lake Drive and north oflike Osprey and that
other one?
Aanenson: Right. It's between Powers and Audubon. Yeah, and that's the one that's on your
agenda tonight. It was pulled off and the reason was is we wanted some different architectural
changes and they were meeting with the neighbors again tomorrow night at St. Hubert's. I
believe it's 7:00. If you were interested in that I can give you the time if you want to call me. So
that's where that one is. We are working on the Freseth property. That will probably be coming
in January. That's the property between Mission Hills and just south of the new St. Hubert's.
South of Rice Marsh. Eckankar is coming forward. We're working on an environmental
assessment document doing a master plan for that entire project.
Conrad: What is that?
Aanenson: Ultimate campus for their entire property.
Conrad: You've seen it?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Bigger than?
Aanenson: Yes. It will be a big project. It's in phases. I mean right now what they're coming in
with is an office building. Part of the property was guided institutional, which does allow those
types of uses. Part of the property is also, to the north of the site, is residential so we're going to
33
City Council Meeting-January 10,2000
d. Resolution #2000-01: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 7'h Addition - Project No. 99-
18.
e. Resolution #2000- 02: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 5th and 6th,'
Additions - Project Nos. 99-15 and 99-16.
f. Resolution #2000-03: Accept Street and Storm Drainàge Improvements in Springfield 2nd, 3n1, and
4th Additions, Project Nos. 97-20, 98-7 and 98-6.
g. Resolutiou #2000-04: Receive Feasibility Study; Set Public Hearing Date for Grandview Road
Area Utility Improvement - Project No. 97-11.
h. Resolution #2000-05: Approve Temporary Pennits to Construct for TH 5IWest 78th Street
Improvement Project No. 97-6 amended to add Parcel 2 ] SA.
i. Approval of Bills.
J. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 13, 1999
- City Council Minutes dated December 13,1999
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated December I, 1999
k. Resolution #2000-06: Approve Resolution Establishing Procedures Relating to Compliance with
Reimbursement Bond Regulations Under the Internal Revenue Code.
I. Resolution #2000-07: Approve Resolution Designating Signers on City Bank Accounts.
m. Resolution #2000-08: Approve Resolution ModifYing Personnel Policy Regarding Comp Time
for Exempt Employees.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 16.680 SOUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND A 2.000
SOUARE FOOT LIBRARY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. CHAPEL fiLL ACADEMY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dan BJake
Steve Barnett
Dan Plowman
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
306 West 78th Street
8709 Chanhassen Hills
6490 White Dove Drive
7720 Frontier Trail
6213 Cascade Pass
3
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Just a brief background of the application. In June of 1998 the City Council approved
an application for temporary classrooms. It was an Interim Use Permit format and as a condition of '
approval was that one year after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the modular
classrooms, the applicant for Chapel Hill Academy needed to submit a complete site plan application.
And five years after Certificate of Occupancy the modular units would need to be removed or when the
expansion has taken place, whichever comes first. So the site plan is before the City Council. The
applicant is requesting a site plan review application approval for the construction of a 16,680 square
foot classroom units and a 2,000 square foot library addition. And a 5 foot front yard setback variance to
allow the addition to be located 30 feet from public right-of-way. This is the first phase of a 77,260
square foot expansion. This addition is proposed to be located, Phase I, located to the south of the site
and facing West 78th Street. The site contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom
buildings, two houses, two garages and a playground. There has been numerous studies done on this site
and this area of the city. It is within the area that is referred to as Old Town. It is within the 2002 Vision
for the city so again there has been a lot of concepts and studies done in this area. The existing building
was built in phases and as each phase was constructed, a different building material was introduced to
this site. That was one of the challenges that we had to deal with as we started working on this
expansion. Materials that you can find on the existing building include brick, wood, fluted block, and
glass block. The goal oCthe expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance
and build an addition that blends in with the area. The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the
ultimate expansion and the final appearance of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed
to be completed in three phases. It is possible for this project to take 5 or 10 years but at this present time
the intent is to complete the classrooms over the next 2 years. The proposed addition is proposed to
utility rock face block and I can pass these around for the City Council to look at. The colors include
same shades of red brick that can be found on the existing building. Specifically on the base of the
western elevation of the existing building. The color combination will blend in with the existing
building. Especially when the area located west of the site is, this is the area we're talking about. Right
now this area is mainly glass. Therefore it will blend in.
Councilman Senn: Just a point of, these are the rock face block, right?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. That is the materiai that the applicant is proposing to utilize.
Councilman Senn: These are?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: These are. What you're holding.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so these are the rock face block.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and this is basically the roof color and the flashing color.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and what's this?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Nothing. Decoration for. One of the issues regarding the materials that we need to
bring up deals with the size of the block. This is an established area ofChanhassen. The applicant is
proposing to use block that is 8 x 16 inches, and this is the size of an 8 x 16 inch block. Typically you'll
4
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Mayor Mancino: Could you review with us the Planning Commission's general review of it? What, did
they have any concerns? Again, not just on Phase I but of the master plan. So that we don't need to be
redundant if the Planning Commission has already given some.
Shannin AI-Jaff: They liked Phase I. They liked how close it's going to be to West 78th. 'It will provide
a pleasant, which is something that they have been looking at, and wanting to see with this application.
Parking was an issue in their mind. They couldn't understand, well they questioned the reason why they
arè doubling the size of the building and reducing the parking; in half and I explained that earlier. The
size of the brick was extremely important to them. They unanimously agreed that this is a large size
block that does not belong in the residential neighborhood. They indicated that it is preferred. However,
this is a compromise that will blend in well within that neighborhood. Mainly as staff mentioned earlier,
it is the same width as the siding. They were extremely concemed with the elevation facing the
residential area. As far as future phases go. As well as the gymnasium. They wanted to see more relief'
and more architectural features on the elevations facing the residential neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: So they weren't so concerned with location and what was going on there, but they just
wanted more architectural interest on that north elevation and on the gym? Is that, I don't want to put
words in your mouth.
Shannin Al-Jaff: That's an accurate statement. They thought overall the layout of the site plan was very
good. Commissioner Conrad raised the question of the location of the music room and when the kids
practiced they might disturb the neighbors, but the neighbors that were at the meeting thought it amusing.
Mayor Mancino: Wait until they practice and they're out of tune. Just kidding. Okay. Ijust want to
make sure that we understand their concerns.
Shannin AI-Jaff: One of the things that the applicant did a good job with was they tried to leave the area
that faces Frontier Trail neighborhood in it's present condition to the extent possible. There's minimum
tree removal in that area. One of the original thoughts we had was to push the building in this direction
towards Great Plains Boulevard. Basically that will result in screening in the parking. However, they
would be short of parking and would need to locate some in the area facing Frontier Trail and we didn't
think that would be a good option. Planning Commission agreed that the current layout is the best.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? I'm
sorry. Excuse me Dan. Were there any other questions for staff at this point? From council members.
Councilwoman Jansen: Not right now. I can wait with mine.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dan.
Dan Blake: Thank you Mayor Mancino and Council members. My name is Dan Blake with Chapel Hill
Academy. I also brought with me a couple other parents who happen to be on the Board of Directors and
city of Chanhassen residents here tonight. If you have any questions regarding our school in general,
we'll be glad to try to address those and obviously specifics of this plan when we get to it. Chapel Hill
Academy is a non-denominational Christian school that has been operating for I think 28 years now in
the southwest metro area. We moved to Chanhassen a couple of years ago in the old St. Hubert's school
and church building. We currently have 323 students in kindergarten through 8th grade. 53 of those
students are Chanhassen residents so we're generally Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka
kind of areas where our students come from. We are planning a building to accommodate 450 students,
and that would equate to two classes per grade from kindergarten through 8th grade. I'm going to review
6
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
from our perspective this whole master site plan and then I've got two issues that I'd like to focus in on.
Obviously you're all, well it's reasonable to assume that you're all familiar with the location of this site
on the east end of downtown. What we are proposing, minor correcti()n to the: staff comment as far as the
building size. The property is about 4 Y:. acres. We're proposing a total expansion that gets the total
building to about that 77,000 square foot number. It's roughly 38,000 square feet now and we're coming
close to doubling it to 77,000 total square feet. I think you all have a picture like this. I like this better
than the site plan. I don't know if it works good on the overhead. How far can we zoom in on that? I'd
just like to review the existing building. This is the existing élassroom building that was actually built
first on this property. The church addition generally sits down in this end. Our plan is for a classroom
wing, one story addition along West78th Street. A gym building rronted by a one story locker room,
office area. And administrative addition in front of the existing church building and some expanded and
reconfigured classrooms along the back side. When this master plan is completed, nearly every bit of the
old building will be covered up or rebuilt. This area is the area that most remains in it's existing
condition with the existing roof but the outside walls are proposed to be reconstructed to match the
existing building. As Sharmin mentioned, we have not identified exactly what our time frame is to make
all this happen... the modular classroom buildings. The gym is somewhat substandard and we'd like to
'see that improved and that's why a new gym addition is desired. I'd like to point out some of the, how
we envision the site plan in this master building working is that facing diagonal across the street from the
old, I don't know what you'd call it. The Village Square and Town Hall and the Dinner Theater, we've
got what will be our kind of a main entrance. Highlighted with a peaked roof, canopy. We've got a
secondary classroom entrance into the classroom wing. We've got an activity entrance into the gym
building. Included in this master site plan in our mind but nothing that you're reviewing today is our
desire eventually to acquire the rest of the properties on that block for additional open space. We
designed a plan that fit on the land we own, but have been working with the neighbors to acquire on a
longer tenn basis some of those additional properties that would eventually expand the open space on the
property for just recess and you know when we talk about transition to the residential, at some point
space will be quite a bit of the transition. The first ofthe two issues that I want to talk about is
clarification on the master plan versus Phase I. When we submitted this application it was my intent that
it was for the master plan and Phase I. And really all the phases. There are some details in the phasing
that made it difficult for staff to revie~ it and we, our answer to that was that we weren't prepared to tell
you exactly how each phase was going·to work. You talked a little bit some general comments. [guess I
need as specific as we can be because this plan is what we'll now go to with contractors and architects to
figure out costs and figure out how we can go about building it. You know some of the details are
potentially minor and not cost issues but if they're much more than that, it is a significant issue so as
much direction on the overall plan as we can get, and if that's difficult, I guess I would ask what
additional information do we need and I'd rather extend this process if we had to to get clarity on what's
acceptable and not acceptable on those future phases. Second item, and appears to be the issue of the day
is the exterior materials. The existing facility, as Shannin mentioned, I counted seven different materials,
including wood siding. Including glass block. Translucent glass panels. Painted metal panels and two
different types of brick on that building. One ofthe criteria laid for us in the ordinance would be to be
consistent or compatible with the existing building. I don't know how you do that when there's so much
variety other than it's all kind of a dated, dark brown color. That's the only thing that's a little bit
consistent. We have proposed two different colors plus accent ofrock face block on this building. And
architectural detailing in the fonn of some roof elements and some columns that stick out. Things like
tllat. Those architectural details I guess where I attempt to comply with what we understood to be the
city's vision for their Highway 5 corridor and pitched roof elements and things like that. Serves very
little function for us but something that we showed in an effort to comply with what we believed to be
the regulations. The property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned, this is a school is an allowed use
in that zoning. The zoning district is not specific with regard to material types or anything like that. It
does require an additional setback adjacent to residential and I believe that would be the attempt in the
7
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
zoning ordinance to deal with the transition issue is a greater setback adjacent to residential than office
institutional against another type of use. The property is also within the highway corridor overlay district
which I believe all of downtown Chanhassen is. My understanding is that the standard in the code ttiat
we're expected to comply with, and I'm going to read it and you've probably all read it but, is the
creation offunctional and harmonious design for structures and site features with special attention to the .
following: materials, textores, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept
and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. The word I pull out
of all that is compatibility. Obviously a very subjective tenn'because it's different than consistent. The
surrounding materials range from very old, detailed brick work in the old church building. There's also a
garage on that church property that has siding. The old Town Hall has siding. The Medical Arts
buildings to the west had rock face block at the base and siding above. The existing Kenny's strip mall
center, whatever you call that has some brick but mostly siding. The Country Clean building has siding.
As you get to the south, excuse me, northwest part of the site we get into the residential and there's an
apartment building. That's a stucco building with a brick on the comers. At the north edge we have
three single family properties that are all wood siding. Most of the siding in this area is 8 inch siding and
not the, maybe the more charming, smaller lap siding. As you go around to the east, again the entire
single family neighborhood is primarily siding. Some stucco houses. Some have brick or stone trim
accents on the houses. The highway AC I or Highway Corridor District speaks about high quality design.
Things like that. It also states that specifically that major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face
brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally textured concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative
block, or approved equivalent. The code then goes on to say the following may not be used in any visible
exterior application and provides a list of materials that are not allowed. It specifically does [lot not
allow a decorative block. Or rock face block or any other term for block and materials of those sizes.
Why do we care? Well it's mostly because of cost. We are a parent run, volunteer, primarily based
organization. Like most of those kinds of organizations, certainly don't have any extra money to deal
with. We're trying to provide a quality education at as reasonable price as possible and cost is a big
issue. And I think one of the things that we're able to instill in our students is that, while the facility isn't
totally unimportant, it's not the most important thing, or not even close. We spent many years in a
building over in Eden Prairie that at first glance people might have said, well this is barely suitable for a
school. How does it work? Yet I don't think the students ever noticed that they were in a building like
that. And I don't, also don't fault the city for wanting to see as good looking of a product as they can in
their downtown or any area of town. But I would ask that the city consider very seriously what the
ordinances say and how we comply or don't comply and not just what the city would like to see down
there. If the city would like to see something more than we're required to build, and can figure out a way
to help us do that, well we'd love to do that. We have no problem with any kind of upgrades, but we
need to be fiscally responsible to our people. One ofthe biggest issues in the cost of a block construction
versus a brick construction is how the building gets built. A block constructed building is basically laid
up blocks with decorative face on the outside and a finished face on the inside. And you've got an
integral masonry wall. Typically one single wall construction. If you build, if you put brick on a
building, you build a wall either out or wood or metal with sheathing or masonry, and you lay up a brick
wall next to that. And you basically are building a double wall. In the case of a taller wall like a gym,
you'd build a block wall and you'd build a brick wall attached to it so it's not just the difference of
attaching a big square versus a little square. It's building one wall versus two walls. I'd also like you to
consider seriously that there, to my knowledge, is no neighborhood opposition to the block type of
material. I believe that the Schroeders are here today and may, if given the opportunity, speak. They've
told me that they're not opposed to the block material. Actually Mr. Schroeder said well that's really
what's next to our house right now. The back half of that building is an 8 x 16 block. It's fluted. It
breaks up that size a bit but that's what's there, rough face block. The city has approved rock face block
all over the place. Certainly this site is unique but every site in Chanhassen is unique for one reason or
another. I prepared a handout. I don't know if you have it. I don't want to read through it but if you all
8
~
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
tell me you have at least have this sheet that talks about, gives some examples of existing materials. I'm
going to focus on a couple. To me the most obvious is the CSM office warehouse that's under
construction right now. That building is between 24, it's about 24 feet high, 27 feet high at the corners,
100% rock face block. It's adjacent to single family. Fairly high priced single family. Hapj>ensto be
across the city line but I don't think the city would ignore those people just because it's across a city line.
There is benning inbetween. There's about 70 feet to the property line and berming between the parking
lot and the property line. The benning shields the lower third of the building roughly, but standing on the
ground most people can see the upper two-thirds. I'm sure from their deck or second floor building ,
window they can see just about all of that building. And they're comparable distances to residential as
we are. The town square, Oasis Market center, the rear of that building is 25 feet or less I would guess
from the property line of single family homes. There they put up a fence and some bushes or some old
bushes that existed for a long time as the buffer so to speak but that's an uncolored rock face block base
with some siding at the top. The St. Hubert's gym, comparable size to wall heights as we'd be building
for our gym. Those are pre-cast concrete panels with 16 inch squares. They're also right next to single
family. The same kind of distance as we are. So I think the City needs to treat us the way they've looked
at other applications in the past. We believe that we meet the standards called out for in the ordinance.
This is clearly not a PUD and therefore additional negotiations on these kind of items is maybe less
appropriate than it might be under a PUD situation. The staff did recommend a 4 inch by 12 inch brick
alternative. I guess I think that that's kind of the normal size brick used in most buildings these days
other than a single family house with brick trim and a fireplace in the inside and the wall right behind
you there. But that jumbo brick is pretty common place and I don't think if you looked at the Byerly's
center you'd ever say oh that's where that really big brick. Those kind of buildings typically have that
size brick and again that's spelled out on that little handout. Some of the areas around town. I guess I'd
like to summarize by saying, I think it's unfair and a bit punitive to ask Chapel Hill Academy to establish
a trend or a set of standards for that end of the redevelopment ofthat end of downtown. At our expense
at least and that's a burden that we're not sure we can handle. Given all that, you know we ask foryour
approval as submitted tonight and if not, we would ask for the opportunity to re-look at this with some
other altemative material such as siding, which clearly would be the most similar and compatible but I
don't think is really what makes the most sense. And the second alternative would be some kind of a
stucco exterior, which is also quite common in the city and could reasonably be considered compatible
with some of the adjacent uses. We have stucco buildings on a couple of sides of us. Given that long
and winded spiel, I'm open for any questions. I hope you'll look at this as fairly as you can.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dan?
Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I do have one if I could. Dan, when you were speaking to the Planning
Commission within the Minutes, going again over building materials. At one point you had proposed an
alternative that you could potentially look at as far as doing the big blocks along the lower portions of the
building and alternating that with the smaller blocks then above. Is that something that you're still open
to looking at as far as an alternative?
Dan Blake: Certainly if you told me that, ifthat orall brick, absolutely. That wouldn't be our preference
but I think that the gym wall is the highest concern for us because ofthe way that construction works
there. It's also quite a bit back from the main street. A couple of scenarios that I could think about that
would work, if we want the rock face block band along the bottom, the dark red all the way around, and
then the one story building with a brick material and the two story building, part of the building that half
of it's shielded, is with all block, I think a scenario like that would, I guess to me that's a reasonable
compromise. I have trouble quantifying the cost of that I think from a construction standpoint. A
scenario like that makes sense so would we consider it? Yes. It's not again our first choice. What we
proposed is our first choice but sometimes you...
9
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Sometimes you don't get that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: So you would look at other altematives. I'm concerned more about you. Not the
materials tonight but what you said at the very first, your first point. And that is about the master plan.
The master site plan. That really has me concerned right now because the Planning Commission did not
go into any sort of real look at the master site plan and I'm just wondering if this should go back to them
because when I read he,re, and I'll just read you a couple comments that Ladd Conrad made about the
gymnasium and Matt Burton made about not feeling comfortable with the north elevation, etc so what I
would hate to have us do is to go ahead here and give a few general comments 'as a council, and then
when you come in to bring in your site plan for another phase, let's say it's the gym and they're going to
want windows added and they're going to want articulation against that north elevation. That concerns
me because that goes right to your bottom line. So I'm, my inclination, and talking about it with council
but you also need to tell Dan is that, you know reading the Minutes, the Planning Commission did not
really take a real good look at the site plan. And in fact said they didn't feel comfortable with it, the
master site plan, especially that north elevation. So I don't want you being ed in the wrong direction and
then coming back and you know having all these changes. So I'm wondering, what's your feeling first?
Dan Blake: Weill think to some degree you're absolutely correct. That the Planning Commission.
Mayor Mancino: There are very few comments.
Dan Blake: They looked at it. Certainly when we talk about things like parking, which obviously is a
master plan issue. And they did make some comments like I'm uncomfortable with, or I'm comfortable
with the sides I can see but I'm uncomfortable with the back side. And if you look at, you know what's
in your packet, this kind of elevation, it's very difficult to tell what that building's going to look like.
There's a lot of relief that you can see on this little three dimensional rendering that you can't tell on that
picture.
Mayor Mancino: So what I'm asking is, if you bring in those site plans and they say we want you to add
windows, like I know Ladd was talking about the windows on Bluff Creek Elementary that are higher
there. They were also talking about, I mean Matt Burton says I'm not very high on the other parts that
aren't before us tonight. So you know I read comments like that and again, we don't want to mislead
you.
Dan Blake: Well, as much as I never want to delay anything, timing is not the most critical item to us
right now. We were hoping to get a building under construction this spring/summer. It all depends on
our financing. Whether we will or not anyway. You know when they make those kind of comments, and
at the Planning Commission meeting there's not a lot of time, sometimes there's not a lot of interaction.
The Planning Commission is just discussing things. You know I guess I would ask the follow-up
question. Well what kind of additional architectural detailing do you expect on a back side that's up
against mostly trees and who are we trying to protect? If my neighbors don't care, you know that it looks
any better than what we're showing, does the city really care and things like that? So.
Mayor Mancino: Well, obviously neighbors move and we as you know have to think of long tenn and
we have to think about the community and the neighbors that are here now or are going to move, etc. So
Scott, do you have anything?
10
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Scott Botcher: I agree with the Mayor. I think there's some concerns from the members of the Planning
Commission as to the long term plan and you know I'd hate for it to come back and kick you in the rear,
quite honestly. And so would you.
Dan Blake: Right.
Scott Botcher: I mean you've got a financial plan you're trying to put together. And I think what you
said is probably very true. I mean you're more financially driven than calendar driven. The thing that I
would say, and Sharmin has heard this many times, and it's premature but I'll say it now so I can say that
I said it. Especially in a residential neighborhood, and that is an attractive drive there rrom, weill
believe it to be, from 101 to the clock, you know towards the Dinner Theater. We need to make sure that
we ratch it up instead of set our standards to what's there. I respect the economics of it but you know we
want to constantly work to raise the bar, and unfortunately that does involve everybody, including the
school. But I guess to get back to my point, I don't want to see any HV AC as I drive by. I just noticed
on the rendering there and on this stuff here, there's none ofthat contemplated and I know we're a little
premature but when you're doing your calculations and you're doing your planning, have a parapet roof.
Have them hidden. Have them somewhere. Keep that in the back of your head.
Dan Blake: For the record, that's what we're showing on our one story building is, I don't know what
that top height is. 15 feet or something. So we're showing a parapet all the way around it as opposed to
a specific rooftop screening.
Scott Botcher: Again, because that's the kind of stuff that' s really simple and it's pretty basic for any
city and if you guys haven't planned for it, that can be another economic hit.
Mayor Mancino: Dan, do you think you could give more specifics to the planning department to bring it
in front of the Planning Commission in some of those areas where they felt uncomfortable, etc? Can
there be some more specifics that you can deal with? And have this go back in front of them as a real
master site plan review. And they can review at that time materials and maybe you can show them
alternatives to those materials also.
Dan Blake: I can do that. I'm willing to do that. However, I don't think we would show them, I think
the specifics are there. It may be hard to visualize on a plan view elevation, or a elevation view what
those elevations look like. We felt it was a need to dress up the side you see from main street. I guess I
don't think adding some of these decorative roofs and things like that on the back sides of the building,
you know it's not a service drive kind of back of the building like your Oasis Market center. it's just
windows and a couple emergency doors and probably some sidewalk connections. We do have a service
drive back there to get to just a back side of the building but it's not like a loading dock.
Mayor Mancino: Dan, I don't know what all their concerns are and that's what I'm trying to say.
Dan Blake: I understand.
Mayor Mancino: That I don't want to assume they're just thinking of one or two things, when we don't
know as a council. And again, we're just trying to be proactive so that you don't come in front ofthem
on each site plan and say, now wait a minute. And they can come back to the minutes and say but we
told you we didn't feel comfortable about it. Any suggestion from council members?
Dan Blake: Okay. We're willing to do that.
II
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor'Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that direction?
Dan Blake: Weill think, I guess I can agree that it's a good way to bring it back in front of the Planning
Commission and further discuss that issue. I think that the size of the brick took up the entire discussion
and therefore it didn't, there was no focus on those other issues. Maybe now that you've had that '
discussion, now we can talk about what is the issue of the back 'side and what exactly would they expect
to see on any other elevation. That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: And ageneral.
Councilman Senn: I think that really makes sense. One of the very difficult parts of looking at this is
when you start trying to compare what you're approving with the first addition with the whole, it's very,
very difficult. Whether it be landscaping and trees. Whether it be building materials. Whether it be hard
surface coverage. I mean all those issues. I mean a lot of them really aren't spelled out here as to where
we are and where we end up. So it's real difficult to sit here within creating I'm going to sayan endless
number of surprises...
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: It does seem like the prudent thing to do and I know that they did speak to a '
considerable number of issues that more so addressed the master plan, just in general to give you a feel
for it but realizing that you really do need the specifics. If it is windows, work that through with them
and so forth. So I certainly appreciate your patience with the thought of needing to go back through the
system but I do think it might be best.
Mayor Mancino: And I also think at that time you can address some of the materials in more detail with
them. If there are other suggestions that you have. Okay. Councilman Engel, anything? Okay, thank
you.
Shannin A1-Jaff: We need an extension on the time line to process this application.
Mayor Mancino: Dan, could we have an extension?
Dan Blake: Hereby grant you whatever it takes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much and thanks for everyone who came tonight. And so
it will go back and be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a little more detail for the master plan.
Appreciate that. Roger, do we need to do anything more formally? As a council.
Roger Knutson: Not on that other than postponing, you'd be postponing or tabling action.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we need a motion to table?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think a motion to table and refer it back to the Planning Commission would be
in order.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I please have a motion.
Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table and move it back to the Planning Commission.
12
i
'4
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table tbe site plan review to allow a
16,680 square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition to an existing building and a
variance to allow a 30 foot front yard setback for Cbapel Hill Academy and to review tbe item
back to tbe Planning Commission for master site plan review. All voted in favor and tbe motion
carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING, 105 FOOT
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR U S WEST
WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steven Mangold
Pat Conlin
Mike Reyer
Eugene Sigal
Mike Dalton
Pete Keller
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
416 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
4] 53 Hallgren Lane
6760 Country Oaks Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. First thing I would like to
do if I may is outline the ordinances that govern this application. The ordinance states that in residentially
zoned districts the maximum height of a tower may not exceed 80 feet. Whenever there are multiple
users on a tower within a residential district, then we have an exception and that exception basically
states that the limitation of the height ~ay be increased by 25 feet. The third section that governs this
application deals with locations of towers within residentially zoned districts and it specifically points
out that it may be placed on church sites when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as... the
applicant is requesting a conditional use penn it and a site plan approval for the construction of a 105 foot
cross designed monopole communication tower. The tower is proposed to be situation south of Holy
Cross Lutheran Church. This is the church site. It is proposed to be located south of the church site and
west of Highway 7. The actual pole height is 93 feet and is proposed to have two 6 foot tall tubes. These
tubes will be vertically stacked and inside them the antennas will be located. The overall height of the
tube again is 105 feet. When we looked at this site we looked at the surrounding area and the setbacks of
the residentially zoned units in this area. What you see highlighted in green is existing vegetation. It's a
natural buffer. This is the proposed location of the tower. The setback is proposed to be ]05 feet from
the neighborhood to the south, and it exceeds 380 feet from the neighborhood to the east. Our first, there
isn't any buffer within this area. It's really wide open. When we looked at this site overall, we thought
the best location would be immediately behind the church. What happens as you go behind the church is
the grades begin to drop substantially. Two things that the ordinance highlights. Number one, you
cannot have a structure between a main building and a right-of-way. So that would have required a
variance. Second of all, as you move the tower down the hill you're going to need a height variance. So
that's two variances that you would need to grant for this application. And what this location would have
done would have been to screen the base of the tower. With the proposed plans they're not proposing to
remove any of the existing vegetation. And they are proposing a landscape plan. Staff is recommending
that the trees be 10 feet in height at a minimum at the time of installation. You can't screen a structure
13
July 20, 2000
ChaDhassen Planning Commission
ChaDhassen City Council
ChaDhassen Planning Staff
Re: Chapel Hill Academy Master Site Plan Review
Application History: On August 31, 1999 Chapel Hill Academy submitted a request for Master Site Plan
Review for the 4.58 acre site located north of West 78'" Street, west of Frontier Trail and east of Great
Plains Boulevard. The property address is 306 West 78th Street (also referred to as 7707 Great Plains
Boulevard.) The site is the old St. Hubert's Church and School and has been occupied by Chapel Hill
Academy for the past three schoot years.
It is the desire of Chapel Hill Academy to expand and remodel the existing facility to accommodate a K-8
school of approximately 420-450 students. The enrollment for the 1999-2000 school year was
approximately 323 students. We currently have 4 classrooms in the modular classroom building on the
property. A condition of the interim use permit for the modular classroom building was the submission ofa
master site plan for City review by September 1999. The initial submission was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on December I, 1999 and by the City Council on January 10, 2000. The City Council tabled
the Site Plan Review and requested that it be sent back to the planning commission for a more complete
review.
Master Site Plan: Chapel Hill Academy proposes to add approximately 40,000 square feet to the existing
36,000 square foot structure on the property. The improvements generally consist of the addition ofa
gymnasium, a classroom wing and new administrative and main entrance areas. Also included in the master
plan is the complete replacement of all existing exterior walls and windows. It is anticipated that the entire
plan will be constructed within the next 5-10 years. The current request is also specifically for the proposed
phase I improvements. If the scope of work or proposed details for phases 2-4 change from the following,
additional site plan review(s) will be needed by the Planning Commission and Council.
Phase I: Phase I will consist of the construction of the 16,680 square foot classroom wing and a free
standing gymnasium building as well as adding a fire sprinkler system to the entire existing building. The
two existing homes will be removed from the property and the playground will be relocated. A temporary
trash enclosure will be constructed on the east side of the building at the location of the existing dumpsters.
The material will be wood fencing and will be colored to match the existing wood siding in that area. It is
our intent to start phase I late this year to be complete for the start of the 200 I school year. The schedule
for the future phase will be based on funding availability.
Phase 2: Phase 2 construction will involve the addition of a new main entry, a cafeteria, and administrative
areas, which will physically connect the phase I gymnasium with the existing building. Parking lot
reconstruction will be included with phase 2 construction.
Phase 3: Phase 3 construction will involve the interior and exterior remodeling of the north and east
portions of the existing building.
Phase 4: Phase 4 construction will be the re-facing of the west and east exteriors of the existing classroom
building. and additional interior improvements.
Modular Classroom Building: This building was installed in August of 1998 and is permitted by the City
through June 2003 or until the expansion of the school is completed, whichever comes first. The modular
classroom building will be removed with the phase 2 construction or by June 2003, whichever comes first.
The phase I construction will block the view of the modular classroom building from the west and south.
The view trom the north is núnimized by the hill, the view from the east is blocked by the existing
building.
Neighbors: We have met with the neighbors numerous times in the past years regarding our proposed
expansion plans. Very few neighbors attended the previous planning conunission and council meetings. We
believe that the neighbors are supportive of the plans as proposed.
Futnre Expansion of Property: 11 is our desire at some future time to acquire the residences that are
within the block bounded by West 77"', Frontier, West 78'" and Great Plains Boulevard. At this time, we
have tentative verbal agreements with some ofthe property owners that they will give us the first
opportunity to purchase their properties when they decide to sell. The residences would be removed and
additional open play space would be created. The current plan does not rely on the acquisition of these
adjacent properties, but it is designed to take advantage of the additional open space in the future. At this
time, it is not our intent to add additional building onto the possible expansion property.
Planning Commission Meeting December I, 1999: At the planning conunission review of this proposat,
the discussion focused on what was then called phase I, which was the proposed classroom wing addition.
There was some discussion regarding the balance of the proposed site plan as well. The planning
commission discussion and comments focused on a few major themes. The commission was cooûortable
with the general layout of the site and the proposed intensity of use. The conunission was in favor of the
proposed setback variance. The conunission generally liked the elevations presented for the south and west
sides. The Conunission was generally concerned with the elevations presented for the north and east sides.
The conunission was generally concerned with lack of architectural detail on the gym building. There was
considerable discussion regarding exterior material and alternatives were suggested. The Conunission
recommended approval of phase I with a condition of all brick exterior, but left open the possibility of
alternative materials for the future phases.
City Council Meeting January 10, 2000: At the city council review the Council expressed concerns that
the planning commission had not thoroughly reviewed the entire Master Site Plan and that Chapel Hill was
at risk of not knowing what to expect for the future phases if only phase I was approved at that time. The
Council tabled the action and referred it back to the planning conunission to "have this go back in front of
them as a real master site plan review. And they can review at that time materials and maybe you (Chapel
Hill) can show them alternatives to those materials also."
Plan Revisions: In response to the comments from the planning conunission and council, the following
plan revisions have been made:
· Windows have added to the west and north elevations of the gymnasium.
· Architectural detail (bump out columns) has been added to the west and north elevations of the
gymnasium
· Significant window and door glass has been added to the north elevation at the cafeteria adjacent the
gymnasium
· Windows were added to the classrooms at the north elevation
· Additional building 'jogs" were introduced to the east elevation
· Additional windows were added to the classrooms at the east elevation
· Exterior material were revised to primarily brick with rock-face block at the base and at the
gymnasium
Exterior Materials: The original proposal called for an all rock-face block exterior. The staff
recommended all brick. The planning conunission discussed exterior material alternatives but
recommended all brick on the first phase. The revised proposal is for a consistent base of rock-face block in
a color and height to match the existing brick base of the existing classroom building. The exterior surface
above the bottom of the windows on the one-story portions of the building would be buff colored brick.
The upper surface of the gymnasium addition is proposed to be rock-face block in a buff color to match the
7
,
, .
brick. The larger (8"x 16") units at the building base are architecturally appropriate and are consistent with
other new buildings on West 781h Street. The block base also ties in the single-story materials with the taller
gymnasium exterior. Brick construction requires the construction of a masonry (block) or Ifamed wall
which is then faced with brick. Block construction on the gym will allow one single wall to be constructed
with the block fonning both the interior and exterior surfaces. The gym building at St. Hubert's is pre-cast
concrete panels formed with 16" squares.
The property is zoned 01. The OJ district does not have any specified exterior material requirements or
prohibitions. The property is also within the HC-l Highway Corridor overlay district. The standard set forth
in the code is:
"Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following: Materials, textures colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and tire compatibility of tire same with adjacent and neighboring structures and
uses"
The HC-l design standards state:
"Major exterior suñaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, atchitecturally
textured concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative block or approved equivalent... The
following may not be used in any visible exterior application..." no mention of rock-face btock or
decorative block as prohibited.
The standard is compatibility. The existing building is constructed of brick w/running bond (south), brick
wlstacked bond (east and west), painted metal panels (south), translucent glass panels (south), glass block
(east and west), fluted rock-face block (church building) and painted diagonal wood siding (church and
rectory bldg). The surrounding properties are constructed of a various material from stucco to brick to
block to siding. Due to the variety of material on-site and surrounding the property, it is extremely difficult
to detennine what is compatible and what is not. Staff has suggested that a utility sized brick would be a
compromise and is "pretty much the height ofa siding that you might find within that (the adjacent)
neighborhood. The attached detailed analysis of the neighboring exterior materials points out that the vast
majority of the siding in the adjacent neighborhood is in fact greater than 8" wide. The analysis also points
out that only 3 buildings in the area have a significant amount of brick and none of those are single family
properties.
The City has consistently allowed the application of rock-face block and/or utility sized brick on buildings
in the HC-l district, many are adjacent to residential areas. The attached list identifies recent examples.
There are very few, if any recent examples of the use of the older, smaller sized brick.
Chapel Hill Academy and our architect have presented and discussed other alternatives exterior materials
with staff. Stucco and horizontal siding could be utilized and would be consistent/compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, but staff has expressed a desire not to use those alternatives. We are confident
that the current proposal for a combination of block and brick exteriors is a fair compromise between the
City's desires and the schools obligations that will result in a project that will greatly enhance the existing
property and will be an overall benefit to all of Chanhassen.
~
RECENT EXAMPLES OF EXTERIOR MATERIALS IN THE HC-l DlSlRICT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
J311\IIIJY 10, 2000
Town Square (Oasis Market Center) Approximately 25 foot sctback next to sinl!le family residential
Lower 8' uncolored rock-face block 8" x 16"
Siding above
Wood fence at rear property line (adjacent to single family)
St. Huberts Gym Approximately SO feet setback next to sine:le family residential at east
Approximately 27 foot taU flush waIls. Pre-cast textured concrete wI 16" squares
St. Huberts Church and School Approximately SO feet setback next to sine:le family residential
100% brick 4" x 12"
Swim School (under construction) Approximately 30 feet setback next to sine:le family residential
Primarily rock-face block 8" x 16"
CSM Office Warehouse (under construction) South of Lake Drive at Dell, Approx 70 feet setback next to
sine:le familv residential
100% colored rock-face block 8" x 16"
Approx 24 feet tall, 27 feet at comer entrances
Approx IS feet (18 feet at comers) visible from street level in single family residential
CSM Office Warehouse North of Lake Drive, south side Hwy 5
Approx 70% colored rock-face block 8" x 16"
Approx 30% brick 4" x 12"
Mortenson Building (under construction) near Hwy 5 walkway
100% EFtS (Stucco type material)
Car Wash on Lake Drive
Approx 90% brick 4" x 12"
Approx 10% rock-face block 8" x 16"
Goodyear on Lake Drive
Approx 90% brick 4" x 12"
Approx 10% rock-face block 8" x 16"
Abra Auto on Lake Drive
Approx 60% Brick 4" x 12"
Approx 40% Stucco (or EFtS)
Byerlys Center in Downtown
100% brick 4" x 12"
Tire Plus near Market Drive
Approx 90% brick 4" x 12"
Approx 10% smooth colored block 8" x 16"
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
The attached is an inventory of the exterior materials of the homes and building surrounding Chapel Hill
Academy, including all homes in the "Old Town" neighborhood.
A total of 58 buildings were inventoried. Photos are provided for all buildings adjacent to Chapel Hill
Academy and along West 78th Street.
Summary:
· 72% (42) of the buildings have no brick on the exterior.
· Only 5% (3) of the buildings have significant amounts of brick, none of those are singte fattùly.
· 9% (5) of the buildings have exposed 8" block
· OIÙY 31% (18) of the buildings have siding less than 8" wide.
~oo
iller
0 D
0 -:=:G O~
0 CJ ) -r;:;;r-I/;ú.
lot.!.. 'êoLL ..
> ·.AV -1'3
C
..
.c o'1LL
U
~[] ~D ~
rJ
.
- ~ 0
II)
.c
-
to-
t<- o :.
~ QO~ t.zlL.
o lOLl. 1>.1. nL 0
"L 1"lIuol4
'è! -nO i>w. aD
...s> ""
- cD
~
r- ~
..
a ~D oJ -
..
1;0 II) .. E
1; 3,~ .c 1: ..
- .8 u
t<' CD
WC! to- "
~ :I:
a.;<{ oJ
<{(.) ~
Dc!] :I:;<{
(.) -
... ~ ..
bon.
"PAIS 'UlOid 10.'0 ¡;
-
c
! ..
gO' L. 1 Qt~L I [j !
..
8-
II)
..
ë
Õ
u
H
-
"
.c
~
.;/)to,
.........~.~
·:..i)\: 8.:' ,
..... "., "., 4' . .
..... \;, a';'::;,
..... ',",'..'
..........
-
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
202 West 78th Street
5" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'-
206 West 78th Street
8" siding
3 rows of 8" block at base
no brick
Page I of 11
7791 Erie Ave (West 781h Street side)
II" siding
no brick
7791 Erie Ave. (Front)
11" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
I
,
ì
I
ì
J
,
I
I
I
I
ì
I
I
,
. ,
Î
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
,
I
j
Î
:
,
220 West 78th Street
8" siding
no brick
222 West 78th Street
II" siding (main house)
5" siding (west side)
no brick
224 West 78th Street
6" siding
no brick
225 West 78th Street
3" siding
no brick
Page 2 of 11
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 3 of 11
7727 Frontier Trail (West 78th Street side)
4.5" siding
no brick
7725 Frontier Trail
4.25" siding
2.75" brick at garage piers
7724 Frontier Trail
stucco exterior (house)
no brick
8" vertical siding (garage)
7723 Frontier Trail
vertical wood siding
no brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
I
,
i
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
,
!
i
j
i
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
i
,
i
"
, It _.',.,~;" t~:i,+~'~.· .....1.,
,"'" ~:":'>';'.:... ''''-';''''.:...:..-,;
(. t.,.' ", '. -., ~ <lr
. ·~t~, ~- ·...~~:iI:,'~f '!" .'
"". .~)....:.:,' 5~. '/",:;;,~i'~'."',':.)
iì !:~~"'. "" . '<1...
1 /;~$._ ,'_ >J" __ _ _ ,. ',"_'
I-I'<-::-~...;~
"",' --
. . \1 " ~- C',¡;L...:c ¡¡
Ie-:;,J r1f ~~""~~~p'
~~",~""'-:--'
I .
"~-.-
. "
,¡
Page 4 of II
7722 Frontier Trail
6.5" siding
3 rows 8" block base
no brick
7721 Frontier Trail
8" siding
no brick (front)
2.75" brick (chimney)
.~.:~
223 Chan View
12" siding
no brick
221 Chan View
II" siding
no brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 5 of 11
224 Chan View
8" siding
no brick
22x Chan View (Frontier Trail side)
4.5" siding (new)
no brick
7720 Frontier Trail (front)
6" stone
no brick
7720 Frontier Trail (Chan View side)
10" siding
no brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 6 of 11
7701 Frontier Trail
4" siding
no brick
302 Chan View
II" siding
no brick
304 Chan View
Stucco exterior
No brick
304 Chan View
10" siding
no brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 7 of 11
306 Chan View
8" siding
no brick
7616 Frontier Trail (West 77"' Street side)
8" vertical siding
no brick
304 West 77th Street
10" siding
no brick
7610 Great Plains Blvd.
11" siding
2.75" brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 8 of 11
410 Chan View (Great Plains Blvd side)
stucco exterior
2.75" brick at comers
7720 Great Plains Blvd (Country Clean)
8.5" siding
no brick
Colonial Square (Great Plains Blvd. Side)
4" siding
20' squares
no brick
Colonial Square (front)
4" siding
20" squares
2.75" brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
No photo
No photo
No photo
Page 9 of 11
Old Village Hall (West 78 Street side)
4.25" siding
no brick
Old St. Huberts Church (West 78'h Street
side)
2.75" brick
Garage at Cemetery (facing West 78'h
Street)
8" vertical siding
no brick
207 Chan View
est 10" siding
no brick
206 Chan View
est 10" siding
no brick
204 Chan View
est 12" vertical siding
no brick
Chapel Hill Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
Page 10 of 11
No photo
205 Chan View
est 12" siding
no brick
No photo
203 Y2 Chan View
est 12" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'
No photo
203 Chan View
est 8" vertical siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'
No photo
202 Chan View
est 12" siding
no brick
No photo
200 Chan View
est 10" siding
no brick
No photo
201 Chan View
est 4" siding
8" block at base
no brick
No photo
n06 Erie Ave
est 8" siding
no brick
No photo
222 Chan View
est 8" siding
no brick
No photo
225 West nth
est 4" siding
no brick
No photo
221 West nth
est 5" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3' on garage and left side
No photo
no 1 Erie Ave
est 12" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'
No photo
n03 Erie Ave
est 8" siding
no brick
No photo
207 West nth
est 5" siding
no brick
Chapel HilI Academy
Neighborhood Analysis
No photo
205 West 77th
est 12" siding
no brick
No photo
203 West nth
est 12" siding
2" brick at lower 3'
No photo
20 1 West nth
est 12" siding
no brick
No photo
7721 Erie Ave
est 5" siding
2.75" brick at lower 3'
No photo
7720 Erie Ave
est 6" siding
no brick
No photo
7609 Great Plains Blvd
est 12" siding
8" block at first floor (77th side)
2.75" brick at first floor (front)
No photo
7608 Great Plains Blvd
est 12" siding
2.75" brick at lower 2'
Page 11 of 11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1,2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Vii Sacchet and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deb Kind and Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 39.910 SO. FT. EXPANSION FOR CLASSROOM.
GVMNASIUM. AND LIBRARV/OFFICES. ETC. TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT V ARD SETBACK. 7707 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD. CHAPEL HILLS ACADEMV.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dan Blake
Bill Lawrence
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Steve Barnett
Greg Benedict
George P. Shorba
306 West 78'h Street
2122 Boulder Road
7720 Frontier Trail
8709 Chanhassen Hills
823 Roundhouse Street
306 Chan View
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Okay, questions of staff.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a couple questions. On the condition, number 12 there's, the
crossed out part but it seems that they given the sidewalk and it looks like that's what they're doing
actually. The crossed out part.
Al-Jaff: They have made the connection.
Burton: That's already been done?
AI-Jaff: On the plans that.
Burton: Oh I see, so we don't need a condition because it's already in the plan.
Aanenson: Correct. That was the original condition and we're just showing you that it's done.
(
k
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Burton: I get it. And then I'm a little unclear on condition 24. If you're sticking with what you've
recommended or if you're agreeing to one of the alternatives?
AI-Jaff: We would feel more comfortable with our recommendation and I think the applicant can address
that further. Obviously we would rather see it remain.
Burton: Okay.
AI-Jaff: There are cost issues that the applicant will be able to address.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess one ofthe topics that was discussed at the last meeting about this was
the roof. We have various roof styles and types of roofs. Has that been discussed with the applicant?
Because that I feel could detract from the overall plan.
Al-Jaff: We've talked about it. Other than taking out the existing roof, and I assume that if the chapel
portion that is of concern to the Planning Commission, otherthan taking that entire roof off, I don't know
how else you can hide it really. Increasing the height of the building or the parapet walls is not going to
screen it. And no we did not ask them to remove the existing roof.
Sidney: Okay. And one more question. I guess to clarifY, I think one ofthe things I saw and we're
discussing here, concern about when you say brick or block or whatever, can you go over that again?
Al-Jaff: What portions are brick?
Sidney: And block and on your board there, is that the block and, that your referring to?
Al-Jaff: These are the same materials that you looked at initially.
Sidney: And that's the block?
Al-Jaff: That's the block. The colors are going to remain the same. The size of the block, rather than
using the large scale block, they will be utilizing this size of brick. And we refer to it as utility size brick.
Sidney: Brick, okay.
AI-Jaff: Brick. The recommendation remains as smooth face and not this textured block or rock face
block. The location, do you want me to go over that one more time?
Sidney: Two sides of the gymnasium would be the block?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Sidney: And then the lower portion of the building, around the building would be block?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sidney: Okay.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
AI-Jaff: The area that is proposed to be locker rooms, which has a one story height, will be brick. Does
that answer all the questions?
Sidney: Yes, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah Shannin, this is a site plan review.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: There are no elevations in our kit.
AI-Jaff: There are these and then.
Conrad: I'm curious about, huh. Okay, I didn't get that.
Peterson: No, we didn't either.
Conrad: Can you put up the West 78th Street elevation?
Al-Jaff: Sure. Nothing has changed on this elevation. It's what was initially approved by the Planning
Commission. It has windows along West 78th These are pitched elements. Architectural features. No
function really. Entrances are off Frontier Trail and then from the parking side. This is a brick façade.
Conrad: It's recessed so it goes back?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: Okay. So you like that? That's okay? On 78th.
AI-Jaff: Yeah.
Conrad: That's what we saw before?
Al-Jaff: That's what you saw before.
Conrad: And pretty much the Planning Commission said that's okay?
Al-Jaff: Yes. And the direction was to move with that style.
Conrad: Okay. And that's the part that's the variance part because it's closer to West 78th.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Conrad: That makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Okay.
Peterson: Vii.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Sacchet: Quick question. The trees. They are really nice mature trees and the ones that are being cut
down are, that's mitigated with the landscaping plan?
Al-Jaff: Correct. The applicant has truly made an effort to save as many trees as possible. The majority
of the existing trees where the playground is, all ofthose are remaining. There will be 3 trees, mature
trees that will be removed due to the expansion. And the applicant is adding additional landscaping.
Sacchet: So it's only 3 major trees taken? Because I couldn't see that from the drawing on there. And
then the other part of the question is, there are two little houses that will be removed. Which phase does
that remove the houses?
Al-Jaff: They intend to remove them with Phase I.
Sacchet: With definitely this initial phase?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. The idea to relocate the house or tear them down?
Al-Jaff: We've asked the applicant to relocate them. But it depends on availability ofland.,
Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question.
Peterson: Shannin what, I thought we had talked about it before but there's so many sides and areas of
this building that needed windows. One of the areas that we look at, pull up your elevation on the
gymnasium on the south side. Was there a rational rationale for not having windows on that side?
Which is the more predominantly seen side of the building. We have them to the north, which was
added, and we didn't add them on the south side, which I'm at somewhat of a loss as to why we wouldn't
have.
Al-Jaff: This is the area where the lockers are and typically you don't have windows.
Peterson: But the building is so high. The windows on the other elevation seem to be high where it'd be
irrelevant, wouldn't it?
Al-Jaff: And when you look at it, on a flat surface like this, yes it does appear high. However please
remember that the locker rooms extend out this portion. Extend out and it's one story.
Peterson: Boy, I can't picture it. See if you look at those, that picture there.
Al-Jaff: Here, this one shows it well.
Peterson: Those windows seem like they're 25 feet high.
Al-Jaff: Right here.
Peterson: Yeah. Why wouldn't they go all the way around?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
AI-Jaff: We can make that recommendation.
Peterson: I mean we put them there on both sides for a visual affect, but yet the most visualized portion
of the building is the one without the windows. So anyway, we can talk to the applicant. Second
question. Do we know what the materials are or are they planning on keeping the same roofing material
for the current Academy? Are they planning on using the rock or are they planning on using asphalt
shingles? Do we know?
AI-Jaff: Right now it's all flat roofs. Parapets. The existing roof, there are no plans on changing them.
Peterson: The skylights remain in there then too.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Conrad: Yeah, one I forgot Mr. Chair. The music room. Last time I was concerned about sound where
the band room is Shannin. Any, and the neighbors kind of liked, as I recall, the neighbors kind of like
the fact that there'd be music playing. Are we still okay with the acoustics?
Aanenson: He can't hear you.
Peterson: Sir? Sir, we'll answer your question in a minute. We'll get your question answered in just a
couple minutes. Okay? Try it again Ladd.
Conrad: The music room Mr. Chair, the last time here, I think the neighbors, some of the neighbors said
they look forward to having music coming out, but you know, I guess do we put any conditions on the
acoustics of that area? It is towards the residential side so how do we manage that?
AI-Jaff: If, and I'mjust thinking out loud here. If there was a complaint we can contact Chapel Hill and
ask them to keep the windows closed maybe.
Conrad: Yeah, I'd rather not do that. Do we do anything with a room that's built for, and maybe the
applicant will answer the question.
AI-Jaff: Sound proof it?
Conrad: Yeah. Trying to beat a problem to the pass. Is that an issue? When we have people in our
neighborhood playing things, we can hear it for blocks so. It's an issue I think. We'll ask the applicant
that question.
Peterson: All right, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Dan Blake: Mr. Chainnan and Commissioners. My name is Dan Blake. I'm here with Chapel Hill
Academy. With me today is Bill Lawrence with the DLR Group, the architect. As well back in the back
we've got Steve Barnett, our Chainnan of the Board and Greg Benedict, our Development Director. So if
you have any questions regarding the school, kind of direct them to those guys. I'm going to try to keep
this brief and hopefully be available to answer any questions. I'll try to address the items that I heard so
5
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
far. Just a little background. When we came before the Planning Commission last time we were sort of
under the gun because of a commitment we made to bring an application in by a certain date. And we
asked you to review Phase 1. Commission had some issues with the overall plan that we weren't
prepared to really answer very well, and Council suggested we come back so that we didn't get, so that
we knew what we had before we started building. Now we're ready. We plan on starting this project
this fall for, or maybe this winter for completion by the next school year. We believe we've made the
changes that address most of the comments that we heard at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Relative to the roofs. The existing roof on the existing, original school building is quite flat. It's too flat
as I understand to do like an asphalt or wood shingle roof, and that's probably why it would be best left
in it's existing condition. The roof of the existing church building we believe will be hidden quite a bit
by bringing the building out in front of it and only from quite a distance would you be able to see that
there's a roof behind there. The question came up about the windows on that south side ofthe gym. If
you look at, you've got that picture. If you look at the other views. We have the windows right about at
this red band, and if we put, continue those same windows across this wall, they'd be halfway up the two
story part of the building and we believe you wouldn't see them because nobody gets this aerial view
unless you're up in the bell tower of the church across the street. And that's why we didn't do it. We
didn't think that you'd be able to see them from parking lot or street level. At least not significant
enough to notice that they were really there. And they don't really provide us any benefit. We added
them to the other walls really to accomplish a concern that we heard for those sides. Regarding the music
room. I don't think we really plan on doing anything special. It will be masonry construction. There
will be high quality windows. I don't know that this kind of issue's ever come up in this city or
anywhere else relative to a school or any other use. I'm sure the city has some kind of noise ordinances.
If we're in violation, we won't be allowed to stay in violation. The building will be air conditioned.
Windows typically wouldn't be open for most of the time that people are in the building. We haven't
decided if they're operable windows or not, but likely they might not be. Regarding the condition
regarding the phasing. I think this plans depicts it the best. We understand staffs concern to make sure
that the entire exterior happens and we want that as well. It's our plan to do all this. We hope to do it
within 5 to 10 years, but it's difficult with certainty to predict when funding will be available to go
beyond the initial phase. One of our concems was the way the language is specifically written, and
maybe this just takes a little clarification. It talks about no interior remodeling. You know we can't do
Phase II without doing new exteriors so that's a given. You do Phase II, you get new exterior. You do
Phase III, you get new exterior. I'm very comfortable with that requirement. My concern is if I remodel
the interior auditorium area, I wouldn't want to do new exterior, which means I have to do Phase II and
III at that time. My concern would be ifI wanted to renovate this gym area that's in the middle of this
classroom building after we build the new gym, that I wouldn't want to have to add renovation of these
classrooms from these outside walls. What I'd be very willing to do, and I think this is fair and I think it
gets to the city's concerns to say, slightly modify the language in that condition 24 so that it says that,
instead of saying any phases II, II or IV, that it just says any remodeling of the classrooms on these
outside walls. And it's out intent to do remodeling of those classrooms to get them up to the standards of
the new classrooms. There's problems with the way the doors align. As Sharmin mentioned, there's a
lot of problems with the windows. They don't seal well. They let in too much light and too much, or too
much heat and too much cold. So it is our expectation that those classrooms would be remodeled. It's
not intention at all that that would get put off forever. We just recognize that as being a lower priority to
us. A second alternative that we propose is no remodeling maybe in any of this area without doing those
two outside walls. It kind of adds one more caveat to us if we want to do anything in this area, that we
would agree to do these outside walls. And under either of those alternatives I would ask that we would
be allowed to do some lighting improvements and some heating system improvements that aren't
structural remodeling. Just for clarification on those two issues. Lastly I understand we're going to have
a question regarding the height of the building. In this area, the building is roughly 12 to 15 feet,
6
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
depending on exactly how high that parapet wall goes that we need to do our screening, which would be
the...down here that gym wall is somewhere in the neighborhood of27 feet. Possibly a little bit higher
again depending on what that exact height needs to be to accomplish our screening. These existing
homes, 1,2, 3, only one is next to this, the two story part. Those homes sit somewhere, if I might look
just a minute here. On your grading plan it indicates the height. Those houses sit about 13 feet higher
than this parking lot where this gym will be built. My estimation is that the top of this buy will be at an
elevation of 1001 and that the top ofthese houses are roughly at an elevation of 1005. So these houses,
not the windows but the top of the houses are slightly higher, will be slightly higher or are slightly higher
than this gym wall will be. This gym wall will be somewhat shorter than the two apartment buildings
across the street relative to how these residents might see a tall structure in that area. Given that I guess
we're in agreement with the rest of the staff conditions and I hope that these revisions are satisfactory to
the city and be available to answer whatever questions you have.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Just a couple I think, or one specifically. I think I've already
voiced my opinion on the windows and you didn't necessarily convince me that I was wrong in my
request but help me understand, as you look at, and I guess I just want your off the cuff response on this
is, if you look at the roof as it's currently designed and the current building with the pitch and the
skylights and you look at the new construction that will be surrounding it, boy it's just hard to put those
two together. That the current roof looks like it's just the design naturally makes it look like it's sloping
and caving in. The skylights are dated. Help me understand that that won't just look totally out of place.
That's my biggest concern about the whole project, and it's probably my same concern when it was last
here.
Dan Blake: Well the skylights are going to be updated. I don't know, I understand what you're saying.
It's a vaulted two story space in the center there. I guess I can't come up with a suggestion other than
you know putting in two story walls there and trying to keep some of that height on the inside that would
not have that existing roof and something like it's existing condition. And I think going to a two story
building throughout that would dramatically impact the bulk or the mass of those side walls. Like I said,
we've kind of discussed some various materials and I think we feel like we're stuck with what's there to
some regard. I guess I hope that the other improvements make that maybe go away a little bit. Right now
that's what stands out. I mean I think what stands out to me right now is that the building is made out of
about 8 different exterior materials obviously before there was this kind of a process. Hopefully by tying
everything else together, that element goes away to some extent. It certainly won't be hidden. Probably
won't be as visible as it is in our little 3D views because they're from up, not from parking lot level.
Peterson: Was there even any discussion about changing the color of the rock on it? I mean l'mjust
thinking out of the blue here.
Dan Blake: Well I'll throw out that if there is a need to replace that ballast and redo that roof, I wouldn't
have a problem with going to more of a tan color that would blend in with the brick. Certainly wouldn't
object to that. Wouldn't even mind, you know if that's a condition that when that roof needs to be
replaced, we do that. I have no idea what the magnitude of that involves to, you know as far as
volunteering to say we'll do that right now. Certainly if it needs to be replaced, we would consider that.
Peterson: All right, thank you. This item isn't open for a public hearing but due to the fact that it's been
quite some time since we've heard any additional comments, we'll certainly entertain any comments
from anybody in the audience. Any comments or questions now so if you would have questions, please
come forward and state your name and address please.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
George Shorba: I'm Mr. George P. Shorba. I live right back of the academy on the north side. All I'm
interested in is how high are these buildings? Are they higher than the present building that's in there
now?
Aanenson: He has met with City staff. We've reviewed.
George Shorba: See I don't hear too well.
Dan Blake: Your house sits at about here. You're in the middle.
George Shorba: ... but I didn't get the height.
Dan Blake: The building adjacent, behind your house is the same height as the existing, the flat part of
the roof so it will be lower than the pitched part of the existing roof.
George Shorba: See I'm up quite a bit.
Dan Blake: I understand. About 13 feet higher.
George Shorba: About] 2 and 3/4. Something like that. See I get a breeze, good breeze there.
Dan Blake: So this, the height of this building is not any higher than the existing structure out here. It's
actually lower than the peak part of the roof. The gym building out here adjacent to this last house is
taller, but not adjacent to where your property is in the middle.
George Shorba: I would say that I was wishing that you'd be on the main drag instead because there's
nobody else in front. All there is is the dead people in the cemetery. You know what I'm talking about.
And I've got... So it will be about the same height?
Dan Blake: Right. One story.
George Shorba: That's all I wanted to address. Otherwise I'm going home and watch the ball game.
Peterson: Any other comments? Alright, commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. I think you've
already sensed my thoughts a little bit. Ladd, any particular issues?
Conrad: I think you've said them. I probably agree with you Craig on the windows on the gymnasium.
It might be a benefit. I'm not totally convinced but it might help. I'd like to have staff review that. I'd
like staff to review the music, the sound implications. Ijust want to be stupid and building a band room
and a couple years from now have a great orchestra out of the academy and have the neighbors say well
you should have thought of this. I just want to think about it before, acoustically what do we do there? I
don't know what to do with condition number 24. Staffs point is good. I don't know why somebody
smarter than myself will have reword that or to go with that.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think that the block on the gym makes sense. I think it'd be cost prohibitive to
force them to use the brick there. I wanted to comment on the variance request and I think it's important
to note that the purpose of the variance was to blend the school in with the community. The surrounding
8
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
neighborhood and the purpose was not for the intention of increasing the value of anywhere. I agree with
you over the concerns that you mentioned about the windows on the gym. I'm not convinced that it
wouldn't be noticeable that they're absent. That seems that'd be a nice addition to have the windows
going around the entire gym. As to the roof, I don't think I'd want to penalize the applicant regarding the
roof and putting any conditions on the roof but it did take the building as it is and they're doing a lot to
improve it and I wouldn't want to hold the roof against them or make them do anything with the roof. I
think they're doing a good job. I agree with Ladd on condition 24. I understand the staffs concern. I
know they're condition addresses it and I'm not sure I like either of the alternatives that have been
suggested by the applicant so I guess I'm leaning towards leaving it the way staff has it at this point until
I'm convinced otherwise.
Peterson: What about just changing that so it includes any interior HV AC and lighting?
Burton: I don't have a problem with that.
Peterson: Okay.
Sidney: Mr. Chair. I agree with Commissioner Burton's comments. I do think it might be worth noting
as a condition that, and I guess the language I'd propose would be that the applicant will consider
changing the color of the rock group when replacement of the roof is necessary. Just to keep that in their
minds. Also I think condition 19 should be cleaned up a little bit to make sure that we understand that
we're asking for brick and rock face block as exterior. And I guess I don't really have any strong feelings
about the windows on the gymnasium one way or another.
Peterson: Any final comments?
Sacchet: I do believe that those windows would be visible from, I think they're high enough over the
lower floor and the view is from quite a distance from the street, through the parking lot. I would like to
really make sure that if you don't see them, there's no point in putting them there. I'm inclined to think
that you actually would see them and they would add an additional element of architectural interest. I
don't have an issue very much with the practice rooms. Having a background in music myself, in a
school those practice rooms are usually small and closed. But it's certainly worthwhile looking into that
we don't get a problem. I would not think that's a major issue. In terms of the condition linking the
outside to the interior, I think I would be willing to go with the middle option. The idea of the option.
would be willing to relax a little bit. I think it's a reasonable request to do that. That's my comments.
Peterson: Which option are we talking about? The one that was submitted by Dan Blake?
Sacchet: Yeah, Dan gave two options. Alternative 2, no interior remodeling which would require
building permit except lighting and HV AC upgrades will be permitted within the existing classroom
portion. That means the whole southern portion ofthe building unless the exterior walls are included
with, I think that's a good balance. I would support that...
Peterson: Okay. My comments I think I've already shared so I'll certainly entertain a motion this
evening.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan Review #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I ofthe Chapel Hill Academy master plan
as shown on plans dated July 24, 2000, with the following conditions. And I would leave them as they
9
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
~r"
¡
[
I,
are except for 24. I would substitute the alternative 2 that the applicant has submitted that I just read, and
I would put in also that we recommend we study whether these windows on the south side of gymnasium
are visible from the parking lot and from West 78th Street. If they are, I would recommend they are
added.
!~
Peterson: Okay. Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad: So the condition 24, what does that mean? What are we saying on the revision?
Sacchet: May I address what I think it says?
Peterson: Let her read first.
Conrad: And did we ask staff, what did you think about that?
Aanenson: Our concern is you're going to have several different materials out there and as they
indicated, it may be up to 10 years. If you allow them to do the HV AC, which he indicated the problem
with that area is energy, you're going to have three different materials for a longer period out there. We
want to have a reasonable connection. Obviously they want to fix the energy problems. I'm not sure if
that's just a heating or the windows or, there seems to be some sort of tie that we need to make with
remodeling. We just don't want that area left, and it can be left a long time and you've got different
materials and that's what we're trying to resolve.
Conrad: It is the area, the classroom area or the, I'm trying to figure out if.
Aanenson: It's existing classroom area.
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah, right those windows.
Conrad: But in the motion, in your staff report, it's talking about Phase II, II and IV and so is that, is that
classroom impacted in all those phases?
Al-Jaff: No. The classroom is in Phase IV.
Conrad: So why don't we.
AI-Jaff: With Phases II and III they are adding actual, with Phases II and III they're adding exterior
space. So we had no doubt that the exterior will be taken care of.
Conrad: So II and III is insignificant. So it's really IV that we're concemed with.
Aanenson: Correct.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Conrad: Okay.
Aanenson: So how long does that stay the way it is? What's the motivation?
Conrad: Yeah.
AI-Jaff: And right now you will have a detached building, as far as the gym goes. Eventually they're
going to need to make that connection.
Conrad: Okay.
Sacchet: May I clarify, make sure I have clear understand the words right. It's my understanding that the
wording that is proposed here means they can fix lighting and heating and cooling. It doesn't mean they
could change windows or doors or anything beyond that, ifI'm correct.
Aanenson: Right. But the biggest issue is the heating and cooling. So that buys them a lot of time.
Sacchet: The heating and cooling is the main thing that needs to be.
Aanenson: Right. So that's I guess our question to them is, does that give them 10 years? ] I? 20 years
like that without that space being fixed.
Peterson: That's the biggest eye sore. If it quote unquote is an eyesore in that area. Starting at the roof
and coming down.
Aanenson: There may be some middle ground. I'm not sure we can solve it here tonight but that goes
back to Ladd's.
Peterson: Sure go ahead Dan.
Dan Blake: Thanks. Ijust want to clarify a couple things. First, we believe that there's a lot of
motivation for us to do remodeling here, not just because of heating and cooling. We plan on putting a
library in here. We plan on upgrading these rooms for a lot of reasons so I think that's adequate
assurance to the city. Obviously you have to make that decision. Secondly, if we were to do everything,
Phases I, II and III, the original, the design that you see before you with the red base up to a certain height
was intended to match the height of the red brick that's out there. Color and height so that when this
phase was built next to this, at least it sort of fit together. So it would sort of fit together. It's just going
to have that glass above it, which would eventually get tumed into brick and less windows that matches
better so, we think the first phase was a design so that they sort of fit together as best as you can fit
together those odd materials. So I guess two things. I don't think, it doesn't have to be a worst situation
if it's as is, but we expect that there will be quite a demand for upgrading these classrooms. We're going
to have half our school in brand new nice classrooms. And the other half in these 50 year old
classrooms. We're going to immediately have parents saying let's do this. I could see this Phase IV
turning into Phase II and then when we did this, we'd do the outside.
Sacchet: Yes, that's basically why I was targeting this alternative because it means remodeling not just
in the classrooms. It actually means remodeling in that whole segment ofthe building and to me it seems
pretty necessary. I mean right now, what is it at that big, open room in there that something I'm sure, it's
motivation for them to remodel and then to fit the classrooms. I do believe that from a city we have
I]
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
t
~
fò.
L
&:'"
¡;
assurance that this will be done and not just be pushed off to the maximum. That's just my personal
feeling about it. So I would stay with that as my proposal.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion?
,~
Sidney: Mr. Chair I guess, the comments that I had if we could, friendly amendment here to condition 19
that we clarify that it's smooth face brick and rock face block as indicated in the staff report. Then also I
suggested a condition 25 to keep that roof in front of the applicant. The applicant will consider changing
the color of the rock roof when replacement ofthe roof is necessary.
Sacchet: That would be 26 because I already added a 25.
Sidney: Oh, okay that's fine. That's fine.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's fine.
Peterson: As further discussion, I'll probably. Not probably, I won't vote in favor of this only because I
just don't, in my mind I can't see the roof as it is today fitting in with the rest ofthe area. That area
being the rest ofthe building so I agree with all the other amendments and the stab at trying to take the
rock, change. That would certainly help but it just, [don't think it's going to look as good as we want it
to for that area of town, or any area of town so.
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hili Academy Master Plan, as
shown in the plans dated received July 24, 2000 with the following conditions:
I. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to
grading.
2. Any trees removed in excess of submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a
rate of2: I diameter inches.
3. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre and post development storm water
runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can
accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion.
4. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within
City right-of-way or easement areas.
5. If utility connections are required with the proposed addition, staff will need to further review in
greater detail the utility service proposal.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City
ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission.
7. Building Official Conditions:
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
a. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system
installed throughout
b. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost
of which need not exceed twenty percent ofthe total project cost.
c. Meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to
Building Code.
d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13.
b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if
additional hydrants will be required.
9. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down
in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail.
10. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved.
II. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off
requirement and meets other city ordinances.
12. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the
same as those used on the new building.
13. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use
a decorative fencing.
14. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities to guarantee site improvements.
15. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
16. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x ] 2 block and rock face block as indicated in the staff
report for exterior material.
17. Chain link fence along the south and southeast corner shall be removed.
18. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb
to match existing curb on West 78th Street.
19. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances.
20. The modular units must be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the classroom addition along West 78th Street.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
~:
.
[
i:
~"
21. No interior remodeling which would require a building permit, except for lighting and HV AC
upgrades, will be permitted within the existing classroom portion.
22.
The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of gymnasium are
visible from the parking lot and from West 7Sth Street.
o
23. The applicant will consider changing the color of the rock roof when replacement of the
roof is necessary.
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Peterson: Goes onto City Council on the 28th and Ladd your reason for the nay.
Conrad: I think the applicant should review the acoustics with the staff. The applicant I think should, I
think as in the motion, review the windows in the gymnasium on the south wall, and I'm not comfortable
with condition 24 as it's been addressed.
Peterson: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILV AND LOCATED AT 6330
MURRAY HILL ROAD. MIKE ARVIDSON.
Public Present:
Name
Add ress
Tom & Neysa Winterer
Shelli Placchino
Mike Arvidson
Chuck Lewellen
Carol Riese
Ted Dorenkamp
Greg Golmen
Gilbert Kreidberg
Junie Hoff-Golmen
2210 Melody Hill
2210 Melody Hill
5595 Timber Lane
6340 Murray Hill Road
6320 Murray Hill Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
6444 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
Sharmin AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of the staff?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. The existing structure, do we know how long that's
intended to remain there? We don't.
Peterson: Speculation by staffI would imagine so.
14
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen,1fJN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: August 24, 2000
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
Subject: Request for a minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD and site plan review for
a one-story, 67,664 sq. ft. office/showroom building located at Stone Creek Drive between TH 5
and Coulter Boulevard, on property zoned PUD, CSM Corporation, Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Phase I.
Planning Case: 97-2 PUD and 2000-11 Site Plan
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on August 18,2000.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, stonn water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 19,2000 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
September 11, 2000. V ou may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and
assistance is greatly appreciated.
1.
City Departments
fa) City Engineer
'-6. City Attorney
~City Park Director
F ire Marshal
uilding Official
f ater Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
,@re]ep~pany
~ or Sprint)
~leC~pany
p ~orMNValley)
10. Triax Cable System
2. Watershed District Engineer
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
@tN Dept. of Transportation
12.
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
5. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
@Minnegasco
13.
Other
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
August I, 2000
City of ChaDhassen
Planning Staff
Planning Contnùssion
City Council
RE: Chapel Hill Academy Site Plan Review - Staff Report Condition No. 24
Condition 24 states "No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, will be permitted
within any of the areas designated as Phases II, II, or IV, unless the exterior walls are included with the
remodel."
Phase II is the proposed west main entry, administration, and cafeteria addition and will include new
exterior walls.
Phase III is the proposed reconstruction of the north and east sides of the existing "church" portion of the
building and will include new exterior walls.
Phase IV is the re-faclng of the west and east exteriors of the existing classroom building plus interior
remodeling.
The master plan cal1s for the remodeling of the existing auditorium, the existing restrooms, and the existing
gym area. These areas are al1 interior spaces surrounded by Phases II, II, or IV improvements and are
relatively smal1 projects. Chapel Hill would like the ability to do those improvements without the
requirement of including additional work at the same time ie: the auditorium remodel without the entire
Phase II and Phase III improvements. We would also like the ability to make lighting and HV AC upgrades
to improve the energy efficiency of those systems.
We understand the City's desire to insure that al1 phases wil1 eventually happen and that is our desire as
well. We hope to be able to complete Phases II, II and IV within the next 5-10 years. We are however
unable to certainly predict when funds will be available for any future phase. We would offer the fol1owing
alternatives to condition 24:
Alt I: "No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, except lighting or HV AC upgrades,
will be permitted within the classrooms in the existing classrooms portion (south) of the building, unless
the exterior wal1s are included with the remode!."
The classrooms line the exterior wal1s and wil1 need to be upgraded to be of similar quality to the new
classrooms.
Alt 2: "No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, except lighting or HV AC upgrades,
wil1 be permitted within the existing classrooms portion (south) of the building, unless the exterior walls
are included with the remode!."
We would prefer Alternative 1.
Chapel Hill Academy
D~~
Daniel Blake