Loading...
PC 2002 05 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 7, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at TOO p.m. and gave an introduction of'the duties of'the Planning Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Claybaugh, and Steven Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jatf, Senior Planner; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF MOUNT PROPERTIES FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A TWO-PHASE 28,980 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, ON LOT 2, BLOCK 3, PARK TWO, POWERS BOULEVARD OFFICE BUILDING. Public Present: Name Address Rob M. Olson Pete Karlis 7700 Crimson Bay Road 7910 County Road 26 Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you Sharmin. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I do have a few quick questions. One thing that I found interesting is how the pond would be relocated and so my question there was, where it's going to be relocated south of that pond, there in the Lake Susan Park area, is that already wetland or is that dry land? Is there a wetland aspect involved basically? A1-Jaff: That actually is a pond. And just to orient you, we're looking at this piece off of Powers Boulevard. This is the existing pond, and this is the expansion. Sacchet: Now where the expansion is being put, that's not currently wetland? A1-Jaff: No. No it's not. Sacchet: Okay. So there is no wetland consideration off of that? That answers my question. Okay, thank you. When we look at this, are we just looking at Phase I or the. A1-Jaff: No. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: We're looking at both phases. A1-Jaff: You're looking at both phases. Sacchet: So it would be appropriate to ask the applicant some questions about the Phase II part as well, okay. I noticed on the grading it seems like the borders of the grading, and actually the silt fence go beyond just the property itself. Is that something that needs any special consideration? Like I remember on other applications we used to say, some sort of an agreement needs to be in place from where it's going beyond the property itself. I wonder ifI read that correctly. It seemed like the silt fence went actually beyond the property line. On the southeast for instance it seems to be quite a bit out from what I think is the property line. Is that because it's in a PUD, it's no big deal or? A1-Jaff: No. It basically is, this is the portion that we're talking about correct? Sacchet: Right. Right down there, yeah. That's where it seems to go quite a bit off. A1-Jaff: It is to prevent erosion onto the neighboring site and you really have to have it in this area. Sacchet: And actually also towards Powers I think there's a similar. You start with south. Basically it's southern part there towards Powers it seems to go beyond. They don't need special agreements? That's just a given? A1-Jaff: No. When vegetation is re-established they do remove this. Sacchet: Just want to make sure. In some other proposals we usually put a condition that if there's hauling, that they need to get, submit a haul route. Where they have to, for the trucks and all that. I don't think there's one in this. A1-Jaff: Correct, and I believe that the dirt will balance on site. Sacchet: So they wouldn't need hauling, okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. Currently there is a depression in this area and the dirt will be moved into this depression. Sacchet: Yeah. I guess where they definitely will have dirt is to make the pond bigger. That's where the issue might come into play. Okay. Since this is going to be a shared driveway, technically it's going to be a private street. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: We don't need to do anything? A1-Jaff: This is industrial office park and in that district it's a permitted use. Sacchet: Okay, so it's a straight forward thing. A1-Jaff: They don't need to go through the variance process. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. Not to get lost in minutia, they are spading trees. A1-Jaff: Yes they are. Sacchet: Redistributing trees. And I also noticed on the tree inventory, or the landscape plan, there is Colorado Spruce in there. Are we still, was our Forester still suggest to use different kinds of spruce? Just in order to be consistent with how we dealt with that in the past. A1-Jaff: Sure. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce, questions? Feik: Yeah, I have a quick one. Sorry about that. Okay I have a quick one regarding Phase I and Phase II on the approval process here. We'll be discussing both the Phase II portion with this. Is there a time limit regarding how long the approval of Phase II, how long the applicant would have to commence or complete Phase II? A1-Jaff: There is no expiration on site plan reviews. Aanenson: I guess it was the staffs opinion when they disclosed to us they may want to go 2 stories, it's always our intent to do full disclosure so you can review the impacts of the second story instead of coming back later with the intent and then we're stuck with maybe we didn't or didn't like it so the 2 stories is approved at this point. When they want to come back and do it, that's why all the parking and everything is set up ultimately for the two story. Feik: I guess my concern was really regarding codes. The design criteria. Other things that might change from now until the time that the second phase is added. It would not be subject to whatever changes council or the city has made? Aanenson: No. No. Feik: Is it appropriate in your mind to add a sunset clause on Phase II at all, even if it's a number of years versus whatever? Aanenson: Well, for them, if they're going to go to 2 stories, it affects their construction type in Phase I. They've got to size it so they can support the. Feik: Understood. Aanenson: Correct, so I think if they're going to size it such so they can add a second story on, I think in good faith, just like a subdivision, you kind of work with them on that. If it meets their design criteria today, and it's a nice looking building I'm not sure, you know. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Question LuAnn. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sidney: I guess I have a question for staff about the slope on the northeasterly and southeasterly comer of the parking lot. Are we close to a 3 to 1 grade or I guess the retaining wall is advisable in this case. A1-Jaff: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of the question. Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. Wondering about the slope on the northeasterly and southeasterly comer. You say in the report that the grade, the slope should be revised to meet the maximum allowable slope grade. Are we close or is that a precipitous drop that we're talking about and retaining walls may be more advised. Sweidan: What we meant with the side slope 3 to 1, not of course to carve out of that... It's actually what's the remaining of the existing grades. Now in this situation we always ask for 3 to 1 slope. If it happened that he needs a retaining wall, he has to put or install retaining wall. Otherwise we don't want to be like no sharper than 3 to 1 dropping on the... Sidney: Okay. And I had one more question about, on page 7 Sharmin you talk about a sidewalk that's shown at the entrance to the building. Could you show how that would work and, is there a condition for that? A1-Jaff: Yes there is. Sidney: Is there? Blackowiak: I didn't see one. Sidney: I didn't see one. Blackowiak: I added 27. A1-Jaff: Okay. I thought I had it but it's very possible. So here is our, there is an existing sidewalk here and you have another existing sidewalk in this area. We believe that you should have some form of connection from this site to this sidewalk. Sidney: Okay. We'll add a condition for that. A1-Jaff: Okay. Blackowiak: Unless you find one that we missed. We both missed it so. Is that it for you? Any other questions of staff? Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a few questions. Some of the questions that I had have been addressed, but on page 5 under grading, drainage and erosion control. Staff highlighted the proposed 10 foot tall berm. Was that resolved to your satisfaction? It was on page 5 of the report. A1-Jaff: Under grading. Claybaugh: Bottom paragraph on page 5 under grading, drainage and erosion control. The applicant was proposing approximately a 10 foot tall berm just to the south of the pond expansion. Staff is recommending that that berm be eliminated. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 A1-Jaff: Yes. There was a conversation between Alliant Engineering and our engineering department and we believe that they have reached a resolution. They're just going to spread the dirt over a larger area, which is acceptable. Claybaugh: Okay. I may have overlooked it but on Sheet C-l, there's two bituminous pavement details. As I could see it didn't identify which detail applied to the drive in the parking lot here. Or whether a split was going to come into play. One's a light duty, the other's a heavy duty detail. Sweidan: Actually we asked them to use the city detail plates. We are not necessarily following these cross sections. Yeah. Blackowiak: So are you. Claybaugh: So it will come out in the wash? Sweidan: Yes. Blackowiak: Yeah, so you're happy with what they're going to be doing based on the city detail plates? Sweidan: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: If it doesn't show exactly the same as it is, but it should be applied as the city plate. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, questions? Lillehaug: Yes, I do have one question. I spoke with you earlier this week and I failed to ask this question. In that pond expansion area, I realize that it's not currently a wetland area, but would that be considered an upper buffer area? A1-Jaff: An upper buffer area? Lillehaug: Right, a buffer to the wetland area. Aanenson: No. It's being treated as storm water is taking water from quite a, several locations so it's being maintained as a storm water pond. And managed as a storm water pond. Lillehaug: Okay but what. Aanenson: What I'm saying is it's mowed. It's manicured the same as a city's park. Lillehaug: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't have any questions at this time. So at this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Bob Sofeldt: Good evening. My name is Bob Sofeldt. I'm the President of Mount Properties. I'm here with my partner, Steve Michaels and we are in agreement with the staff report and what we believe to be a nice addition to the city of Chanhassen at the comer of Powers and Highway 5. And we are available for any questions that you might have but we seek approval for a two phased project as submitted. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Mr. Sofeldt, could I get you to come back up to the microphone? We have a couple questions for you. Claybaugh: If I could get you to comment just on the east elevation of the building there for the, along the property line there. There's been some discussion about the 3 to 1 grade. Possibility for a retaining wall. Could you comment on that? Bob Sofeldt: Yeah. This is a picture of the existing site. And in fact the site arrow is really on that east elevation. We are not changing the grade on the east elevation at all, so what you see there currently, which is not only natural grasses now but is planted with trees. Several trees. We will be leaving that intact. We are just simply lowering the current elevation for the building pad and parking lot. Claybaugh: Can I re-address staff with respect. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Claybaugh: Did I understand you correctly Mak that you wanted to achieve a 3 to 1 grade in that area as part of this project or did I misinterpret your comment? Sweidan: Yes, another part 3 to 1. The shoulders. Out of the curb. Claybaugh: Right. If I understand the applicant correctly, the existing grade out there is how they intend to leave it. And ifI understood the report correctly it's greater than a 3 to 1. Sweidan: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. Is the City's position that they want that changed or is that acceptable to leave it as is undisturbed? Sweidan: According to our, you know side the slope, we usually ask for like 3 to 1. Now I know what you meant by keeping it, it will be more than 3 to 1 but he has to comply with the 3 to 1 slope. Aanenson: Right, or put a retaining wall in. That was our recommendation. It says or retaining wall. Claybaugh: Okay. So unless I'm misunderstanding something, I guess I'd readdress.., if I understand the City's position, or staff's position correctly, they're asking that that shoulder be corrected and comply with city standards of the 3 to 1. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sweidan: We are in agreement. Aanenson: No, let me clarify that. No, we said if you can't make the 3 to 1, then you have to put a retaining wall in. We're not saying he has to blend the slope. We're saying if you can't make it, then you have to put the retaining wall in. Claybaugh: When it's all said and done and they're done with their site grading and the rest of it, that slope on that easterly side you want to be 3 to 1 or less, is that correct? Aanenson: No. If you can't make it through the parking lot blending, a retaining wall could mitigate that. Claybaugh: Right. Okay. Is it your intention to put in a retaining wall if you can't achieve the 3 to 1 or blending? Bob Sofeldt: Yes. We are in agreement with the staff report. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's condition 1 so, either or. Aanenson: Yes, correct. Blackowiak: Any questions? Claybaugh: That's all the questions I had. Blackowiak: Questions? No? Sacchet: I have a question. Blackowiak: Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: I have a question about the second phase elevation. The upper story that's kind of offset a little bit. Bob Sofeldt: Yes. Sacchet: The wall that is further on the roof, is basically just a wall. There's no windows. There's no decoration on them. I'm talking about this part. And then that's actually on the outside as well, and I wondered since the surrounding roadways were somewhat up, it's not like since it's a second story will not be all that visible. Actually it will be fairly visible I would think, and I wonder if you've given any thought to, or whether there's a reason why there's no windows or maybe some accents like little squares or what have you to break up the flatness of that wall. Is that a consideration or was that all in the picture at any time? Bob Sofeldt: It's difficult to catch the architectural design of this second phase with a flat picture like this, but this is really quite a dramatic addition and it will be a really architectural element to the building itself. There is a reason why those walls are blank. When you take a second story you have to create an elevator core, and you have to have 2 stairway cores. So there will be a stairway core and an elevator core by the main entrance, which is that wall, and there will be a stairway element on the north side as well. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: That eliminates the window possibility pretty much? Bob Sofeldt: Well, it doesn't eliminate the opportunity for a window, but architecturally those elements really blend in together. That sits quite a ways off the edge of the building and creates a certain massing that we wanted to create. There is a floorplan that you have in your plans that shows, it looks a little bit like a Z on the top of the roof there and creates some architectural interest, which is something that we really tried to achieve rather than just putting a cube over half of the building on the north side or the south side or the east side or the west side, we tried to create some architectural interest and that massing on the comers is what creates that element. Sacchet: So your intent was actually to put that in as an element? Bob Sofeldt: Absolutely. Sacchet: Not just that it happened to be a blank wall. Bob Sofeldt: Yeah. Sacchet: Well that answers it reasonably well. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? LuAnn? Sidney: One question. Well two questions maybe, t guess about lighting on the building. Do you intend to have any wall lighting at all? Bob Sofeldt: Yes. On the north west elevations we do plan to up light the signage on the building. We think that that's going to be a really nice architectural element at that comer. And then there will be some, of course the standard lighting within the parking lot on the south and east sides. Sidney: Okay. And I'd maybe refer you to staff for guidance about types of lighting that would be allowed. And then EFTS, did you catch that? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sidney: Okay. A1-Jaff: It is used as an accent in very limited areas, and it's under the, what's permitted by ordinance. Sidney: Okay. And then EFTS. You said EFtS on the building. Is it only the cornice strip that is EFTS? Okay. So that's less than 10 percent... A1-Jaff: Correct. Sidney: Very good. A1-Jaff: 15 is the maximum they can use and they are substantially below that. Blackowiak: Thanks. t just have one question. Do you have any kind of a time line on this Phase tt? Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Bob Sofeldt: No. One of the things that happens in our buildings is we develop them, we want to create as much flexibility in them as possible and there's always, typically in, when you get a good client into a building and they want to grow their organization within a building, we wanted to create the opportunity for that to happen and so we are seeking that approval so that if per chance they do that, there is the opportunity to do it. We really do need approval for that because it is quite substantially a big deal to do, what to do. Blackowiak: Well yeah, structurally I'm sure. Bob Sofeldt: It really is and it adds a lot of expense to the building so they need to know that they're going to put the expense in that they have the right to do that in the future. Blackowiak: Sure. Okay, thank you. Alright. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing, and I'll open it up for commissioner's comments. Uli, would you like to start? Any comments from you? Sacchet: Yeah. Really the only thing that I was a little tom is those, what seemed relatively substantial blank walls but I hear that they're there for a reason. Not just functionally but also aesthetically so I feel that's their space. I am satisfied with.., so generally I think this is a great project. I don't have any problems with it. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I very much like the project. Typically drive by it twice, 3 times a day so, I think it'd be a good addition to that comer so I support the way it is. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: It's a very good looking building. I'm a little surprised it fits on that lot. Obviously it does. I never thought anything would build on that comer but it's very nice. I guess the only concern would be the slope off the parking lot so those are taken care of but certainly you'll be able to do that. Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments? Any comments Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah, I think it looks like a very nice project. I guess I share Uli's limited concern with respect to the blank wall on the second phase. I guess I would at least make the statement that I'd like staff to take a look. There's no elevator cores and stair shafts indicated on these drawings so we don't have any way to dial in if there is any opportunity in fact as part of that second phase to incorporate a window or two up there or something else additional to break up that outline but overall it looks like a nice project. I'd like them to take a look at that detail when those drawings come in. Come available but I'm prepared to move it forward. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments? Lillehaug: I also like the site plan. I do have a comment on the pond expansion though. One thing I think would be very necessary is to install floating silt curtain on the, adjacent to the expansion of the pond in the existing pond. I think that'd be very necessary. And then I'd also like to comment, just generally on this pond expansion. I realize that there's other parcels out Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 here that are undeveloped, and that this is the regional pond for that area. And there's a potential to expand on this pond again in the future with possible dredging. It would be good to try to coordinate this all at once so we're not in this pond consecutively for the next few years. I realize that's hard but I would just like to comment that it would be a good goal of the city to try to coordinate this, the expansion of this pond for future development. Other than that I like the site plan. Blackowiak: I don't have much else to add. With the addition of a few conditions, specifically the sidewalk, trash enclosure, blue spruce substitution, and maybe the pond expansion, I think we're good to go on this. It looks good and I also think we should look into the elevator shaft and stairway and make sure that those are placed properly. And look into the possibility, like Craig suggested, of windows or something on the second floor. That's kind of a future thing but with that I would like a motion. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approves site plan review number 02-3 as shown on the site plan dated April 16, 2002, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 26 with the following additions. 27. The same exterior materials will be used on the trash enclosure as on the building. That's 27. 28. Just to be consistent, if there is a need for hauling dirt off, that the hauling route needs to be, or whatever the standard language is that they use for that. 29. Applicant shall work with staff about the selection of tree species in the context of the Colorado Spruce question. Number 30. What was the sidewalk thing? Blackowiak: To extend the sidewalk to the west. Sacchet: Connect the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk next to Powers Boulevard. Number 31. I like Steven's point that there should be, I know how he called these things a floating fence? Lillehaug: Floating silt fence. Sacchet: Floating silt fence between the existing pond and the expansion. And then on 32, applicant will work with staff to explore possibilities of possibly putting accents or windows in those large walls. I mean I don't want to put a condition in to say that they have to do it but I think it deserves possibly more consideration. Blackowiak: Good, with Phase II? Sacchet: With Phase II. That's specific with Phase II. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves Site Plan Review #02-3 as shown on the site plan dated April 16, 2002, subject to the following conditions: Revise the slope off the northeasterly and southeasterly comer of the parking lot to meet the maximum allowable slope grade of 3:1 or construct a retaining wall. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 10. 11. Eliminate the proposed berm just south of the regional pond expansion and dispose of the excess dirt off site. The enlarged portion of the regional pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum side slopes of 3:1 and a 10:1 slope bench at the normal water level. Construction of the public pond will require a financial security to be obtained from the applicant. Security must be in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit and will cover the installation of the public improvement, i.e. pond. The security is required to be in place prior to any construction occurring on site. According to the City's Finance Department records, the site was previously assessed for utilities. As such, only sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook-up charge is $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. The 2002 SAC fee is $1,275 per unit. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining permits from the appropriate regulatory agency including Carver County and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. A 40 foot wide cross-access easement must be recorded across the shared portion of the driveway of the Instant Web site. Add a detail sheet to the plans with all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen detail plates. On the Utility Plan: For the proposed sanitary sewer service, core drill the existing manhole. All sanitary sewer services must be 6" SDR-26. On the Grading Plan: Show all existing and proposed easements. The maximum cross slope for handicap accessible parking stalls is 2%. Revise the grading plan to comply. Show the topsoil stockpile area location. Show the location of existing streetlights on Powers Boulevard. Increase the rock construction entrance to a minimum of 75 feet in length as per Detail Plate No. 5301. Use Type II silt fence along the easterly, southerly, and westerly sides and use Type I along the northerly side of the site. Fire Marshal Conditions: ~No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 904.1. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. A P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valve) is required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes being included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. The applicant shall increase the quantity of plantings for the north buffer yard landscaping to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan including the sizes and quantities of plant materials shall be submitted to the city prior to City Council approval. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Applicant shall landscape all parking lot islands. Only landscaped islands shall meet the ordinance requirements. Substitute wood chip mulch for landscape rock in island landscape that contains the five (5) oak trees. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The signage shall meet the following criteria: Monument signage shall be submit to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs are permitted on the southwest elevation only. The sign area shall meet standards set in the sign ordinance. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 19. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. 20. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan including fixture styles, meeting city standards shall be submitted. 21 Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 22. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance ($12,694 Park Fees and $4,231 Trail Fees). The applicant shall ensure that the Powers Boulevard trail and landscaping are protected during construction. 23. Building Official conditions: The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. Utility plan: Provide cleanouts per code on the sanitary sewer line. The HDPE pipe proposed for the storm sewer must conform to AASHTO M924. It must be installed in granular fill with watertight gaskets and must be air tested. Portions of the PVC storm sewer must be air tested when located within 10 feet of buried water lines or the building. The second story proposed for Phase II will require the installation of an elevator. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 24. The same exterior materials will be used on the trash enclosure as on the building. 25. If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route and traffic control plan. 26. Applicant shall work with staff about the selection of tree species in the context of the Colorado Blue Spruce question. 27. Connect the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk next to Powers Boulevard. 28. A floating silt curtain shall be installed between the existing pond and the expansion. 29. The applicant will work with staff to explore possibilities of putting architectural accents or windows in the large walls with Phase II. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: The motion carries 6-0 and this item goes before the City Council on May 28th. Thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE WILLOW RIDGE PUD TO PERMIT ONE ADDITIONAL LOT AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE TWO LOTS ON A 2.09 ACRE ZONED PUD-R LOCATED AT 6665 MULBERRY CIRCLE EAST, WILLOW RIDGE 3lm ADDITION, DAVID SMITH. Public Present: Name Address David Smith Jon Steckman LaiTy Kerber 1341 Ashton Court 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6420 Powers Boulevard Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time? Claybaugh: I have a question. With respect to the 10 percent grade on the proposed driveway, was that calculated all the way from the existing curb up til, to what point? My concern was that the 10 percent grade went all the way down to Mulberry Circle so as they came down that proposed driveway in the winter, under slippery conditions, that it lessen in slope as it got closer to Mulberry Circle. Sweidan: The maximum slope is always 10 percent and it has been taken from the garage entrance up to the street pavement. Claybaugh: Okay. Is there any concern from the city staff standpoint that they would be coming down an extended driveway on a 10 percent grade, right down to the curb on Mulberry Circle that's also on somewhat of a blind corner as you come around it. Sweidan: Well it's not really a blind corner because if you look to the existing southern lot where there's existing access south to it, it's similar to it. Claybaugh: Yes I walked that today and I don't believe that's anywhere near a 10 percent grade, and I don't have any other problems with it. I just had some safety concerns with respect to the drive coming down at that maximum slope all the way down to where it intersects with Mulberry, and I just wanted engineering to comment on that. If that's what it was calculated and if you're comfortable with that. Sweidan: From the, let's say the black side if we can say, or the black point side, I don't see any critical issue about it. And the side slopes, as long as it does meet the 10 percent, I mean we go with that. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Thanks. Any more questions of staff? Sidney: I have one question. Are we anywhere near a bluff? Aanenson: That was calculated. It did not meet. In the staff report it talks about the criteria. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sidney: About 24 feet? Aanenson: Yep, in elevation change but it does not meet the definition which is both a 30 percent or greater and elevation change of 25 feet or more. It did not meet that. Sidney: But we're maybe 1 foot less than what's required? Aanenson: That's, it's less than 1 foot. Sidney: Okay. Could we double check that? Aanenson: Sure. Sidney: I think that might be advisable. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah. That approximately kind of rubbed me the wrong way too in the report. I mean it says approximately 24 but 25 is the cut-off so I would certainly second LuAnn's concern. In the conditions I have 2 questions. Condition 3 starts with, add the following note and I assume that's a left over that is not really part of condition. And then my question, which one is really the condition, 10 or 137 Because they seem to deal with the same thing but slightly differently. Actually there are things that are repeated condition so 10 should cover the issue. So 10 is the one we think that should be in and not 127 Sweidan: Sacchet: Sweidan: Yes. Not 13. Sacchet: Not 13. 13, yeah. Alright, that answers it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate, I just wanted to clarify one issue and this was the covenants that were recorded originally. You said they were recorded I guess in 1992. Now is this something that subsequent property owners would have had access to or? Aanenson: Correct. They are recorded with the County. Blackowiak: So then when somebody buys their property they understand that this subdivision is a possibility in the future? They would get a copy of that or how does that work? Aanenson: Right. Again, the City doesn't enforce the covenants but we wanted to be clear. It was discussed at the time that this subdivision came in and again a stub was provided to this property. It was discussed that at some time in the future, Mr. Ersbo may choose to subdivide and obviously he wanted 10 years. Blackowiak: Right, so as long as he followed the design standards, it's well within the covenants of the neighborhood? Aanenson: Right. Right. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Good, thank you. Alright, this item is open, or before we do that, let's have the applicant or the designee make a presentation. Come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Thanks. David Smith: Hi, I'm David Smith. I live at 1341 Ashton Court in Chanhassen. And I basically concur with the City's recommendations and parameters for this construction. I intend to make it my principle residence and so I intend to comply with all of the neighborhood association parameters and just make the home fit in nicely with the neighborhood.., hopefully increase the values of the surrounding homes. I'll be putting in a nice home and it should be a good asset to the community. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: It's really not my business but I'm kind of curious. I mean since you have this steep slope, you use.., so much room for the driveway that the house is basically in the comer. You're not going to have really much of a back yard. David Smith: That's very true. Of course there won't be that much to mow either but... There really wasn't too many ways to, you know we looked at every, starting the driveway on this comer. Starting it on this comer and it just seemed to be the, work best, the best spot for it. I mean there are some surrounding woods which will help the site and to minimize the length of the driveway, I'm dropping the garage down by several feet which, and also putting the garage toward the back of the property to be able to gain a way but, it just really, the driveway's the most challenging aspect to that site and really there's not too many other ways, or really couldn't see any other better ways to work it. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Any other questions of the applicant? No? Alright. Thank you. David Smith: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, now's the time for our public hearing so if anybody would like to comment on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jon Steckman: Good evening. I'm Jon Steckman. I live at 1215 Lake Lucy Road. I will be the property to the, I guess it will be the east on... This property right here. The only thing I was interested in or concerned about is the drainage. That is a higher hill which is going to come down. So my house basically sits below where the new proposed area is going to and I just was concerned about any runoff that would be newly created by that. Whether better or worst or whatever. And then also the, I don't know what the rules are for height of when it's going to be up in the bluff. Or not bluff, sorry. Blackowiak: Almost bluff. Claybaugh: The almost bluff. Jon Steckman: Almost bluff. The hill. How high that's going to be up and above, elevation after we get the new house up there. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. I think those are two separate questions here. I'm going to go, Kate. Aanenson: Actually I can let, it appears that most the drainage is coming the other way towards. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Right, right. That's what I'm seeing in the staff report so Mak, are we the north and west, is that correct for drainage? Sweidan: Yes. He's not going to be affected at all with the development. Actually it will be less than the existing situation. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: Because any surface runoff, it will go to the street or the access. Aanenson: Right, it's all going back toward the street. Sweidan: So it will be less for sure. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate, what about residential house height? Aanenson: Sure. We can talk about the height. Average I believe it's 35 feet. Now this association does have a specific covenant regarding two stories and I'm not sure how they're interpreted their definition because we wouldn't enforce that but in looking through their covenants and researching this, there is in that subdivision a homeowners association, not to exceed two stories. And again that would be up to the association of how their definition of two story is. I'm not even sure what the applicant is looking at for the house style. Feik: It shows a ramble on the plan. David Smith: Well it is a two story. A modified two story. Aanenson: Okay. So what's the... David Smith: Well I suppose...the main level is say 9 feet... Blackowiak: And the roof line would be another 8? David Smith: Probably... Blackowiak: So 25 to 27 maybe? Aanenson: I think in order to review that we'd have to, because you've got this tree .... that's going to block some of your view so you're going to be looking up this way so you'll have a... transition. Get it set back so in order to figure that out you'd have to...and then look at tree line. The trees that are.., might not exceed. Claybaugh: When I was out walking the site here today I looked at it from that perspective, just from a curiosity standpoint and I was surprised the degree of buffering you had between this proposed property and your's, which I think will provide you much relief in the summer. Obviously there isn't a lot of coniferous, if any along that tree line so winter's going to be the issue for you but. Aanenson: Which is why we didn't want that area disturbed. It does make a nice, natural buffer for you. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Jon Steckman: Okay. And that was, you know I just wanted to double check the height. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Larry Kerber: I'm Larry Kerber. I live at 6700 Powers and I have the property to the east... My question is, what is the size of the new lot that's being created? Aanenson: 21,000. Larry Kerber: ... acreage. Aanenson: 21,131 square feet. Larry Kerber: What will that leave behind for Ersbo? Aanenson: Mr. Ersbo will still have 60,000 square foot lot. Larry Kerber: So there's a possibility in the future Mr. Ersbo can subdivide again? Aanenson: No. When this plat came in, well he can always try but when this plat came in again it was always contemplated that he could provide one additional. I don't believe he can based on the way the house is set on the lot. The house is sitting square in the middle of the lot and it would require a variance because he doesn't have the frontage, and the way the house is sitting... You'd have to reconfigure.., or require a variance. Require another variance. Larry Kerber: I was just, does the City have some standard when a property is subdivided that it has to be taken down to it's smallest unit it can? You understand what I'm saying? Aanenson: No. Larry Kerber: If he wants it subdividable again there, does it have to do it now or can he do at your own discretion? Aanenson: Anybody has a right to ask for a subdivision. Whether or not it meets the criteria of the city ordinance is a different issue. But someone can always request. Larry Kerber: Supposing it does, everything meets the criteria. Aanenson: Could he come in? Larry Kerber: Yes. Aanenson: I don't have enough information to answer. Could he come in? Yes. Does it meet all the criteria? I don't have enough information to address that. Larry Kerber: Well I was going to say, if everything met the.., for another subdivision for him he could subdivide. Aanenson: It would still have to go through a rezoning again because you're amending the PUD. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me Kate. Aanenson: Yeah, and then he had to have a public hearing and the like. Blackowiak: Right, and then would it still have to meet the covenants established by the neighborhood. Aanenson: Right, but the other thing is, right. And the other thing that's under consideration here because there is a density requirement, and we calculated that out with this PUD. Because there is a density requirement when you do the PUD. Under the 4 units per acre for low density so all that would have to go into consideration too to see if it would be under that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to comment on this item? Okay, if not I will close the public hearing. I would like to note that there was an email, and I'm probably going to mess up this last name. Ronnei. I'm not even sure, okay thank you. I'm seeing some nodding out there. I just want to make sure that that is included in the packet that goes forward to City Council as well. Okay, public hearing is closed. Commissioners, do you have any comments on this issue? Lillehaug: I do. I guess, the applicant seems comfortable with the 10 percent grade from the beginning of the garage all the way down to the end of the curb. I guess I would ask that he would re-look at the grades because a future homeowner there may not be comfortable with a non-flat portion coming right out of the garage. I mean the way I look at the grades, it's 10 percent starting from the base of the garage all the way down to the curb and that does raise some concerns to me because there are no flat spots, either at the garage or at the bottom of the driveway. Other than that I think it's a good site plan. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Alison, can I make a correction? Blackowiak: Sure. Aanenson: I misspoke and maybe this is what Mr. Kerber was asking about. The Lot 2 is 30,000 square feet. Blackowiak: Okay, so we have 60,000 plus and 30,000. Aanenson: So I guess his question was, could he further subdivide it. The house is sitting in the middle of the lot. Blackowiak: I think the question was, could he further subdivide Lot number, the first lot. The original. Aanenson: Again, that house is sitting in the middle of the lot. Not only do you have to have the square footage, but you have to be able to meet all the setbacks. I don't have enough information. Blackowiak: Right. So if the house were bulldozed and if the setbacks were met. Aanenson: They came back in and met, stayed underneath the density requirements and all that, again that'd have to be calculated. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: But anything is possible in the future, you know. Blackowiak: Never say never. Aanenson: Exactly. People assemble lots and divide lots all the time. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Sorry, go ahead. Claybaugh: I'm prepared to move forward. I, like my fellow commissioner would just reiterate that 10 percent grade. I understand that it meets the ordinance but I think it's really pushing the envelope and deserves a little more consideration. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments? Sidney: I guess subdivision, well replatting seems straight forward. I would like that 24 feet checked again just to make sure we're not into a bluff situation here. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Comments. Feik: No comment other than reiterate what LuAnn had mentioned regarding the bluff like condition. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Just real quick. I mean I think this does meet ordinance and our job is to evaluate does it meet ordinance so I think there is really no question about this, whether we pass this one or not. However personally I think it's skirting the edge in several areas. It's almost a bluff. It's the maximum slope all the way the driveway. It's, I mean personally it's a little bit force fit but it does fit so as far as that, I mean what we call and say it fits. Now does it fit very well? That's something that is not our judgment at this point. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I agree with my fellow commissioners that as long as it does meet that 10 percent and under the 25 foot bluff requirements, we really can't say too much because then it does meet our ordinance. So as long as we look at those two items before it goes to council, we can move this along this evening so I will need two motions please. One for the amendment to the PUD and then a second for the preliminary plat. Sidney: I make the motion, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Willow Ridge Planned Unit Development to increase the plat from 37 to 38 lots. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Willowridge Planned Unit Development to increase the plat from 37 to 38 lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-0. Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Willowridge 3rd Addition as shown on plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated 4/4/02, subject to the following conditions. We have 1 through 15 and we're striking 13 as being redundant and re-numbering. Striking 3 as well? Sacchet: Part of it. Just the first part. Sweidan: The first 4 words. Sidney: Okay. That's my motion. Feik: I'll second. Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Willowridge 3rd Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated 4/4/02, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 2 shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard setback area. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around any trees to be saved located near the grading limits. This shall be done prior to grading and maintained until construction is completed. 3. Sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26. 4. Extend silt fence along the south side toward the east and remove all sift fence when development is completed. 5. Show City Detail Plat Nos. 5300 and 5301. 6. Add a 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance. 7. Revise the grading on the east side to comply with 3:1 slope per city standard. 8. All disturbed areas shall be re-sodded or re-seeded within two weeks of grading completion. 9. The driveway must be installed with a paved surface. 10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer. The applicant should be aware that a separate building permit would be required. 11 If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route and traffic control plan. 12. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 13. The determination as to the bearing capacity of the soils is the responsibility of the owner, a soil investigation may be required upon field inspection of the foundation excavation. 14. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot pursuant to city ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: The motion carries 6-0. This item goes to City Council on May 28th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL REPLATTING SCHNEIDER PARK ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON APPROXIMATELY 7.4 ACRES ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND LOCATED AT 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD, SCHNEIDER PARK 2N~ ADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yes, I have one question. In your subdivision finding number 1 you say the subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF residential single family district. Should this say public- semi public? Aanenson: Yes. It is the same zoning district. Sacchet: I just wanted to make sure. Aanenson: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Wait, we need an applicant didn't I. Is there an applicant or their designee? Aanenson: I think that's me. Blackowiak: That's you Kate. Aanenson: I agree with all the conditions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Let's be official here. So the applicant is done. Aanenson: It's the City. Blackowiak: Is the City. Yeah I know. I kind of glossed over that one. Public hearing, I don't see anybody here that wants to speak on this item so we'll move on to commissioners comments. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: This is everybody's dream. Approving, reviewing and comments to your own application. Feik: Well I thought it was interesting that it still came in with conditions. Aanenson: We're holding ourselves to the same standards. Blackowiak: Only 4, yeah. Sidney: I'm fine. Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments? Claybaugh: Well actually I'm on the flip side of that. I was concerned that it came in with conditions. I thought that staff would have ample opportunity to address those things before it came in front of the Planning Commission. Aanenson: Well we tried. We hit ourselves up to get it resolved but. Blackowiak: Okay. With that I'd like a motion please. Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Schneider Park 2nd Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Brandt Engineering and Surveying subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Schneider Park 2"a Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Brandt Engineering and Surveying subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise the plans to state "East line of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼, Sec. 12, T. 116, R.23". 2. Move the property line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, eleven (11) feet to the south to allow for maximum flexibility for possible future additions or building on Lot 1. 3. The plat shall be revised to change the street name to Kerber Boulevard and show the vacated street in the middle of the plat as City Center Drive. 4. The drainage and utility easement shall be labeled on the plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Uli yes, I would like to give you a chance because I got your email asking about that. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: I do have. I note the minutes with the following aspect. There seems to be an issue with the conditions. On page 37 and 38. It's the Boyer development. It looks like we, we the Planning Commission were actually voting on 40 conditions, but then when we look on page 43, there are only 39 conditions actually listed in the minutes and it looks to me like the condition that was lost was what, when we discussed what 39 and it read something like the driveway issue to the Olson property is something to be worked with staff. The applicant shall work with staff regarding that driveway issue. And then in addition, and Kate you found that is that the vote says it was 5-2-1, which is 8 people. We're only 7. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, you said 5 to 17 Sacchet: 5 to 2 with 1 abstained. That's 8 votes but we're 7 people so. Blackowiak: Okay, who got 2? Aanenson: I believe it was 4-2-1 so if you could note that. Sacchet: So if we note that. So are we in agreement that there was, that there were 40 conditions? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: So we can amend that? Aanenson: I believe that's what Sharmin's understanding was. There were driveway easement to be worked out. Blackowiak: Just that they would work with staff to take care of it. Aanenson: She's forwarding that and everybody reads the comments as it goes to City Council SO. Blackowiak: Okay. So with that amendment, or that addition. Sacchet: With that amendment I note the minutes. Uli Sacchet noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2002 as amended on page 43 and amending the vote count to 4-2-1 on pages 43, 44 and 46. OLD BUSINESS. Blackowiak: I don't have new or old business on here but Kate, speaking of Boyer. We'll be seeing it again, is that correct? Aanenson: I don't know. It's going to the City Council and they've changed their mind on the conservation easement. I shared with the mayor, I sent a letter to them stating that we believe that's a substantial change because it really in our opinion, and based on your discussion, the mitigation. The neighbor's expectation, the mitigation for the variance was additional protection and as was pointed out in a letter that someone wrote about me, and on the Durr subdivision, the Minnewashta Landings, we didn't have a conservation easement and those are highly manicured. People just have that tendency and that was my point. Is that when people buy those kind of lots, 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 and there isn't a conservation, the tendency is to make them highly manicured. I'm not saying that, I didn't say that was right. I just said that's people's perception so in this circumstances, especially Minnewashta Landings does not have a wetland. This subdivision does have a wetland which is even more tempting to try to do something so really we felt the mitigation was the appropriate, you know put additional restrictions on that. And that was the trade-off so that's what's being forwarded in our memo to the City Council. Blackowiak: So can you just share, I don't know if everybody knows about this but can you share what the changes or the proposed changes are? Aanenson: He has not, they have not made any changes. They just want. Blackowiak: They want those additional dock rights. Aanenson: They want the conservation easement removed from the conditions. Or the language changed, which we're opposed to. Right. Blackowiak: So there might potentially be dock rights out from. Aanenson: Well they would still require a wetland alteration permit on each lot. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: So, it would still take another process to come back through. Sacchet: That did change that community dock if they don't want the easement anymore. How is that taken care of? Aanenson: I'm not sure what the agenda is so. I guess our concern is that we protect the shoreland and the trees that were there, because we've learned. The examples as we've moved along. The Minnewashta Landings as opposed to Olivewood which is on the point, which has a beachlot. Saved a lot more trees in there. Mr. Coffman did a good job with that one and so again we've learned from success, and what works and if you could put the extra conservation as well. Feik: But isn't there a trade-off also in that by having the wetland on the water, they shelter themselves from taxes. Aanenson: You would think so but as the developer explained to me that he felt that having riparian rights would create better value than having all of the homeowners have riparian rights. Those few lots, instead of all the people having access to the beachlot, it might be better so. Feik: Would that give them, let me phrase this right. Would that give them basically all the benefits of having a lake lot less the taxes? Aanenson: I don't know. I guess I'd have to check with the appraiser on that but. That came up during the beachlot discussions too when you have 80 homes that have access to a beachlot, and when we went through and permitted all those, because not all 80 homeowners can put their boats out there. It just doesn't work, so we permitted those based on level of use and that was one of the accusations is that it would affect their property values so I'm not sure that was ever found to be true or not so. How they rotate them or whatever so. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Blackowiak: So when this goes to City Council then, would you please note, and I think I can speak for my commissioners that we approved it with the conservation easement in place. Aanenson: It's already been noted. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Yeah, we put that in there. That you felt strongly, and there was a lot of discussion on it. I know that was the crux of the discussion. Blackowiak: Okay, just as long as that gets kind of carried through so the council understands the direction we were going. Alright, well. Aanenson: I had some additional information for the 21st, just to let you know. We do have a subdivision on out in the business park at Arboretum Village for US Bank. Subdividing a lot there. It will probably be a daycare and so it will be a subdivision and a site plan review for the bank. We also have a variance in, and then I've also put on an open discussion. We have a piece of property north of Highway 7. I just want to get some feedback on that. They want to come back and do smaller lots. Now we pointed out one of our flaws with the, in order to do smaller lots, even though you're under the low density requirements, these lots might be 7,000 square feet, you still have to up-zone because our only 3 zoning options are the 15, the PUD or the R-4, the 10,000 but they want to do, instead of doing twin homes they really want to do little bit smaller lots but detached homes. So I just want to get some feedback from you and so the developer would like it under open discussion so that will be on next week on the 21st. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, with that we'll adjourn the meeting. Oh, excuse me sir. Sure, why don't you come on up to the podium and we'll get your name and address. Martin Jones: Martin Jones, 7321 Dogwood. We had a message some time ago there was a meeting April 26th. A development on Dogwood. It was changed to May 7th. Today's May 7th. It's not on the hearings as far as I can see. I wonder why ifI was, why weren't we notified? Blackowiak: Okay, Kate? Aanenson: I did receive a couple phone calls. I don't know who told them on. There was an open discussion that you were notified of that was on. Blackowiak: That was the last meeting. Aanenson: Yeah, the applicant, there is no pending application on anything on Dogwood. Martin Jones: I wish we would be notified because I spent you know an hour and a half wasted here so, I don't appreciate it so I guess if. Aanenson: But it was never scheduled. It was never scheduled for this night. There was no meeting scheduled. Martin Jones: There was. It was rescheduled. I have a sheet at home that says rescheduled to May 7th. Blackowiak: Okay. Generally Planning Commission meetings. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Aanenson: Sure, I can follow up on that. Blackowiak: Yeah, Planning Commission meetings generally are the first and third Tuesdays now of each month, and it would have been on the 16th that the representative of a property owner came and just talked a little bit about some Dogwood. And who was one of the property owners that was there that he stayed. Aanenson: Dee Brandt. Martin Jones: Dee Brandt and Peter Brandt. Blackowiak: Yeah, they're one of the property owners and who was the gentleman that stayed for. Aanenson: Mr. Coffman? Blackowiak: No, property owner. Martin Jones: ....with the developer. Blackowiak: There was a neighbor that stayed pretty much the entire evening and I can't think of his name right now. Does anybody remember? Mr. Getsch. Okay, thank you. Yeah, he was there and he might be a good resource if you know him. Martin Jones: I know him very well. Blackowiak: Because he was here on the 16th. Martin Jones: ...on May 7th... Feik: Isn't the agenda also in the Villager? So the agenda would have been in last Thursday's Villager as well. Martin Jones: ... Aanenson: Sure, we did receive a couple phone calls from people that, yeah. Blackowiak: Yeah, that might have been a neighborhood thing. I certainly understand. Thanks. Okay, anything else? Sacchet: Yes. Since you asked. I have a question about, one of the items that we're working on Kate, it's I think still on our list is the phosphorous free fertilizer and there has been some attention actually on, it looks like the State is passing a phosphorous free. Aanenson: Right, they have, right. I'm not sure it's been signed yet but. Sacchet: Are we still pursuing it from our end based on the state we're basically happy? Aanenson: When we get a copy of the bill we'll pass that onto you, but we're going to follow that model. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: And so would the State law supercede anything we did anyway? Sacchet: Well it allows us to be more restrictive, doesn't it? Blackowiak: Allows the city to be more restrictive? Aanenson: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: And then also just an update too. Actually the mayor can probably address this. The, our Seminary Fen is still moving through the process and you're going down tomorrow to testify, correct? Before the legislature. Mayor Jansen: Yes. There's one more, it's conference committee meeting to talk about it and they're hopeful that. Aanenson: So things are still going good. Mayor Jansen: ... continues to move it through and this is with the House side of the conference committee that we're going to be addressing. Aanenson: Lori and the Mayor are going down tomorrow, and some others. Blackowiak: Alright. Keep our fingers crossed. Aanenson: So things are still moving along on that front. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 28