Loading...
PC 2002 10 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steven Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Jason Angell, Planner; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND AND BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALLS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE, SCOTT AND SHERRY BROIN. Public Present: Name Address Scott & Sherry Broin 3840 Lone Cedar Lane Jeremy Benken Structures Hardscapes Specialists, Wayzata Gordon Friedberg 3891 Lone Cedar Lane Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners any questions of staff? Feik: I've got a few. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Feik: I want to clarify a couple things. You said the house was originally constructed in 19717 Angell: '73. Feik: '73. What is the age of the deck? Was that original construction or was that afterwards? Angell: That was added afterwards. I believe it was '82. Feik: When that was added, would the 75 foot setback been in effect? When the deck was added. Blackowiak: I think the DNR setback has been in effect for a long time. Feik: How about the setback from the bluff? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Angell: No. The bluff was not in effect until '91. Feik: So the home is roughly 30 years old. What is the cause of the erosion? Has there been any changes out there that have precipitated this? Angell: None that staff can see as far as construction on the bluff. Feik: Next, part of the reason for the setback of the bluff is not only to protect the bluff but to protect the trees and foliage on the bluff. It sounds from your report that the applicant is proposing to replace the vegetation not with similar types of vegetation, but much more lower. Something very different than what's there now. Angell: Correct. Feik: What is staff's position of that? Angell: Well the Forester has indicated that, the applicant has also suggested they will be replacing some of the trees and are willing to do so. The plantings and all that though would be along the edge of the retaining wall. It will also help erosion problems and slow down water that would actually run over the retaining walls and down towards the lake. In all actuality the Forester does really want to limit the amount of trees that are taken out of the area. Feik: I understand that. I'm talking about the reforestation or the replanting of trees should a retaining wall be approved. What type of vegetation would you require to be reinstalled? Angell: That's something that would be worked out between the Forester and the applicant, and would, of course would like some guidelines or some guides from the actual commission as far as what you would like to see. A1-Jaff: May I add to that? Feik: Please. A1-Jaff: There is an approved list of trees within the city code. The applicant would be able to choose from that list of trees. They are all, they can choose from any of those. Feik: Okay. And then lastly at this time I have a question regarding some of the comments on page 3. On the second full sentence in the top paragraph. It says upon inspection of the site, the retaining closest to the home it said would serve the purpose of reinforcing the foundation around the deck and the back portion of the home. And then the next paragraph we say, would not eliminate the possibility and then also in the last paragraph we say constructing one wall near the home to insure the safety of the home foundation and deck would protect the home. Which is it? Is it going to protect the home? If we do one retaining wall, I mean would that retaining wall protect the home and the foundations or would it not? Or do we know? Angell: Well first it's a mixture of comments from different departments. The building official has indicated that the construction of one retaining wall will hold soils. However, if the actual foundation of the home is already starting to shift, it's going to go. It's going to. Blackowiak: Regardless of the number of walls. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Angell: Regardless of the number of retaining walls, but also in the information that was provided to staff and is required through an application, if the applicant chooses to and doesn't agree with commission or staff's opinion, we have mentioned to them that they may hire a civil engineer, which may go out and evaluate the soil conditions and the conditions of the property and provide us with that information. If it is shown that these 3 retaining walls would very much help the foundation of the home stay in place, we would be willing to reconsider and expand if needed. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, questions? Oh, okay. Claybaugh: I've got some questions here. Like Bruce I was confused by the verbiage on page 3 there. Is there any data to support that one wall would in fact do it? Or that multiple walls wouldn't do it. Angell: Based on the information that was provided. It was mainly. Claybaugh: So most the information at this stage is based on visual inspections but no soils engineer, soil borings, nothing of that? Angell: No. Blackowiak: Yeah, I think it's not a lot of money at this. I mean I don't think he really wants to spend a lot of money until we know for sure. So that was the building official though? Angell: (Yes) Blackowiak: Okay. City official. Okay. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Lillehaug: This drawing here was just given to us right before the hearing. Is this the actual plan of the retaining wall? Angell: Actually I'd ask that you wait until the applicants. Lillehaug: Sorry. Angell: He'll walk you through it and explain it. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, do you have any questions?\ Sacchet: Yeah, a few quick questions. On page 2 there's a statement that several properties in the area have constructed retaining walls on their properties, either prior to ordinance or without permit. When I went out there today I really didn't see all that many retaining walls. It seems pretty solidly wooded, and when there were retaining walls they were kind of further up. Is there anything more you can tell us because I think the context has some bearing. Angell: One of the photos that I sent around, the neighboring property has a retaining wall that is built very high up on the bluff. And then they actually have some small planting beds that follow Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 down the stairs. Those, depending on how deep they are and how they set into the bluff, may be considered retaining walls. Other properties as you go further around and I didn't check the entire lake to see how many retaining walls are constructed, but none of the properties around there have applied for any permit that we have found, and we don't know exactly when they were built. They may have been built prior to the bluff setback. Sacchet: Now you made a statement that those two oaks by, close to the deck, they're not in very good shape. So they're not really worth too much consideration. In terms of the findings, I have a few questions. Finding, the first one A states that this does not cause undue hardship. We don't consider the erosion impact as a potential hardship? Angell: Well I guess as far as if you look at the 3 retaining walls, will it cause an undue hardship to have the 3 constructed? We don't see the 3 as being a hard. Sacchet: Okay, that's clarifies. Then in Finding B, applicable to all properties within the city of Chanhassen probably means on a bluff or a lake? Right? Angell: Yeah, correct. Sacchet: And then Finding D, there are other ways to mitigate the problem without constructing retaining walls on the property. Meaning like vegetation? Angell: Vegetation. Sacchet: Now I can see the vegetation helping with the erosion along the path. I'm not quite sure how vegetation could solve the erosion by the deck. Basically by filling it up and then have the vegetation hold it in or how would that work? Angell: Well mainly the vegetation would be sporadic throughout the bluff to slow the water flow down. Sacchet: So it's more indirect, okay. Angell: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. And then my last question to the second recommendation where we would consider one retaining wall, it says we would give an encroachment of 10 feet with into the bluff, however it doesn't state how tall the wall would be. I'm assuming since the first wall was considered, I think it was 5 ½ feet, that it will be for 5 ½ feet, is that the idea? Angell: Correct. Sacchet: And then along with that, I seem to recall that according to ordinance, retaining wall above 4 feet needs to be engineered? So that would apply here. Angell: The information that has been submitted to staff, the drawings are engineered. Sacchet: Okay, so they are engineered? Angell: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jeremy Benken: Jeremy Benken with Structures. Blackowiak: Excuse me. Could you just make sure you're speaking into the microphone because that's the only record we have this evening since the tape isn't working. Jeremy Benken: Jeremy Benken, Structures Hardscapes Specialists. 1400 Marigold Circle, Victoria, Minnesota. Just to remark a couple of the comments made by staff. The reason that we went to 3 retaining walls was partially to stop the erosion, but you've got a global stability problem. The comer of the house actually sits at the top of the bluff line, and the erosion is moving from underneath the deck around the foundation and down. Putting one retaining wall in at 10 feet out, it's going to have to be higher than the 5 ½ feet that's there, because we've got a global stability problem. We can't just stick a wall on a slope without dropping the base of it to protect it from over turning and sliding. So we went with the 3 walls, in essence to start at the bottom and try to recreate everything going back up the slope. So with the walls the way they're set in, you should have a package with engineered drawings in it I believe. Was so we could recreate the slope and stop any erosion but it picks up the global stability problem so once it's recreated, there's no global problem. That whole hillside's not going to come down anymore because it's all been reinforced structurally. As far as vegetation on the site, Scott and Sherry might want to speak more. There's a fair amount of trees out there. A lot of them are very, very small trees. Chance of them getting much bigger with the canopy coverage that's there right now is pretty minimal. We do have to take 2 of the trees up by the deck out regardless. The trunks are split on them. They're not very healthy. When I put this drawing together it was to try to save as many of the larger trees as possible, which we've managed towards the bottom to save them and.., if you've got any questions about the design. Jason handed out a little sketch drawing I think Steve pulled up. That's basically just a cross section cut of what the 2 lower retaining walls look like. So at about a 4 foot height coming up is what's planter box basically in there. Put vegetation in to hide the tops or the bottoms of the walls so they're not as visible from the lake. And then there was a color brochure just kind of showing you what actually the units themselves look like in a finished setting. Blackowiak: Okay. Did you have anything else to add right now? Claybaugh: No. Blackowiak: Okay, I've got a couple questions. Or just actually one question for you and I think we may have some other questions here. You talked about a single retaining wall needing to be higher than 5 ½ feet. Should the commission decide that a single retaining wall is appropriate for this site, how high would that retaining wall have to be? Jeremy Benken: If we went up to 5 foot exposed wall, we're probably going to be down into the earth probably about another 4 foot because of the slope that we've got to contend with. That we've got to figure in for over turning and the toe kicking out on it. I haven't done any calc's on that so I'd have to go back and look at it. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Blackowiak: Right, but visible would be, I mean I guess I'm not as concerned about what is under the ground. Jeremy Benken: Visibly it all depends because depending on what we need for a toe on it. The more of a toe we need, the longer reinforcement we need so the farther we've got to get out from the house. You know so if it was going to be a 6 foot wall with 3 ½ foot embedment, if that's what engineering decides, now I've got 8 foot grids so I've got to be from the deck at a minimum out 10 feet just to get that section in. The farther I push the wall out, so if I'm at 10 feet, the wall actually becomes higher because I'm farther down the slope. Blackowiak: Right, okay. And then the second thing. Now geogrid, is that the fabric? Is that what it is? Jeremy Benken: Geogrid is a tie back system that basically once a wall's built with a reinforcement, and you take the face of the wall off. The rest of the mass stands, except for mile erosion on it. The units that we're using here, so we didn't have to take as much soils off the site and re-import them and cause erosion down into the lake during the construction process. These units weigh 2,500 pounds a piece so there's no reinforcement needed on them. Blackowiak: Okay. So nothing behind it to, no fabrics or anything like that to hold soils in? Jeremy Benken: There's, there will be about 2 foot of rock behind them that will filter anything that would come through. Blackowiak: Alright, thanks. Commissioners, any other questions? Claybaugh: I noticed on the drawings here that the top wall is a Keystone wall, in contradiction of the ready rock product that's on the second and third wall here. More of an aesthetic, is that just a Keystone compact units or? Jeremy Benken: It's a Keystone standard unit, but the reason it's put in there, it's more aesthetic because the ready rock block are 42 inches deep. I was trying not to encroach out any farther than I had to out there. Claybaugh: So coming back to the question, if one wall was approved in lieu of 3, obviously that would take a different product for that application to withstand that lateral pressure. Jeremy Benken: Definitely. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve. Question? Lillehaug: Yes. So this drawing here, is that in conjunction with the engineered drawing there? And this does not pertain to the very top wall does it? Jeremy Benken: No. That's for the bottom 2 walls. Lillehaug: Okay. And then the geogrid behind the wall, there are other types of walls and methods of reinforcement that would be appropriate up near the house that could be used in lieu of a modular block wall. As far as like a cast in place wall that could be laterally reinforced, deeper and into the house. I know they'd be more expensive but... Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Jeremy Benken: I think a cast in place wall in this situation would cost more than the property is worth by far. I mean there's other ways of tying things back, it's just a matter of a cost issue. But there are other ways of tying back into the slope and under the foundation to support a structure. Lillehaug: And one more quick question. In analyzing this, you indicated that a slope stability analysis was performed with the engineered design there and this was your most likely solution to the erosion problem or the actual stability problem with the foundation? Jeremy Benken: It picks up both. It takes care of the erosion problem because instead of having a 1 ½ or a 1 to 1 slope coming down, you don't have anything greater than 10 to 1 slope, so you're slowing the flow of water coming back down it. You know and the slower water flows, the less soils it's going to take with it. But also because now we've rebuilt the hillside up, the foundation can't slide anymore because now you've got large solid masses of soil holding it that are very level. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Uli, question? Sacchet: Yeah, one question. I understand your reasoning that if you want to build this solid you start from the bottom. Basically have the whole thing built up. That's the image that I heard you present. Now, as you can tell by the staff report from the city side, we try to preserve more of the trees. So my question for you is, if there's just one retaining wall and the trees but how does it compare? I mean obviously the trees at this point are holding in that bluff, and that's what stabilizes it. I mean from your presentation I got the feeling that your opinion is to really hold this in, you have to start from the bottom and basically hold the whole thing. But in view of that clearing all the vegetation, how can you see the two can work together? Like if you just have the top one, and then have the lower part held in by the vegetation, is that from your experience, from your viewpoint, is that workable? Jeremy Benken: Well from my experience it's not to say that it...put it on the top it doesn't solve the problem of the foundation movement. It would settle the problem from any erosion right against the foundation but it doesn't stop the soil mass as a whole and the slope from shifting forward. And that's why we start at the bottom and work our back up is to reinforce the entirety of the slope so that the slope has no where to move anymore. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Feik: I have one quick question. Blackowiak: Oh, I'm sorry Bruce. Feik: What would the planting of larger trees within the lower retaining walls do to the structure long term? Based upon the type of stone you're talking about. Jeremy Benken: You couldn't put a larger tree in this cavity here. Feik: Right, but I'm talking between the walls. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Jeremy Benken: Between them? Feik: Yes. Jeremy Benken: It's not going to affect these walls at all. Feik: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sherry Broin: Hi. I'm Sherry Broin. I live at 3840 Lone Cedar Lane, and we bought the house last June from my brother and when the thaw came, we bought the house in the wintertime, and we closed in June and in that period of time we have seen continued falling soil from the property and the foliage that the Forester is talking about is not fixing the problem or we wouldn't have this continued erosion, and that's a real concern to me. Vegetation, since you were out there, does not grow on the hill. The seedlings sprout, but African violets, the wild violets that I've planted, they don't sprout. I don't know if it's the pitch or what because my hostas are falling over because of the soil erosion on the hill. It's very, very steep and so when we bought the house, or when we started seeing all these problems starting to continue with the coverage that's there, we decided this isn't really fixing the problem and if we're going to retire here, as we plan on doing, we needed to find a solution. I'm very much a nature person. I love nature. I love my birds and I've added about 6 to my journal this year and our intent is definitely to preserve the wildlife to preserve the trees. Our structural plan basically identified structural problems to our home, not what we planned to do to even actually make it better because there's no so much dying foliage and the trees are dying on the property. When we bought it, they had not taken care of the property and so we plan on doing birch trees or I did not know that list existed and so we'd love to look at that. So that is definitely our intent is to put more trees.., seedlings that are there really are not creating any kind of, it's not holding the hill back. What it's doing is when the rain comes, it disperses from, when I watch it, it kind of more disperses the rain but as you can see there is just tracks of rain going down the hill and through our deck and that's showing tracks going down the hill. We have tried to use our limbs, dead limbs that are falling on the property. Laid it laterally on the hill to try to stop the soil and if you go out there you can see soil's building up on the logs that we've laid across as we try to stop it. So when we went to the Timberwall, we told them about our situation and they recommended Jeremy. Our project to him, we said we wanted something contained in as small as possible, and less obtrusive to visually from the lake or, we don't want to see it. We like that wooded look. We like the look, and so he came up with this, this kind of planter in that, we decided the wall is what, 8 feet I think is the lower one. Yeah, and then 5 feet is up, so we planned on doing ivy to kind of cover the wall and we need to put another planter in and we'd be happy to do that. And then planting trees, birch trees is one of my favorite ones, and if that's on the list. We'd be planting those. There's no birch trees on the property at all. The 2 bass trees that are right next to the house, when we had our Easter egg hunt this spring, we put an Easter egg, they fell all the way down. And that's when we realized oh my gosh. One was about 4 inches from one of the deck, and the other's about a foot from the deck, and so they're going to have to come down or they're going to come on our house anyway so we would definitely want to plant evergreens or Blue Spruce or White Pine or all the trees that I love, so that would be our intent. But the seedlings that are there that are creating kind of the brush look, those would have to go in order to give us the strength. We don't want to have to go back and do this wall in 7 or 8 years and the homeowner, the cost is double when you're working on a pitch like this and so we're trying to do something that is a very good quality product. Has a natural look and gives us the ability to do plantings on the wall where with some of the Keystone Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 products out there, you know it just gets so busy and we just kind of want it there and to go away and then plant pine trees and that sort of thing. So I don't know, you've got, I did take a few other pictures here. The plantings that I was talking about, I planted hostas along here and what has happened with the rocks coming down and the soil, the hostas tipped, and they did not sprout at all, all year long. Blackowiak: If you'd like to pass those around, that would be helpful if we could just take a look. Thank you. Sherry Broin: And even Creeping Charlie doesn't even grow and that's probably one of the most shadiest ground covers there. I've got a couple of plants down at the bottom and they're sprouting, so I don't know if there just isn't enough sunlight there but Creeping Charlie and African or wild violets grow in very shady areas. I've had them before so I don't know if this, the continuing runoff that just doesn't let them feed well and sprout well. We can only get a surface root. I don't quite know what it is, but the Forester, we would be happy, and I've had her out to my house when I lived in another home in Chanhassen to help me with learning about the trees on the property and so we would definitely love to do that and will do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Scott Broin: I'm just her husband. Blackowiak: Well you can speak if you'd like. Okay, commissioners. Does anybody have questions of the applicants? Or should we open it up? No? Okay. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this item, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, can we have comments? Uli, would you like to start? Sacchet: Yeah, I can start. The problem I have is you're asking for a huge variance. One thing you have to look at is what's the proportion of the variance. You're not asking for a 10-20 percent variance. You're asking for more than 100 percent variance. As a matter of fact you're asking for a double variance down in the lakeshore area. And that makes it pretty difficult. Jeremy Benken: How is that... ? Sacchet: Well, a bluff has a setback which obviously you can do so there's, that's a moot point. But you're basically wanting to put 3 retaining walls in which affects the total bluff, plus the one on the bottom affects the lakeshore setback. I personally, I'm very hard pressed to consider that. I do consider the erosion a hardship. I would like to add that, to the findings that the erosion, I do consider a hardship and I would want to be specific that this is applicable not to all properties in Chanhassen, but it's applicable to properties in Chanhassen that have bluff or lake. I have a hard time believing that just vegetation would mitigate the erosion problem with the foundation and with depth. It could help it but I think that the top retaining wall was justified in that sense. I would want to be specific and state that, as we usually do, it has to be designed by engineers, which obviously you have done. That's good. And also the height. I would like to specify the height. Not we say it's 5 ½ feet or what it states in the report. That would not include what you have to go under the ground in order to stabilize it. So I think it would be in line of what you presented. I would also like to ask that, in terms of tree mitigation, that the applicant work with staff and just to clarify our 2 to 1 doesn't mean trees. It inches of diameter so if you have an oak like that, and that's why staff made a comment. You have big oak. You can't go, if you plant little trees, you're going to have them one in every square inch on your shelf. I mean that's just Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 not going to work. But I would like to have an element in there that the applicant work with staff to reforest the impact, that's being taken, assuming that we would allow one retaining wall, not two. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sir, there was a comment in the audience. We've closed the public hearing but if you'd like to come up to the microphone and just, I'll re-open it for you. I didn't understand. Blackowiak: That's fine, and so come on up and just give us your name and address please. Gordon Friedberg: Gordon Friedberg, 3891 Lone Cedar. That's a neighbor. I support any effort they have taken and will take... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you very much. Alright, continue. Lillehaug: I would like to make one comment on the applicant's letter that was included in our packet. It indicated that the city codes and recommendation that we're considering here tonight, that they prohibit the owner to resolve any erosion and access problems. I don't agree with that. I do feel that the property owner is reasonably limited to correct the soil problems, but reasonably to preserve the bluff and the lakeshore. I do feel that there are legitimate other options out there, in lieu of constructing 3 retaining walls. There are other methods of lateral reinforcement to help the foundation of your house, and there are also other corrective measures that have already been taken as I did visit the site today, and I'm sure they will help. There's definitely an erosion problem out there and constructing a retaining wall to help with the erosion would definitely help. I think I would support, as staff recommended, having a wall near the house to limit and help the erosion problem. But I do not support having the other retaining walls to help laterally reinforce the stability and the foundation of the house. What else here? And then I would also, if the Planning Commission were to move forward here and approve the top retaining wall, I would like also to maybe limit or put a stipulation that we have a setback variance for the retaining wall, but we should also pay attention to any impacts that would be in the front of the retaining wall because they could be exceeded excessively if they weren't adhered to pretty strictly. Blackowiak: Could you explain that a little bit more. I'm not quite clear on that. Lillehaug: Okay, in building a retaining wall, obviously you're going to, due to the steepness of the slope, there's going to be impacts that will, they're going to go down the hill and we should try to. Blackowiak: Okay. So more than an erosion fence or bales or what, I mean what are you, give us some ideas? Lillehaug: An erosion fence would be good. And then it would just have to be strictly adhered to. Blackowiak: So that's just during the construction period, make sure that that's in place. Lillehaug: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Lillehaug: That ends my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Craig, anything? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to add. On some level when the house was approved in advance of the bluff ordinance, the die is kind of cast. It's difficult to work with at this stage. Like my fellow commissioners, I can empathize with the problem but I'm not prepared to support a 3 wall system when I believe that possibly 1 or 2 wall system can certainly be designed. Maybe not with the product that you have in mind, but with different construction materials, means and methods, there's a number of solutions out there given a little more exploration with that so I'd be prepared to support actually putting in a retaining wall to mitigate and stop the erosion to preserve the foundation but nothing beyond that at this stage. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce, comments? Feik: I have nothing to add. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich? Slagle: I don't think so. I guess I'll throw one thought out and that is, the letter that Scott and Sharon sent to us, appearing in paragraph 3 to also talk about the desire for a terraced yard for children and activities and what not and that I certainly can see the benefit to that. But after reading this and spending time thinking about it, the structure of the house and the safety of the house, the erosion is absolutely number one critical point of this application and it almost, I think that the applicant could perhaps consider coming back again with an application for a one wall, different format, different process with an engineering. I mean the soil testings, the borings, and this could be a serious issue for the integrity of your house and I know you know that, but it might be beyond what this is here. And it might be a very large retaining wall. I don't know that, I think we're dealing with some unknown as to what the degree of potential damage is. So instead of a terraced yard, I mean it could be saving your house so that's why the 3 walls aren't in... Scott Broin: That's why we had an engineer in the first place.., first place to help us... best way we possibly could. Slagle: I understand but it sounds like there's other options to it that limit to perhaps to just one wall. Blackowiak: Okay. Well let's not have a discussion so, okay. Thank you. Slagle: ... application came back again it might be worth. Blackowiak: Reviewing, okay. Alrighty. And I just have a couple comments. I strongly agree with the denial of encroachment into the 75 foot shoreland setback, which we haven't talked about a lot. That's one thing that I really feel that needs to be preserved is that it's very important for any lake and I think that anybody who lives on a lake would agree that those are the types of things that need to be held very near and dear. I mean you don't want to start passing our variances to encroach into that 75 foot setback because that's just, that's a huge thing and I don't think we even really want to go there. Talking or listening to the other commissioners who have more of an engineering background, it was very helpful. I do believe that there is merit to you possibly further pursuing a one wall option, but at this point I would not be willing to go and Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 allow 3 walls into the bluff. I don't feel that that's the proper thing to do in this setting. I think maybe some more exploration on your part into the possibility of a single wall construction and keeping it back closer. I agree with the 10 feet. I certainly could understand that but to go that far down the bluff and into the shoreland setback, I just can't agree with that and I think I'm hearing that from my fellow commissioners as well so, at that point I'd like to get two motions. Claybaugh: I'll make a motion. I make the motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission denies the variance request to encroach into the required 75 foot shoreland setback on the property located at 3840 Lone Cedar Lane based upon the findings presented in the staff report. Blackowiak: Is there a second please? Slagle: Second. Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance request to encroach into the required 75 foot shoreland setback on the property located at 3840 Lone Cedar Lane based upon the findings presented in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: I need another motion please. Claybaugh: I'll make the second motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission approve a variance to allow the construction of one retaining wall that encroaches 10 feet past the required 30 foot bluff setback based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 5. And I would also like to add, mention for erosion control be addressed during construction with city officials. Slagle: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Certainly. Slagle: Not that we want to get the specifics of what the wall would be, but would there be any concern that we would approve a wall that perhaps would not be sufficient or would that be all handled within the building permit? Blackowiak: I think in the building permit they would make sure. Nobody wants to spend money if they don't think it's going to remedy the problem. Claybaugh: It's going to be over the 4 foot height and have to be engineered. Slagle: I second. Blackowiak: Okay, a motion and a second. Sacchet: Friendly amendment? Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: I would like to specify the height of the walls. I mean we've given the 10 feet but I would want to hold it to the 5 ½ feet that are stated in the staff report as the height of the first Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 retaining wall, with the understanding that you have to have a foundation for it and approve not be, it would be the above ground. Blackowiak: So the exposed height? Sacchet: The top exposed height be limited to 5 ½ feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Is that acceptable? Claybaugh: I don't believe that could be stipulated until the wall's designed. I don't think that they're looking at exceeding the necessary grade out there with the height of the wall. There's... Sacchet: So we'd be better to leave it open? Okay. Claybaugh: Yeah. Otherwise they'll have to come back in front of you again. Sacchet: Then to make sure we don't have any misunderstandings, in condition number 2 we have walls with an s. I think that s should not be there. Slagle: Would that also be for plans? Take off the s? Sacchet: There can be more than one plan for one wall. Claybaugh: That's acceptable. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: A friendly amendment? Additional. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Feik: In the initial language recommending approval, after the word encroaches, I would like to insert a maximum of 10 feet. Claybaugh: That's acceptable. Blackowiak: Alright. There's been a motion and a second. Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approves a variance to allow the construction of one (1) retaining wall that encroaches a maximum often (10) feet past the required thirty (30) foot bluff setback based upon the findings presented in the staff report, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be obtained before any construction begins. 2. The plans for the retaining wall must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 4. Type II silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the north, east and southeast sides of the proposed retaining wall. 5. Show top and bottom elevations of retaining wall on Certificate of Survey. 6. Erosion control be addressed during construction with city officials. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: This item, if you choose to pursue it may be appealed to the City Council within four business days. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 8,300 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH VARIANCES ON 1.84 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS (BH) DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 550 WEST 79TM STREET, INFINITY OF CHANHASSEN, LLC. Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Let's start with Rich. Any questions of staff? Slagle: I just have one. Sharmeen, thank you for doing such a nice job on this. The parking. It will prove interesting, as we find a lot with these, but my question. Have we considered if you go north from the main entrance across, you know heading towards the parking lot where we have our trees, if you will, have we considered putting sidewalks? In other words, trying to signify to parkers via lights, via something that this is the path to cross the two areas of parking stalls to get to the main entrance, versus everybody just sort of making their way through cars? And I'm just wondering your thoughts on that. Blackowiak: Sidewalk question, very good. Slagle: I didn't even think of it that way. A1-Jaff: Are we talking up in this area? Slagle: No, we're going out the front door, yeah. Blackowiak: Between 1 and 2 going north. Slagle: Yeah. Blackowiak: As you look at Lot 1 there. You see that Lot 1. Then go north to Lot 2 or Block 2. Yeah, I think he's talking about between those two, am I correct? Slagle: No, here's what I'm talking about is you get to the front door, okay? Going north. Okay? And you're going to be crossing parking spots, and we've got areas that we designate for trees. I'm just saying instead of 2 trees or 4 trees, you have a sidewalk or path. Blackowiak: Or pavers. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Slagle: Or pavers, and you have it for each section and that way you are telling people when they park however many odd parking spots. If I go to the middle, you have one crossing spot sort of. Yeah, right there and right there. Have we just considered that, just discussion? A1-Jaff: Yes we have. And you will find that is the case with Applebee's that there are pavers on their sidewalk... We talked about it. Feik: Sharmeen, ifI can interrupt. This is what we're playing with up here. This is a little different than up here. A1-Jaff: Correct. Feik: This one as you're drawing people this way, not across. A1-Jaff: Okay. Slagle: Does everybody understand what I'm. Claybaugh: Like Mall of America. Slagle: Yeah. A1-Jaff: You're going to add to the hard surface coverage. Blackowiak: That's is grass in it. Feik: Oh, that is grass. Blackowiak: Yeah. Slagle: And the only reason I brought that up is I was thinking if we go into requesting a variance for the hard coverage, is a few more percentage.., for safety. I was just wondering if you'd be open to that as a staff. A1-Jaff: When we looked at the hard surface coverage, again they are looking at 66.6 percent and staff is recommending 67. I believe we could accommodate those sidewalks. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce, any questions? Feik: Sure, a couple. On the north edge of the property which butts up to the railroad, where is the railroad right-of-way as it relates to the property line? A1-Jaff: Immediately abutting. As the city. Feik: Okay. I'm just curious as to, if we're going to require them to put some plantings up there, I'd hate to have the railroad cut them down. A1-Jaff: They will put them on their own property. Feik: Okay. Outside of the right-of-way. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 A1-Jaff: Outside the right-of-way. Feik: You spoke regarding the refuse being moved indoors. A1-Jaff: We can add that as a condition of approval as well. Feik: We spoke briefly before the meeting regarding the construction access from West 79th. In the write up you mention that there should be no construction parking out in the street. Do you know if the, I believe you do, the status, whether that's a posted non parking area in front of construction? Or in front of the site on West 79th. A1-Jaff: There aren't any signs. We will make it a condition that the construction traffic be restricted to the site only. Feik: Okay. Those are my questions for staff, thank you. Sweidan: May I add something about that? There's actually two existing no park signs toward the east. Blackowiak: So if you're driving towards the east, is that what you're saying? Sweidan: Exactly. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: If you are driving from the parcel towards the east, there are two no parking signs. Feik: On the south side of West 79th. Sweidan: Exactly. That's in your left side. Feik: How about the north side of West 79th? Sweidan: The north side? It is located in the north side of the West 79th. So it depends on the way you are driving. If you are driving from the left towards the east you will find it on your left hand side. If you are driving from the gas station, Amoco to west, it's at your right hand side. Blackowiak: Okay, so then on the north side of the street. Sweidan: Two no park signs. Blackowiak: Okay. A1-Jaff: I stand corrected. Blackowiak: That's good. It's good to know. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: Yes I do. You were saying that the patio wasn't included in the hard surface calc. A1-Jaff: Pardon? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Claybaugh: The patio, was it included in the hard surface calc? A1-Jaff: Yes it was. Claybaugh: Okay. Let's see here. And you said that they went back and changed all the compact parking spaces to normal size? A1-Jaff: Correct, and the last page. Claybaugh: The designations on C-1 that I have, those are no longer applicable. A1-Jaff: No longer, correct. And if you look at the first attachment to your staff report, it shows regular size parking as well as a sidewalk that has been added. Claybaugh: Okay. So that C-1 sheet indicating the sidewalk and the changed parking hasn't been re-issued yet? A1-Jaff: No. Claybaugh: That's how I was confused because we had the initial sheet, C-1 was issued. C-30 and then the second sheet, not.., designated as a revision was evidently re-issued on 9-26. What were the changes, do you know between those two and the reason for re-issuing that? Do you know? I can ask the ap. Blackowiak: Yeah, let's ask the applicant on that. Claybaugh: Okay. Let's see here. The island that Rich was speaking to. The perimeter islands in the parking lot, obviously they serve a safety function with keeping people from turning down the parking lanes. I assume the one in the center that he was after is just aesthetics. Just a planning bed. Okay? Not serving any other public safety purpose? A1-Jaff: Now these islands are landscape islands that are required by ordinance. Claybaugh: Well the ones at the perimeter comers do to keep people from cutting their mm short, but the interior island that Rich was looking at, I was wondering if that fell into that same category, or if that was just more of a planting bed. A1-Jaff: It's a planting bed. Claybaugh: I know they're all planting beds, but the perimeter one serves a dual function. A1-Jaff: Yes, thank you. Claybaugh: Okay. Does the interior one have any safety functions we'll say with it? A1-Jaff: Again, it will regulate traffic. Blackowiak: But still required by ordinance regardless. Claybaugh: So the island in the center is required by ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 A1-Jaff: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. Alright. Let's see here. And then yeah, with the construction parking, absolutely you want to limit the street parking but there will need to be some discussion with the contractor I'm sure because they won't be able to do their site work without being able to park on the street at some point, whether they permit it and give them time periods, but they won't be able to achieve it, which is flat out no parking on the street so. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Claybaugh: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I'll make these quick. Is there a current cross parking easement that the city has with Applebee's and Tires Plus that will automatically trans over with the transfer ownership with the sales of this property? A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: So it's a cross parking, and not just a cross access. A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: And that does transfer? A1-Jaff: Yes it does. Lillehaug: Okay. And on page 11, the compliance table. Under parking stalls. Per the ordinance, does our ordinance state that a traffic study or parking study is sufficient in that it can over ride the ordinance requirements because with the ordinance requirements I see that parking stalls need to be the greater of the two as you figured before. It needs to be 166 stalls, and that does not include shared stalls. That's 166 stalls on this property. Right? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Lillehaug: Okay. A1-Jaff: That's why we're asking for a variance on the number of park. Lillehaug: I'm just making it clear in my mind on the ordinance table that it should be 166 stalls though. A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: And then on Exhibit A, page 3 that's stuffed in here, there's an estimate of costs. I want to be just clear in my mind. Claybaugh: What page are you on? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Lillehaug: It's Exhibit A, page 3. But there's an estimate of cost and it's for $173,000 and, $173,500. Now is this transferred to the applicant and is this something he has to pay up front? A1-Jaff: I don't know. I can't answer that question, but I will, the applicant can answer that question. Lillehaug: He can answer? I'll ask him later then. Blackowiak: Great. Lillehaug: I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, do you have any questions? Sacchet: I have a small number of questions. First of all, now that the trash is indoors, that's all taken care of? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: The EIFS restriction is per elevation, not per building? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Just to be real clear about that. A1-Jaff: Yes. Silt fence. Around the entire area. I guess that's an engineering question. On all four sides, even though it's relatively flat. Could you explain a little bit? Sweidan: Yes, he is proposing actually along the south and the north sides only. And the east side is already adjacent to existing private access, which is about 10 feet away from the curb. So I thought of having it along the whole grading area. And it's very flat area so in case of piling stuff out there, we prefer not to see any like runoff or... flowing to that existing driveways. Sacchet: So part of it is to make real clear where they have to stop piling as much as may be. Sweidan: Yes. In case they find inside the side yes... Sacchet: And they make piles and it runoff so it piles, that's the idea there? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I just wanted to understand. Parking spaces, I guess that's going to be more of a question for the applicant, but do we actually know how many new spaces? I mean I'm confused. I mean if I count the spaces on the blueprint, and sometimes it says it in the text too. I come up with 129. When I look on page number 9 it says there are 94 existing parking spaces and then there will be 218 available so that would make it 124 new ones, but in the parking study it actually says 136 parking spots. And then on top it gets a little more muddled. It says that only 5 percent less, but only 95 percent of the parking spots are actually usable because some people park crooked, which would bring down the 136 down to 129, but that's not really what we have. We have 129. And then if we get some people parking crooked there, we'd have to take another 5 percent off, so the point of this is, I'm very confused. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Blackowiak: So you'd like a number is what you want? Sacchet: Yeah, I think the math doesn't add up basically. Yeah, but I don't know, is that something you should? A1-Jaff: 129. Sacchet: The real number is 129. A1-Jaff: After we lose the 1 compact. Blackowiak: Or 1 1/2, didn't we say? A1-Jaff: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Yeah, I guess you've got my gist, and maybe the applicant can address that a little further. My other gripe with this is, you say this is a reputable firm that did this parking study. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: I have a hard time to see the reputability by doing a sample of one in a statistics based on a sample of one. It's just a little hard to be reputable, but that will be for the applicant to maybe address, I hope. What I would like to address with staff though is, we seem to have several elements in here that, it appears to me that we need to change the ordinance. I mean if we say the ordinance asks for 166 parking stalls, but we're basically happy with 129, and while we have some shared, that adds a little bit to it, but certainly no where close to 166. I think it would be an important thing that we consider changing the ordinance, and a similar thing would actually apply with the hard surface thing, or that might be a zoning thing, and since it's mostly developed, that might be slightly different. But we're in questions. Blackowiak: We're in questions, yes. Thank you. Sacchet: I remembered. Blackowiak: Bring yourself back. Sacchet: I do have my clock so I will not lose track of myself. With the trees we found out that we actually do want to ask for the canopy trees because there is ample space for canopy trees? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Signage. Signage. In that criteria to be adopted on page 11. The criteria number 2, one wall mounted sign shall be permitted along the south elevation. I assume that means one per restaurant since there are two restaurants, so we form two. Now we're not, in this criteria listing we don't say any signs on the north side. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Sacchet: That's correct. And so my question, and it's probably more an applicant question is how will people know whether they're going into the Wings or into the Mexican restaurant? A1-Jaff: They will be permitted window signs. Sacchet: So it will be clarified with windows so maybe you could clarify that the applicant when they come up. One last question. There is mention of a gas pipeline easement to the north. It appears there is no construction too close to that, so that does not get impacted. That's not an issue even if there would be plantings there or? A1-Jaff: We will make sure that they are, the easement is flagged or the pipe is flagged so when they have their landscaping it does not impact. Sacchet: Would not impact it. So there is no need to make that a condition to. A1-Jaff: We can add it as a condition. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright. I believe that's my questions, thank you. Lillehaug: I have one more quick one. Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: What happened to the 4 existing trees that were on the property? Sacchet: They turned into thin air, poof. Lillehaug: Any idea? A1-Jaff: They weren't there. Lillehaug: Good enough I guess. City property right? A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Slagle: But in all seriousness, I mean I know we're kidding but, I mean it is a concern. A1-Jaff: They weren't there to begin with. Slagle: I understand. Trying to make light of trees given what just happened half hour ago. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. I just have one question. All mine were hit except for the sign. 189 square feet, is that the total for both signs? Is that the total area available for signs on the south side? A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: So it will be split up as the applicant sees fit? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 A1-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: So 189total. Okay. A1-Jaff: And that's based upon the wall area. Blackowiak: The wall area, right. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. Alright that's it for questions. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Scott Schmitt: Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Scott Schmitt. I'm with Clearwater Development. I'm the developer for the project. My address is 12560 46th Street, Watertown, Minnesota. Actually when I started on this project I made sure those trees were gone. I knew they were going to be a problem right away. I'm just jesting. I feel like we've already had half of the discussion here but, I'm here with Brian McCarty who is with Welman Sperides Architects who's done the design on the project. I started on this project about a year, well over a year ago actually in my former employment when I was with Kraus Anderson and it didn't get to this point. We originally had a 13,800 square foot retail center on here and we tried to incorporate a Buffalo Wild Wings, a Panera Bread and a Chipotle, so the parking is substantially improved since that plan but, and then we tried some other retail things and we did the traffic study with Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings with just retail in the middle, and the parking study killed that deal right away. We just couldn't park it appropriately so we pulled out the retail and asked the tenants to pay the rent to make the economics work, and they were willing to do so. They're very, very excited about coming into the community, both tenants are, and as I've been out there mentioning what's going on, it seems like the community is receptive to them as well. The Mexican restaurant, Chipotle is a Mexican restaurant and they are, what they go after, just to give you a little bit of background, is they go after a market where it's about 50/50 split between lunch time and evening traffic, so it's not like some restaurants where it's all evening traffic and the lunch traffic is just not there. BW3, they used to be known as BW3 so I keep saying that but it's actually Buffalo Wild Wings goes for the same sort of client mix. The demographic where they like to see a high daytime population. It's all the office and the workers that are here that provide that daytime population. So that's the reason they want to be there and so when you look at specifically at the parking study that Benshoof did, you know they've done probably thousands of these parking studies and that's one of the things they look at is the demographics and the reason they can say with confidence that the one parking study is going to be enough is because of that database that they've built and what they've found is they can rely on that database as well as an actual on site, not an analysis but an on site count on number of cars and when they come in and when they leave and how many are there at any one time. What they've found is you can go out you know multiple days and multiple times but in the end you pick what they know as being the busy time for tenants like this, when I asked him, I understood that there was some concerns when I talked to Sharmeen and so I called Ed Tierhar who did the traffic study, and he's the Vice President of the company, and he said that they picked a Chipotle/ Buffalo Wild Wings who actually co-tenants in the same shopping center over there, and did the study in Plymouth because of the road work layout was similar with the State highways and the secondary roads. They had similar traffic patterns among those roads, and the busiest time of day is really lunch for both those restaurants and that's why they picked the lunch time versus the evening. The stores were similar size. Other stores are larger and obviously have more parking and more needs, and the layout of the stores was similar. And then of course the demographic including the residential office mix so by going to the store and making those counts, and then coming back and comparing that to their database, they felt that that was sufficient to justify Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 doing only one. When we, so with the parking study, answer to your discrepancy on the numbers. It's the 5 percent, the 129 is the actual number of stalls that are there. When Benshoof did the study, they had the old site plan with the compact stalls on it. We had more stalls at that point and so that could account for the differences, and then they take the 5 percent for crooked cars and all that but, part of their math is off because they had a site plan then when the city said we'd like you to remove the compact cars and come back with normal sized cars, which we were not objected. We were trying to follow the code and get the maximum number of parking stalls in order to minimize the proportionate variance that we were asking for. That was the reason for the compact cars because we knew that the green space requirement was a sensitive issue so we wanted to try to do our best to comply with the green space, you know as best we could. We were under the 65 percent at that point, even with the handicap that we were given from that with these Tires Plus scenario that we inherited with the project. So and then to kind of make that worse, the city asked us to put the sidewalk in and the connections so then our green space got you know a little more out of whack and we said well we aren't opposed to the green space. We understand with ponding and everything that will handle 70 percent, and so we're okay with the green space. The tenants requirements we're meeting exactly, Buffalo Wild Wings requires 100 stalls. Chipotle requires 30. That's one thing that I always look to is what does the tenant think that they need, and they always, they never want a parking issue. People can't park there, they don't want to eat there and they go someplace else. Nobody wants a parking issue. The tenants are the last ones to want one. The tenants are okay with the parking situation. That says a lot from their experience. They know what they want. They've got, each one of these, they have 160 stores across the nation. Each one of them. They know what they need for the different sized stores, and I put credence in that so, but that's kind of intrinsic. It's not either here nor there but it does mean something when it comes to the development and the way I look at things, so those are the reasons. It's sort of escalated with the green spaces because of some of the requests by the city. What we did do, and I'll pass around. That's a revised landscape plan. What we did is we increased the number of trees and shrubbery on the site. The actual green surface to hard surface ratio is the same. What we did is we increased, if you look on page 10 of the handout, where Sharmeen has articulated the required number of trees and then the proposed number of trees. As we go down that list, we haven't changed the number of trees in the landscape area, which is basically the parking lot area. That stays the same. The West 79th Street buffer yard gave 230 feet. We left the canopy trees the same. We left the understory trees the same, and then we put 21 shrubs in there where previously we had 0 in that area. Or previously we had 9, I'm sorry. And then on the north property line, along the railroad tracks, we put 4 canopy trees, 2 understory trees and 10 shrubs. And then in the boulevard trees we increased it from 4 to 6, so aesthetically when you look at the site there, you know our intent is to put as many trees on the site as possible. We don't want to inhibit the sight lines because that doesn't do any good for the tenant's businesses, but we do want it to look nice and I think the increased landscaping does something for that. Maybe there's more green with the leaves than the grass that would be growing, I'm not sure really what logic there is to that but you know our effort is to try to, is to try to offer something in lieu of and I think aesthetically you'd never, you drive by, you're not going to know the difference between the 67 and the 65 percent, but nevertheless it's the code. With regard to the parking code, the code is the greater of the two, that's correct but the greater of the two in your code with restaurants always winds up being the square footage because what you do is you calculate the entire square footage. Most communities have the square footage of the seating area only, but you include the restaurant, the garbage space, everything and that's what throws it a little out of whack. You know obviously it's your decision on the zoning, or on a change in that code but it does skew things and make it a little more difficult to work with. It's definitely ample parking. And we just don't see the need with the cross parking easements that are necessary, or that are on the other site and the demands. In all honesty I don't know if we'll wind up with 76 extra stalls like what was stated on there, but as you stated earlier time will tell Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 on the parking issue so. But I think it's adequate. I think it's a good project. I think that the project does stand on it's own as far as parking, and the variances. You know proportionately both the variances I think are reasonable. We're not asking for huge variances in either direction so I'm open to questions. Blackowiak: Thank you. Uli, why don't we start down at your end. Do you have any questions? Sacchet: Sure. Well thanks for touching on the parking part a little bit. I want to be very clear, I mean I think it's a great project. I'm not trying to shake this up but on the other hand I think the parking study really doesn't hold water. Before this goes to council I think these numbers need to be lined up. The original number for it was 130, and you lost 1 parking space due to the compact or the regular. That's at least the way I was reading the data I got. It just kind of, I mean it just didn't hold up. I mean you look at it and you have 136 in one place, 129 in the other. If you look at the numbers that are separate, then it would be 124. The math needs to line up, but that's a detail. The big issue is, and I'm really happy that you pointed out that this firm has a database and has some reference point. But how can you make a generalization by just a sample of one? While you can say well you know it was the busiest on Thursday at 12:30, but the whole point of a study is to actually make the case that that's indeed so, and why not look at a weekend or some other days. I mean a sample of one is just not a basis for this whole generalization. That's my point there. But even that is not all that important. I mean I think that the thing that really holds water is the applicant's experience and if they say they need 30 and 100, I think that's actually from the way I see it, has more significant weight, but I would request that as this goes to council that these numbers be lined up and that there would be a little more sampling. I think the choice of Plymouth is very good. I'm not necessarily asking to do sampling in ton of different places, but at least do sampling more than once because the way I read the study, there was one sample in Plymouth for Chipotle and the combination. There's one sample for.., samples and each one was a different sample. None of them was sampled more than once and that's just not sufficient to make a statistic generalization. The question I have for you with the signage. The way the signage is laid out here, you have two signs. Wall signs on the south side. No wall signs on the north side. My question was, well is that sufficient for people because as people drive around the building, they're not going to remember the signs from the other side, which one's Chipotle, which one's the Wings. How are you planning to deal with that? Scott Schmitt: In all honesty I'm not. The tenants will. The signage application is a completely separate application and separate permit and they're both very aware of what the codes are. I spoke with both of them today and their feeling would be that they want to get, they want the wall signs. They'd also like the monument signs and that they will come back before you and make a case for additional signage at that point. Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve. Lillehaug: Could you comment on the question I had earlier about Exhibit A on page 3 of the attachments there. Scott Schmitt: I don't have the attachments. Lillehaug: You don't? Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Scott Schmitt: No. If it's about the assessments that are associated with the adjacent property? They're not technically assessments or something a little bit quasi assessments. Lillehaug: Gray. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. Those are required to be cleared up at closing, so those will be paid 100 percent in full to Tires Plus at the closing. Lillehaug: Okay. You're aware of it. Scott Schmitt: (Yes). It's in my proforma. Painfully aware of it. Lillehaug: I ate at that store in Plymouth today, and there was nowhere to park out there. We had to wait for a parking stall, so the buildings, they're not in the same building. They're in separate buildings. Chipotle and the Buffalo Wings. Scott Schmitt: Okay. I haven't been up there. I was under the assumption they were in the same. I knew they were co-tenants. I made the assumption they were in the same building. Lillehaug: So in my mind, I mean I kind of shoot holes in the traffic, in the parking study also and it's hard for me to relate to. I also talked to the, these are comments so I'll just wait. Blackowiak: These are comments, yes. I tiT to keep my mouth shut sometimes. Lillehaug: Sorry. Blackowiak: That's okay. Lillehaug: Next. Blackowiak: Any more questions? No? Okay. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: No, I don't have any new questions, just comments. Blackowiak: Okay. We're restraining ourselves tonight. This is good. Bruce. Feik: I had one. I love both restaurants by the way, and I still call BW3's too, and I'm used to the Dinkytown one that closed years ago. Little different image I'm sure. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. Feik: But my question is a little bit different. You've been working with both these restaurants for quite some time. Both of them typically have liquor. Have they been working with the city? Do they have some reasonable expectation that they are going to be able to open and provide their standard fare? Scott Schmitt: Yes. Well yes a couple of questions there. The question is, I'm not sure if they've had actual contact with the city. Your second question, they do have a reasonable expectation that they will apply for and hopefully get approved for the liquor license. I believe they both request a full liquor license, even though Chipotle serves only a margarita and a beer. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Feik: Okay, thank you. Slagle: You know I could have asked the question about the sidewalk, but just.., the parking spots. I think I know where that's going so no further questions. Blackowiak: I have a quick question. I was one of those that called Sharmeen today and bent your ear a little bit. Could you talk a little bit about spanrow glass. Where are you, would you propose to put that? Can you point that out on the plan for us. Scott Schmitt: The spanrow glass would be in the areas for the doors. For the service area, and we don't know exactly. It will be on the east and the west elevations. We don't know exactly where that's going to be because the tenant hasn't given us their interior layout yet, so that will be determined and slid where it's necessary. Blackowiak: Okay. And about how big or how much would that be? Can you give me a. Scott Schmitt: Big enough to get a dumpster through so I would imagine, what it will look like. Blackowiak: Just like a double garage. A single garage door. Scott Schmitt: No, no, no, no. Not a garage door. It will look like. Blackowiak: No, I mean size. Size. Scott Schmitt: Oh, 6 feet wide. Not that big. Not as big as a garage door. Two door. Just like a normal double glass door is what it will look like. It won't even have normal handles on it. It will have some other kind of handle with a lock, and then we have to protect it on the inside with wood, which you'll never be able to see. Blackowiak: Reinforce it in some way, right. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. Otherwise the... Blackowiak: ...the dumpsters will be going through it on a regular basis, yeah. I figured that out. Okay. That was my only question was like relative size of the doors. Scott Schmitt: Yeah. 6 foot by 6 foot 8 probably. Blackowiak: Okay, good. That's it for questions for me. Anyone else? No? Thank you. Scott Schmitt: Thank you. Blackowiak: Is the architect, Mr. McCarty, did you want to come up and say anything? Brian McCarty: No... any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, does anybody have any questions for the architect at all? While we have him here? No? Okay. This item is open for a public hearing. Although I see no one here I'11, it's formality. I will open the public hearing and seeing no one present to comment, I will close the public hearing. Comments. I'll let Rich start this time. I try to mix it up a little bit. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Slagle: I would just like to say, I think it's going to be a wonderful addition to Chanhassen. I would ask that by approving it and moving it forward to council that we do, in our conditions ask that a further parking study be conducted. I'm not quite sure exactly the particulars of that. I'll leave that up to staff, but I really think council needs to see a more specific, more in depth parking study. Hopefully the architect's okay with that. But other than that, I think this looks great. Blackowiak: Good, alright. Feik: I like it. Blackowiak: Good. Feik: I have a couple minor points I'll bring up a little bit later. Maybe a minor change to a condition or two. I don't think they would be significant to anybody up here. Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I think it's an exciting project. A nice addition to Chanhassen. With respect to the traffic study, I think for some time everybody's felt that not all traffic studies are created equal. We have them come in front of us and we all drive here each and every week and the traffic study and the reality just don't line up. So whether it's the criteria, the parameters that they're using, whatever, I think that it's a source of concern when it comes in front of us just because we're not getting delivered what is promised at different stages here. Personally I don't know how to close that gap, and I don't know that we have any set criteria for these traffic studies or we can compare them on an apple to apple basis, but I agree with Uli. It needs some work so. Blackowiak: So then a recommendation for you would be before, as with Rich, before it goes to council some further study into. Claybaugh: Well I'd like to see staff sometime in the future, and now wouldn't be too soon to develop some set criteria so we have a benchmark to evaluate these traffic studies from because all we have is the recommendation of the firm doing the work and we don't have anything to compare it to. Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Claybaugh: That would be my recommendation. Blackowiak: Alright, thanks. Steve. Lillehaug: A couple quick ones. The trash enclosure. I feel it's a very insignificant amount of area and if the applicant were wanting to put that outside, I feel he should have the option to put that outside. Preferably away from the patio area but. And I would like to direct staff to verify this landscaping plan here that was handed to us. It looks good, but do the numbers line up? I'm not too sure. And then just a quick comments on my experience with the parking. I visited the Plymouth site previously when it first opened, and it's a very busy, congested area and parking is very limited. I know there's shared parking up there. I don't know if it works that well. I went there today and ate and it was the same experience. Very busy. Congested and there was limited spaces to park and I mean you can sit there and watch, I mean it was very obvious that everyone's very aware that accidents are easy to happen in that scenario. So I would also like to see that Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 traffic study expanded. I spoke with the managers of Applebee's and Tires Plus and they indicated, I mean the peak hour possibly might be at the noon. Tires Plus is pretty busy during the lunch hour period. Applebee's is kind of hit and miss, so to analyze shared parking, it's tough. I mean, so I guess I'm just voicing my concerns that 129 stalls may not be adequate. There are other parkings adjacent that yes, shared parking may work but I wouldn't want to rely 100 percent on them. Slagle: Could I ask a point of clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: If it does pose to be a problem, which it could be, I'm just curious what happens for example the strip mall could be, if people start to use those spots. I mean does the city, what is the process? The building owners call into City Hall and say these people are parking on our spots. They're going on the grass. A1-Jaff: What would happen would be something similar to what the bank did. There is a shared parking between the bank and Applebee's for instance and there are signs that limit the hours of when they may park in that area. Slagle: But this is a different tenant. A1-Jaff: Correct. And what you will see is a sign that says Cheers parking only. Festival has. Claybaugh: You're used to seeing Amelia's. She's very adamant about what's parked... Lillehaug: And then just one other general one. I am very much in support of the project. It's very pleasing so thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, great. Uli, comments. Sacchet: Well I already expressed my views pretty clearly. I think it's a great project. I think it's wonderful to welcome this project to our city. I think it looks very pleasing and well thought through, except with the exception of the parking study. I think I made that amply clear. I also would like to encourage staff to consider an ordinance change that it would be based on square footage of the seating area, and not of the whole building. I think that's definitely a shortcoming the way I see it and I appreciate you brought that up too in what you said when you presented this. As stated I think the numbers need to line up before it goes to council and there needs to be more study. Several of us seem to agree on that. I think the landscaping looks really nice. I still find it kind of, I'm not convinced that it really needs silt fence all around on all four sides but I'll leave that to the expertise of our engineers. The EIFS that is .2 percent over, it gets a little funny there considering that the rest is very low in EIFS but that doesn't seem to be an issue. The applicant didn't bring it up so I assume that's not an issue. I would want to state that the gas easement to the north as a condition just to be clear. I would also want to state that the trash enclosure, the trash is housed inside the building, if that's the decision right now. Blackowiak: So Uli you're disagreeing then with Commissioner Lillehaug, that he said he could do it in or out. I mean you'd prefer in? Sacchet: If it's not next to the patio. Actually if it would be outside, I would like it because it makes that elevation a little more interesting, but then I would actually have pushed for the patio Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 to be in the center of the building, a little more further west and not in the comer. But since that didn't come in the discussion, I mean they said they'd have it indoors and that's fine. So I'm basing myself on their coming in front of us and saying it's going to be inside and so I would like to anchor that in. Slagle: Inside's okay? Sacchet: Inside is okay. Inside is okay. And then yeah, obviously another parking study. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Scott Schmitt: I need clarification on where I need to go with this. Can I ask a question? Blackowiak: You know what, why don't we talk about it after we make our motion and we'll try to answer any questions at that point but what we'll do is we'll make our motion and then we'll direct staff to talk to you about it, but hopefully we'll make ourselves clear. My comments. Don't have a lot new. I really think it's going to be a nice project. The parking again, I struggle with it. Talked to my husband tonight. I said what do you think? He said you know, if they're comfortable with it. They're not going to, they are not going to make a business where they're going to fail, so if they really feel that they're going to get enough parking to satisfy the demand that they feel is going to be there, what do you care? Slagle: I wonder if we could, ifI could ask. I wonder if we could see that traffic study that was looked at where they decided not to do the retail. Two restaurants or the three restaurants. I've never seen a traffic study that says it shouldn't... Scott Schmitt: I'll bring them. I'll bring two of them. Blackowiak: So, but anyway I thought it was interesting. When I just tried to get another point of view and he said you know, if they're comfortable with it, you don't want to, you're not going to build a restaurant and not be able to park your people so, he's got some good common sense usually so I'll kind of defer to him on that one. I like the idea of the spanrow glass. I like the fact that we're doing additional landscaping. I mean I'm really, I'm very impressed by the fact that we're going a little above and beyond in order to sort of offset some of the variances that we would be allowing in terms of hard coverage and also the parking. So if we're getting something, I'm feeling a little more comfortable going ahead with this as long as the applicant's comfortable with the parking. As long as we have the pond sized to accommodate 70 percent overall hard surface coverage. That makes me feel a lot better too. Knowing that that's in place, so kind of based on those things I would support these variances as they are written with a few modifications. I'd also like to make sure that we state that we're going to comply the plantings will comply with the revised schedules outlined this evening. We kind of went through some of the numbers required and proposed. I just want to make sure that those numbers get in the record so we're clear on what we're looking at for plantings. Other than that I think it's a great looking project and as long as this traffic, this parking stuff lines up, I say go for it. Looks good. So with that I would like somebody to make a motion please. Lillehaug: Can I make one more quick comment? Blackowiak: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Lillehaug: And then I'm done. Just to add to your comments, since the parking. The reason I'm paying attention to it is because you're proposing shared parking with Applebee's and Tires Plus, so we need to be considerate to the other businesses, and that's part of where my concern is generated from. Blackowiak: Yeah, good point. Okay. Claybaugh: I'd like to add a comment. To put things in perspective, if you had your people go over and do a traffic study at Village on the Ponds, and they came back and said that's sufficient parking, then I would call their's into question. If you sent them over to Market Square and they came back with the same thing, I would call your study into question. If they went over and identified specifically where those were insufficient, and pointed those things out, that would give incredible credibility to them in my mind. Now I don't expect that to happen, but... Blackowiak: So you see the theme, parking is a problem. Okay. Well let's get on with our motion then. Sacchet: Alright Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #02-8 as shown on the site plan dated August 30, 2002 with a variance to allow 67 percent hard surface coverage, and reduction in parking based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 27 with the following additions. Number 28. Applicant will work with staff to consider the gas pipeline easement to the north. Number 29. Trash will be housed, trash and recycling will be, I'm going to definitely specify both. Trash and recycling will be housed indoors. Number 30. More, how could we say that nicely? A1-Jaff: Expand parking study. Sacchet: Expand parking study will be required before going to council. Claybaugh: Perhaps staff could provide some criteria. Sacchet: Work with staff to present expanded parking study. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Is there a second? Lillehaug: I second. Blackowiak: Okay, any amendments? Feik: Friendly amendment please. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Sacchet: Go ahead. Feik: On number 23. This is the parking one on the street. I think I can hopefully accommodate all ideas here but I would like to add that no street parking along West 79th shall be permitted except as specifically approved by city staff. Sacchet: No parking along the street will be. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Feik: That's in the construction portion. If they need it and they need a specific permit. Sacchet: That's fine. Claybaugh: They can get a temporary permit. Feik: And then number 26, as it relates to the patio area. That that plan shall be satisfactory to the city. And just say submit plan. Sacchet: Okay. Accept that. Okay, that's fine. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli I've got a few to add too. Mention of spanrow glass. Sacchet: With the enclosure? Blackowiak: On the doors on the east and west entrances. Sharmeen, what doors are we calling those? A1-Jaff: Service doors. Blackowiak: Service doors, thank you. Spanrow glass on the service doors as mentioned by the applicant. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: Landscaping again that we put the numbers that the applicant spoke of this evening. So not necessarily what was handed out tonight, but revised. Buffer yard be 21 shrubs. North property line, 4 canopy, 2 understory, 10 shrubs and boulevard trees, 6 canopy. So just so we get those numbers into the compliance table before it goes to council. And finally pavers in the patio area. I like that idea. Sacchet: Pavers in the patio, yes. I like that too. Blackowiak: Okay, will you accept those? Sacchet: Yep. They're accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. Motion and second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #02-8 as shown on the site plan dated August 30, 2002 with a variance to allow a 67 percent hard surface coverage and reduction in parking, based on the findings in the staff report, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall increase buffer yard plantings along the north property line to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval. 2. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 The parking lot islands shall be increased to 10 feet in width or aeration tubes will be required to be installed. 4. Signage criteria: The site shall be permitted one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. One wall mounted sign shall be permitted along the south elevation. The total sign display area shall not exceed 189 square feet. c. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 6. 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 location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 904.1. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the water system coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. The builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. The builder must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 la. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. f. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. g. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy referencing cooking equipment exhaust hoods requirements. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #35-1994. Copy enclosed. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building official conditions: a. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. b. Detailed occupancy related code requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are submitted. c. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a ta year, 24 hour storm event. Add the following 2002 City Detail Plates to the detail sheet: 2101, 3 tat, 3102, 5203, 5300, 5301, and 5302. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner(s). Show all proposed pipe information, including: pipe type, flow direction, slope, inverts, etc., on the utility plan. Watershed District approval will be required prior to building permit approval. A 75 foot minimum construction rock entrance is required. Show all manholes and catch basin rim and invert elevations. A cross-access agreement between parcels must be recorded. Extend silt fence around the perimeter of the site. Pedestrian ramps shall be included at all sidewalk entrance points of the drive aisles and parking lot. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Chanhassen Building Department, Watershed District, and Minnesota Department of Health. 22. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with sod or seed with disc mulch within two weeks of completion in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 23. Construction access to the site shall be limited to/from the private street and not West 79th Street. No street parking along West 79th shall be permitted except as specifically approved by city staff. 24. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 67%. 25. Lots 2 and 3, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition shall be placed under a single parcel identification number and considered a single zoning lot. 26. The applicant shall submit a furniture plan of the patio area that is satisfactory to the City. 27. The north faCade shall maintain a maximum of 15% EIFS. 28. The applicant will work with staff to consider the gas pipeline easement to the north. 29. Trash and recycling will be housed indoors. 30. The applicant will work with staffto present an expanded parking study to the City Council. 31. Spanrow glass shall be used on the service doors. 32. The landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the following changes: Buffer yard, 21 shrubs; north property line, 4 canopy trees, 2 understory trees, and 10 shrubs; and boulevard, 6 canopy trees. Those numbers shall be incorporated into the compliance table before going to City Council. 33. Pavers shall be used in the patio area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: This goes to council on the 14th of October. Thank you very much. And did we answer your questions or would you like to come on up and ask any more? Scott Schmitt: I'm afraid to. Blackowiak: We're really pretty nice. Scott Schmitt: I'm fine. That's fine... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 17, 2002 as presented. Planning Commission Meeting - October 1, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim