The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2002 02 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Craig Claybaugh, LuAnn Sidney, and Uli Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 1420 HERON DRIVE, STUART AND TANYA BROWN. Public Present: Name Address Dave Kubisiak Stuart & Tanya Brown Steven Lillehaug 1461 Heron Drive 1420 Heron Drive 1441 Heron Drive Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, I'd just like to clarify. You said, I think you meant to say 37 have 3 car garages, is that correct? Grove: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff right now? Okay. Alright, thank you. At this point, if the applicant or their designee would like to make a presentation, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Stuart Brown: Hello, I'm Stuart Brown. My wife Tanya is in the audience here. A couple neighbors. At least one. So you have any questions for me before, I just have a few things. Blackowiak: Why don't you just go ahead and if there's anything you'd like us to hear, then we can ask questions if need be. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Stuart Brown: I'll figure this thing. I do have a few pictures... I guess I'd just like to start, you know our background. We've been at this address, residence for 10 years. Since 1990. Or more than 10 years. Since 1990, and members of the church, school. We're the coordinators for our Neighborhood Watch and work with Beth Hoiseth here. Take pride in the home's appearances, I think any neighbors would attest. Clean yard. Clean home. Nice landscaping. Last thing we'd ever do is anything that would detract from any of that. Our sole desire is really quite simply to put our property to reasonable use and that's subject to definitions of course. Be in harmony with the neighborhood so that we can continue to reside at our home comfortably in Chanhassen where we want to stay in our current home. Close to our church and school and all those things so nothing more sinister than that. The proposed addition is you know it's a third stall attached garage. I'm on a large half acre lot. The garage when finished would be, give the exact. The variance is fundamentally when you take the right-of-way on Ibis Court which is we're at the comer of Ibis and Heron. The outer part of the garage when finished would be 33 feet from the curb, or 22 feet from the property line and code in the city is 30 feet from the property line. But we are, I want to emphasize we're a full 33 feet in from the curb, from the nearest street or anything like that. But the ordinance in our case on our lot would be 41 feet. As we've measured Ibis and gotten the rules from Julie and what have you. It would blend perfectly with our home. I've done some digital photo trickery. We have a home just like our's in the neighborhood a few blocks over. Exactly the same color as our's and they have a third stall attached so I did the photo of our house and a photo of their house and. Here's our, this is our, end of our second car garage here. This is where we'd be, the arrows show where the comers of the garage would be. And here I've magically pasted a third stall on from like in our neighbor's house. It's also white so it blends kind of nice. And I brought it right out where the orange label is in this picture so that's where it would be. In the second...third photo I went out to the stop sign here at the comer of Ibis and Heron and again here's where our garage isn't today. It's a two stall garage. Where the orange flag would be, and I've pasted the same size garage and.., yet to trust the computer here that I'm being accurate. This is what it would look like with a third stall on there. If you look here we're, you'll see that the flag is a good 6 to 10 feet in from this pine tree. I think everyone, they hear the thing and go oh, that pine tree will have to go. That's sad. I say oh no, we're several feet in from that. They're oh my gosh, that's way in you know, so I, the neighbors reaction has been very favorable which I'll get to in a minute. I brought a signed thing from every member in our cul-de-sac saying they have no objections, for what it's worth. And if approved this would result in 40 percent of the homes on our cul-de-sac having a third stall garage. If you go 500 feet out or you go multiple, I'd be the fourth out of 10 homes on our cul-de-sac that would have a third stall garage so far from a huge minority in our immediate surroundings there. And again I did have all neighbors within eyeshot of this sign a piece of paper saying they have absolutely no objections. In fact, they preferred that. We're proposing a nice professional addition to the home as opposed to perhaps a large shed in the back yard which would have more line of sight issues for them or storing things like third stall, third cars, is happening in our neighborhood with 2 car garages. People are parking cars and things on the grass and we certainly want to avoid that with the pride in our home and our area. Especially right on a visible comer. I have notes here so bear with me. It does not come close at all, by any stretch of the imagination of blocking any traffic sight lines at the intersection. It's a controlled intersection there as you recall the stop sign. Even so it is definitely does not block any traffic sight lines. Repetitive. No objections to anyone, we didn't get a signature from everyone within 500 feet but only you would know if people you know written back to you after receiving the letter saying we object .... but I haven't seen any. And okay I went over that point. So I guess fundamentally you know I can't in the narrowest sense of the law is this a hardship. I mean picking, moving into a home and that's, I can't defend the absolute, you know is this a self imposed hardship as was found. Therefore, sorry. You know, you move into a lot and 10 years ago I guess we could have said well yeah, it was self imposed because I didn't measure things out and think 12 years ahead and that we'd have kids and garage you know and cars and the things that would Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 cause us to grow, but we want to stay where we're at. In relative, I know there's another argument that was cited in the rejection report is that issue of precedence and weird analogy but I work in corporate America and I wonder, among you folks, you know anyone in the city or where you work that, bear with me on this analogy but, works 4 days a week or telecommutes possibly or has a slightly different work schedule. And the answer I'm guessing in today's workplace, probably yeah, I know somebody. Undoubtedly they or someone before them set a precedence and I don't think anyone of us would say oh yeah, as soon as that person did that, the entire office didn't show up on Monday. They all telecommute, or everyone didn't show up on Fridays anymore. I think we've got an issue of precedence needs to really be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than governing by the fear of oh no, we've set a precedence in Chanhassen here. All the people now put in and want to be building right up to their property lines. I think we've got to look at it on a, you know consider what negative consequences, if any, could result here. And like in this case, and it's simply a professional discreet addition of a third stall. A full 33 feet from any street. There's absolutely no objections, in fact full support from the surrounding neighbor and neighborhood. So really no more complex than that. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Stuart Brown: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions of the applicant? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: The alternatives. You mentioned a shed in the back yard for like lawnmower and stuff. In the report it also mentions having possibly the garage made deeper. Can you talk to that briefly please? Stuart Brown: Yeah, sure can. Two points there that are mentioned in there. The first thing, anyone looking at the back yard would say, is I have a football field behind me so why not just go a couple hundred feet of garage in the rear. A couple reasons. One thing we at one time considered, which we understand is a new law, is you can't have a second driveway. Theoretically I could put some things back and you can't have 2 driveways on a residence so that kind of, I learned a new law and so won't, you know that would be yet another variance that I don't want to try. The second thing is right here behind our home, in this comer. I wonder if you can, the photographs don't do justice either, but I'll put this here. If you were to extend it rear ward this way, from a professional builder point of view, that affects the roof line quite more dramatically if you will then our existing. We just, as many people did after the hail storm, re-shingle this year. The proposed garage tucks under our existing roof line here and requires you know not to tear the roof off. So from a construction point of view it's a much simpler project. Again, that'd be my own hardship and not your's there but the real killer is, behind this part that you can't see is where our natural, where our gas is brought into our home. Our electricity is brought into our home. Where our air conditioner is. Where sprinkler valves are. Dryer vent, but it would require moving all the utilities, which is from a, you know and it's very important to my wife, it covers the one window on the east side of our home would be gone. So we'd have no morning sunshine and have to move all the utilities in a much extensive construction project, and expensive yes in that sense you know my interest there but it was definitely considered. We had the guy look at it and again the roof line issues. That's a good picture too. Here's where all the utilities are. Gas, electric, air conditioning and sprinkler valves. That's a pretty radical construction. And aesthetically the builder said, or the construction guy, you've got a much prettier roof line naturally and just tuck under like, there are 2 other homes in our neighborhood like our's and this is exactly how... Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: One more question. I kind of think of myself in this context. I have kids and the oldest one has a car and it's awfully nice to be able to put that in a garage right. But then come 2 years from now he's going to be gone, and his car with him. So I don't know whether it would be inappropriate to ask you how many kids do you have? Stuart Brown: We have 2 children. Sacchet: Okay. Stuart Brown: And stuff. Bikes. Snowblowers. Sacchet: I know about the stuff part. Stuart Brown: That's what I mean, you know the narrowest interpretation. If everything was.., is any of this hardship imposed on themselves, I think you know, I don't know if anyone can escape that. Anyone asking for a variance can say that yeah, I own the house so I... I can't go down and I can't win that in the narrowest sense but. And we do own a, which we're storing in a pole barn now, one of those little pop-up campers and we think to take our kids camping and store that out in Chaska. We may continue to do that depending on, depends on where the stuff goes if we put the camper in but, I think you know in today's world a third stall is, it's a luxury no doubt about it but we could really use it. And again, I don't think it's unreasonable use of this land. I think hopefully that one picture, when you look from that comer of Ibis and what we're talking about there. Standing out here at the comer. There's the garage. Really what...just look at that and I go, is it digital trickery but you look at that and say, that just doesn't strike anyone that sees this or looks at the flags in our yard as being close to anything, I really don't think the city will ever suffer any repercussions on a project like this. Blackowiak: LuAnn, did you have a question? Sidney: No I don't. Claybaugh: I had a question here. In one of our first paragraphs it identifies that the shed in the back of the yard that they've...this proved to be too costly and complicated. In addition, constructing a shed in the back yard to store equipment, snowblower, lawnmower, bikes, etc was considered. I understand on some level why you wouldn't want to do that in the back and necessarily why your neighbors would prefer that you didn't do that. Is there something inbetween a full third stall and something that will fit within the setback requirements that can be attached to the house? I drove by your house. I can see that, why the builders are identifying a roof to roof addition off this side toward Ibis in lieu of a complicated saddle roof to wall connection if you went off the back but would there be any relief there if you did come off the side and didn't do a full third stall but created some space there within the setback requirements? Stuart Brown: Well you know, yeah I mean we could go out I believe, since this is a 14 foot garage and we're 7 feet over, you could come out up to 7 feet, give or take and. So we could have additional theoretically 7 feet to hold stuff. But I've got to admit though that, in thinking of this. Claybaugh: It'd be nice if you're going... Stuart Brown: ... someday would hold our pop-up camper and someday we'll sell that. At that time the kids will drive and hold a third car in there so, you know the answer is yeah. There's 7 feet to play with. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Claybaugh: I think it's also important to note that the exception in terms of throwing around the 7 foot dimension, in relative terms that's about a 23 percent approximately, you know adjustment to that variance so it's sizeable with respect to how the variance or how the ordinance is written so. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Deb? Kind: Nope. Blackowiak: I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you. Stuart Brown: Thank you. Blackowiak: At this point I will open the item up for a public hearing so if anybody would like to come up and speak about this item, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments? Sidney: I'll start off. I sympathize with the applicant. However, I guess I do agree with staff's interpretation of the variance ordinance. In this case I do not see a hardship being demonstrated. The applicant does have reasonable use, as stated in the staff report. And in the case of granting variances, if there are unusual circumstances in the physical surroundings, the shape or topography of the land, then a variance would make sense possibly in this case. However we don't see that. Also, conditions which are unique and based on something that is not generally applicable to other properties in the area might be considered as well. However, as staff points out, there are a number, if not a majority of houses in the area that have 2 car garages. So in that case I don't see that we really have a hardship due to the physical surroundings or the fact that we have a unique circumstances, and I do believe we would create a precedence so I would not be in favor of granting this variance. Sacchet: This is a tough one. I understand all your points. I mean you're on a comer lot and you have front yard setback on two sides so there is a lot of space to play with. But then on the other hand we do have the ordinances are very clear about this and I do disagree with you on the precedence thing because the precedence thing, you may think it doesn't make a difference because you have enough room there and it's not going to impact the neighbors and it's not going to impact the city but it will impact the city when somebody comes a month from now, a year from now and says well, I need a variance to have an additional garage that goes into the setback and you gave it to this other person, now you should give it to me too. Right now we have a clean situation in this neighborhood. All the 3 car garages are within the setbacks. The majority of the houses are 2 car garages. Now given your's is a comer lot but based on the clarity of the ordinance and the precedence thing I can't support granting this variance for you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments Deb? Kind: I'll just add a quick comment. Just so the applicant knows and maybe people in the audience understand that the rule for granting a variance is the Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts, and the first one is that the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship and a undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. And on the surface a reasonable use, a 3 car garage seems like a reasonable use but when you look at it a little bit more closely, the ordinance says a reasonable use is defined as including the use made by the Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it and the staff has demonstrated the majority of the comparable property has 2 car garages. And as my fellow commissioners know, I usually hang my hat on this for granting variances because it does usually allow us to approve them, but this is a case where I can't find that this is considered a reasonable use by our definitions so I would have to recommend denial. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any additional comments? Claybaugh: Yeah. Likewise I can empathize as my fellow commissioners. I drove by the property. It's clear that you take pride in the property that you own. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated, I share the position of my fellow commissioners. Blackowiak: Okay. Again I'll just add. Again we struggle with this all the time. That there is maybe a project that we like and can't say yes to and a project we really don't like and absolutely have to say yes to, and I think this is one of those that falls in the former. I'd like to say yes but our charge as a Planning Commission is to enforce the regulations and codes of the city and as we enforce them we have to follow certain rules and this is one of those times we do have to follow those rules. So I agree with the staff recommendation in this case. So with that I'll ask for a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission denies the variance request 02-1 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition based on the following conditions or findings in the staff report numbers 1 and 2. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second it. Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request #02-1 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a garage addition based upon the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Next item on the agenda is item number 2. Sidney: Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Oh the. Sidney: The procedure. Blackowiak: Thank you. There is an appeal procedure. Any person aggrieved with this decision may appeal within, how many business days Bob? Help me. Generous: Four. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Four business days. So as an applicant or any other aggrieved person, you may contact staff and they will walk you through the process to appeal and then this would be held at a future date in front of City Council. So, if you're serious about this, please proceed with that. Thank you Commissioner Sidney. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR NINE LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND A VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ON 7.59 ACRES OF LAND ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF LOCATED AT THE END OF KNOB HILL LANE, METRO AREA PROPERTIES, KNOB HILL 2N~ ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Deb & Cramer Hegeman 1459 Dan Leary 1275 Chad Haasken 1376 Barb & Jim Quiring 1384 Mark Paulsen 1501 David Smith 1341 Mike Preble 1352 Diane Wyffels 6421 Meta McKenna 1459 Michael Brandes 6411 Cindy Doms 6398 Mike Hatch 1392 David Slotten 6401 Knob Hill Lane Lilac Lane Ithilien Ithilien Knob Hill Lane Ashton Court Ithilien Teton Lane Knob Hill Lane Teton Lane Teton Lane Ithilien Teton Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff'? Go right ahead. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Bob, the letter from Mr. Haasken. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that right or not. Also noted that there's only one access. One road in here. Only one access. Could you speak to that please. Generous: Lots of developments are accessed via a cul-de-sac. While there's no specific standard on length of cul-de-sacs, what we look at is a fire safety issue. The Fire Marshal reviewed that. He had no concern with this development. There's a minimal number of units that would additionally access this roadway. He didn't feel that that was an issue. Kind: Normally staff recommends having two access points though for other subdivisions that I recall that we've seen. There's usually two access points. Is that true? Generous: That's correct. We always try to connect neighborhoods. However in this instance with the Knob Hill original plat we tried to get the right-of-way to connect to Lilac Lane. At that time council determined that they didn't want that secondary access. The development to the east is already done so there's no need or opportunity to extend... Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Kind: And then the issue of the private drive that was in our packet, kind of on the tail end of it. I'm assuming that that documentation was in our packet just as background information and we're not empowered to make any recommendations or decisions about that. Generous: That private street is a part of the Knob Hill development to the west of this which is not contingent on this property. This was something completely separate. You have to look at the merits of this case. Kind: Very good. That's it. Blackowiak: Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Craig, any questions right now? Not at this time. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: I have some questions, yeah. Has there been considered to maybe do some flag lots at the end rather than a private street or a public street? All the way back there. Generous: Pardon me? Sacchet: Has there been any consideration of accessing the southern most lots through, one of them through a flag lot or a shared driveway or something like that? Generous: Not, well that again flag lots are the same as private streets. They have to go through a variance review process and you have to show that there's enhanced protection, environmental protection. Sacchet: Now talking about environmental protection. You believe that between the two plans that were submitted to us, they're about equal environmentally? Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: There is some discussion in the report about preservation easement. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And in two cases it is stated to be determined. Can you give us a little more about that please? Generous: Unfortunately Jill was out of town when we were working on this. Sacchet: I know where they are. The two to be determined but I'd like to know a little bit more what you're going to determine... Generous: Well we're looking at now that we'd probably come in with a 40 foot conservation easement on Lots 4 and 5 on their west property line. That would allow basically the building pads that are shown in the preliminary plat drawings but then we'd have a larger setback if you will along the property line and preserve trees and that also forces them to go out farther for any grading. Because you can't go within the Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 easement for that. So that, but Jill was gone. When we finished she had her initial report and she didn't know for sure and so we sat down today actually and were able to go over that. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification here. Bob, I'm not tracking you I don't think. Condition number 5 that you're recommending on page 10 talks about tree preservation easements in the rear yard and it says 60, there's certain lots and they're usually 60 feet. Did you just say 45 feet... ? Generous: Well for the two that we were, to be determined on the west side so it'd be Lot 4 we're looking at 40 feet. Kind: Of Block 2? Generous: Of Block 2. And the westerly 40 feet of Lot 5. Because we had it's southern boundary already determined but we were working on the westerly boundary. Blackowiak: Block 2 or Block 1 ? Generous: Block 2. Block 1, I'm sorry. Yes. Kind: Okay. And so right now the recommended condition is for Lot 2, Block 1 in the rear 60 foot setback, and did I hear you just change it to 45? Generous: No. For Lot 4. Kind: 40? Generous: 40. Sacchet: Lot 4, Block 1. Generous: It'd be 40. Sacchet: And Lot 5, Block 1, the westerly piece. Blackowiak: Westerly 40. Generous: Right, because we already have the southerly 60 feet. Kind: Got it. Sacchet: Quick 4 questions. The wetland is basically that artificial pond. Generous: Right. Sacchet: How did that become a wetland? Generous: Seeds come into it and it just starts to take on the vegetative characteristics. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: So it actually gets the status of a wetland? Generous: Well it can unless you can do the exemption... Sacchet: It's wet as long as they're... Lookout dwellings on the, I guess that's the north side. Would that have to be graded somewhat to become lookout lots? Generous: Yes. Because it's pretty flat there. Sacchet: That's why I'm asking. Okay. Let's see, the trail easement. That's just to connect from this cul- de-sac south? Where would that go there south? Generous: Well initially it would just go to the property line, but there's a trail in the Curry Farm development that we would make the connection at some time in the future. Sacchet: So it would have, need more development there or what would it take to make that? Generous: Well that could, if the property came in here, we could take it as part of a subdivision. But the Parks Director suggested that maybe in the future we'd look at acquiring that. Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all my questions. Thank you very much Bob. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Any more questions commissioners? Deb, questions? Kind: Ah no. I already asked some. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one quick question. I'm looking at street widths and we're trying to measure here. A 60 foot right-of-way on Knob Hill Lane and that implies a 30 foot street, is that correct? Generous: 31. Blackowiak: I'm sorry what? Sweidan: 31. Blackowiak: 31, okay. And then currently on Knob Hill Lane existing right-of-way and street width. What are those? Sweidan: The same... Blackowiak: So it's exactly the same. Okay. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I have one more quick question. Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: There is this rather extensive correspondence attached from the, relative to the Hegeman property and I assume the Hegeman property is this one? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And so, is the reason why that's in here is that in the context of, and my papers are escaping. In the context of this subdivision we would want them to improve that surface or what? How does this play into the context here please? Generous: It was just submitted as public comment and so anything we get we attach. Really there's no remedy that we can do as part of this development. Because they're not proposing that street anymore. That was already approved. Unfortunately, or fortunately the city, while it has standards for private streets, we view them like we do the public street because we don't accept maintenance responsibility for them. They can show us a cross section that meets the 7 ton design but we don't go and inspect the installation of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: And I don't have any questions at this point so. Claybaugh: I have a question for Bob. Bob, when they do a private street like that, do they ask for results independent testing? Do they require any independent testing on those private drives? Generous: Not that I'm aware of. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane. Can we get that up on, can we get this up on the screen? There we go. I live in this lot here. I'm also a resident off of Knob Hill Lane. I developed the original Knot Hill 1st Addition. There was 12 lots platted to the west of the Donovan parcel that this plat has been drawn on. Just to give you a little background on this parcel. Back in '96, there was quite a debate on taxes for this Donovan parcel. Quoted in the minutes from the, actually almost 6 years to the date by Mayor, the mayor and Colleen Dockendorf and Jim Berquist. It was pretty much agreed upon, I've got the minutes here that this cul-de-sac could handle up to 25 residences with the current city ordinances. We've got 11 that service off it now and 10 are built on. The new subdivision would be an additional 9 lots which would total a total of 20 would be accessed off of Knob Hill Lane. Basically the agreement was, as long as it was noted in my covenants when I developed the first section of Knot Hill, as long as I noted in the covenants the council at that time approved this access for the future extension into this 8 acres or so. That section of my covenants read, to put the Knob Hill Addition owners on notice. Knob Hill Lane has been designed to have the option to service the 10 acres directly to the east of Knob Hill Addition for an extension of another cul-de-sac up in Knob Hill Lane. Also sewer and water's been designed to possibly extend to the east to service this 10 acres. So that's how we kind of got to this point. There was a temporary cul-de-sac put in. A 45 foot cul-de-sac put in at the end of Knob Hill Lane that I believe in this proposed preliminary plat would be removed with new bituminous brought back to just after my driveway, approximately back here. A couple of things to note on, I believe it's Block 2, Lot 1. I would propose that home would, I heard a concern over the lookout on this home. That building pad would probably slip to the back. There is, in the staff report there's been a request that that shed be moved onto 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 the existing home site where in this preliminary plat it's about 1.6 acres with the existing home here. As far as the private drive, my main goal in the original plan that I presented at a neighborhood meeting, which was about 45 days ago, basically I worked on this myself and not being an engineer I strictly was trying to come up with a good plan that would work for the neighbors to the east. Give them some buffer from the roadway, and also enhance an association type property with the tennis court that's there and the vacant land that would be on the east side of the private drive. That's the plan that I've basically endorsed all along. Staff would prefer to see the, a public street and as a result that encroaches heavily on the east neighbors. All these people are basically friends and neighbors of mine and I would really like to see staff and the Planning Commission look at my first plan and make sure that they make the right decision in regards to what plan they're going to recommend. As far as the drainage issues, RLK who I've got a representative here tonight has pretty much assured me that the ponding to the north will be more than adequate. It will probably assist in the drainage of the easterly neighbors. They've got a catch basin between 7 and 8, approximately here that handles their back drainage which eventually goes to the pond which is over hear Ithilien. Or on the other side of Ithilien. So I don't really see where we will be creating any drainage problems for anyone. We've been used pretty much everything else that's gone on with this piece as far as tree preservation. We did a good job on the first addition with preserving the trees in the area, especially on the lots to the south and also on my lot. So I don't presume we're going to have too many problems there. I understand there's a 20 foot tree removal limits on the homes and we're used to that. As far as the pad variances, my understanding is that that's been somewhat resolved with my engineer and staff in regards to that first pad that's in question. Out on this comer here. As far as timing and such, I would appreciate this to get expedited. The homeowners who are the neighbors of mine and in the, I was kind of laughing because in the minutes in 1996 Mr. Donovan had said that he expected to live there another 39 years. And here we're back here 6 years later. The parcel I was hoping that someone would come up with a plan to buy the house and preserve the piece. Put it into some kind of preservation. The sale price that he had on it dimmed my hopes. I didn't want to extend this road, but when the listing came out, one of the listing was for the possibility of a subdivision, including 22 townhomes. And that made my wife and I very nervous. We've got a large investment in our home and my dad lives across the street from us. And then also there was talk of some other builders trying to do some obviously lesser quality homes than what is in the first addition, so as a result you know over the last 2 years Jim had always told me that I would have an opportunity to buy it. I felt a little bit forced into it. I'd prefer that someone would come forward and buy the whole thing and leave it. The only way that's going to happen is if somebody buys that house and signs a preservation agreement on the whole piece. I don't think realistically dollar wise that's going to happen. The house is worth too little and the land is worth too much. Unfortunately our good real estate market, all of us have prospered with our homes and as a result it seemed inevitable as one of Dave Smith's letters said that he wrote to you guys. So as far as, did you have any questions at all? Blackowiak: Are you finished with your presentation or are you just kind of waiting til you're done. John Knoblauch: Sorry I'm getting too long. Blackowiak: No, you know it's your nickel so go ahead. John Knoblauch: Yeah, in regards to the bituminous driveway that you talked about that's adjacent to my father's property, we actually in February of 1999 we offered to put an inch and a half, or a inch and a half lift on that private drive if the homeowners could get along. Unfortunately they haven't got along and we still sit there today with a road that needs another lift. The homeowner that is unhappy with it has had the opportunity to approach me. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: I think as we say that, I guess that's a totally different issue so I don't want to detract from what's in front of us this evening so why don't we kind of focus on what you're bringing to us and let's talk about this. John Knoblauch: But I wanted to make the Planning Commission comfortable that at some point that issue will be handled. I have no doubt in my mind. I've got about 350 happy homeowners out there and mostly from the south metro and with this plat I'm sure you'll have some real nice taxpayers. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners any questions of Mr. Knoblauch right now? Sidney: Yes. I have a question I guess generally. Staff has prepared a report and has recommended a public street. What are your, what is your reaction to the conditions that they've attached and how is, have you discussed this with staff? John Knoblauch: Well, you know Dave Smith who lives here, I went to his house today and our kids are friends and stuff and I would really like to see if a public street is the only route that staff is going to recommend, that somehow we get a bigger buffer between those homes. And I'm not sure how that's going to be accomplished or what not. The trees that are in this area, along these properties, are definitely a concern. Some of them are on the Donovan property now. And he's, actually in his letter he's recommended to try to get a 40 foot buffer there. We've got 10 where the public street. I've got a lot where the private drive. So I guess I prefer to see the private drive with a small cul-de-sac and that will definitely enhance the neighbors to the east. Obviously staff has got to look out for city interest and I understand that. I'm not going to be up here to fight that. And can I address that easement? I definitely, I forgot to address the easement on the park easement. The Stuart property to the south by the way is going to be very, very difficult to develop. The topographical in that area is pretty extreme. The city requiring that, I don't really know if that's too realistic. I'm sure they can maybe if there's some kind of condemnation or something they could do that, but I would be opposed to that easement there. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Bob, can you clarify. I guess I'm not quite tracking on what he's saying. Generous: Are you opposed to the trail easement? John Knoblauch: Well yeah. I don't really think it's highly unlikely that that will ever hook up. Based on what I know of the Stuart property. I mean I'm not going to stand up here and fight tooth and nail that the Park and Rec. Blackowiak: Right, I think that goes before Park on the 26th I believe so until that I think it's premature for us to, I mean you can certainly state your objection but. John Knoblauch: I understand these easements are given for park trails that are maybe 30 years from now too. Blackowiak: Correct. John Knoblauch: I understand how that type of situation. This may be one of those, I don't know. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Yeah, again I'm not sure. That meeting hasn't taken place yet so we'll have to wait. LuAnn, any further questions? Sidney: If I recall you said you had a neighborhood meeting. What were the issues that were raised during that meeting? John Knoblauch: Well at the meeting I had the hand drawn, myself drawing with the private drive and my engineers, I just pretty much had directed them to see if they could make that work. So that plan was shown to them. This public street plan was not shown to them. I did not have that at the time. I wasn't aware that, I don't know when the variance requirement came in on private drives. They're pretty much granted pretty regularly up until 2 years ago. Or so, I'm not sure on exactly when that was adopted so I presume that 4 lots off that private drive was going to be pretty acceptable. And also with our first meeting with staff. The public street came up as obviously the staff's ammo to defend the idea of a private drive and as a result they seem to like that plan better but the neighborhood meeting definitely, a buffer between the, in this area there's no tree buffer. There is a tree line of evergreens right here right now. A pretty decent tree line of evergreens. There's been some concern too about this pad here being too close. In actuality I've got a lot like this is in Shakopee and at this point right here they consider this to be a side yard, and so I only had a 10 foot setback there in Shakopee. And this is considered the rear yard. Directly square with the house. We've pretty much accommodated a 30 foot setback for both and are still able to make that work, but this lot ends up being a pretty large parcel. About 60 by 60 pad. I mean I built two of the homes in Knob Hill I built on 50 by, they were 50 foot deep pads. And they actually had a variance on the front yard of 10 feet, so I'm very confident that those pads will be way more than I need for 2 story homes that have been built in there. But that was the big concern of just pad size here on this lot, and then the buffer along the road side. But at the time they had seen that the tennis court was going to stay, and that's what I prefer to do is just leave it as it is with the private drive. If the public road goes in, obviously the tennis court's got to go, if that's the plan that staff is recommending. And I think that's pretty much the only thing that would be removed. As far as the pond, I don't know if you, the pond has been pretty much confirmed. That was obviously built, man made. There's very little vegetation on it. It has a liner in it with rip rap around the edge of it. It's actually got a fountain in the middle. I will produce aerial photographs with that, not present. It was actually built by Larry Kerber in 1985. So there won't be any wetland issues after that is taken care of, but we will be filling out the proper paperwork for that. And then we have the pond to the north will be pretty much similar, at least water surface. And also in actuality the elevation on the north end of the property suits that pond very well. It's actually 1,000 6 ½ on that far end so it's got natural drainage to it. Plus we'll have storm sewer obviously coming off the street to it so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn, any further questions? Sidney: Not at this time. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a few quick questions. You mentioned that on the first plan you were pretty careful with the environment. The second plan you weren't quite as careful, correct? John Knoblauch: With the? Sacchet: With the public street. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 John Knoblauch: With the public street? Sacchet: Yeah. John Knoblauch: With this one you mean? Sacchet: Yeah. John Knoblauch: Because of? Sacchet: Well, because you don't like it, to be frank. John Knoblauch: Oh, you mean I don't, because I'm a neighbor you mean? Sacchet: Well, I'll get to that in my comments. I was wondering whether you want to say something about that. The way I read the plans, I mean the public street one, the way the lots are configured and the way the building pads are put in, it definitely has a much more significant impact on the environment. It cuts more trees. It's further down into the slope. So I was just curious how aware you were of that. John Knoblauch: As far as the home pads actually you mean 4 and 5 being moved down the slope farther on the? Sacchet: Yes, 4 and 5 in particular. John Knoblauch: Actually I don't think, I'm sorry, 3 and 4. I don't think 3 really changed that much. Sacchet: No, not 3. 4 and 5 are the ones. John Knoblauch: Yeah, 5 has always been pretty much about 30 feet off of this line here. This is probably the one that moved back a little bit. In actuality when I walk down there, it's, these contours here, it's pretty open right there. You can see there's only a few 16. There's a 12 inch box elder. There's one, and then there's an 18 inch box elder but there's one over here. There's a little bit of an opening in there. This has been cleared by Mr. Donovan. I don't know if you've walked it or not but over the years he's actually cleared all the under brush so it's very. Sacchet: It's pretty clear? John Knoblauch: Yeah. It's actually very walkable. There's probably a 6 foot wood chip trail through there. So there's not any really under vegetation that much is going to be affected. It's been very cleared out and the trees are trimmed up. Sacchet: Talk about clearing on your plan with the private drive, the preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan. It says that the tree canopy is going to be removed. Or a very big lot like this whole area here is marked as tree canopy will be removed, and it's much more than just a building pad. So is your plan to basically clear-cut that area? John Knoblauch: No. We try to save trees. I pretty much tell my homeowners, anything within 20 feet of the structure is in jeopardy of dying when we build a house. We need at least 10 feet to operate a bobcat 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 around a backfill, and so I suspect that there will be from yard trees saved. I'm sure of it. And then of course the backs will be... some of these are over wider than 90 so I'm presuming with a 60 foot pad we will save some property line trees. Sacchet: So how do you explain that then this whole blob is marked as canopy to be removed? John Knoblauch: Actually I haven't seen the plan you're looking at so I'm not sure. Sacchet: Okay. Because that kind of threw me for a loop. On the one hand we're talking, trying to preserve trees, and then I look at this and 2/3 or ~ of it is marked as canopy to be removed. John Knoblauch: Yeah, actually the only plan of tree removal I had was with the private drive plan was this. There's kind of a hump on the other side of the tennis court that we would have had to take out right in this area. And that was only, that was basically clipping this comer in order to make these two driveways work. At that time, I mean basically we were going to run private driveways back to the home pads and I would be basically, you know I'd be sticking to the 20 foot tree removal. Now you're right. I mean you run gas and power and sewer and water back and you're going to have some damage. But it's trees are what sells lots so, as you well know, so it sold me on mine and I, so I guess that's, you're not going to see me going and clear cutting that whole area. I don't know what plan you've got there. If that's from the engineer in regards to removing all that but. Sacchet: Well I assume it's the package that you submitted. I mean it's that whole stack of plans that came with the packet. John Knoblauch: Okay. Sacchet: Let's move on. Just a couple more quick questions. This concern about giving access to that Curry Farm outlot. How it's called in our plans. Do you have an issue with that? John Knoblauch: Well, you know I'm just not overly excited about it because I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it will ever get used. Part of the reason is I probably just don't want my kids using that trail. It's probably one of the most dangerous trails you've ever been on in your entire life. They call it billy goat hill and it's, you can't ride your bike down it. It needs to be resurfaced. It's amazing there hasn't been injuries on it. It should really have a guardrail. Sacchet: Where are you, I lost you. Kind: It's a trail and you're talking about the road. Sacchet: I'm talking about the access to that house. That's the one here in the middle. That Curry Farm property is kind of landlocked. I understand your concern about the trail, yeah. I'm clear about that. But another aspect that's mentioned in the staff report is that by bringing the public road further back, that it gives an access to that Curry Farms Outlot C, and I think it has a different name. John Knoblauch: Yeah, we've got a house that has an access already that's already built there. Sacchet: It has an access from the other side? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 John Knoblauch: Right. From Teton, from Ashton Court. Dave Smith's home and one other home that he used to live in is accessed. There's a dual driveway there. Sacchet: So this side is actually considered a back of that house then? John Knoblauch: That's the back of the house, so that's his view out all of his windows. I mean that's why we really wanted the buffer there. Sacchet: That's good to know. Last quick question. This preservation easement for the trees. The way it's being proposed, the 60 feet and possibly less.., or it would interfere with the building pad. You okay with that? John Knoblauch: I'm sorry, what was that again? Sacchet: Staff in their report and in the conditions that they present to us, they're proposing a tree preservation easement for basically the whole westerly and southerly edge of the property. And it's basically 60 foot except in the 2 cases where the 60 foot would interfere with the current building pads. And I wanted to see how you feel about that tree preservation easement there. John Knoblauch: Well I'm obviously in favor of the tree preservation. I mean that enhances the lots. My whole lot is in tree preservation so this parcel here, on the whole east side of my house, some of the trees are 150 years old. All in tree preservation and I granted that with the first plat so I'm actually in favor of any tree preservation we can do on that parcel. I know there's been some concern with the trees but it's, I'll definitely be building probably 50 foot deep, 54 foot deep two stories there. You know I'm going to try to keep the houses up as close to the road as I can obviously because the back yards are going to be steep if, you know especially on Lot 3. So I'm going to be encouraging people as I've worked with all the people in Knob Hill about their homes, to work within the pad area but also we pre-stake the homes typically with the homeowner too so they can actually see what trees can be saved and what can't. So I'm sure that's what we'll be working on, but the tree preservation's great. Sacchet: And the steepness is definitely an aspect as much as the.., but that's all my questions. Thank you very much. John Knoblauch: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners. Deb, questions at all? Kind: No, he left. Blackowiak: He left, okay. Excuse me Mr. Knoblauch. Is there anybody else that you'd like to come up and speak to us? Your engineer or anything. John Knoblauch: No. He wasn't going to make any comments at this time. I think they're working out some of the smaller issues like those, the variances on those pads that we probably won't be dealing with at this time. So he doesn't really have any issues at this time. They haven't done any construction plans or nothing. We're just in the preliminary plat stage so he's just in attendance to see if he's needed so. Blackowiak: Great. Alright, thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Claybaugh: I have a question of Bob. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: Yeah Bob, could you comment on that man made pond. That pond you alluded to earlier that said it established a little catch for vegetation. I was wondering what specifically.., something like that. Generous: Well it's called an incidental pond. Or incidental wetland and if you can show it's a man made water holding body and it wasn't there naturally then it's exempted from the Wetland Conservation Act. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing, and I'm guessing from the number of people still in the audience that you're either here for this or you're here for the Legion so just a couple of ground rules. If you could get up, make sure you state your name and address for the record. Try to limit your comments to 5 minutes. And try not to be terribly redundant. I mean let's try to bring up new issues and make sure that we can fully appreciate all the concerns that the homeowners have. So stating that, this item is open for a public hearing so come on forth. State your name and address for the record. Dave Smith: I'm Dave Smith. I live at 1341 Ashton Court, which is this home right here. And I actually didn't even get notification of the meeting. I was off the list here and this morning while putting together notes here I thought well, I'll share the notes with the neighbor. John came over and I saw the information that you can share your notes with the city as well. Did you, and I dropped off a copy for Bob. I don't know if you guys had gotten this or not. Okay, you have so anyway, just to reiterate. Generous: It's on the back of one of them. Blackowiak: Yeah, it's on the back of the, in order to conserve paper he double copied two sides. So we have one side with the request for item number 2 to be pulled. Turn it over. Look on the back side and that should be his letter. Dave Smith: Just to reiterate maybe some of the things that are on there. I'm not opposed to the development. It's, you know the main issue for me is the proximity of the road to, not only my home but some of the other neighbors here as well. And the first choice would be a private drive. A private drive is less imposing. We could move it over more and have more space. More green space inbetween. More of a buffer zone. I was actually pretty surprised when I did see this plot that it was so close to our back property lines. And looking at this, it looks like we've got big trees here but these trees, these trees here and several others actually would get wrecked in the construction of the road. And so again first choice is a private drive, but at minimum it looks like we've got enough size here so that we could move the road over perhaps as far as 40 feet. And so that way we're not all looking out our windows onto all the asphalt that's back there. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Excuse me Madam Chair, is it possible if I ask this person a question? Blackowiak: Certainly. A quick question is fine. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: You're the person who's in that house that staff is recommending giving access from the road or? Dave Smith: No, I don't, I'm not sure what Bob was referring to when he was talking about that. Blackowiak: Okay Bob. Sacchet: Can you point out which one you are? Blackowiak: Yeah, let's clarify this. Sacchet: Because that's important. Dave Smith: I live right here. Okay, this home right here. Blackowiak: Outlot C. Dave Smith: Outlot C, which actually is accessed from this side. My garage is facing this direction. I mean there would be no way that I would want access from this street. Sacchet: That's why I want to ask you about this because according to staff, this lot is considered land locked, is that correct Bob? Generous: Not land locked. We noted that it was accessed via private street. However it does not front on a public right-of-way. Sacchet: It doesn't front on a public right-of-way. Generous: So the adjustment in the right-of-way was to make some other changes in the plat and to do that we needed to. Sacchet: Okay, so now that it's established that you are the person with that property, do you have any interest whatsoever to have access from this new road? Dave Smith: No. The front of my home is oriented to the other side so. Sacchet: Thank you. That answers my question. Dave Smith: One other thing. Private driveway has been no problem for me so I mean it works. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Chad Haasken: My name is Chad Haasken. I live at 1376 Ithilien, which is Lot 8 right here. One of the bigger concerns if it does go through is going to be primary this lot here. As the elevation on this was shown is it's, I wrote in the letter that I wrote to you, I can't remember what the elevation height was but right now I definitely have more ponding right now as in how it sits and I do believe that unless you make it at least a foot below grade, you're still going to have some type of ponding, more ponding on my property. And I think that this is definitely going to be very, very close to my property. Obviously I'm used to looking at the pond right here right now and you can put 3 houses there and it's going to devalue my 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 property when I go and try to sell it. Obviously I don't want to be looking at houses so that's my biggest objection is I don't want to be looking at houses and a driveway and all that kind of stuff. That's about all my concerns except the ones I wrote in the letter to you. I don't know if you have any questions about any of the concerns that I wrote in the letter. Blackowiak: Any questions for Mr. Haasken? Chad Haasken: It was the Chad Haasken. Blackowiak: Right, Chestnut Realty. Chad Haasken: Yep. Blackowiak: Got that one. Claybaugh: You indicated that some of your neighbors also had some ponding, correct? Chad Haasken: Jeff gets some sometimes. I mean I have the main drain going right down mine and Jeff Smith's property right here. I don't know, I haven't really walked my neighbor's back yard lately to see about anything. If they're having a lot ofponding. I know mine is. Claybaugh: Yeah, sure. That answered my question. Bob, assuming, trying to looking at the grading lines here but I'm assuming everything's going to drain down to that retention pond from everything in Block 2? Correct? Sweidan: Yes. Most of the grading actually collected by this street is going to be conveyed by storm sewer system to the storm pond. And the 3 lots, there's no drainage toward the east, toward his lot. It's actually going toward the north. Claybaugh: Toward the north towards the retention pond. Sacchet: Madam Chair, in the same context, is there, since there is really a dip in those two back yards, is there anyway that that could be drained into that new retention pond? Sweidan: The back yard drainage, it's going to flow normally, according to that proposed drainage to that pond so it shouldn't be any like concern... Sacchet: So it should actually naturally flow in there? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: So his concern, his situation would actually improve? Sweidan: Actually the whole design of the whole, it would improve the drainage problem he's complaining about because if you look at the existing drainage, most of that cul-de-sac half of the road is draining toward these 2 lots. Lot 6 and Lot 7. I mean Lot 7 and Lot 8. Whereas that existing pond right now there. With this street, now they are gathering or they are actually collecting the surface drainage from the street and the cul-de-sac, conveyed by a storm sewer to the proposed pond. So it is almost like half or let's say 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 three-fourth of the surface existing drainage is conveyed by storm sewer system. So it should be less problem for him. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Mike Preble: Hi. My name is Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien which is on the comer of Lilac and the Donovan property and two comments. One, I support Mr. Knoblauch's desire to develop this property and I would hope that what's finally recommended would be of most benefit to the existing homes that are already along the eastern border of the property here. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. When you say what's being proposed, do you mean the private street or the public street? Mike Preble: Personally I would like to see a shorten public street with private drive. That would be, or sliding it over somewhat, I don't know what the footage would be but to create something along here. My house, I have a very nice comer lot here looking up into a very nice set of woods and view is important. Blackowiak: Certainly. Mike Preble: It's nice to hang out and look and also I'm wondering about if property values would be affected or not. I would expect they would be, you know if your property would go down in value because of a road here versus if you slid it over a little bit. Not really affecting this value, keeping here the value that it already has. That would be great. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mike Preble: Thank you. Debra Hegeman: I'm scared to death. Blackowiak: Oh we're fun. You don't need to be scared. Debra Hegeman: I'm the culprit that put all that extra information in your packets about 1459 Knob Hill Lane. I'm Debra Hegeman. This is my husband Cramer. We live on the end of the 300 foot private drive and while that specific problem cannot be addressed here tonight, I'd like to tell you the problems that we have experienced with a private drive that because we were naive, dumb maybe, didn't ask the right questions, what we've come to experience. What we found out after we moved into the house was that the lot next to us, which had a proposed driveway pad that was engineered was not built according to the engineered plan. Can you force someone to do that? No. But the result was they built a driveway pad that you can fit basically one car on to mm one car around. So we are left with a very expensive home with a decent sized driveway pad on our property that borders a private road that runs past us that is burdened by trucks, vans, Simon Delivers, UPS, turning around in our driveway within 12 inches of our garage doors. We're not real happy about it. When we explored further, after the first say 6 to 8 months that we were in the house, we noticed that the road was breaking up. The edges were breaking off. There started to be rutting. So I asked Teresa Burgess, City Engineer to come and take a look at the road. And she came out. She walked the road with me and I said what's the problem? And she said it appeared to be, in her 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 judgment, that the sub-soils or the sub-base was failing and that even if you put asphalt on top of it, within a short period of time it would break up again. Based on that I asked her what I should do and she suggested that well, you really need to know what's underneath it so we ordered core drilling and testing. This took 2 days because Mr. Knoblauch and his father tried to stop us over a 2 day period and the sheriffs had to be called, everything was crazy. Core drilling was done. In the report that was attached we referenced 13 bituminous samples that were taken. Actually over 20 samples were taken because our driveway is made of concrete and underneath the concrete samples were taken also, and everything failed. Our problem is, Metro Properties was the development company that built the road. We have a building agreement document with Deutsch Construction who constructed our home. We were not smart enough to know that how you tie the road to the house. Is there an implied contract? We're still in litigation to find out. Mr. Knoblauch did agree, or did send us a letter in July of 1999 saying well, if you pony up $3,000 I'll give you some money towards that and we'll fix the road, the 3 of us. But we also knew, already knew the road wouldn't be fixed by a lift. So we have declined his offer. If you drive down Knob Hill Lane, come visit my house. You will see the problem. The as-built drawings that were submitted and approved by the city per engineered drawings say that the road is supposed to be 20 feet wide and then reduced to 16 feet wide after it passes my driveway. He had approval for that. The driveway's only 10 feet wide. People cannot mm around. Fire trucks and emergency vehicles could not get back through there easily. Could they get through there? Yeah, if they drive on my lawn in my landscaped area. That's my front yard. I've invested several thousand dollars in a 3 tier waterfall on my front yard. That's a 30 foot box truck from Simon Delivers using my property to make a delivery to the neighbor. This is what I go through 3 times a week with various delivery companies. Based on us living on a private road. My concept of living on a private road was that it would be more private. I wouldn't have public traffic. I wouldn't have this burden. Instead this truck is 24 inches from my garage door. So before you approve any private road. It's not just this one. Any private road, talk to the city about going through the set of checks and balances, number one to make sure that it's structurally sound, because mine is not. Make sure that there's some type of requirement that says if you submit as-built drawings, that that's what's there. It's not. That's my comments. That's my husband's comments .... do you have any questions? Blackowiak: Commissioners? No. Thank you. Mike Brandes: Hi. I'm Mike Brandes. I live at 6411 Teton Lane. I'm probably the second closest property to the proposed road line. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Could you, could we look at the map and can you just point where you are so we can all get a feel for that. North should be at the top. Okay. You're at the south end then? Mike Brandes: Right. Actually the southeast comer of the proposed property. Blackowiak: Okay. Lot 11 ? I'm sorry, would that be. Generous: Lot 6. Blackowiak: Lot 11, okay. Mike Brandes: I'm on Lot 11. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Mike Brandes: My question is, I don't think, we haven't seen the map of the private drive and I'm curious what the setback would be for the road on a private drive versus a public. I assume this is a public road. Blackowiak: Yes. Mike Brandes: And how far back would this road be in a private drive scenario? Okay. I've heard a number of people saying they want the private drive but I don't think anybody's seen it. At least as drawn. And I prefer the private drive obviously. More space from the lot line. Other than the concerns... So that'd be my only comment. I'd prefer the private drive and the setback from the existing property line. Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. David Slotten: My name's David Slotten. I'm at 6401 Teton Lane. Basically I'm the lot right south of Mike's, which there isn't a house on the map. So that's just those blank. Basically I'm facing right there so my lot basically, I've got mostly all the trees in this subdivision. That's all I'm looking on my whole back line. I guess one concern I had, I guess what I'm looking at is the farther you move it back the better so I guess I support the private drive. But one thing concerned me, and I guess this is the first time I've heard about the extending the bike path. Would that be, see I got that going right along the south end of my house. Now I'm not quite sure how you would extend it unless you went right along the back end of my lot line, and I guess that would just be taking out more trees. Blackowiak: I unfortunately do not, haven't seen any plan yet. That does go to the Park and Rec Commission on the 26th of this month. David Slotten: Okay, because I hadn't ever heard of that. Blackowiak: Okay. So it will be, they'll be reviewing it then. We have not seen any plan. Bob, can you help me out at all? Generous: It hasn't been to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks Director told me that that would be his recommendation. That we take the easement now as part of this plat and then at some time in the future we'd make the connection. However, as part of this development there is a water line being stubbed down this so that's going to take out the trees. It would follow that alignment. Blackowiak: Okay, so then the trail then would go basically on the southeast comer so that the easement would be on that area? Generous: Right. Right along the property line. Blackowiak: Right along the property line on the Knob Hill 2nd Addition. Okay. David Slotten: Be going north along the property line? Blackowiak: Yes. Generous: Yes. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 David Slotten: So basically you're going to be taking out all the big trees anyway then. Blackowiak: It doesn't look, according to the plan like. David Slotten: Because it looks to me like the house, the plot is right on the property line of my house. My lot and like Mike's. We're looking into the side of it. Generous: Yes. David Slotten: You know and we're looking at an easement but if you're going to be running, putting a house there and running a bike path through there, I don't, I mean it's totally going to take everything out. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just going to say the houses is more intrusive in this case I think than the trail would be. It appears that the trail would not impact any trees based on the. David Slotten: But between the, I mean between the, I mean right now if you look out my back yard, I mean you're looking up at solid trees. Blackowiak: Right. But are they on your property or are they on the neighbor's property? David Slotten: No, they're on the neighbors. And that's all I'm looking up to I guess. I don't know how the drainage goes but hopefully nothing's draining right back into our yards. Blackowiak: We're trying to look at the, I'm sorry, at the tree canopy calculation. I just don't see anything but again, if you're interested in this I would strongly recommend you to go and, go to the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting on the 26th. I think they're at 7:00, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: In this location. David Slotten: But I'm just thinking in a combination of this, you know I know that it's inevitable it's going to get developed, but it'd be nice to have some trees there except otherwise they're just looking right into my back yard. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, no I certainly understand what you're saying but I think that they would probably be able to give you a little more specific information as to exact location and timing. Okay. David Slotten: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Claybaugh: Madam Chair, point of clarification with Bob? Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: That's the 6 inch dove tail line pipe? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: Yes. Claybaugh: that they've extended through. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Go ahead. Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on 21640 Lilac Lane, and I don't have comments so much as I have two questions. The first question is, is there any.., from Lilac Lane? Blackowiak: Okay. Well we'll just answer these questions one at a time. Bob, would you like to take that? Generous: The City would maintain access for maintenance purposes for the pond but not public access. It wouldn't be a street into the project. Blackowiak: So it wouldn't be paved. Would it be just a trail or what would it look like? Generous: Grass most likely. Blackowiak: Grass? Okay. Eric Danser: And the second question is too, and just, if you can just tell me real briefly, what is the difference between a public street and a private street? I mean where is the big difference? Why such a concern about this? Is a public street wider than a private street? Generous: The design is 11 feet wider pavement width. The right-of-way width is 30 feet versus 60 feet for a public right-of-way. But the ultimate design is a 7 ton I believe is the same. And a public, private street may only be used to access 4 homes. A public street you can access as many as fit. Eric Danser: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Diane Wyffels: Hi. My name is Diane Wyffels. I live right on 6421 Teton Lane, right next to Dave and right inbetween Dave and Mike. And I would prefer that you have a private drive because I have a lot of asphalt that will be going right by my back yard as well. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mike Hatch: My name is Mike Hatch. I live at 1392 Ithilien and that's the home right next to Dave's here. I would be right there. I am in favor of the private drive if it's done correctly obviously. I sell real estate for Remax and obviously this development is going to affect all the surrounding houses as far as appreciation and re-sale. I think that the private driveway would give us that same feeling when we look out of our windows in the back, all of us here enjoy that view of this open land, the pond and all that. Keeping the tennis court in a park area here would only enhance the views that we still have. Obviously some of the folks down here are going to be affected regardless of what we do. In regards to the drainage issue that Chad was talking about, I'm not sure how drainage works but when it does come down, it comes down all along the back yards of our properties here now and in heavy rains it accumulates pretty nice 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 where there's a stream about 4 feet wide. So when Chad brings up that point about the drainage, if that would affect that, that's only going to add to that and I think a majority of these houses that are built on clay so a lot of that drainage issue is going to be intensified by the development so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Cindy Doms: I'm Cindy Doms and I live on 6398 Teton Lane and I actually live between Dave Smith and the Wyffels. This property would not affect me directly, but sort of any kitty comer, indirectly it would definitely affect my view. That is all on my back yard and I just want to say that I am for the development and I'm for the private drive for the sake of the view I bought my property. I have a half acre of land for privacy and for view. And I'm just hearing that the public street would cause, have less of a better view than what the private would be and I trust the Knoblauch's with their design and so I just want to put my vote in for the private drive. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Jim Quiring: My name is Jim Quiring and I live between Mr. Hatch and Chad here. I think it's Lot 9, if you're looking at the map. And I'm kind of directly affected as much as anybody is because it's kind of where the curve goes into the public street. The original design with the private street is much less intrusive, or whatever the word is, so I would put my vote in on that. But I also want to back up Chad because my house, as I say is between these two and we were one of the original houses built there and since Dave's house has come in... had a creek running through my back yard every spring which would wash out the grass and the bottom of the creek, and by mid-summer it would grow back. Well this past year since Dave's house has been there, it never did grow back so I know the drainage has been affected by Dave's house and I can only imagine that it would be by these other houses as well. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mark Shole: Hello. My name is Mark Shole. I'm with RLK. We're the engineers for Metro Area Properties and I kind of had a question in regards, there is briefly the watermain extension was brought up and I just kind of had a question. We were directed by staff to extend that watermain to the south property line and we went ahead and drew that and then we had asked staff if the extension all the way to the south property line was indeed necessary. They said that they would take a look at the developability of the property to the south and see if indeed that stub would be necessary to connect or to loop watermains in the future and my question would be for staff if they looked into that matter and if we do indeed need that, that watermain stub going beyond the cul-de-sac. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, staff. Who'd like to tackle that? Sweidan: We usually always try to make the watermains to be looping and we are expecting like a future development to the south part of it so that's why we are ending it with a... valve and to be extended in the future. And that's like.., recommended of future extension. Blackowiak: Right, so it's smarter to do it now than to come back. Sweidan: Exactly. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Okay, would anybody else like to get up before I close the public hearing? One last call. Alright, seeing no one else I will close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make their comments. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question of staff maybe before we get into comments. Blackowiak: Sure. Kind: I'm vacillating between this private drive/public street scenario and I'm wondering if there's a compromise position. Do we have to have a 60 foot right-of-way? Can we work with a 50 foot and would that allow the road to be side? I'm not sure if the neighbors are aware, what's drawn on here is not pavement. That's the full right-of-way of what the city owns, and that the pavement would be 31 feet. But do we really need 60 feet right-of-way? Sweidan: Well 50's workable. I'm not saying that is not workable but it's not going to affect the seeing, if it's 50 or 60. There's no difference in the seeing if they are looking from that point. But that width of the pavement is 31 fixed 31. Kind: That's fixed at 31, no budging on the width of a public street? Sweidan: No. Kind: But if we budge on the width of the right-of-way, we could slide the street. Sweidan: We could, yeah. Blackowiak: To the south. Oh, west. Excuse me. I'm looking, I'm thinking that's north. Okay. Kind: West, yeah. Because the alignment that's on the private street, why couldn't we get something a little more close to that is where the road positions. Blackowiak: Well I think, Deb just let me. The private drive is not showing any right-of-way. That's one big difference. That's just showing actual pavement width, so I think that's one thing that's somewhat deceptive. Looking between the two plans. We're not really comparing apples to apples. Kind: But since the Curry Farms, Mr. Smith does not need access, there would be room to maybe slide the public street to the west a bit. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Madam Chair, could I ask a question too of staff? Blackowiak: You certainly may. Sacchet: How are we doing with the time line? For this application. Generous: We're good. They need to have final review by March 19th. Or we take an extension. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Thank you. That was my question. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Well let's go and move to comments. Commissioners. Would you like to, go ahead. Sidney: Yeah, this is a really tough application to look at. I have mixed feelings. I think Commissioner Kind probably expressed a bit of that is that the private street has some appeal in that it would create a buffer to the east. However, I guess I have still a problem with the fact that based on the private street findings, and looking at that, one of the things that we have to look at very carefully is somehow the only thing that we can do in this city is to provide a private street. In this case there did not appear to be any problems with the topography or this parcel so that a public street can be constructed, and if that's the case we should move toward constructing a public street. I'm not sure if I really see the optimum plan before us at this point and that's I think the problem I have. We've been drawing and drawing on the plan here at this end of the commission and trying to come up with various scenarios and I guess I'm not really happy with what I see in that case either so I'm a little bit perplexed as to how to proceed. I think we're still not there in terms of where the plan stands. I'm voting for the public street option but the plat we see before us, like I said, I don't think is optimum in my view. And I guess I don't have any strong feelings that the private street would preserve more trees. Still with any building that's going to be done, we are going to lose trees. As long as we can maintain the easements that are proposed, I believe that's the way I'd want to go. So with those thoughts I guess I'll pass it onto Uli maybe. Blackowiak: Comments? Sacchet: Yeah. You know I'm very clear about this. This is totally not clear. Neither of the two solutions is the right solution as far as I'm concerned. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I feel that there should be a give and take. This should be something to be considered. The private drive is too extensive and bringing the public road all the way to the back with the full cul-de-sacs is also extensive. Too extensive. There needs to be something inbetween the two. Consideration of a flag lot. Consideration of accessing 2, maybe 3 lots from a private street. Preferably than 4. The cul-de-sac being somewhere around where the tennis court is maybe a little further but away from the property lines and obviously the neighbor to the west, east. That is to the east, has no interest of getting access. I feel very strongly that this needs to be further, this is not cooked. I mean this return to sender, I'm sorry. And I'm very, very uncomfortable about this grading plan that shows like ~ or certainly 2/3 of the canopy to be removed. Now this might be a mistake but that's what's submitted to us along with the plans that show the private road. I mean that's horrendous environmental damage. That is definitely not a good idea. Now, I do believe that the building pads on Lot 4 and 5 I believe this is, need to be moved out of the drop off. They're too far down into the slope. It may not make that much of a difference with the trees, but it's certainly impacting in a negative way that they go that far into the drop off. Also, the building pad on Lot 6, I like to see moved further north that is away from the drop off and wooded area. I would like to see a 60 foot tree preservation all around, which at this point is not possible because with the public street, at least 2 of the building pads would touch into that. It's the comers that go into the real drop off, so I'd like to see that 60 foot preservation go all the way around. Now, the preservation of the tennis court is not realistic even with the private drive. I think that's a total illusion. I don't see how that could stay there even with the private drive. That's definitely not, I don't see it. In terms of the variance for the pads to the north, obviously that's not an issue. Neither is the wetland. That's a non-issue as well. The issue with the trail easement is obviously park and rec situation, and that will be addressed there. So in terms of the findings, the finding number 5 where staff proposes that the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval, I really don't agree. I think that actually 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 looking at the plans and I was trying to figure out how aware the applicant was of that. That actually the private street proposal has less environmental damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the public street is going to have more in the end if it's fine tuned. Obviously the applicant has absolutely no interest fine tuning the environmental impact of the alternate, with the public street so that needs to be looked at so with the current proposal, both of them, I find there is excessive environmental damage. With the private street plan we have this canopy removal of about ~ or 2/3 of the trees with the public street, they're pushing several building pads down the slope into the drop off and further into the trees so I do not agree with those findings that I think with both plans, the environmental damage is unacceptable and it can be mitigated. It's not like there are extraneous circumstances...to improve. So on that basis I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled and come back with a better proposal. Sidney: Madam Chair? I guess one comment, a question for staff maybe to follow up my comments. In conditions 28 and 29, you have a number of things listed Bob that talk about the utility plan and grading plan. Is this now revisions that would be made to the private street plan to convert it into the public street? Or how is this, or. Generous: Well the utilities, Madam Chair, Commissioner. The utility plan they didn't show one per se for the public streets, but it could be realigned very easily so it would work for both of them. Sidney: Okay. Generous: Grading plan, none of those really can, pertain to the roadway. It's more the house, the storm water pond and the site grading. Sidney: Okay. So for the public street option we really don't have those plans completed in front of us? Generous: No. They'd be very similar to the private. It's just a wider right-of-way width. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I favor the public street way, route. Mostly because there's no findings that we can come up with to grant a variance for it. But I would like to figure out a way to do a 50 foot right-of- way and slide, since Smith's don't want access, let's slide it away as far as possible and make it as nice as it can be for the neighbors. The drainage, I am comfortable with engineering's read of the grading plan. That it will actually improve the situation. And especially with a public street because that will have manholes and convey water to the drainage pond. Another reason to support the public street I guess. So I'm in favor of the public street and deny the two variance requests. Whether it should come back to us, I guess I would be in favor of taking a look at it one more time again with direction that, to revise that right- of-way and get that alignment as far away from the neighbors as possible. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: Yes. The three elements that stood out obviously were view, drainage and the buffer issue. I think the last minute rush to accommodate both a public and a private plan leaves some holes in the dialogue. I'm not sure if different sections of some of the recommendations and such, which plan we're talking about and it's a little bit confusing for myself. I believe that through better alignment of the road 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 and I think some additional clarification by staff engineering for the residents, I think that some of the buffer concerns can be addressed. I think that the drainage issues with a public road lend themselves toward the water problems that the neighbors to the east are having currently. I believe that, at this time anyways with these plans, that the public roads portrayed in it's probably fullest or worst possible view with the private road being shown with minimum width and minimum impact is being shown in it's best possible view. Like my fellow commissioners, I don't feel like I'm prepared to act on it at this point. I'd like to see further refinement of the public access and I would encourage further dialogue with the neighbors to the east with respect to the benefits of that private road, or the public road, and try and see that in it's best light. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. My comments are not dissimilar. I certainly agree that we, were we to permit a private street serves 3 criteria that have to be met and they are not met. So given that, we as a commission need to again move forward and deny the private street. Which is not to say that the public street is optimal right now. I agree with Commissioner Kind's thoughts that right-of-way could be decreased from 60 to 50 feet allowing the shift west of the road, and that would I think help out not only the views but also the general feeling for the neighbors to the east, and also potentially allow Block 2, Lots 1, 2 and 3, to potentially be slid a little bit forward and therefore possibly eliminating the need for the variance on Lot 1, Block 2. In addition, changing the easement needed would potentially help Uli on Lots 4, 5 and 6, sliding those closer so I think we can accomplish a lot of the goals that we as a commission are hoping to achieve I guess in this plan. So at this point I'm leaning towards tabling it and also giving some direction to the applicant as to what we'd like to see. However, because the review deadline is November, or excuse me. November. Don't I wish. March 19th, I would need the applicant to agree that we as a commission can have extra time to review this and to waive the 60 day review deadline. So I can't, Mr. Knoblauch, are you, there you are. If we indeed table this tonight, and I'm saying that that's the direction it's appearing that it's going to go, we're going to ask for further refinement on the plans. Would you agree to an extension of the 60 day review? In other words, extend the deadline from March 19th SO we as a commission could have additional time to review revised plans that you would submit. John Knoblauch: I would be heavily against that. The property, this is pretty much already. Blackowiak: You know what, can you step up to the microphone and we'll just get that on the record so, make sure everyone can hear what we're saying. John Knoblauch: Yeah, the property's been pretty much, if we come in with a new, with a revised plan there won't be any variances. And as far as moving the road over, I mean we can make every effort to do that with the 50 foot right-of-way. That was one of my original suggestions to staff was to try to come up with a different plan that would leave some buffer when they originally approached me and asked if this could be done as a private, as a public street. One of the factors that we've always looked at is tree removal and the tree removal on the existing home, as the curve of the road steers away from the east line, it will dig into the hillside of the existing home and there is some pretty significant large trees on the other side too. And that was kind of a balance we were trying to create there. The other thing that I would mention is is that the tree canopy calculations for this property do fit into your ordinance, if I'm correct on that Bob. Generous: Yes. John Knoblauch: So the calculations have already been done. I really don't see a point in delaying this for an extra. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: For an extra 30 days roughly. John Knoblauch: Yeah, it really isn't probably necessary. I'm sure staff and RLK who work good together, can come up with a hopefully a little bit more of a bend in the street and I don't think we can address all of your concerns on, you know I mean we can do the best with the preservation. Unfortunately this property, I mean ideally from a developer's perspective, this thing would be, have no hillside and no trees. From a developer's standpoint we'd run a road right down the middle and I'd have lots on both sides but unfortunately. Blackowiak: Right. Well I guess what I'm trying to, I think what I'm trying to facilitate right now is, the option for you to come back with a plan that is more palatable. That is more complete before it goes to City Council. Now, at this point we're looking at tabling and we're giving you that chance to come back with a more finished, a more polished presentation. But if that's not what you want to do, then you can choose to go forward to City Council with this and that's not a problem. I mean that is your option so, I guess it's, so either you choose to, you know put a little more effort into it and to modify or to go ahead with it as is. So I guess that's my question to you. John Knoblauch: Yeah, I would like to expedite the project as best we can. I'm very confident with the amount of information we have now that there can be come adjustments made to create a small buffer between the easterly property line. My concerns is I don't think you know this is, I've been through, this isn't my first bar-be-que as I often say and you know, but a lot of times these developments that I've been involved in seem like the Middle East crisis. There's really not a solution for everybody. And so I would ask for the Planning Commission's understanding in that. Blackowiak: Well certainly we can take a vote tonight if that's what you would prefer. John Knoblauch: I would prefer, if you're going to table it, I would prefer to come back at the next meeting with our polished plan with, I don't think you're going to see, you know great changes in the plan. I know Bob has spent, you know I've had staff give their recommendations. I've had them look at it privately. Our engineers have looked at it extensively. There isn't really a, because of the topographical and the dimension of the property, which is kind of a, what do you call it? A boot size or something. Holster size property, it's a different piece to develop. I mean that was brought up in 1996, and that's why there's only 8 lots and they're 20, average 27,000 square feet. Your minimum lot size is 15,000 so you know I guess that's what I would propose is that we come back to your next meeting and try to look at the private drive issues. I'll talk with Dave Smith. Blackowiak: Okay, so you kind of went full circle there. So first you were saying you wanted us to act on it so then will you grant us the extension therefore so we can go ahead and table it tonight? That's the question I have for you. John Knoblauch: Well I'm not sure. I don't do that much development. So you're saying that we wouldn't make the next meeting. Your Planning Commission meeting on your date is what? Blackowiak: It would probably, well our next meeting's the 5th but unfortunately we have to put legal. Well not unfortunately. We put legal notices in the paper, excuse me, and we don't have enough time to get the meeting noticed to the proper people. So it would not be physically possible to see it on the March 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 5th meeting. We could, Sharmin, correct me if I'm wrong, see it on March 19th. Does that sound reasonable? And that would assume that you get your plans in by, give me a date. By March 5th? A1-Jaff: 2 weeks, 3 weeks in advance. Blackowiak: That would really be pushing it. Yeah, so I understand your time constraints and I'm trying to be sensitive to that but I am trying to give you the chance to really put the best plan forward and make the best possible plan you know for the City Council. John Knoblauch: Yeah, if basically we can come in with a revised plan you're saying March 19th, I'm pretty confident of that and you know if we can get into council, is it 2 weeks after that? Generous: No, it would be the first meeting in March, which I don't have a calendar. Or April. John Knoblauch: Okay, it'd be the first council meeting in April for preliminary plat approval. Yeah, I mean it's obvious. I mean we're not going to get it passed tonight so. Blackowiak: Correct. So it's do you want us to table it or do you want to vote on it as is? That's really the question. John Knoblauch: Yeah, I guess I would prefer to table it and I'm sure Mark can work with Bob and get it handled for the 19th. Blackowiak: Okay, so then I need to, then you understand that I need you to just say that you will grant us the extension from the review deadline. John Knoblauch: Yes, I'll grant the extension from the review deadline. Blackowiak: Okay. Because by state law we have to review everything within 60 days and we can't meet that 60 day deadline when we table so we just need to understand that that's okay and you understand what we're doing and...We need it in writing too so scratch it on a piece of paper and sign it, that's fine. It doesn't have to be terrible formal but just so we all understand each other. Okay, with that I need a motion. Sidney: Motion. Blackowiak: Go ahead LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. We got one motion which is that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report. Kind: I'll second that motion. I have a friendly amendment just to tack on, and the denial of the variance for the 60 by 60 foot building pad requirement. Just deny them both in the same motion. Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: If we table this, are we still voting on the variance? Kind: We're voting on the variance right now. Sacchet: Shouldn't this be tabled as a whole thing? Blackowiak: Are we going to table as a whole thing I guess. Kind: We might as well let him know we're not accepting the variance. Sacchet: As it is proposed now. Kind: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Blackowiak: We'll go ahead. There's been a motion and a second. Sidney moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report, and denial of the variance for the 60 by 60 foot building pad requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Okay. Next. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission tables approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition as submitted. Blackowiak: Okay. Been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission tables approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2"d Addition as submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5to0. Sidney: Madam Chair, direction for staff? Blackowiak: Yes. So I was going to say, we need some direction here. So I think we all made some comments concerning I think in general the wish for a public street rather than a private street. We would like staff to work with the applicant to look at reducing the right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet. Possibility of shifting that public street to the west a little bit, and in that same vein realignment of Lots 1, 2, and 3, 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Block 2. Pulling them a little bit closer, a little bit further to the southeast or southwest actually that would be. And same thing with Lot 1. Or Block 1, Lots 4, 5 and 6. Potentially just shifting as available to pull them a little bit away from the slope and the trees back there. And then also Uli had talked about a 60 foot preservation easement, tree preservation easement around the entire thing. Look into that. Commissioners, anything to add that I'm missing here. Sidney: I guess encourage the applicant to bring this before the neighbors again for discussion. Blackowiak: And I know we have kind of a short time line but we want to try to keep this moving through and just keep the lines of communication open. Any other comments? Alright, and I'd like to thank all the neighbors tonight who got up and took their time to speak before us this evening. We really appreciate that. And right I'm going to take a 5 minute recess before item number 4 which is the project for the Legion site. So 5 minutes, we'll be right back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 5.584 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,617 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, PARK NICOLLET 1sT ADDITION, AMERICAN LEGION POST #580. Public Present: Name Address John Keeler Don Magee Kenneth M. Wicklund Bernie Hamilton Joey Townsend Paul Differding Eric H. Weidner Bob Meuwissen Steven Lillehaug Pat Hallisey Dean Williamson 75 Thomas Lane 7995 Great Plains Boulevard 3970 Linden Circle 7995 Great Plains Boulevard 8043 Erie Avenue 7228 Frontier Trail 7031 Redwing Lane 201 West 77th Street 1441 Heron Drive 1304 West Medicine Lake Drive, Plymouth 6029 Killarney Lane, Edina Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak:: Alright commissioners, questions for staff? Any questions Deb? Kind: Yes I do Madam Chair. Sharmin, you did a great job of hitting most of my questions. The one, couple of questions. On the recommended conditions, I'm on page 19. Number 6 talks about a detailed lighting plan and it appears that there is a lighting plan in our packet. I'm assuming that you mean, you want more specifics about fixtures and that sort of stuff. A1-Jaff: Yes. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Kind: Maybe put a little added language in there for clarity. And then condition number 20 that you're recommending on page 21 is not really worded as a condition. I assume you're open to re-wording that to get more of a condition. A1-Jaff: Yes. Kind: And then number 28. Is that one affected, this is on page 22. Is that condition affected by this new change of where that right-in/right-out is going to be located? A1-Jaff: No. It still remains the same. Kind: For clarity would it make sense to include in there where it's to be located? A1-Jaff: Sure. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard from future Lot 1, Block 1. Kind: Shall be restricted. A1-Jaff: Shall be restricted to. Kind: That helps me for clarity. And then I noticed you got the recycling condition that's new. That looks good. A1-Jaff: If I may add one condition. Commissioner Kind asked me to add, she called it Uli's condition. Kind: Oh yes. Sacchet: Thank you. Sidney: What is it Uli? Kind: On number 20. Sacchet: I was very happy to see it in there. A1-Jaff: It should, we need to add silt, to condition number 20. We need to add silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. Kind: Which is known as the Uli condition. A1-Jaff: Yes. Kind: That's it for me for staff. Blackowiak: Okay. Other questions? Do you have questions? Sacchet: Yes. I have some questions. First of all, I'm still a little unclear where those not contrasting medallions are. If you could just help me out of that. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 A1-Jaff: Sure. Sacchet: It's those squares on top of what is like columns between the windows? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. I was just wanted to confirm. A1-Jaff: And if you look at your material. Sacchet: Yeah, they're not contrasting. It's very definite. A1-Jaff: This is what you will be looking at. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. A1-Jaff: We suggested something more in the. Sacchet: That would be a contrast. Then I just want to clarify, the way this plan is in front of us, pretty much all the trees are gone. Is that an accurate observation? Except just those couple scraggly ones that happen to be on the comer there. Southwest comer that is. A1-Jaff: That is an accurate statement. There are quite a, some of those trees are dead. Sacchet: Some of them aren't in good shape. Some of them are. Actually some of them in the comer that don't get affected are dead. That's one of the problems I have. The ones that are not in the way are actually not in so good shape and the ones in good shape are seem to be pretty much all of them in the parking lot. A1-Jaff: That's true. Sacchet: Okay. Just want to make sure that I read this correctly. I don't want to read too much into it. Now in the past we used to say no to Colorado Spruce and have them do Black Hills Spruce. I don't know, that's kind of a Jill question but there's definitely Colorado Spruce specified in this, and I don't know, do we have a change in the. A1-Jaff: I can check with Jill on that. Sacchet: Yeah. A1-Jaff: I'm not a tree expert but if there is... Sacchet: Yeah, in the past you used to have conditions that you would say they should do Black Hills Spruce or different than Colorado Spruce because our climate is I believe too humid or something that they don't do so well here. I'm not the expert but, so I want to make sure we're consistent. Now, one thing that kind of startled me on page 9, when it talks about the grading it says that the applicant will extend the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 NURP pond and then will be responsible for maintaining it because if they change it, they're going to have to maintain the whole thing. Is that what you're saying or? A1-Jaff: No. It's a shared maintenance. Sacchet: It will be still shared? A1-Jaff: Agreement, correct. Sacchet: From the staff report I didn't come away with that understanding. Then with the parking requirements, we say well we calculated according to ordinance 156, but then they went out and made a study and the study said 120 and now 120 is fine. Please help me out. Is the ordinance, is something missing in the ordinance or does the ordinance state if somebody goes out and has a different study, then that supercedes the ordinance or how exactly does that work? A1-Jaff: Well, in the past whenever we've had compatible uses, we've always suggested, let's go with something that makes sense. And this is a perfect example of when a situation does make sense. Sacchet: Because it's the shared and it's different use. I mean I don't have a problem with that conclusion is right. A1-Jaff: The timing on both of them is very compatible. Sacchet: So it's really on that basis that it's. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Because I was wondering whether we need to do something about this ordinance because it seemed to be brushed aside more easily here. A1-Jaff: No. The ordinance works. The only other time we've used this is with churches versus office. Sacchet: Okay. Now since we are talking shared parking, what do, do you know what the timeframe is? Maybe we should ask the applicant that the clinic will actually be developed, because as of right now it would not be developed. A1-Jaff: 18 months from now. Sacchet: 18 months. About 2 years, okay. A1-Jaff: At least that's their estimate. Sacchet: Okay. Has there been any consideration coming back to the trees, has there been any consideration given to try to save some of these incredible trees that are in good shape? A1-Jaff: We have suggested retaining walls. The trees that are within the main drive aisles, they've suggested that they have to take them out. In the past what we've done, when you have trees in the middle of a parking lot. Not a drive aisle, but where you actually park the car, we've turned those into islands. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: So there has been some consideration to make an island or 2 or 3. A1-Jaff: We've talked about it. Now there will be grading on that site. In some areas there will be cutting or filling, approximately 3 feet so we need to really look at. Sacchet: Well there are 4 real significant trees, and only one seems to have a chance to survive. One is kind of by the comer of where the building pad is for the clinic so that's a goner. That's actually the best one of all. That's, what a 26 inch oak there? And then west of that is a 30 inch oak together with those evergreens. That one seems to have a chance to be maintained, correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: That one is, yeah. However, the best, the biggest ones are the 48 incher and the 36 inch oak, kind towards the eastern side of that grove there. Like just north of the Citgo building. You with me? The 48 and 36. There's only one 48 and one 36. A1-Jaff: Here's the 36 and here's the. Sacchet: The 48 is just south of it. A1-Jaff: Okay. Sacchet: And it could be a case made that both of those are in the drive aisle? A1-Jaff: Yes they are. Sacchet: Okay. So there is no consideration trying to save those? Because they're in good shape and they're huge. They're hundreds of years old. They would survive us all if you take care of them. A1-Jaff: We can work with the applicant. Blackowiak: I think that's a Jill question. Sacchet: I just want a concern. We'll get back to that. We don't have to belabor it right now. I'll belabor it a little more. Blackowiak: I'm not worried. Sacchet: Moving on. The signs. The signs. You're saying that only 4 signs without permit per lot, so and they're already using 2 so there are only 2 left for the clinic then? A1-Jaff: No. It's 4 directional signs per. Sacchet: Right, the directional ones is what I'm talking about. A1-Jaff: Correct. There are 2 separate lots. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: So they each can have 4. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So it's not like they're using up 2 and then the other one is only stuck with 2. The other one is going to have 4. It's going to be treated like that, okay. A1-Jaff: So the entire site would enable 8. Sacchet: That clarifies that very nicely. And we're clear that we're not approving any signs with this one. When we say, in the building.., saying that the exits as designed do not comply with code. I kind of wonder well what's missing? Is that maybe an engineering question? Sidney: Fire code. A1-Jaff: What we ran into something similar when we were constructing the senior center. Certain distance and number of doors out of a building, but these issues will be resolved as soon as the architect and the applicant meet with the building official. Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions LuAnn? Sidney: Everybody's covered my questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Claybaugh: I've got nothing to add. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have any questions right now. Oh wait, I lied. Under the change that you gave us, page 12, talk to me about why the east property line, buffer yard was changed. A1-Jaff: Staff miscalculated. Blackowiak: Okay, no problem. That answers my question. That was an easy one. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Dan Doege: Madam Chair and commission members. My name is Dan Doege. I'm with Ben Daniels Architects. We're the architects for the American Legion .... and before we get started and forget, I want to thank Sharmin and the staff who have been very gracious in helping us through this process. We are here before you to ask for your approval on this and send this forward to City Council. I think that the Legion has been in your neighborhood since the 50's and we're looking at a very significant upgrade in it's existing structures on site. And we're looking at a very nice development for the comer of one of your major intersections in the city. We believe have produced a very nice looking building that fits into the topography of the particular site very nicely. Where it snuggles up against the eastern side toward the hill, and basically shields a lot of the parking from the Highway number 5. And between either the berming that we're going to do or the structure. And so the, with me tonight, in case I'm not able to answer your 40 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 questions, I have a couple of the board members from the Legion, Tom... and Gene Borg and so between us hopefully we can answer all your questions. Instead of going through this entire development before you, I guess I would rather answer questions and because when we looked at your staff report and looking at their comments starting on page 16 under recommendations starting on page 16, we are in concurrence with all of them, with a few exceptions that I will state. But basically the, it's obvious that there will have to gain building permit approval through the building inspector and we'll have to be in compliance... It's a very minor issue that we're talking about. I believe it's a wall and a door that we're talking about to meet the city code... And we'll obviously have to take these and get permits and do the things that are listed as being required so those are all non-points. The issue that Sharmin brought up, was one of these access drive into the site off of Lake Drive East. And the question as to when it gets developed, basically how it gets developed. Right now it's key to kind of think about how this particular project is going to move forward. We plan on keeping the Legion open while we build the new building so the access off of Great Plains Boulevard is important to us while we keep the building open and we would use the Lake Drive East for the construction traffic. And when that is done.., what we would like to do is when we build that access drive to the south part of the property, we would like to build that only up to the property line. And because this Phase II development that you see of the proposed clinic is not designed yet. This is conceptual in it's form. The parking lot isn't nailed down 100 percent. And what, and also the grading plan is not 100 percent done. If we were to develop that road all the way through, that would limit the development that was going to be, and 18 months from now if we get your approval and can move forward...to the City Council, we hope to have a facility open by September of this year. October. So we're talking about a year's delay in time basically between one project and another. And so what we would like to do is one of two things. Either allow us to just have the one entrance, which I understand is an issue in some cases, but the one entrance off of Lake Drive East. Or allow us to temporarily use the bituminous and the bit of Class V that is there between the Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East that's basically part of the Legion parking lot now as a temporary access then until the clinic is fully designed and constructed. I know that there can be concerns that maybe if something doesn't happen and that lot sits forever and ever, well I don't see that lot sitting forever and ever right on the comer like that. It's too valuable. And what the shame of it is, if we go ahead and put that drive in right now, we are going to be tearing it up in another year and what good is that? If we put that drive in now, maybe we're recovering more existing landscaping than what the ultimate design would be so we would choose not to want to continue that drive towards the east. And so either use what's there so we don't prematurely take down a tree that may be able to survive the ultimate design, or allow us to just do the access drive as far as the edge of our property to the west. That is the major, for us the major issue basically. Like I said, our greatest goal here is to gain your approval and to move forward to City Council. We have a time line that is very time sensitive, as you have never heard I'm sure in your entire life... The other thing I'm just going to throw up, and it's in regards to the sidewalk that, or the trail easement access north and south that is being proposed. And while we're not opposed to that, I would just bring it up as a point of question as to whether that is of high value for this particular facility. There is the walking path along Lake Drive East, but pedestrian traffic to the Legion is minimal at best and instead of taking 5 more feet and making a concrete, we could leave 5 more feet into landscaped area. And so while it's not a huge issue as far as we're concerned, we're willing to go either way with this. We'd just like to throw it up for your discussion. So with that I will ask you if you have any questions. Like I say here myself or the Legion is here to answer any questions. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners any questions of this applicant? Craig. Claybaugh: I guess I first directed with respect to the easement to Bob and help clarify it. Does that easement, is that intended to tie in with that pedestrian bridge that comes over 5 at this point? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: For this... Claybaugh: Yes. Generous: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay. Blackowiak: No. No. No, not directly. Generous: Lake Drive East ties into it. A1-Jaff: You're referring to the sidewalk in the middle of the parking lot. The sidewalk is along Lake Drive, and the pedestrian bridge is further to the east of that across Highway 5. This is basically to carry individuals through the parking lot to the Legion building and then we would extend this out to Lake Drive. So it's a combination. It would serve two purposes. The first one is people that are parked out here would be able to use the sidewalk if you will to get to the Legion. At the same time, it's another connection that would extend out to Lake Drive. Blackowiak: Questions Deb. Kind: Not to the applicant. Blackowiak: No? Any questions for the applicant? Sacchet: Of course. Well I guess what I want to ask you about, those trees. Dan Doege: Are we talking about these trees right here? Sacchet: Yes. If you, as noted on the plan there you see which ones are 48 inch and close to it is a 36 inch. Those are the two that I'm really concerned about because they're in good health, as far as I can tell, and they're huge. They're old. They're beautiful. They're really a landmark and I think they're invaluable for the city. And so looking at where they are, they're sort of in a drive aisle. Dan Doege: I understand what you're saying and I'll answer it in two parts. First of all I will reiterate that we would like not to have to put in that access drive now, pre-empting any development plans for the clinic... So that's point number one. Point number two is, this clinic site is not designed yet. It's not nailed down and I work for the Legion in developing their eastern parcel here so what's drawn on the west is not 100 percent. Sacchet: That's just a concept. Dan Doege: That's just a concept and I don't have the, nor does the Legion have control over those trees in this design. And so what I would say is, that would be something that would move forward when that particular piece was developed and comes before you. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: If I may just clarify with staff. When the clinic comes in, is that something does not come in front of us? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: It will be? Okay. Because that's one thing I want to be real clear. I mean we have this concept plan and we're asked to recommend approval of the concept between the two, even though only the Legion is the piece that you're focused on and have the details worked out. I just want to be real clear that when the clinic happens, we're going to go through the review cycle. A1-Jaff: Absolutely. Sacchet: And we can address that tree aspect at that point. Okay. Now, there is a tree aspect that touches even what you're doing now. There is, like it's drawn on your views as, like that long stretch of trees that at this point it goes along the soccer field. And they're not as spectacular as those oaks, that's a given. And certainly most of those will have to be cut. That's a given. But at the same time I'd like to ask you whether it would be possible, and here we could do it outside the drive aisle. I mean there could possibly be one or two islands where you could preserve a small grouping of those trees that I know it's a long stretch and I don't know whether it would work out, but if there would be one like somewhere on the property line. That could be an area where you could possibly make a small island with saving some of those trees. I think that would be a real nice touch. Possibly... Dan Doege: ...north of the... Sacchet: Yes, south of the cut and basically about halfway between where you have that cut going across the two properties. Dan Doege: Between the access drive and the parking lot? Sacchet: Yes. Let's see. Yeah. Right, if you move your finger up about, little more. Little more. Little more. Little more. Yeah, that's where they are. Dan Doege: This island right here? Sacchet: No. They're on the property line. I don't think over by the island you're going to have much trees, but on the property line. Dan Doege: That's something that I guess when we get to the construction we can certainly look at seeing what is savable.., and such. Sacchet: Yeah, and if the trees are good and healthy there too. I mean that's... Dan Doege: ...they're not going to be damaged and such. That is certainly something we can look at and work with staff to see what can be saved. Blackowiak: Again, that's a Jill question. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, that was my question for you. Thanks for addressing that. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: And I guess I don't have any. Oh, I do have one question I guess of the applicant. Dan Doege: Well they're talking about further between the two parking lots... I should clarify on your last point. If the sidewalk goes in, the north/south sidewalk, that reduces the landscape area that might allow that. Sacchet: I'm aware of that. Dan Doege: Okay. And so anyways... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I just had one question. You went through some conditions. Are there any others that you have issue with or are you comfortable with the conditions as stated? With the exception that you already. Dan Doege: Right. As stated, I believe the conditions start on page 16. Blackowiak: Correct, for the subdivision we have 1 through 18. Dan Doege: Those are... I brought up everything that we have. Blackowiak: Okay, and then the site plan we have 1 through 35 now. We added a couple. Dan Doege: Right. And we're also in agreement that we do need to get together with the property owner to the south and also the clinic and come up with written agreements that we... Blackowiak: Cross access, right. Okay, great. Good for you Sharmin. Anyone else from the Legion like to get up and say anything at this point? No? Oh come on up. We're a friendly bunch. Tom Bazinsky: My name's Tom Bazinsky. I'm... Blackowiak: Okay, could you just grab the mic and, there you go. Tom Bazinsky: I hate these things. Blackowiak: Oh I know. Tom Bazinsky: My name is Tom Bazinsky. I'm President of the Housing Corporation and if the Board has any questions as far as the operation of the Legion Club, what we intend to do, I'd be glad to answer those questions. I think Dan Doege did a good job relaying our objections and our accent to all of the issues that the staff came up with so we don't have anything. Basically the only issue we had was with the access from Great Plains Boulevard over to the Legion property and I think we've pretty much agreed on what we can do there. Blackowiak: And the location. Tom Bazinsky: If you have any questions as far as the operation, what we're going to do, what we have planned. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: I would assume, and I guess I'm assuming, similar operation to what you have right now but larger obviously. Tom Bazinsky: Yeah, the Legion club itself. Blackowiak: Is still serving food. Tom Bazinsky: The bar and stuff will stay the same. Blackowiak: Meetings. Tom Bazinsky: We're still going to be serving breakfast. It's the best breakfast in town. One thing that the club is going to bring to the city itself is the banquet facility. You know the city has a real need for that and that's part of what we're proposing to do. So we think it's going to really enhance what goes on around town. We're going to be able to draw more people in to different functions that we have and also to the different businesses around the neighborhood. The plan that we've got, it's taken a lot of work. We've been working on this thing for 6 years, okay. Blackowiak: We keep hearing about it. We just, nice to finally see something. Tom Bazinsky: And everybody thought it was a rumor but no, we've been working on it for 6 years. This is the evolution that it's come to now. Park Nicollet is a very compatible business with us. Their business hours, peak business hours are totally different from our's. The one thing, one of the reasons why it took so long was the access off of Great Plains Boulevard. Closing that down totally eliminated any retail that you could look at. And Park Nicollet's been very, they've been just wonderful people to work with. You know they've given us just about everything we've asked of them so I think it's, once it's aid and done it's going to be a great project. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Can I ask you a question? Blackowiak: Oh sure. Sacchet: Well I figure the horse shoe won't be there anymore but that's not my question. The question is, and it's kind of a detail. In the condition it says you're going to have to apply for a liquor license. You already have one. Tom Bazinsky: We already have one, yes. Sacchet: But they can't be transferred to a new building, is that why there's a condition? Tom Bazinsky: I think because the address may change, you have to re-apply. I'm not quite sure but I think that's probably has something to do with it. Blackowiak: Just a formality. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Tom Bazinsky: Don? Don's here. If our Club Manager was here, he could answer that. He went back to doing his job. We already have a liquor license, it's just going to have to be moved to a different address. Sacchet: Okay. That answers it, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Dave Wagner: Good evening. My name's Dave Wagner. I'm a resident of Chanhassen for 11 years and I just want to say that these gentlemen here tonight that represent the Legion, and the Legion's been in this town for a long time and I don't know another organization in this community that has done such a wonderful job of donating money and doing such a great contribution to society than the American Legion. And I would love to ask you folks to take that in a great consideration into anything that these gentlemen and the club was asking for. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Alright with that I will open the public hearings so if anyone else would like to step up to the microphone and make a comment, please feel free to do so. Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm the managing partner of the partnership that owns the strip center just next door to the existing Legion Club. And I guess the first thing I'd like to say is we are really looking forward to this development. We've enjoyed being neighbors with the Legion for these last 15 years and we look forward to the addition of Park Nicollet so we strongly support the development. We also are in favor of the agreement that the 3 property owners have worked out regarding the location of the new access and the condition number 34 attached to the recommendations. Regarding the timing, it's not my business but I'm going to comment on it. It really makes no difference to us when that access is moved. We know it's going to be moved for 15 years. We've known that some day it was going to be moved, but it just makes sense to me in my judgment that these people are in there. They're operating. They're using that access now. They've been using it for a long, long time. I don't see why they can't continue to use that access and the property that they have to drive on until the new building is built and the old one comes down. Just makes common sense to me. And they're using it now. Why not just let them use it as is until such time as they need to build a new building there. I guess those are my comments. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Dan Doege: Usually at this point it's better for me not to say anything because everything seems to be going very well but I would be really remiss if I did not put this on the table because Sharmin worked so hard on this model of our building and we've never, ever had a planner do a model for an architect before. Blackowiak: She must really like you guys. Dan Doege: She did such a nice job, I want to thank her. Blackowiak: I said Sharmin must really like you guys I guess. Dan Doege: I think she's tired of seeing us. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard. I live at 880 Marsh Drive. I guess I'm the closest residential neighborhood to this development too. And as always, in the past, my concern has been the traffic on Lake Drive. What's going to happen with the, this is a new concern. What's happening with the 46 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 storm water runoff? Because as it is now I believe the storm water runoff from the parking lot for the Citgo gas station and that development goes right through my back yard. And thirdly, traffic. What will happen if there is no access from this development to Great Plains Boulevard? I don't see that traffic now as a neighbor, but I will certainly see it as, especially since there will be no left hand. Help me. I don't understand this very well, but the only left hand entrance would be from Lake Drive East. Blackowiak: Correct. Bob Savard: And I'm very concerned about that so. And the trees. Sacchet: Thank you. Bob Savard: I love the trees. I look at the trees and I look at the development across the street from my house, and the backdrop is trees. And I'm absolutely positive that those trees are a sound buffer between my home and my neighbors homes and Highway 5. Over the last 8 years I've seen 50 acres worth of trees disappear in the development of Villages on the Ponds. I was very concerned about that but you know be that as it may, they cut them all down. And now I understand that some of the trees behind the Citgo station are not well. One has disappeared over the last few years and perhaps there is another that needs to be removed. But the remaining trees, I'd hate to see them go. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Staff, could I just get any comments about runoff. Where does that water go from Citgo right now? I don't know who wants to, Matt is that you? Sweidan: The drainage from Citgo so far it's not been added in the plans. I mean we... see it from the plans right now but overall the.., development it's going to be conveyed by a storm sewer system. All of it conveyed to our proposed environmental storm pond. Blackowiak: Right, so the pond's already there but it will just get bigger to accommodate that. Sweidan: Exactly. And there's an outlet from this existing pond towards a storm sewer system. Existing storm sewer system. Blackowiak: And that goes where? Sweidan: To the south. Blackowiak: Okay. Down Marsh or? Sweidan: South of Lake Drive East. Blackowiak: Oh, is it the one that goes down the ravine? Sacchet: So that is his back yard? Blackowiak: No. It goes down the ravine and goes down to. Bob Savard: That is my back yard. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Generous: That's from Villages. Blackowiak: That's from Villages. The east of that, if you go down Marsh a little bit. You know how, I live in the neighborhood. You know the poplar trees? Bob Savard: Yeah. Blackowiak: It goes down that ravine. Bob Savard: The access to that ravine runs right through my back yard. It crosses from mine and my neighbor's back yard underneath Marsh Drive. Blackowiak: So it starts there? It doesn't start farther to the east? Sweidan: It's under the street. Blackowiak: Yeah, there's an underground one too. Bob Savard: It crosses underneath the street. The outlet from the pond behind my house crosses between the two lots there and that's underneath Marsh Drive and then continues through the ravine. Blackowiak: The eastern ravine which is the one I'm referring to that's the poplars, yeah. Where they cut those down. Oh yeah, the ones they cut down. Sweidan: The existing one... Blackowiak: Right. So where does that go? Help me with that. Sweidan: Here there's an outlet that goes to a storm sewer system and it's going underneath it. And there's a 21 inches going through some. Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe it hooks up then to the one that starts in his back yard? Do you know where he's. Saam: At different points. Blackowiak: At different points. Saam: This stuffisn't going... Blackowiak: So that's not going to start by him? It will start further down, okay. Okay, good. Thank you. I just want to get that all clarified. Harold Lund: Hi. My name's Harold Lund. I'm also on the Housing Committee and I'm also the Chaplin of Post 580 and as Tom said, there's been a lot of prayers said for our club. I'm a Korean War Veteran and we've done a tremendous amount of stuff for this community. I was in Chan til '93. I'm a painting contractor. I do a lot of work for the city, but I just want to take this time to thank you all for being so 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 patient with us and hopefully my prayers as a Chaplin will be reinforced for our Post 580 in the future of Chanhassen. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, would anybody else like to make any comments? I don't see anyone else. I will close the public hearing. And it's time for commissioners comments. Before we comment I do want to clarify something with staff please. What is your position on current access to the current Legion property? How long can that stay open? A1-Jaff: Well they will need to use it for as long as the Legion, the existing Legion remains open and we said, one of our recommendations was that that operation continues for as long as the building is under construction. Blackowiak: Right, so. Let's say the new one is opened up. Now what's your feeling? I mean given that they are saying that they would like to have that access. A1-Jaff: We want to see the situation corrected as soon as possible. I mean that access point has always been an issue, and it depends on how fast Villages continues to grow. That's when you're really going to see problems. Traffic generated by Villages on the Pond has not reached it's peak, yes. And once that happens we're going to see problems there. We have no guarantees that the clinic will be there in 18 months. We would like to see them come in as soon as possible, but again there are no guarantees. So we want to see this situation fixed as soon as possible. Sweidan: I had something. MnDot also recommended that to minimize as much as we could from the Great Plains Boulevard access. And so we have so far existing two, and we plan to have one so the short we can make it in time, which would be also like a MnDot to decide too. So that's why we are looking just you know for one access. Blackowiak: Right, I understand that. I'm just curious as to what your feelings are on the time line. You know how long can they have that second Great Plains access after they move into their second building, and I guess that's kind of. A1-Jaff: And we understand that they have to have it for, during the construction. Blackowiak: During construction obviously. A1-Jaff: And we definitely want to separate construction traffic from business traffic. Blackowiak: Business traffic, sure. Okay. Alright, thanks. Well we'll have our comments now. Anybody? Dan Doege: Can I add one thing? Blackowiak: Well. Sacchet: Things are going well. Blackowiak: If you really think it's going to help your case. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Dan Doege: Well I was just going to clear up something you just asked. Blackowiak: Okay. Come up quickly. Dan Doege: Okay, real quickly our point is we, our issue is not one that we care when that driveway gets developed. We would develop that driveway whenever the city wants us to develop that driveway. My only point of contention is the roadway connecting the driveway and us, okay. Blackowiak: Right. Okay. Alright, commissioners. Comments. Craig, anything to say? Claybaugh: If I'm understanding correctly, once the construction is done with the new Legion location, their primary access is going to be off Lake Drive, is that correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. That's a full access. Claybaugh: At that point they no longer, they're going to tear down the existing Legion that's in place now and no longer need that patron, separate patron access off of Great Plains and you'd like that situation rectified at that time. Is that correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. That would be my only comment that I guess I share staff's recommendation. I don't see any reason that that couldn't take place at that time table. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Deb, any comments? Kind: I'm okay with doing the southern drive aisle with Phase II. I don't see any need that it needs to be done right now. Overall I think it's really an attractive building and I'm very excited to see the improvement on that comer. And the idea of partnering with Park Nicollet just seems perfect. Just perfect for a joint use of the parking and is neat and I would like to see more of that done in our community. I think it's a great project. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Any comments down here? LuAnn? Sidney: No. I like the project. The building is really a refreshing change from a lot of the architecture we've seen recently and I think it will be a really good addition to that site. And I agree with Deb's comments about what she said. Kind: About the drive aisle thing? Sidney: Yep. Drive aisle, thank you. Blackowiak: Alright. Sacchet: Well first of all I want to thank you. I mean you thanked us. You thanked staff but I think it's also appropriate to thank you because it's refreshing to hear from staff that you worked well together. I wish we would hear that from every applicant. And I think it's a great project. I think it's beautiful. It's a great thing. It's really wonderful, and I want to compliment you on that too. Now as you've already 50 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 gathered from my previous concerns, I'm concerned about those trees. I think they're very important. I think they're much more important than the drive aisle and they're more important than that sidewalk thing. I also would like staff to verify the thing about the Colorado Spruce. At this point I'm in total favor of this whole project. I think it's a great project as I said. However, I would like to clarify a couple of things. For one thing there's some redundancy in the conditions, like 14, 15, 16 of subdivision are identical to 14, 15 and 33 of site plan, so I don't know whether they need to be both places .... no signs are being approved with this, are we doing here? A1-Jaff: Two directional signs are being approved. Sacchet: Well we say applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. A1-Jaff: Correct. And these are handled administratively. Sacchet: Okay. The reason why I want to be real clear about that is because in the blueprints there are, signs are actually drawn. The free standing ones so I want to be clear. Are we doing anything at this point about signs or not? A1-Jaff: You're only looking at the Legion site. You are approving the signs that are on the Legion site. Sacchet: We are approving those. A1-Jaff: But only on the Legion site which is Lot 2, Block 1. Sacchet: Okay, I think that needs to be clarified. Then there's a little bit of redundancy like from the, what's the second piece? The site plan review, condition number 17 is repeated in condition number 20. Then here comes the juicy part, 28, 9 and 32. 28, the closing the access. I do believe that if. Kind: ... doesn't close the access. Sacchet: Yes, the connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans should be constructed to the south property line of the site concurrently with the construction of the Legion site. Isn't that a condition that says they have to pull it over to. A1-Jaff: That condition. Sacchet: Which one is the condition that says they need to pull it over to Great Plains? Kind: She handed it out tonight. Sacchet: That's the extra one? A1-Jaff: The condition you just read connects those two sites. The Citgo site. Sacchet: That connection, okay. Okay. So that one, okay. So we're talking about 34. I personally feel very strongly, even though I'm not supposed to feel up here, excuse me. I'm very clear, let me rephrase this. It's an internal joke, bear with me. I personally am very clear that the benefit of not doing that connection to Great Plains far outweighs putting it in. Because if we don't put it in now, we can ask for 51 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 those significant trees to remain there. Even the ones that most likely will not be there, like that one that is pretty much on the comer of the building. Of the clinic. So I would actually like to specifically put a condition on it at this point that these significant trees are not cut.., as part of this initial step. That we address that in it's entirety when the clinic comes in. Now I understand the tree is already cut that is in the driveway going to the connection to the Citgo station. That's a no brainer. I mean that tree has to make room, and it's reasonable. I also believe that I would not insist on the sidewalk piece going up there. I mean if people want to go on foot, they can walk through the parking lot. That's not a big deal. A sidewalk would be nice but it's not necessary. I think it's much more important to build in an island, if at all it works out. If the trees there happen to be worth it and all. I mean work with staff on that, but that we are very specific in terms of requesting this gets considered. And if at all possible put in that there's an island off that strip of trees, about on the property line between the two sites. Let's see, what else? That's it. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Yeah, I'll be very brief. I think it's a nice plan. I think that the access agreement can be worked out. I'm not so worried about when that driveway gets closed. I agree that we should probably not pave any more than we have to, especially over that Lot 1, Block 1. Let's just wait to see what develops. The sidewalk, I don't know if I necessarily think it should be right in the middle of Phase I, but I do think it's important. Especially if we're talking a clinic. There might be times when people might be there for several hours and it would be nice to have the opportunity to get them from the parking lot out to Lake Drive, so I think we should really consider a trail or a path at some point, or a sidewalk I guess we can call it. I just don't know if it's right in the center of Phase I so I'm not sure about that. Otherwise I like the proposal. The building looks nice with a few little color changes on the accent pieces I think we're going to have a great property, so thanks. Sacchet: One more detail. Blackowiak: Okay, one more. Sacchet: Just one more. The access from Great Plains with the old Legion building. Could there be a compromise that when the old Legion's not being used that it's closed off kind of like to prevent people from making left tums going in there? Not necessarily do the whole construction with making curb and but like put a barricade type of thing on that exit at that point. I mean I think that would solve the concern for the safety. Blackowiak: Well I think we just need to direct staff to work that out. I mean to work with the Legion. To work with Citgo. To make the best and safe as possible access choices when the construction is completed so I don't think we need to get any more detail than that. So with that I will ask for a motion. Sacchet: Well Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #2002-3 for the replat of 5.58 acres into 2 lots as shown on the plans dated received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions 1 through 18. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Kind: Uli, 187 Blackowiak: Yes, it's really 18. Start on page 16. Go through page 18. Kind: Thank you. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #2002-3 for the replat of 5.58 acres into 2 lots as shown on the plans dated received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 11. 12. Calculations shall demonstrate that all downstream facilities are adequate to accommodate storm water from the proposed development. The applicant shall demonstrate that the property owners to the east have granted permission for grading to occur on their property and that they have agreed to combine the storm water ponds for both sites. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponding areas. 13. Silt fence shall be provided in areas where sediment may otherwise be carried off- site. 14. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 15. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 5.58 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $32,972; the water quantity fees are approximately $24,329. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the storm water calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $57,301. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 16. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. 17. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 18. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise storm water calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, and drainage swales, up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. Park and Trail fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon application. The current fees are as follows: Legion Site (Lot 2): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $3,180 Trail Fee: $1,060 Park Fee: $6,360 Trail Fee: $2,120 Park Nicollet Site (Lot 1): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $5,310 Trail Fee: $1,770 Park Fee: $10,620 Trail Fee: $3,540 24. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 25. Any retaining wall that exceeds 3 feet in height shall be designed by a Registered Engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: I need another motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Madam Chair. I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan review #2002-2 for the American Legion Club Post 580 as shown on the site plan received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions 1 through 35 with fixings. Condition number 1. Applicant must obtain sign permits. Now, staff help me out. You said that we're actually approving the Legion specific signs here? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So should we say that? A1-Jaff: Well you're approving the site plan for the Legion. You're not reviewing anything that has to do with the clinic. Sacchet: No, I'm talking about the Legion site. A1-Jaff: Correct. Kind: They're on the plans. A1-Jaff: And these are the plans. Sacchet: So if we say as the plans, that means we're approving them. A1-Jaff: If you feel more comfortable saying the Legion signs. The American Legion signs. Sacchet: I believe that should be clarified. Sidney: We're just on the American Legion though. Sacchet: Yeah. But it still seems to contradict that then we say they must obtain sign permits when. A1-Jaff: Oh, everybody has to obtain sign permits before they put up. Sacchet: They still have to do that? Generous: They provide the detailed information. Sacchet: They still have to do it, alright. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: That's what I wanted to hear. So the condition stands as is. I'd like to strike out condition 17, because I believe it's stated in condition 20. 17 says the minimum rock construction entrance must be 75 feet and in 20 we say again, all of the proposed rock construction entrances must be 75 feet. Is that okay with engineering? Sweidan: Yes. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. So that one goes. And then the silt fence shall be removed when construction is completed. We can't go without that one. That's in condition number 20 also after we talk about silt fence. Now, number 31. The sidewalk. I'd like to take that off, but I'd like to say that the applicant shall work with staff to place a tree island on the property line between the southern drive and the connection between the two parking lots. Blackowiak: Uli, can I make a suggestion? Not applicant will work but how about explore with staff. Sacchet: Will explore with staff. I'd like it a little bit stronger than exploring here. I mean if it totally doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. Blackowiak: Right so, but if you're putting a condition that they put one in and if it doesn't make sense. Sacchet: Alright, explore. That'd be good. I trust them. A1-Jaff: I need clarification. So let's assume that they couldn't save the trees, do you want the sidewalk or do you want things to remain as is? Is it an either or? Sacchet: Yeah. That gives them an incentive. Blackowiak: No. I want a sidewalk somewhere though. Claybaugh: Yeah, I agree. Blackowiak: You said either or. Sacchet: I mean if they can't do the trees, then they have to do the sidewalk. Blackowiak: No. Claybaugh: Blackowiak: Sacchet: But we're not talking about the other one. Blackowiak: Maybe inbetween the two lots. I don't know. Sacchet: But the way I would put it is, either or. That not going to fly? Claybaugh: No. Sacchet: Alright. Blackowiak: I would just say, you know let's explore that, yeah. No, we want a sidewalk regardless. Somewhere. Whether it's on this lot or the other lot, I want it over inbetween maybe. Let's not get too muddled down. Either a sidewalk or the tree island should take place. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Let's explore. Okay. Applicant shall explore with staff the possibilities of having a tree island on the property line, as well as putting a sidewalk. Blackowiak: As well as placement options for the sidewalk. Sacchet: Placement options for sidewalk, which means we could be on the clinic side. Claybaugh: Possibly realign. Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: Right. Condition 32. Applicant shall work with staff to minimize impact and save as many trees as possible. Well, I would like to go one step further and say that that grove of significant trees to the southwest should remain. Should remain as much, well there's really no reason why they couldn't remain at this point til the clinic comes in. Okay. I think that should be clear condition. Claybaugh: Until future plans develop. Sacchet: Yeah, til future plans develop for the site and it will be reviewed at that time. At this point that should be preserved. And then condition 34. Applicant shall be responsible for closing off the existing Legion west access, and I would say with a, or work with staff how to temporary close it off. I mean the idea is that you put on one of these street ends here have a barricade at that point. Oh, you don't like that huh? Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The closing off of the existing Citgo gas station. Sacchet: It should be the Legion. Kind: No. No, the Citgo one... Blackowiak: When they combine. Kind: The right-in/right-out at Citgo will be going away and this applicant will be responsible for closing that off. Sacchet: The Citgo is going away, not the Legion one. Blackowiak: Well the Legion's eventually going to go away too. Kind: We're going to leave that open while the Legion's there. Sacchet: Alright. Claybaugh: But when they complete the new construction but when they develop the Phase II over there, would the city be looking at allowing them to use that for a construction entrance? Otherwise all the construction activity is going to come through the new entrance on Phase I. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 A1-Jaff: Well, construction traffic will come through Lake Drive. Claybaugh: Once for Phase II. The future Phase II. A1-Jaff: Because this one is right-in/right-out only. Sacchet: Yeah, and my concern is that it's the left turn. So it's increasing traffic. I think we have a safety concern here then. Claybaugh: ...trying to address... Blackowiak: That is extending the curb. That's what's going to happen. It's addressed in the condition. Extend it from along Great Plains Boulevard. And extending the median. Claybaugh: Sharmin, I was thinking in terms of Phase II in the future and I wanted to see the Legion entrance once the existing Legion is taken down, have it barricaded. Just because it's not used in the interim until it's developed as Phase II, then I think that needs to be set up for right-in/right-out for construction equipment. Otherwise they're going to tear up Phase I. But I do think in the interim, to discourage that use, that that should be barricaded temporarily until Phase II is ripe for development for construction equipment. Kind: Okay, how's this motion going? Sacchet: Yeah, I think... Blackowiak: Yeah, we're getting too much discussion here. Sacchet: Alright, I think I came clear. I think I don't want this to be closed off at this point because it means going to monkey around with that area and we don't know what's going to happen on the clinic. Blackowiak: But they will, on number 34 they are ultimately responsible for closing that. Sacchet: They are responsible? Blackowiak: Yes. That is part of the agreement. Sacchet: So we, basically we're saying they're responsible. We don't say when they do it. Blackowiak: Right, exactly. Sacchet: Oh, then we leave it in. Should we specify that this shall be done later? Blackowiak: No. No. Sacchet: No? Blackowiak: They're responsible. Staff can take care of it. You've got to trust them. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. It's in your hands guys. Alright, that's my motion. Kind: I'll second that but I have a few friendly amendments. Sacchet: Please. Kind: Let's flip back here to page 19. Condition number 6 1 would like to change the wording. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan, including fixture styles, meeting city standards shall be submitted. Just for clarification. Sacchet: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Number 20, I would like to reword the beginning of that, just to clean it up and make it a condition to, the sentence should start off, a silt fence shall be added. Sacchet: Accepted. Kind: Number 28. I don't know how you left this. Sacchet: I actually left that one alone. Kind: Here's my idea for rewording that one. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard from future Lot 1, Block 1 shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plan should be constructed along the south property line of the site with the construction of Phase II. Sacchet: Fine. Blackowiak: Okay, so that's accepted. Kind: I think we addressed the sidewalk stuff already. That's it. Claybaugh: Actually if I understood how it was submitted, it addressed my concern. That access is going to remain open correct? Blackowiak: Yep. Claybaugh: I do, I don't know if it's appropriate to ask staff a point then at this point or not. Blackowiak: You know what, we're kind of done here. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #2002-2 for the American Legion Club Post 580 as shown on the site plan received January 15, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 59 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 26. 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: a. Monument signage shall be subject 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. 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. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. Any kitchen vents shall be concealed or painted the same color as the roof. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Two additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrants. b. 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 the hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire code Section 901.3. d. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. e. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. f. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply 60 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 11. line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding notes being included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. "No parking fire lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904- 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The applicant shall change the color of the accent medallions to a more contrasting color. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan including fixture styles, meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official's conditions: i. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. j. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. k. Demolition permits must be obtained form the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures. 1. Detailed occupancy related code requirements will be reviewed when complete plans are submitted. It is evident however that the assembly space in the basement must be of one- hour fire-resistive construction and the exits as designed do not comply with the code. m. The proposed building on Lot 1 was not reviewed for building code compliance. n. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Applicant shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. Spruce trees shall be added to the east of the trash enclosure and the loading area. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to city council approval. All parking lot landscape islands must have a minimum width of 10 feet. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. All construction vehicles shall access the site from Lake Drive North and not Great Plains Boulevard. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Haul routes, if necessary, shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Private utility easements will be required for the storm sewer line that runs from Lot 2 to Lot 1. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2101, 2109, 2201-2205, 3101, 3106-3108, 5204, 5207, 5214, 5234 and 5300. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots. The applicant must obtain a permit from MnDOT for grading in the right-of-way. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise storm water calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, and drainage swales, up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. A silt fence shall be added around the east side of storm water pond grading limits of the site. The silt fence must be Type II. All of the proposed rock construction entrances must be lengthened to 75 feet as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. Minimum 20-foot wide easements will be required over the public portion of the utility lines. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be 62 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. On the utility plan: - Revise catch basin nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7 to catch basin manhole nos. 2, 3, 4, and 7. - Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". - Shift the watermain toward the southeast comer adjacent to the curb and call the fittings. - Show the utilities easement. - Add a storm sewer schedule. - Change the type of public watermain from DIP to PVC C-900. - Show the proposed pipe slope, class and length of the storm sewer. - Under the Sewer and Water Notes, add, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR26. On the grading plan: - Show all existing and proposed easements. - Show the benchmark used for the site survey. - Add a note "clean existing pond after pond enlargement grading is finished". - Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". - Add a note for removing existing bituminous and close off the existing (west) American Legion access. Access onto Great Plains Boulevard from Lot 1, Block 1 shall be restricted to a right-in/right-out only. The connecting access drive between the two developments as shown on the plans should be constructed along the south property line of the site concurrently with the construction of Phase II. Obtain a liquor license from the City. The existing Legion building shall be removed no later than 60 days after receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. The applicant will work with staff to explore the possibility of having a tree island on the property line as well as placement options for a sidewalk. The applicant shall work with staff to minimize impact and save the significant stand of trees located in the southwest corner of the site until future plans are developed. Park and Trail fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon application. The current fees are as follows: Legion Site (Lot 2): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $3,180 Trail Fee: $1,060 Park Fee: $6,360 Trail Fee: $2,120 63 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Park Nicollet Site (Lot 1): At the time of plat: At the time of building permit: Park Fee: $5,310 Trail Fee: $1,770 Park Fee: $10,620 42. The applicant shall be responsible for closing off the existing Citgo Gas Station (west) access, removing the existing bituminous, extending the curb along Great Plains Boulevard (east side) and extending the median located across from the existing Legion curb cut to eliminate left turns. 43. Recycling space shall be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: We muddled through it. Thank you very much for coming and staying. Okay, and this does go to City Council on March 11th. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Before I go on, would somebody like to note the minutes. Sacchet: Oh yes, my weasel hunt. Just to put it on the record, on page, bear with me. It's not going to take long. In my customary hunt for weasels I did find, there's a lot of feeling in there. Not too many weasels. There's one sort of weasel. On page 73, on the bottom. I'm talking about the bridge across Highway 5. It's not the jumping heart bridge. It's the shopping cart bridge. It looks like a shopping cart. I couldn't quite figure out why it would be a jumping heart. This was a funny one. Blackowiak: Okay. Minutes are noted. Commissioner Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2002 amending page 73 to change the phrase "jumping heart bridge" to "shopping cart bridge". NEW BUSINESS: RENTAL LICENSING COMMITTEE. Blackowiak: Kate just asked me to see if anybody had interest in this at all. Sharmin, do you have anything to add to her memo? A1-Jaff: Not really. There is one Senior Commissioner that volunteered for it. Sacchet: It's just two meetings? A1-Jaff: Just two meetings. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Blackowiak: And possibly a third. It's a Thursday night if I'm not mistaken. Sacchet: I could possibly do the two meetings but I could not do the third one. Blackowiak: Well then why don't we put Uli as a good back, if you don't get another person. Sacchet: So you'll let me know whether you need me? A1-Jaff: Yes. Claybaugh: It's three meetings then? Blackowiak: Yes. Three Thursday nights. And I think probably attending, attendance is probably going to be a thing where you need to attend all three, right? Or at least the two. Third if necessary. A1-Jaff: It would be preferable if someone would attend all three. Blackowiak: Are you in Craig? Claybaugh: Oh, so fast. Blackowiak: Well you don't have to say right now. Just consider it. I just wanted to get that one. ONGOING ITEMS. Blackowiak: Any ongoing items Bob? Sharmin? Generous: St. Hubert's expansion is coming in for our next agenda. They're looking at extending the school to the south and expanding the church on the north side. Blackowiak: Okay. A question then. Would the building that has been already approved for the south, would that go away? Generous: No, no, no. This is on the St. Hubert's site. There's also, there's two lots. To the southwest of the church there's that two story office building site that has approval but they haven't built. Blackowiak: Right. Generous: And they won't build until they have a tenant. Blackowiak: Okay. So that's not on that at all, okay. Generous: Hidden Creek Estates is a 20 lot subdivision at the end of Pipewood Curve on the north side of Highway 7 in the northwestern part of the city. That is coming in for approval. There's wetland alteration permits. A variance for a private street. And a variance for a building pad but I think we can resolve some of those issues. And then the Noecker plat. A1-Jaff: Revised plans were submitted today. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 2002 Claybaugh: Do they look anything like Uli's handout? A1-Jaff: Uli's handout sans 2 lots and that would be one less lot in Block 1. Sacchet: It's the two going over to Ashling Meadows, right? A1-Jaff: Correct. One less lot on Block 1 and one less lot on Block 2. Claybaugh: So it's the...handout that Uli provided? A1-Jaff: Close. Claybaugh: Close, okay. A1-Jaff: And there's another site plan that's coming in shortly. Comer of Powers Boulevard and Highway 5. Blackowiak: That would be which comer? Generous: Southeast. A1-Jaff: That would be the southeast. There's a hill. Blackowiak: Oh okay. Sacchet: There's room there? A1-Jaff: There's room there. They might need to move a pond. Stone pond. Man made. Blackowiak: Alright. Any other ongoing items at all? Generous: Westwood Community Church, they're in for building permit review so they will start developing that. They want to do the site work now because of the good weather. And then get the foundation permit. Presbyterian Homes is still looking at a May for construction. They're working on their building permit review right now so. What they're looking at is building the independent living building first, the westerly one and just doing a foundation on the easterly building so that they can have the internal parking finished by the time they open the first building. Blackowiak: Right, okay. Alright. Well, with that I will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 66