Loading...
PC 2002 01 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb Kind, and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Hinners Deb Lloyd Janet Paulsen 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, LAKE LUCY RIDGE, NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Patrick Mohr Jack & Melanie Gorczyca Merle Steinkraus Scott Reinertson 6890 Utica Terrace 1850 Lake Lucy Road 1800 Lake Lucy Road 6801 Utica Terrace Sharmin AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Aanenson: Let me just clarify something. The plat that we are recommending approval of is not the plat that you're seeing here. The plat that Matt went through with the changes is what we're recommending so it would have a different look to it. Our concern as a staff is we usually like to get it as clean as possible so you can see the implications. Matt tried to go through and explain to you what we believe is a better plat by reducing the grading. While we impacted some of the tree canopy, we believe we're also saving some other significant trees and even the backs of the lots that would be adjacent to Ashling Meadows because of the minimizing of grading. So I just want to clarify what Sharmin's telling you is that the plat that we're recommending approval, doesn't look like this plat. We're recommending approval with changes. Now if you're uncomfortable with doing that, you have a choice as to ask for an extension because we're at the end of the, our review period. If you're uncomfortable with the plat then your choice is either to recommend Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 approval with the changes as it goes towards commission or recommend that you feel it's premature and recommend denial of the land use change. So everybody's clear on that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. A1-Jaff: The conditions of approval. If you would kindly mm to page 24. Condition number 32. The second paragraph of the sentence. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width. It's struck through in the staff report. We need to put that back in. With a minimum average of 20 feet shall be maintained around wetland 2. And we're adding to it a 4 foot retaining wall shall be utilized to protect the buffer. No fences shall be used. And then on page 26. Condition number 49. Under the compliance table. Lot 1. The setbacks read, 30-50-30 and the second 30 has 2 asterisks next to it. It should be 3. And the same is true for Lot 2. Those are bluff setbacks. And we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Blackowiak: Sharmin, I think I'm just going to start since one of my questions had to do with this compliance table. It shows 21 lots in the compliance table. If there would be changes to any potential plan, how do we know how this compliance table fits in? We don't? A1-Jaff: It changes. Blackowiak: Okay. So but you're still comfortable putting this in as is even though we know it would change? A1-Jaff: Assuming that changes do take place. Aanenson: In order to get the plat approved for final plat, and you recommend approval of this, depending on what the City Council would do, that's what the plat has to reflect. So it would have to be in compliance and you would make that a condition that all lots meet the city zoning ordinance so if you were to recommend this plat with the changes that we're recommending, that compliance table before it gets to final plat would have to reflect that. That's what I was saying before. The difficulty is you don't... Blackowiak: Right, exactly. Okay, thank you. Well then I'll just ask fellow commissioners any questions of staff? Rich? Slagle: None right now. Sacchet: I have a question or two. Real quick. So with those changes you're recommending do we know what the average lot size is going to be? Do we know what the density's going to be? We don't at this point. Aanenson: We know what the density would be. We wouldn't know what the average lot size. Sacchet: What would the density be? A1-Jaff: Density would be .8 and that's gross density. Sacchet: Gross, thank you. So at this point if we would want to see the changes before we approve it we would either have to get an extension of the time frame or otherwise we would have to deny it. Is that where we're at? Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: Well you have 3 options. I'm asking you whatever you're comfortable with. Your option is to ask for an extension to see the changes. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: To recommend approval and let the council see the changes. Or recommend denial. Sacchet: Got it. Now this is really the main question ultimately I think from everybody, including us up here primarily but in terms of the comprehensive plan, it's my understanding that this outlot is intended to be a transition element between the large lot area and the low density residential. At this point it would appear to me that this doesn't really fit into a transition concept. Can you say something about how that fits the comprehensive plan please? Aanenson: Sure. I'd be happy to address that. How we looked at this. If you compare this to one that you looked at previously. I'm trying to get one that's got a wetland on it. If you look at this property in relationship to this subdivision, there's a large wetland complex here. This is one lot. Kind of an anomaly. The other lots are all coming off of the subdivision. The other lots in this neighborhood are coming off this cul-de-sac. While this is a lot that's associated with that, it orientates itselfa different way. Access to this lot is very difficult because of the wetland adjacent to Lake Lucy. It's the staff's opinion that the best way to service this lot, whether it's left as a large lot or if it's, the guiding is changed, is to provide a stub to this property somewhere through a subdivision here. That's the best way to service it. So we're not saying that it has to be changed but we're saying in our opinion it makes, the transition is the wetland. And the orientation really to service it should come off a street the other way for the less degradation to the site. And if you compare that, let me just go a little further. Compare that to the Rossavik one that we looked at last time, those two pieces. The utility and efficiencies of those were tied together. There was no topographic break or natural feature separating the two. They were tied together so we looked at this a little bit differently. Sacchet: See you're not totally addressing what I'm actually shooting for because what you're addressing the individual lots here and I'm trying to see how this fits in the context of the, more interested in particular lots. Actually of the whole area. And it seems like we have large lot to the north and to the east pretty much. We have residential single family to the west. So in terms of looking at this from the comprehensive plan, it appears to me a reasonable viewpoint that this is a transition between the large lot area and the single family. Aanenson: Well it's either going to be on this lot. It's either going to be on this lot, or it's going to be on those lots. What I'm saying is here there's a wetland and that provides a transition... Sacchet: That helps right. Okay. Aanenson: That's how we looked at it and again we compared it to other ones where there's not that aesthetic perspective. Again what we looked at too is what's the best way to provide access to that and that was through the subdivision. And again whether it's large lot or lower density, how they access could probably be best. Whatever happens on this piece of stub street. Sacchet: Thank you. I'll get back to that in comments. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. No other questions? Deb anything? Kind: I'm sure I do. On the staff report Outlot A is actually labeled Outlot B on the plans we're looking at. It's Outlot A from Lake Lucy Highlands and we're referring to it as Outlot B for this Lake Lucy Ridge. A1-Jaff: The applicant is replatting a portion of Outlot A into an Outlot B. Yes. Kind: I think I was able to keep it straight when I was reading the staff report. The wetlands that are Outlot B and Outlot A on this new proposed plan, who would be responsible for maintaining those? A1-Jaff: There will be a drainage and utility easement over them. Aanenson: There's a letter of credit put in place until we accept the subdivision and everything's completed. They have to maintain those during construction and we'd put up the escrow for the silt fence. Saam: In recent times we've gone toward owning them. I know on Ashling Meadows we assumed ownership of the outlots. That's one that comes to mind right away. Aanenson: Yeah. We don't have to... Saam: No we don't have to. We'll get an easement though at a minimum. Kind: Okay. And if we approve the revisions revising the land use, which is a big if, technically all of these lots do meet our rules for size, shape, setbacks, frontage with exception of that one lot. What is staff's rationale for some of these conditions that suggest moving the road and deleting certain lots? Aanenson: Do you want to go through that again Matt? Saam: Yeah, I can speak a little to that. You had a plat before you last time with 22 lots. Your level of discretion with the land use, and correct me if I'm wrong Kate is, if you don't like it, even if it meets minimums, you can require a little bit more because you're giving them a change in the land use. So you directed us to go back with the applicant and look at revising it. Basically making the plat better. That's what we did here. We believed by moving the road over, it's going to make those lots, those Block 1 lots along the west side better lots. More usable yards. Perhaps help to minimize the grading along that slope. That's our major rationale for suggesting the moving of the road. Kind: That makes sense. On the neighbor petition at the back of our packet talked about, had one point in there that I thought was interesting and that is, well all the points were quite interesting but there was one that caught my attention and that is that the comp plan policy requires a majority of area residents to approve rezoning in their area. Aanenson: I can address that. We put that in there as a policy issue. That's a legislative issue. The City Council can't do rezoning. That was a court case recently in the Best Buy. You can usurp that and residents vote what their land use designation. That's a policy decision. But what the intent of that policy decision was for neighborhoods, people that buy the large lots, we've had this example in for example Timberwood where they were adjacent to Stone Creek. Some of those neighbors wanted to have municipal services and subdivide and what we said at that point, until the neighborhood decides to come to the city and say we no longer want to be large lot, that we want to change the character of our neighborhood, then Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 the city should consider petitioning. If it's one person, then that might be enough to say let's hold a neighborhood meeting and decide but really our intent was there, that we want to have more than just one person decide and we would hold a hearing and let the council hear that debate and discussion but you can't usurp that legislative authority. Kind: But the question here would be is that one property owner of that Outlot A, B on this plan, are they technically asking for subdivision of just their lot without getting the agreement of their other neighbors? Aanenson: Again as I'm saying, that's a legislative act with a recommendation. Do they have to get 100percent agreement? You know we like to see. Again the staffs interpretation on that was, because it's the topography and the wetlands separated the two, it's a little bit different circumstances as far as continuation of that neighborhood. Kind: Okay. Aanenson: So that's a discretion that you'll have to make and the council's going to make. I'm just telling you what our recommendation was. Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have other questions. Just let me quick look through here. Oh, the other one, this is on page 11 of the staff report. The second to bottom paragraph it talks about the new fee that would be assessed and specifically that there were two previously assessed connection charges which total, and then there's a number that struck out and a new larger number on there. And I just thought that that was interesting, how could it have been previously assessed. How can that number change if it was previously assessed? Saam: Sure. First sentence there. Each of the underlying parcels has been previously assessed for hook- up and a connection charge. However they haven't been paid so in essence we went in, put in the water but we said to the property owner, well we're going to assess you these 2 units but you don't have to pay us until you develop. That's somewhat typical in town. The reason these numbers changed is because we have an ordinance in town where every January 1st our connection and hook-up fees go up. An inflation factor. Construction cost factor. It went up on January 1, 2002. So that's why there is a difference. Kind: So our tabling this made their rates go up? Saam: No. You shouldn't think that because these aren't applied until the building permits come in so even if you would have approved it in November. Say it went to council in December, they've got final plat. Or preliminary approval and final even. Until they pull building permits, so until the site is developed and constructed, it would have been into this summer. Kind: Good, I was feeling a little bad there. Oh the condition being struck through that requires the street names to be changed. What happened there? A1-Jaff: The fire marshal spoke to Carver County Sheriffs Office and they decided that those names are acceptable. Kind: So they won't be confused? A1-Jaff: No. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: And one of the other requests that was made at the last meeting was around the entry feature to the development. Was anything discussed about that with the developer? That was a silent no for you Nann. I think that's all. Oh, condition number 35 on page 24. This was a minor thing but I noticed it was emphasized in the staff report is that locating the bluff within 20 feet from the top. I'm assuming you want to add or the toe of the bluff. And then condition number 42 appears to me to be the same as 19. So that can be struck through. That's it. Blackowiak: Craig, do you have any questions of staff right now? Claybaugh: I'll leave my questions until the public hearing's been done. Blackowiak: Okay great. At this point will the applicant or the developer like to come up and make a presentation. If so, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: Madam Chair and council members, staff. My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I'm the developer. This evening I plan to explain more of the details of this project than I did previously, and some have commented about the insensitivity and, to the use of this land and to the trees and the wetlands and it's my hope this evening that I can accomplish 3 things and kind of dispel that ideal that seems to be prevalent. I want to identify the desired goals that we've tried to achieve. I want to effectively explain the issues.., as it relates to several imposed conditions. The goals, or I should say possibly the most important goal for me has been to maintain the site integrity of the land. And at the same time striving to create an executive neighborhood in this project. Additional and important issues to me have been to avoid wetland impact and minimize the tree destruction. Some cities have a preference to trees, and I can remember at our first staff meeting when Lori and Jill were present, I remember telling or remember Jill telling me that there was no difference between oaks and box elders in the city's eyes and when I asked if the city had any tree preference like that. It was after that meeting that I remember thinking that the City of Chanhassen had a very strong tree preservation policy, or attitude, and it was one of the strongest that I had come across in the metro area. And the code book later verified my suspicions if you will. And please do not misunderstand me. I think this is a good thing. It's good from an economic point of view. It's good from aesthetic point of view and it has just a number of benefits by minimizing the tree loss. The primary goal in maintaining the site integrity began initially from the start. I remember at the previous meeting one of the members had asked about my original concept plan, and I'm going to set that on the table here. This is originally what I had come across, or designed as a plan when I had bought the first parcel, and this was prior to hiring any surveyors, anybody at all whatsoever. It was just a rough concept of how I envisioned the site might look eventually. IfI can, I'm going to lay out another plan here. One of the things that, when I had started out it was my desire to really maintain a cul-de-sac inside of this development. I thought that was the best way to handle it and I put aside suggestions from both Matt and Sharmin in creating some kind of, rather than a cul-de-sac, having that road as it's drawn today. This one right here, going to the south. My preference was to come straight through and then long story short, I'm not sure if it was Sharmin or Matt that first suggested it to me but they said you should really use, you should really follow the ridge as you, or with the road. And so the idea of the ridge road came into effect and I thought, and about that same time Matt had indicated that we really need an access to the south. We were obviously pinpointed in our Emerald Lane position and the city was also requiring access from Lake Lucy Road because again there's many lots in the future that would be developed to the south and those lots would be serviced by this sub-collector. So in the end that ~ridge road" was an ideal way to make the site, what do I want to say? Specific to the use of the land if you will, and this thing, I was later much appreciative of Matt and Sharmin bringing, or Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 basically saying hey you should really take a second look at this because it wasn't until after I did that and sat down with Ted and on the computer and made some, a few changes that had began to appear as a very feasible idea. One of the things that we're stuck with inside of this development is a 7percent grade and it's been a very, as Matt has indicated earlier, a very challenging site. And we've got about a, I think a 59 or 60 foot drop from Lake Lucy Road over from Emerald Lane and in so doing we've got a 7percent grade that, with the exception of a little flat spot right here next to Lake Lucy Ridge Lane, and a little flat spot down at the bottom, we've got a 7percent grade on that thing all the way to the top. And so we don't have the flexibility to move that elevation wise to move that road. I don't think there's a foot elevation in there possibly. I'd have to ask my engineer for sure but I don't think there's much more than that. With the elevation fixed, we also know that you basically control your pad site elevations, or your house pads approximately 2 feet above your street elevation because your house pad, some say 18 inches but your house pad is basically 2 feet above your street so that you have a gentle drive into your garage floor. With the street being controlled from an elevation perspective and the pads therein being controlled by the street, you find elevations that may or, you may or may not want. I mean if I may let me give you an example. Oh one other thing that I'd like to point out in the, if you look at the top, or aerial photos of this land you'll find a farm road that runs right under Lucy Ridge Lane right now. It was basically the farm road that went back from the house to this big meadow that was back in here. And so again it was real logical from my perspective when I initially looked at the site to identify with the road right in that location. One of the things, for example here in this grading plan. It may be a little bit hard to see but I'm going to point out a few things because it's been suggested that I possibly look at eliminating some lots. And right at this point right here, this is the center line center line. That would be the center line of Emerald Lane and the center line of the Lucy Ridge Lane. You have an elevation of 1009. 1,009 if you will. Where my pen is in front of Lot 2, we have an elevation of 10, an existing elevation of 1020. Coming down one line you have an elevation of 1018. That 1018, if you follow across over here to the comer, you basically would have, if for example I totally eliminated Lot 5 and just left it just like it was. You're going to have a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall right at the comer, or you would if engineering wouldn't force you to eliminate as a result of sight visibility issues. And it gets bigger as you would go up the street in this situation. Also you have the same thing across the street. You've got down where the stop sign is, you have a proposed building elevation of 1010. You've got an existing, the first line going up Emerald Lane is your 1018 line, so again you've got a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall that you would have if you never touched those lots. You basically in essence, again to match the road so that you can build your pads, have to scoop out that dirt on these 4 lots in Block 2, and on these lots going through here on the west side. You don't have any alternative upon it. You could skip building houses on it and you're still going to have an issue of high retaining walls if you did not deal with some kind of cut in there. Premise being there's a lot of tree removal that has to take place on this site. Not necessarily so much in this meadow area, but there are situations throughout the site that you can identify with that show, or that basically require cuts. And those cuts, be they desired by the developer or required by engineering, are basically in the majority of the cases going to take place. Reducing for example these 5 lots down to 4 lots isn't going to gain us anything. Alright. Now, the other thing I'd like, the other thing I'd like to comment on. I've got the wrong one. This is the, I was given a transparency on top of the map like this, and it shows where this 80 foot road, or this road would be moved a distance of approximately 80 feet. Again, one of the things that I comment. If you move this road here 80 feet, this lot right here would basically have, if I've got 10 or 15 feet or whatever kind of number you want to use to the retaining. Or there is no retaining wall but to the slope in there, you would then have a level space 80 feet long in the back yard. And I really doubt if the majority of developers. I mean obviously a homeowner would love to see an 80 foot deep back yard. I mean who wouldn't? Okay. But it's something that's, it's over reaction to an issue is what's transpired here. And I can remember on several occasions going to Ted's office and saying, Ted I need to change this and here's what I want to do. And he would say yeah but Randy if you do that, then this happens and that happens and you end up with a Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 chain reaction on this site like none I've ever seen on any property I've ever developed. And I want to give you an example of that. Just right here because right now I've got some pencil marks on this thing. I'm not sure how far we can blow this thing up, if it can be done. But right here you've got an existing elevation on this road at about 1003 and I took the liberty of assuming that we could drop this down to at least 1000 feet. If that road elevation were, or if that road were placed where it was and that road was dropped down to 1000 feet, you then have a 3:1 slope with those markings that would go down to this house pad. You've got a 984 at approximately 6 feet away from that house pad which would be 1 foot under the walkout, or 1 foot under the back door level if you will. Because it's a full basement. There's no lookout or walkout on it. Aanenson: Excuse me Madam Chair, can I just interrupt for one second? Just to, there's some confusion going on. Certainly it's out intent that those house pads all have to be moved to reflect the new road location. Okay so. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's in the conditions. Aanenson: Correct. Yes, so what you're talking about now is kind of not relevant because all the house pads would move to reflect the new road location. And that's what we haven't seen. It's not our intent to leave that lot like that nor the other lot. Randy Noecker: Well, where would you suggest moving it to? Aanenson: I think we've gone over that with you. Randy Noecker: I guess I never heard. I mean you can't move that house pad unless you're going to run into that cul-de-sac. Or if you want to move it this way then we would destroy those 3 trees that we talked about saving back in here and if you recall last time, I had a retaining wall in here to save one of those trees and I was told to eliminate it. And basically like the message I got from staff was, eliminate as much retaining walls as you possibly can because the council and the planning commission don't like them. Okay. So we took the premise of trying to eliminate as many of these walls as we possibly could. I think this is extremely relevant. The other issue that I'd like to point out here too is in, this is a 60 to 1 scale. Right now there is no place to move that pad. You're going to be, I mean you might move it 15-20 feet one way or the other. You're definitely not going to move it any closer to that cul-de-sac because it's up against that cul-de-sac right now. So if you move it that way you're probably going to eliminate those 3 trees that we talked about. But here's the real crux of the situation. If you look at the right-of-way line, this area right in here, I think Matt said was about 9,000 square feet. Maybe 100 x 90 or something like that. I've got my scale which is a 60 to 1. This is the 1002. There's the 1000. This thing is dropping down in 2 foot increments. It's taking 60 feet to drop 6 feet. It's a 10 to 1 slope in there. You've got a forested area. All of these trees run along this ridge that I've been trying to save. That was as per direction of Jill in the beginning. That's what I'm doing, and so now we've got a nice gentle slope, heavily wooded. I'm guessing there's 150 to 175 trees in there. And the premise now is, well it's okay to knock them all down. We're just going to put up 7 or 8 trees and replace the 175 that he knocked out of there. Then you would have this 3:1 slope coming down and there's no way, as a builder, that you're going to have water of that magnitude sliding down that hill into that pad. And want to be liable for it. There's no way as the developer I would want to be liable for it. This is a wrong plan. This is not the way to go with this plan. And don't misunderstand me, it's easy not to see things when you redraw on this because I've done it several times. Ted will attest to that. It just, the whole site is problematic and the view, the view that many have had, or appear to have is that I'm insensitive to what's going on, and that's not the case. You've got a Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 very complex site here that has real issues that cause chain reactions when you try to move something. We've really spent, I mean I've spent probably a year and a half working hard on looking at the details of this site, and there's been dozens and dozens of revisions. Now this, we made, Matt and Sharmin made a few comments to us, and we did get the staff report on Saturday and we attempted or we had been working on making changes. I do want to bring to your attention, this is the plan that we have dated January 8th. It's one that we were looking at redoing. I have a letter here from Steve Schweider. He's a builder of Woodale and he and Charles Cudd and Robert Mason, or excuse me. Tom Mason, and I met many weeks ago. They obviously as perspective builders in this development and I selling lots. The staff had made me aware that they were concerned about Lot 1, Block 1 and so I talked to Steve about it and hence he wrote this letter. And he basically references in the first paragraph, Lot 1, Block 1 of Lake Lucy Ridge development. I think this lot is a very buildable lot. There are pluses and minuses to this lot as with lots anywhere but the pluses outweigh the minuses in this case. It has a 70 foot wide building pad and is 60 feet deep. This was changed from the previous plan that we're quote unquote, technically discussing because that was only 60 feet. We've made a 70 foot wide pad here basically per suggestion from these guys because they indicated that we should give, as in for width wide or with perspective on frontage of lots we should be somewhere around that 75 foot mark. So it's likely that we are, it's likely that this thing might move a couple feet more but it's definitely going to stay at least 70 feet. And one of the suggestions that Matt had was give us a 20 foot 10:1 platform going out the side of that lot. When I handed him this plan at that point a week or so ago, Ted had that drawn in. Okay. The recommendation, I mean I see a recommendation, I think it was number 29. You know it says eliminate Lot 1 of Block 1. There's a lot of things that could have been said on that line other than eliminate it. It could be widen the pad. Make, do this. Make that. It's strange that you would just say eliminate it. But that's the way the staff report came out. We have, as I indicated before, we've virtually eliminated every retaining wall on the site. These lots over here could easily, and here again I just talked with a lady, it must have been Thursday or Friday. She had called me back. She's called, I've talked to her several times on this development. They want to buy a lot in the development and I was relating to her that we eliminated as many retaining walls as we could, and she pops up and says, well I would like to have retaining walls in my back yard. And so I think there's going to be plenty of opportunities for people to have retaining walls in this project, even though we'd like to eliminate them. And if they do that on, like for example on Lots 3, 4 and 5, you're definitely going to have a much wider back yard depending on how many walls and whatever they might want to do. From my perspective it's kind of been recommended that I avoid walls because council and planning commission is not really in favor of them. I don't know if that's true or not but that's kind of the message that I got, and sometimes that's over the years and thinking about that issue, I think that's an appropriate response. One of the other issues that we have is Lot 9, Block 3. IfI may again I'd like to get a blow-up on that thing. That lot currently here is, it has a part curve and part straight line road on it if you will. And that curve is 47.05 feet and the straight line portion is 20.88 feet. Now there's no clarification in the code book that defines what's a cul-de-sac lot and what's another lot and so I'm not exactly sure how you differentiate between them, but in the, if you just broke this lot out on a curve basis and a straight line basis, this 40, the minimum lot, the minimum curve is 60 feet in Chanhassen. I've got 47.05 right now, and that's a 78.4percent of the requirement. If you take the 20.88 on a 90 foot lot, that's a 23.2percent amount of a standard regulation. If you take that 23.2percent and the 78.4percent you come up with 10 lpercent. Okay. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Noecker. Randy Noecker: Let me get to this. Blackowiak: We're getting into a lot of detail here. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: Can I just make a clarification too on that. You have the authority to make an interpretation in the code so whatever you decide, if it's straight or not. Our interpretation was it was a straight line. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, and I guess that's even not where I'm going right now. I'd be kind of interested in hearing what you think about staff's recommendations and how you feel that your plan is able to work with or not work with what staff's recommendations are. I'm hearing right now you're not in favor of moving the road. The idea of losing lots is not appropriate, or not one of your possibilities I'm thinking. Just kind of what's your gut reaction to this. I mean they made a lot of recommendations should this move forward and how are you feeling about that? Randy Noecker: Let me get to that but let me finish one thing here before I. Blackowiak: Sure. Randy Noecker: Alright. We can comply if in this, if I can get a blow-up here again on this. We can comply with this lot as to the city standards. We have 28.88 feet on the straight line and we have 61.4, which actually exceeds the curve line so we have a distance of 90 feet in there, alright. However, the problem with doing that is we have 15,000 feet in this lot, and then when you start working with your impervious calculation requirements here at the city, you run into real problems with this lot in association to the other lots on this ridge because obviously these ridge lots that overlook the lake are going to be more expensive than others. And so you end up with, if you use the plan that we've put together, which is 67 feet across, even though it's part straight and part curved, it's a much better plan in the end because you get more square footage in that lot. Okay. Those are things that have cultivated through the process that if asked we could have explained right from the beginning, okay. But the report comes across hey, this lot is no good. It's only whatever and that's maybe in reality the case but it's not the case when you have 47 feet out of 60 to do that. To get back to your questions now about what, how I feel about the staff recommendations. I guess I'm not in favor of the road because I've got enough support from builders that have verified the city's concern about problems with these lots. This lot on the end for example can be turned to the other street and probably solve 99percent of any problems that any staff member might be able to come up with. But there's many different ways to, not on all lots but on several lots in this development. For example like on 3, which is a full basement, you can make that a lookout you know. Blackowiak: Right, you could custom grade every lot. I mean basically. Randy Noecker: But in any case, I'm not in favor of losing Lot 1, Block 1. I've showed from a letter from Steve Schweider and I know I could get others if needed. That's a very beautiful lot. It's going to overlook the wetlands. I'm not in favor of moving the road. I think these, to talk about these trees down here, I think one of those trees may have been in the pad, but I think the other one could be saved with a retaining wall, and we would gladly do that. I know that you're not going to be able to move that pad like it was... If you moved that road, you've got, instead of a nice, heavily wooded thing, heavily wooded situation with some knee high plans and rain coming through that into a leaf bed that's 100 plus years old, if you're going to tell me that the soaking value of the rain falling on there is the same as a 3 to 1 slope coming into the back of that house, no way. And then for the staff, you know it's 20percent rules and it's 80percent politics sometimes, okay. But for staff to, in the initial meetings to tell me that a box elder and an oak have the same value and then to tell me this plan is okay if they wipe out 150 to 175 trees and replant with 7 trees or 8 trees, we've gone into the political end of this thing. You know. I'm just not in favor of it, no. I've got several, we've given additional information to the staff about changes that we planned on making. It was too late in the process to apparently present them to you, although I was not in agreement with that 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 issue either but none of these issues are beyond the scope of what I would refer to as minor housekeeping changes. Yesterday at the counter staff and Sharmin both agreed with me that we could make minor lot changes and things like this as the plan went onto City Council. So I'm in favor of the plan that I've submitted with these suggestions that I've made. I'm obviously not in favor of septic systems. I don't need that close to the lake. I don't think that issue needs further discussion. There is a couple of items inside of here that I want to clarify for the record and I think it's just possibly, you know they intended to write it this way but it may not have gotten, may not have been written that way, but I'm assuming that over sizing costs for all aspects of the needs that the city has for utilities, like for storm water manholes, the lift station itself, the size of it. The larger pumps. The force mains. All of that stuff would be included in the city cost that over sizing... Blackowiak: Let me clarify. Matt, is that something the city generally does? Assumes all cost of over sizing? Saam: In this case we did ask the applicant to do some additional sanitary sewer work. The lift station, for it's development is planned to serve existing houses in that neighborhood to the east, in the future. We don't know when. So we did say we would compensate him for the additional cost, but only for the sanitary sewer. At least that's all I've looked at so far. And that's in the staff report too. Randy Noecker: Yeah see in my comments I've included storm water, water and sanitary, and all aspects associated thereof. I got no problem with building my own but if you want to make it twice as big then I shouldn't have to pay that cost because the city needs to service a different area. That's a logical premise. Saam: Also in the memo I think there's some storm water fees that Lori Haak, the Water Resources Coordinator went through and I think I saw some credits in there that she lists out so I believe those have been taken care of also. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Randy Noecker: One other, and likewise with one other area and that's the park trails. I can remember a letter coming across that they were going to pay for the blacktop material. Well, you have to haul the material in. You have to spread the material out. You have to compact the material. Test the material and then lay a blacktop down on it and haul it all in and then roll it so there's a little bit more expense to making a trail than just the blacktop material. Aanenson: Just to be clear, we don't pay for that so if he has an issue with that he'd have to speak to the Park and Rec Director. Blackowiak: Right, because I see that they pay for materials and then installation is the developer's. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. It is their, it's their deal. Randy Noecker: So do credits then come back from a subtraction of park fees on that or? Saam: Trail fees. There are no trail fees... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: There are no trail fees. Saam: And I think that's why because Todd's asking him to put in the trail. That's the way I understand it. Blackowiak: Right, because it's already served by different parks. Randy Noecker: My mistake. I missed that. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, Mr. Noecker. Would you want to stay up there? I think we may have just a couple questions for you. Rich, anything you want to? Slagle: Sure. Just a couple questions. I didn't hear a lot about your thoughts on what you term Outlot B, and what I think is termed as Outlot A. In the sense of the change. The proposed change. Meaning if we were to not approve the change from the rural large lot to the, help me out. Aanenson: Low density. Slagle: Yes, low density. I mean what happens if that stays the same? We do not approve, and I realize that the rest of the program starts to, I don't want to say unravel but I mean would you be open to at some point having that Outlot A, or B as you call it, having 2 homes, 2 sites and then working out a new plan for the other parcel? Randy Noecker: I would say no to that because I look at, I'm a real, or at least I think I'm a down to earth person. I'm a real logical based individual. I believe in fairness in paying my share of costs and I don't believe in paying the costs for the city or other people, alright. I'll pay my own but that's it. Under that premise, it's logical, especially considering the wetland separation from the other large acreage lots. It's very logical to develop this, I think I've got about an acre and a half of usable ground from that 7 acre lot that I acquired. It's very logical to attach that to a sewered and watered project. If you guys said no for some reason, I would probably create an outlot on the entire cul-de-sac and the lots associated therewith and come back again at a later point in time because it's logical to develop it this way. It's a nice looking neighborhood when you get done. You obviously have people across the bay that don't want to look at house tops. They want to look at trees, and nobody wants, from a resident's perspective, nobody wants their own personal little park destroyed. We run into that all the time. And so I would not be in favor, if I'm understanding what you're saying, I would not be in favor of that because it's just logical to do this development, in my mind, the way it's proposed. Slagle: Sure. And if you were to then, what you just mentioned, take it to a different idea to come back to us with, extending the yards or the lots, you would then thus have less lots, is that correct? Randy Noecker: No. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: No, I would, I think what you're referring to, I mean under that plan yes you would, okay. But I thought you were referring in this Outlot A, Outlot B scenario. With these lots here along the lake, if I'm again, if I'm understanding what you're telling me, I would just put all of those, including the road into an outlot and come back when there's more sense to what I'm doing. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: Because it's logical to do this. If you can show me, I mean you've got politics involved but is it logical not to do this? And if so, please share that with me. Slagle: Okay. One last question, and it's more to Matt but I'd like you up there to answer it. Matt, was the reason we did not take Lucy Ridge Lane straight due south was because of the grading and the speed concerns? That's why we made the curve. Is that correct? Saam: Yes. Yep. Slagle: And there's really no other thought as to how to, because I mean I'm thinking. Saam: As to why it isn't just straight? Slagle: Straight yeah. I mean could it be straight if the speed concern was not an issue? Saam: I guess the existing topography too came into play somewhat but for sure to put a slight curve in there. In talks with Mr. Noecker, he thought teenagers would be speeding down there and so did we so we wanted to not make it a runway for them so to speak. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: One other issue that I forgot to mention that Ted just reminded me about was the retaining wall on the back of the pond. We've got a comment on the sheet that says the Planning Commission can either do a 4 foot retaining wall or we could plant wild flower mix on there. One of the, I think it was Mrs. Kind that had commented, it would be better without a retaining wall in that area and so then we found out from Sharmin that if you did a retaining wall you had to get council approval so we'd prefer not to do it but if we do a retaining, if we don't do a retaining wall we have to grade inside the buffer area and we would gladly replant the buffer area with the wild flower seed mix. Or any mix that might be recommended. Aesthetically it's going to look better in the end rather than have the retaining wall because I think Mrs. Kind is right on that issue. But we'll do it either way. Whatever, I mean that's our preference. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess you mentioned a number of letters that you received supporting your position. Have these been shared with staff? Would you like those included in the application? Because I'm thinking you might want to include that as supporting documentation. Randy Noecker: I'm not sure about, I'm not sure if the letters I was referring to was letters that I could get from other builders or was it at this meeting? Sidney: Yeah, you mentioned Steve... Randy Noecker: Yeah, I think that was in reference to other builders that I could go to and get letters from them that would basically substantiate the same thing but I, Steve is a real good builder. He builds a lot of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 houses over 700-800 and I'm real comfortable in his knowledge about situations. In fact that's why I approached him and Cudd and Mason came along. Sidney: I guess if you feel comfortable including that, if it would support your position. Randy Noecker: Oh yes. I would definitely, in fact I made 3 or 4 copies of that letter to give to staff so yeah, that letter is definitely a part of the whole process here. Blackowiak: Uli, did you have any questions? Sacchet: Well we talk about a lot of things and yes I do have a lot of questions but I'm not sure they would add much value at this point. Blackowiak: Okay. Well, if you reconsider. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah. A couple specific questions. Your opening statement you stated you'd like to identify or focus on 3 different areas. Goals, issues and complexity. We spent substantial amount of time on complexity. The rest on issues. We really didn't touch on goals. One of the things you identify as your goals was to develop executive sites, and I guess looking at the plan and listening to the different discussions and the rest of it, if you would I'd like you to maybe give a brief narrative of what you think defines, in your mind, an executive home site. Randy Noecker: Well one of the things that I would gladly, I may have a copy in my briefcase but I'm not certain. One of the things that I would gladly share are the conditions of the architectural committee approval and the proposed covenants that we plan to utilize on the site. Claybaugh: Maybe I could re-address that question. As it relates to maintaining the land integrity. Randy Noecker: Those 2, primarily those 2 issues were the avoidance of wetland, mitigate. Or not mitigation but wetland impact and the saving the trees. You know minimizing the tree destruction. Those were the 2 goals that I have identified, or I guess that we, as developers try to minimize as much as we can. We made, we looked at possibly impacting the wetlands on the 6 or 7 acre site and deemed it was inappropriate because it was a naturally based wetland whereas the other one was not. And that's why we put our additional wetland on the other wetland on the west side of Lucy Ridge Lane rather than on the lake side, again to minimize impacts as much as possible. Claybaugh: Okay. I'm presuming you don't assign a lot of weight to the square footage as it relates to an executive home site. The square footage of the lot. Randy Noecker: Oh yes we do. We're, that's why we're basic, we basically made the determination in our marketing efforts, and I'll use them as a comparison. I usually try to maintain about 96 to 97 foot frontage on my lots. It's not always possible. If for example when you have a curve you, at the 30 foot setback line, it's real easy to keep that at 90 because if you go 5 feet back, you're then at 92 or 94 and you know usually your garages are set back 6 to 12 feet anyway so by the time you're back at the house level, you're way over what the desired width of the lot would be. But Lundgren Brothers basically, I haven't seen their basic premise is very similar to that. They're in that 95-96 range. In their desired width of a lot. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: Right, with respect to the square footage though I think the adjacent subdivision Ashling Meadows, correct me if I'm wrong, is averaging around 22,000 square feet so. Randy Noecker: Okay. Let me give you a little breakdown. If you've got a 2,000 square foot 2 story. Okay you'd have roughly 4,000 feet on the top 2 levels. You've got a driveway that is approximately, let's call it 30 feet. Let's call it 20 foot wide at the right-of-way line and 30 feet wide at the garage. Average 25. You're at 25 times 30 is 750. Let's call it 800. Okay, you've got 2000 feet on the house, you've got 800 feet on the driveway. Your garage is typically a 24x34 will run you right around 850 square feet. Maybe 800. Well that 850. Add another 150 for your stoop and your sidewalks, you're at another 1,000 so you're 28, or excuse. You're 2,800 from the blacktop and the house plus your other 1,000 for your garage and your sidewalk. You're then at 3,800. Add 2, just for easy figuring, add 200 feet for patios. Claybaugh: 4,000 square feet. Randy Noecker: So you've got 4,000 square feet. You need a 16,000 square foot lot. Claybaugh: Okay. Now you've used a 2,000 square foot footprint on a two story. When you were up the first time you spoke in terms of possibility of 3 car garages. What would you consider the average footprint that the 3 builders that you entertained would be placing on some of these 16,000 square foot lots? I'm assuming there's. Randy Noecker: They're all between 18 and I supposed they'd go up to 22. Claybaugh: The footprint? Randy Noecker: The footprint. Claybaugh: Okay, for. Randy Noecker: For the house. Claybaugh: Now you also spoke in terms of million dollar range on some of these properties. Randy Noecker: Yep, and those lots that are priced in that category have adequate square footage to substantiate where we're at. Claybaugh: Okay, then I'm still struggling with the 2,200 square foot and the cost impact to the buyer. I can't even fathom the cost per square foot, what that property would be. I'm thinking in terms of 4,000- 5,000 square foot for the price tag that you're talking about and I'm assuming everything in there isn't going to be a two story. Randy Noecker: I would venture to say that you might have 1 rambler or 2 ramblers in there. The rest are going to be two stories. That's what the market's doing right now. Claybaugh: Okay. Just to come back to, this would involve Matt there with respect to the fairness issue for upsizing the utilities. Are you satisfied that that is being addressed? Are they just. Saam: You mean will the applicant be fully compensated or? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: Or just the city's position I'm assuming is to pay solely for the upsizing. Saam: Correct, yep. Yep. That's what we're looking out for. That's what's meant to be addressed in the staff report. Claybaugh: Okay. And that will be followed up I assume. Saam: Correct. Claybaugh: Say have you made any allowances for what I would consider fairly strong community resistance to the project? Randy Noecker: Allowances? Claybaugh: Well just looking around, usually we don't get this kind of crowd so that's a fairly good turnout and I believe they're here for this petitioner so yeah. Do you feel in your mind you've made any allowances? Or that you should make any allowances? Randy Noecker: Well, there's always a, I mean I just got a plat approved in Blaine a couple months ago and there were 7 people adjacent to the plat, and they were the only ones that showed up. The people, the 26 or 8 letters of, or 26 or 8 names and phone numbers of individuals that I have that wanted me to notify them of when this development is ready so that they can buy a lot, and all but one live in Chanhassen. I bet their ain't one of them here tonight. I mean they're not here because I mean. Claybaugh: No disrespect but that wasn't the question. Randy Noecker: Well, and I appreciate that. The. Claybaugh: ... feel that you should make allowances, I'm just asking the question. Number one, do you feel that you should? And if you do, do you feel you have? Randy Noecker: I'm not sure that I've made allowances. The concern that, or excuse me. Most of the comments that I related, or that I identified with in the last time we were here, they gave different comments but they, in the end they related to tree loss. I remember one guy or a couple people standing up and saying we should have less houses there. And his reason was that he wanted to save the trees, and I've tried to go through that process here this evening and show that we aren't going to save many trees if we have 21 versus 20 or 19. The tree loss is going to be there simply because of the impact of the topography and how it relates to our ability to raise that road as fast as we can. Claybaugh: Which I guess leads into my next question and that is, do you feel the situation is aggravated by the degree of lot density that you're counting? I understand there's a lot of elevation problems, that it's a complex site. I understand the nature of that but I also believe from my personal standpoint that the situation's being aggravated by trying to develop it as fully and completely as the plan in front of us. Randy Noecker: It obviously could be aggravated. The only people that I would suspect are here are from the north and from the east. The ones that are doing single family developments in Ashling Meadows aren't here I suspect and obviously the property to the south is not developed, but that's going to be 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 developed the same as this. So when you have two neighborhoods that come together, you obviously have opposition. Claybaugh: You're in a transition. Randy Noecker: Yeah. And it's you know, but I feel, I didn't think there would be that much of a problem because of the natural divide. I mean there's hundreds of feet across that wetland to the different properties and from that perspective yeah. The other thing I'd like to mention too is, I guess, I'm making this proposal based on the parameters that the, that is what I see available with the city. I'm not here proposing a large lot development. I'm proposing the one that I'm doing. If I wanted a large lot development proposal, that's what I would have come in with. I'm sure those that are here this evening would like to see a large lot proposal, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm doing the one I'm proposing. Claybaugh: No I was just curious if you thought there was any middle ground there. Even for myself, 16,000 square feet on an executive's homesite is on the short end. I understand there's people that are on the other side that are looking for large lot but that leaves a huge divide and a lot of suggestions that the city's making and some of the things that the neighborhood is saying, I'm just curious, I haven't gotten the impression that you're ready to entertain any of those. Randy Noecker: No I'm not because the number one reason is, just like, I mean you see in the paper that we're doing 60 or 70percent townhomes. Well if you understand the market out there right now, you could be doing 90percent townhomes and not satisfy the demand. The townhome demand in the metro area is going so fast it is unbelievable. Now I make that comparison to this because this site is one that people want because of it's location. It's near work, or nearer to work than it would be if they bought a large lot out in the country. They're choosing to buy this lot and put these houses on them. Most of them in today's market do not want a big yard. All I'm doing is being in tune with the marketplace. Claybaugh: And I think from, at least my perspective, we're trying to be in tune with what the community's about. I think that's part of what we're trying to convey to you is that that may be what the market is in other cities, but we're also here to try and represent what Chanhassen is supposed to represent and that's, it's mixed. We have large lot. We have small lot and you're caught in a transition area and I can appreciate some of the problems it's causing for you. I guess last thing is, I guess I take exception to the 20percent policy and 80percent politics. We've worked with the staff. A lot of us are new to the planning commission but we've seen nothing but first rate service to people that have come across their desks so that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay thank you Craig. Deb, questions. Kind: Yes I have one quick question and that is on the second page of the blueprints. The one that has all the contours on it. Could you point out to me where this retaining wall and/or buffer sloped area would go. Is that the entire length of Outlot B or is it just near the entrance area? I see arrows going to two places and it makes me think it goes the whole north/south distance. Use Outlot B, yes. And it's the one I'm looking at is, what is it called? Grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Slagle: 12-18-01 on the bottom left. Aanenson: Could you give me the page again, I'm sorry. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: This one? Randy Noecker: Oh yeah we got it. This one. Basically if you look at the legend...to differentiate between the two is the darkness of the line. If I can I'll point out the tree preservation fence which basically is over here on the bluff. And the tree preservation that encompasses all of this green area that Jill asked that I save as a part of that ridge. The rest of this stuff, like along the trail, that's silt fence. Kind: That's that boulder shaped wall that I thought was a retaining wall at first and that's really an erosion fence. There's a little note here that says Planning Commission/Council choice. Randy Noecker: Okay. The Planning Commission/Council choice basically has to do with a possible retaining wall along the pond. Between the pond and wetland. Maybe a couple hundred feet long. But it's not marked on here. We just made the notation. The only thing that's marked on here is the silt fence, okay. But we made the notation that we would do a 4 foot wall with no buffer disturbance or that the buffer would be sloped 3:1 with wild flower seed mix. Kind: Which is what you touched upon earlier. And then that's got two arrows kind of going ooooh. So is that the whole distance of it? Randy Noecker: Right. That's the distance of the retaining wall. Kind: Okay. So it's not, you're proposing that it goes the entire length of the wetland? Randy Noecker: The wall? Kind: Right. Randy Noecker: No. Kind: Thank you. And then staff, that was Sharmin's latest condition that she added tonight was staff's perspective is, they're recommending that the Planning Commission and Council choose the retaining wall option and I guess I'd like to hear staff's rationale for why you prefer that over the wild flower 3:1 slope option. A1-Jaff: Whenever we have the chance to save a buffer and keep it in it's natural state, then that's what we attempt to do. In this case, if we went with a retaining wall, we would be able to save the buffer. And it's a natural wetland so minimize impact on the wetland. Kind: Thank you. That's all. Blackowiak: Bruce, questions. Feik: I have no questions for this applicant. Blackowiak: Uli, have you? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few quick questions. There's one thing that really perplex me. You're stating your goal, you want to make executive home sites .... what I don't understand is, if that's your goal, why 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 are you so adamantly opposed to having less lots and a little larger lots and therefore be able to be a little more sensitive to the nature there. Randy Noecker: It doesn't save any trees by making larger lots. The impact of the cuts involved with the topography basically wipe out your trees anyway. I mean if there's an area that you can save trees it's, you know given there might be some trees there, I can sure look at it but we've spent a lot of time with this issue on trying to identify a possible area that we could deal, or do that with the elimination of a lot. The unfortunate or not unfortunate, however you want to look at it, the development is really broken up into 3 segments. You've got these 5 lots and Lot 1, and these 4 in Lot 2 and the rest of it. And by eliminating 1 lot in one of those areas, it does not help any of the other areas. Sacchet: Yeah, I would agree with that. One lot wouldn't do it. Now I have two other things that kind of perplex me. I mean you touched on a lot of things but two things I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand. When you were talking about moving the road and making those lots in Block 1 deeper, you're going into quite a lot of detail how the elevation is relatively severe and how it has to be graded and how the lots have to be plowed in for Lot 4-5. I guess that's the one in Block 1 you're addressing, and what I don't understand is, it seems to me that if the lot would be deeper, you would have a gentler slope. You would have more room for that grading so you actually made a case that the road should be moved then. Randy Noecker: Well no, not exactly because you, imagine, here's the side of my house. Okay. And you have the hill coming down. You want to get that hill down as quickly as you can so you've got a flat area going into the house. You don't want to do it at a 5:1 so it slams right into the back of the house. You want to hit that bottom on a 3:1, put a swale in there so the water runs away, and then comes back up to the house. But in this plan right here, moving it 80 feet, you've got an 80 foot difference plus my back yard that's currently drawn in there on Lot 5, which let's say is 20 feet. You now have 100 foot back yard behind the pad under that plan, and that was just an overkill. It's not necessary. There's a, I don't know what there is. Well it's 150 feet deep. It's a 60 foot back yard right now. Sacchet: And then the other little detail I briefly want to touch on, when you were talking about Lot 9 and moving those lines around. I was kind of perplexed. I didn't know that before you actually pointed it out is that by straightening out these lines a little bit, if I understood you correctly, to make the front wider, you would lose enough square footage in the back that you get in trouble with the impervious surface because the lot is so small already, is that pretty much what you pointed out? Randy Noecker: What I was trying to make, or identify with is to, you want to, when you have a section, in developments you can have sections that are higher priced than other sections, okay. The cul-de-sac is a classic example. Those homes are going to be much higher priced than others. Or let me say, have a higher average value than this same development, okay. Likewise, these 4 or 5 lots, and possibly the one across the street is going to have the same situation involved with it. These over here are the less priced lots, 1 through 5 over here, okay. Well, if you've got a neighborhood that you're trying to protect, you want to keep those values of the, you want to refrain from restricting any kind of value or anticipated value that you have so you want to keep your square footages up at the point that you feel necessary. I've made a determination that I like to keep my lots at around 16,200 minimum. Not all are going to achieve that because inside of the formula that you use, you also want to have about a 75 or 77 foot lot width. 10 foot on each side makes it 97 feet wide. You can't always get 97 feet and you can't always get 16,200 but there's not, not everybody's going to need 16.2 because remember, there's going to be a lot of these houses that are only 45 feet deep. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Yeah, my question however was, you made a comment about getting in trouble with impervious if you move some of these lines around. Randy Noecker: Yes, that's true. That's the general idea. IfI move those lines under this plan that I showed, it certainly can be done, okay. But it's not the right way to do the development because then by moving the lines I'm down to somewhere around 15,000 and I've made a determination in my decision making process that I want to be at around 16.2 or above. And in so doing I can accomplish the goals that I want for this neighborhood. But to knock it down to 15,000 makes the lot a question mark because you may either have trouble selling it or it may not be the type of house that you really want to get for that particular location, and it's just a basic premise of establishing and protecting your investment that you have inside of an entire project. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have any questions at this time. So we'll move along. I am, at the request of some of the neighbors I will open the public hearing briefly to hear their presentation. 5 minutes or so. When I say or so, please take that with a grain of salt. I guess Tamara is not here tonight. She's, you are Tamara? Okay. How come I didn't think you were going to be here tonight? Tamara Sather: I don't know. Blackowiak: I don't know either. Tamara Sather: I was the first one here. Blackowiak: Good for you. Well why don't you state your name and address for the record and then just go ahead. Tamara Sather: Okay. Madam Chair and Planning Commission. Thank you. My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane and I'm representing the petitioners and the local residents around the development. I will be brief and concise. My husband says I might get too sassy ifI go off the way a little bit. The neighbors really want to stress that, the surrounding neighborhood residents are not against land development. In fact we all live in a development so we really want to get that point across that we're not against a new development coming in here. However we are opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons. Development is not consistent with the surrounding developments which range from ~ to 10 acre lots. Lake Lucy Highlands, Greenwood Shores and Ashling Meadows. As you can see the map to the east of Lake Lucy, those homes in Greenwood Shores on the lake are a minimum of ~ acres and in the Lake Lucy Highlands they range from 1 acre to 10 acre lots. In the development of Ashling Meadows, just to the west of the development, the 3 lots in the northeast comer are abutting 5 lots in the proposed development. According to the comprehensive plan of 2020, Outlot A is part of Lake Lucy Highlands. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a large lot development and has maintained that character. Outlot A which on the new plat is Outlot B, needs to remain part of Lake Lucy Highlands. And if we look at the comprehensive plan it does show that that naturally fits in with those, with the Lake Lucy Highlands. Therefore, you can see the lots a 7.7 and a majority of it is wetlands. I think they mentioned about an acre and a half that would be buildable so with the majority of Outlot A being wetland, we would just feel that that whole lot goes with the Highlands. Residents urge the Planning Commission to deny the land use amendment of Outlot A. If the land use amendment is denied, the rezoning of Outlot A would be 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 inconsistent with the zoning ordinances. And then as you mentioned before, the policy. If we believe that that outlot is part of Lake Lucy Highlands, policy states that the large lot subdivision is to remain as is until a majority of the residents request to have it changed. The petition reflects 80 residents from the surrounding neighborhoods that wish to leave Outlot A as it is. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. Residents appreciate it's natural environment which include trees, slopes, vistas, uncluttered open spaces. The proposed development will result in extensive grading, a high loss of canopy and loss of value wetlands that protect Lake Lucy. Here's a photo of the area. You can see the amount of trees. It doesn't show the topography... You can see that this development is obviously very close to the lake so there are many concerns for the lake. Now it is obvious the applicant is trying to fill the development in with as many lots as possible. The 21 lots proposed is too dense and does not fit with the surrounding neighborhoods. We feel the topography of the land does not lend itself to 21 homes and the grading needed to squeeze these homes in would be environmentally detrimental to the land and Lake Lucy. It's been addressed by the applicant himself that this is, there's a lot of challenges with this land and I think that it is increased with the amount of lots that he is trying to put on it and I think it's a beautiful piece of land. We think it's a beautiful piece of land that could have some nice homes on it. Larger lot homes that would match the surrounding area and fit in with the community around the development. After a year and one Planning Commission meeting the applicant still has not met some recommendations of staff or direction given by the Planning Commission. We are concerned about the development that is negligent in meeting recommendations. Residents would like to see a development that reflects integrity with full regard for the environment and consistency with nearby neighborhoods. We are not opposed to a new development. We would like to see development that would be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. We want Outlot A to remain as it is shown in the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay in fairness, if there's anyone else from the neighborhood who would like to add anything that wasn't covered in the presentation, please come up and briefly state. Okay, name and address for the record. Scott Sather: Hi. I'm Scott Sather, 7090 Utica Lane. I guess my big question. I've had the opportunity to work with the developer the last couple years and he's always stressing environmental impact and one thing that he's mentioned to me is that you cannot change the rate of which a piece of property sheds it's water, but you can change the volume and according to what I see, there are no holding areas to deter the rate at which that water will shed. And the lake, from what I understand from talking to the neighbors, has really deteriorated over the years because of what we think, a lot of phosphates and what not and a lot of extra runoff so I guess my only point is, is there a plan to change the rate at which the water will shed off this new development? Saam: I can address that if you want. Blackowiak: Yeah, if you want to briefly. Saam: Yeah, sure. I've worked with the applicant's engineer. They are proposing a pond to control the rate that it will discharge into the wetland and Lake Lucy so they are meeting our requirements. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson. I'm a resident of Lake Lucy Highlands. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. Just a brief comment. Of course I also signed the petition. Most of us in the Lake Lucy Highlands area are still there. We were the original purchasers and homeowners and one of the things that attracted 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 me, and I think most people, was the fact that we had restrictions and covenants which included an architectural committee. Now a lot of our homes are probably not as valuable as the homes that are being proposed to be built, but because of the large lot residential, which was attractive to many of us. The fact that our area contains a lot of wetlands. We have a number of natural separation in our neighborhood. And a lot of wildlife. These are big lawns, etc. These are pretty much natural looking lots, and so we're concerned as to having a lot of buildings being built. We're concerned about having buildings being built on these lots, even storage sheds, that were out of character for that particular area. And so we had, the developers drew up, I think the Steller's drew up a number of restrictive covenants which are still in effect for our development. And I don't think anyone's brought up the fact that these restrictive covenants now are effectively being devalued or taken away from us by taking the Outlot A, which is part of our development, and putting it into the proposed development without consideration of these covenants, which include our approval of anything built on Outlot A. I mention that. It may be a legal question. Blackowiak: Well I do kind of know the answer to this one. Pat Johnson: I believe you do. Blackowiak: Yeah, and I think Kate needs to just back me, or just sort of make sure I'm stating it correctly. The restrictive covenants are not something the city can enforce and it's between the residents and Kate, I don't know exactly what the legal basis is. Maybe you could clarify that a little bit for us. Aanenson: Well that's correct. It's between the owners of the subdivision to enforce that. Certainly if this lot was replatted, that would have to be looked at. Blackowiak: But it's not something that we really can give a lot of weigh to I think in our decision. Pat Johnson: Okay. My second point, without reiterating, this development appears to be a fairly high class development. It would fit in well I think in Minneapolis or in Edina or an inner ring suburb but it's going to be out of character, at least the way it now stands with these large lots. I mean our development's 2 ½ to 5 acres. Many cases 10 acre developments and with that density and then all of a sudden taking a density where it would have houses on 16,000 square feet is just simply going to be out of character for that area. So we're hoping that the commission will deny the application and that we would have some compromise from the developer. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright I am going to close the public hearing right now. I wonder if I should start. No, I think we'll just, I'll let the other commissioners make comments. I guess the over riding question that I'm going to have, and maybe we could all discuss this, is the rezoning question. And that's something that I'd like you all to address. Whether or not the land use amendment should or should not go forward because that's going to determine how far we go with the rest of the motion so with that, Craig why don't you start us out. Claybaugh: Given the current circumstances as they're laid in front of us tonight, I would not be in favor of voting in the affirmative for the land use amendment .... with the surrounding area encompassing some of the things that were discussed here tonight and in the plans. Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: I agree. I think that Matt summed it up well. I think we can expect some sort of trade-off in exchange for changing the land use designation from large lot to single family residential. A plan that would require less lots with less grading I think would be more environmentally friendly and more in keeping with our comprehensive plan and I do not support changing the land use. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I concur. I am not comfortable agreeing to change the land use based upon the current plan and the amount of staff considerations that we've seen since the last time this has been here just a month ago. Month and a half ago. So I would not be in favor of changing the land use at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well, I made my position pretty clear last time. I don't believe we're over reacting. We certainly agree on one thing that this is a problematic site to build. Unfortunately we don't agree which one is the wrong plan. You made a statement that this is the wrong plan. Well, I think we have divided opinions which one is the wrong plan. I'm not sure there is a right plan at this point. It seems obvious, and the staff report states it and I think ultimately your deliberation Mr. Noecker made that plenty clear too, is that proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites in this development. Your goal is to maximize and as such I still disagree with the staff finding that the proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage. I believe it causes much. Much environmental damage. And that's obviously very significant finding and there's so many conditions here to try to mitigate and I want to commend staff for the effort you've made to try and put this in a framework to mitigate all the negative impacts and find something viable but obviously the developer chose not to consider hardly any of the significant suggestions so I cannot possibly envision how we could let this go forward without seeing what, where it's actually going. I mean it's just way too many things that were pointed out during the presentation of the applicant again as well. We would need to know specifics. What is the average lot size? And then that leads me to the key point here. This development is a transition. According to the comprehensive plan, the way I understand the comprehensive plan, it is a transition. There has to be a flow. In Ashling Meadows we have an average lot size of what is it? 22 or 25,000 or what? Blackowiak: I believe it's 28,000. Sacchet: Or even 28. 28,000. I've heard 28,000. Across from your development that you're proposing there is large lot which means a minimum of 2 ½ acres. So if you look at this in a context that the logical thing, and you mentioned your appeal to logic here too. The logical thing would be that the lot sizes in your development, the average lot size should be between 28,000 and 2 ½ acres. That's logical to me. And on that basis there's no way I could support changing that outlot designation in order to maximize the lot density, which doesn't mean I'm in support of having septic systems there in the end, but the current proposal does not warrant a concession like that. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with my fellow commissioners' comments and I'd like to make a few here just to make a few additional points. I agree it's a very complex site to develop which merits special consideration. And I think everyone here recognizes it will be developed at some point. The question before us tonight, is this the plan that we want to see go forward. One thing that really struck me is that we have huge changes in the grade from west to east and it seems like the current plan is much more appropriate for a flatter lot like 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 something that would be in Blaine rather than the current situation in Chanhassen. And I view that a less dense development would be a better transition zone, like Uli stated, and would be more appropriate for an executive neighborhood. I don't think that what we have before us is compatible as a transition between the two developments nearest to the proposed development. So I cannot support the change in the land use and cause this to promote a development which, like I said, I believe is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I also want to state for the record that I feel that I have, well I do have some concerns about the process this application has followed. I strongly believe staff has diligently worked with the applicant and it seems like the applicant, from what we have heard tonight, has reached little agreement with staff. And also little agreement with the neighbors to this development and I support all of staff's recommendations and highly value their opinion and I think all developers that we have seen here have made some concessions and have worked effectively with staff on most all occasions. And I feel that the applicant needs to work more closely with the neighbors and staff to bring forward an application which everyone is going to have a good feeling about. I just cannot feel good about what we have before us tonight and that's feeling but back to the fact that I can't support the land use amendment because it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in my view. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: As far as the rezoning, I just could not support the rezoning application. And to be quite honest with you the applicant as well as others who might think of this lot, I really have a struggle as to how you could develop this any other way than the current situation that it's in today. I don't think it would be appropriate to have numerous homes as a result of a proposed zoning change. And I think as other commissioners have discussed, the density and the transition are just I think absolutely critical to this situation. And I know the applicant mentioned the development to the west, Ashling Meadows. Well there's no homes there. I would bet a dollar that if there were homes there, you would have this side of the room taken up by citizens, and again not that they don't want a development, but it is a transition from large lots to very nice lots and then it continues to Highover and up to Longacres and this just seems to be a situation where there are a number of homes that are being proposed and I think it's just too much and I don't think as Uli sort of suggested in a quiet way, it's not just 1 or 2 home sites. And obviously that's my viewpoint but I couldn't approve a rezoning. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners as well and I thought LuAnn would say my favorite phrase and she didn't. Is there a compelling reason? We go back to this so often in rezoning questions and land use amendments. You know what is the compelling reason for us to change and if we don't hear that reason. If we're not convinced that it's for the good of the community, the good of the property, then there's really no way that we can go ahead and say just because we want to do it we can do it. We need to hear good reasons and logic behind it. It's shown as part of the Lake Lucy Highlands right now. The Outlot A/B, whatever we're calling it, and it makes sense to leave it as such in the absence of any reason to the contrary to change it. Second thing. There's some strong neighborhood opposition to the plan and I think that we have to weigh that as well, and thank you all for coming. You did a great job tonight making your presentation and kept it very factual, which is often hard because it can be very emotional to hear changes that are proposed that you're not in agreement with. But tonight I didn't hear reasons for changing the land use so I would not be able to support any land use amendment or rezoning. With that I'll need a motion and I would refer, whoever wants to make it to page 19. Top of page 19. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following as stated with one correction. The last sentence should read, therefore the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Not may find but we do find that that's the case. And then further I'd like to move that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following 1 through 3. And I'd like to move that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. And that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. Blackowiak: Okay, well unless there's any objections I'm going to, yes Rich. Slagle: Just a housekeeping. Do you want to add 2020 comprehensive plan? Sacchet: Yes, that's acceptable. Blackowiak: With the 2020, and that's in motion 4? Or in. Sacchet: That's in the first. Slagle: In the first. Sacchet: In the first, the last sentence. Slagle: I think it's somewhat obvious but we'd better put it. Sacchet: To be specific correct. Blackowiak: Okay. So unless anyone objects, I'm going to take all four of these motions. Aanenson: You can have them all as one. Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll vote on them all at once. Yes we'll need a second. Feik: I'll second all four. Blackowiak: Thank you. You're going too fast here for me, I'm sorry. I was looking for objections at first. I didn't see any so it's been moved and seconded that, as Uli stated, motions 1 through 4 for denial are in front of us. I don't know how I'm going to get out of this one. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following: 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 The existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly regards it's natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore, the proposal can not proceed. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on January 28th, SO members of the audience, please make sure you follow this item through to that City Council meeting and see what happens there. Thank you everyone for coming. We'll take a 3 minute break and we'll move onto the second item as soon as we get back. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6890 NAVAJO DRIVE, MARK NELSON. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Public Present: Name Address Don Peterson 6896 Navajo Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, any questions of staff here? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. Sharmin, on this option, alternative 4. What was the front setback? A1-Jaff: 23.5. Sidney: Okay, so that's the smallest amount, right. Yeah, okay. And then I guess just one question. Has the applicant, well the applicant would like to build a second story over the proposed garage and the front half of the house, and if not then a porch should be constructed that maintains the same setback. Does this change or this option 4 change any of that? Okay. Blackowiak: Rich, sure. Slagle: Just a quick question Sharmin. On the Kind alternative. Kind proposal. What is the side setback on that? A1-Jaff: 3 feet. Slagle: 3 feet. So okay. A1-Jaff: One of the issues that Deb also brought up regarding the 3 foot setback, staff has a condition that says there shall be no encroachment including eaves, overhangs into a setback. We believe that it won't be possible for the applicant to construct an 18 foot wide garage without a minimum of 1 foot overhangs. Aanenson: What in the past what we've done is the concern that we've had is that the water running off onto the neighbor's property so in the past to mitigate that we've put a condition on to mitigate that would be gutters. Leaning that direction. Slagle: The applicant's okay with that do we know or? Blackowiak: Let's ask him. Slagle: Okay, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli any questions for staff? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. Let me say a single garage would be the logical fit. Is that just based on the size of the house? A1-Jaff: (Yes). 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: You talk about an encroachment agreement will be required as the driveway is within 5 feet of the side yard of the property line. That's an encroachment agreement with the city right? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Now what I was struggling a little bit is, when you say the majority of RSF zoned properties have at least a 2 stall attached garage. That's indeed true but by going out there you find just anything you could possibly imagine a car would be. You find no garage. You find small 1 car garage. You find 3 car garages. You find a fair amount of 2 car garages. Small 2 car garage. Big 2 car garage. Where do you put a stake in the ground here in terms of what's customary? What fits? A1-Jaff: Well this is a small 2 car garage. Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: And based upon the size of vehicles that are being manufactured today. If there is a family that lives there, 2 individuals, it's only fair to assume that there would be 2 vehicles in that household. Sacchet: I have a question about the 2 last conditions in your proposed motion. The location of the retaining wall. You talk about the retaining wall may indicate that there are fill soils. I'm not sure I understand correctly, I'm clear what. Well actually it's probably more a question for you Matt. Saam: Yeah, I think it actually came from the building department. If you bring in fill on a site to construct a home, or maybe in this case fittings for a retaining wall for the garage. Well the applicant does want to put a two story above the garage so if you bring in fill for that, the building department requires soil reports on that to make sure it can meet compaction requirements and other things. Sacchet: And then the demolition permit, that would be for the teeny little shed, is that what the report said? Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: And my final question. We're talking about building a second story, and that seems to be kind of an appendix in the background. The main thing is the setback for the garage. The second story, that's something that. A1-Jaff: It won't change the hard surface coverage because you're going up so there isn't a variance there, and right now we're asking for, the applicant is asking for a variance for side yard as well as a front yard. If you grant those, they would apply to the second story. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. That's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, any questions? Feik: I'm just going to go back again over your item number 6 regarding encroachment of eaves and overhangs. So now you're saying that he will need a minor amount of overhand, a foot or something? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 You said you've handled that in the past with gutters but this is a gabled roof. You can't put a gutter on gable? A1-Jaff: I don't know. Claybaugh: The gable should be facing the street. Aanenson: You can't because the house. Feik: The picture and the sketch in here is a gabled roof so the gutters would be irrelevant. Aanenson: Good point. A1-Jaff: So then they would need to encroach into that 3 foot. Feik: Yes they would. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: All the more reason to have a 3 foot instead of a 1 foot. Feik: Yeah because they are, it almost looks like a hip roof. Blackowiak: Okay. Good comment. Feik: That's it. Blackowiak: Okay Deb, any questions of staff? No. Craig, any questions of staff? Claybaugh: Did the side yard neighbor have any opinion? A1-Jaff: He did stop by earlier this morning, or afternoon and the only concern he had was the amount of hard surface and what it was going to do to runoff since his property collects the majority of the water within this area. And what the applicant is proposing to do is put in drain tile along the side of the garage to mitigate those problems. Any potential future problems. Claybaugh: As Bruce pointed out the gable is facing the neighbors hedge. It's going to get the front runoff and then off a swale in the driveway where it's pitched towards his yard so, we need to treat it at a different location. With respect to the gable there, you know what the overhang is on the existing structure architecturally? If it's on an existing building. Are you aware of that? A1-Jaff: It has to be, well it would be 20 on the existing structure it would be, oh the shed. Claybaugh: ...trying to match the existing structure on the overhangs so. Blackowiak: We can ask that when the applicant comes up. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: I guess the last question I have is when we look at some of the different properties from different neighborhoods, do we consider some of the inherent realities? I mean I know that everyone would like to have a 2 car garage and I realize this da da da da da, but there's also limitations with respect to the ordinances and the setbacks being put in place for a reason. More is always better but I was wondering why they just glossed over alternative 1, or number 1 as being reasonable. It still requires a variance so there is some flexibility but we're already in encroaching in those setbacks with getting a garage and we get into the question that gee wouldn't it be nice to have a 2 car garage. And so on and so forth. Where does the.., stop so to speak and what are the inherent realities of some of these different neighborhoods? A1-Jaff: We try to find a balance between what the ordinance requires, which is a 2 car garage. The reality that we're faced with and locations such as this. What the needs are today and that's why we thought, we believe that the smaller 2 car garage would be adequate. But alternative 1 is definitely an option as well. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, and I don't have any questions right now Sharmin so at this point would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make a presentation? Name and address for the record please. Mark Nelson: I'm Mark Nelson, 6890 Navajo Drive. I'm open to questions. I'm very flexible with the staff. They've come up with a fourth idea for me as far a this. It was in my back, in the back of my head when I started this program 10 years ago looking at this and trying to decide what to do with this lot. I had drawings done where the actual house would continue. Do you have those photos? A1-Jaff: Yes. Mark Nelson: The actual house had a north/south slant to the roof. And I had plans drawn up and the guy didn't even consider the lot. He drew me an 18 by 24 garage because that's what I told him I wanted. And he put a room over the garage. Well, he put it over the garage but he didn't put anything over the house either so it wasn't, the plan was worthless to me. And over the years we've talked about it and looked at it and tried to decide exactly how to do it and I came in shortly after having those plans drawn and was told that there would be no way I would ever be able to get anything within a foot of the lot. That was before I even considered talking to you or anybody else. Then with the consideration of the economy and being able to afford this, we started pursuing different ideas. The final drawings. Aanenson: Is that what you're looking for pictures? Mark Nelson: Yeah. Aanenson: Did you have actual photo pictures? Mark Nelson: She's got them. Aanenson: She's looking for them. Julie's the one that helped you. Julie's not here today. Mark Nelson: No, she had them on her desk this afternoon. Sure. If we went with the complete within the regulations of everything we'd have a garage that you couldn't park a car in. It's a fact. I mean if you sat and looked at it. You wouldn't be able to close the door in the back of the car. If we stuck with the way it's all written. So we've basically not pursued it. The plan that we've come up with on a 2 car. Oh I'm sorry, I was just closer. Or just closer to something that actually makes sense for this lot. The neighbor 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 was here til 8:00. He goes to work at 4:30 in the morning. That's the original house. When we first got it. The tree that you see there and we didn't know about the driveway. Impervious surface on the driveway and when I did the design I did the design so that we would cover the 1,500 square feet so we wouldn't go over the 25percent. And then they told me about the driveway. The driveway actually acts as a water piece to the tree. It stops the water right there and it collects. It does a very good job of feeding that tree with water for the spring. We'd love to have a hard core surface driveway. Rock is not the way to go, but the question will still be runoff. Going further back on the house, we had talked about, this is an updated version. This is where we're at today. We've done a lot of landscaping. Improved the amount of rock in the driveway because all of the years and years of, the 80 years they've thrown rock down in that driveway, it keeps getting harder and harder on the surface but it still tums into mud if you don't maintain it with bigger rock so that's what we've done. I wish I had 90 feet on front. I really do. 90 feet would be wonderful. I mean talk about screaming about 100 feet over here, 100 foot back yard would be perfect. But it seems that there are certain people in the world who like small houses also. I'm not one of them but there are people who like small houses. And the best plan we could have, instead of going out and spend $250,000 on a new home, spend less than 70 or 80 on adding onto this one. And still coming up with a family of 4 and having an extra room. The neighborhood itself is really, as we all know, one of the old neighborhoods. It's deep in there. We are back in the woods. 20 minutes to anywhere in the Twin Cities but yet we sit in the woods. You can't compare that to anything else in Chanhassen anymore. Well maybe a couple. They've got 10 acre lots. And this one should probably not have been done in 1927, though my neighbor to the south has there's 22 of this 20 by 100 lots and the gentleman next to me has about 10 or 8. Something like that and they're spread out around the comer. Claybaugh: Does he want to share? Mark Nelson: Huh? Claybaugh: He won't share? Mark Nelson: The one at the north can't share and I don't know if anybody wants to. And the one to the south, his, the closest area from the fence, from the lot line there, it's 45 feet to his 2 car garage. And yes, all the water does collect in the street out in front of his house and then he actually dug a sewer, storm sewer from there to the back of his lot to drain that water. We've done a lot of self maintenance back there and there's 2 trees sitting next to these that the red spiders have basically eaten up about 30 feet of those trees and we've talked about it and he says he's probably going to get rid of them if I build, and I've agreed to take out his fence. It's give and take back there. And all of the drain tile, things like that basically I assume that's what you would want. Blackowiak: Yeah, I think so. Okay. I've just got a quick question for you before I ask other commissioners. Which alternative do you prefer? I mean of the 4 shown, yeah pick a door right. Mark Nelson: Pick a door. Alright, I'll pick 4. Blackowiak: Alternative number 4? Mark Nelson: Sure. I get that extra space. Blackowiak: The extra 2 feet at the end. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Mark Nelson: At the end for shop and for basically storage if you will. It may or may not even work though due to the fact that there's an issue with construction there and I've looked at it left and right and you have to have that one wall sitting in a specific place here in order for me to put sewer and air conditioning upstairs. But coming 2 feet forward is really nice. I mean instead of having a, what I have now is a 5 foot stoop, I have a 7 foot deck if you will. Blackowiak: Okay. And then back to Craig's question about overhang on the house currently, is that about a foot or what? Roughly? Mark Nelson: Yeah. See I'm changing the lines of the house. We're maintaining that. I'm not only just putting this on, I'm also doing soffit, roof, windows, siding. I mean this is not just the garage and things, it's changing the whole look of the house. Blackowiak: Right. Mark Nelson: And the foot would be probably appropriate here. Blackowiak: 18 inches? Mark Nelson: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay. Mark Nelson: And this is new to me about the gutter thing. I had planned on using gutters on the bottom and running those into the drain tile. And he uses actually, the neighbor has a break, a 4 foot wall, cement wall that is equal to where the back of my house is. And he can't even use that back end of his lot, and that sewer, that storm sewer I told you about. If it's raining hard, he's got all the water from the neighborhood going into that sewer and just gushing out of there. Raccoon's have flown out of that gutter. But the point being is that the drainage back there would go into the same area and he has no problem with that. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Slagle: I though it would be a tough act to follow the first group but you've done a very good job. Mark Nelson: I really, I can't believe you guys sit here and listen to this. Slagle: So are we on 4? Is that the. Blackowiak: That was his preference. Mark Nelson: I would take 2 or 4. Blackowiak: 2 or 4, okay. Mark Nelson: I don't have a preference. They both do the same for me as long as I can go up. Slagle: I would like to just throw out for consideration that we just make a motion to approve 4. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh, this is a public hearing item okay. Slagle: Oh is it? Blackowiak: Yes it is. Slagle: Alright. Well then I'll withhold that. I'm sorry. No questions. Sidney: Okay. Back to which do you prefer, I guess I'm hearing 4 so that's the motion that we'd like to go for, do you agree? Mark Nelson: That'd be great. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Question, go ahead. Sacchet: Real quickly. You said you're a family of 4 so obviously a 1 car garage is not very practical. Mark Nelson: Let me tell you, I've gone through cars because of that pine tree in the front dumping pine onto the cars that I've had and I work on my own cars even. Sacchet: Now since you mentioned trees, there are those 2 trees just across the lot line on the neighbors. Are those the 2 that you said were sick? Mark Nelson: Yes. Sacchet: So there is no big point of being trying to do much for those? Mark Nelson: No. I'm surprised he hasn't taken them out already. He's done a lot of trimming on his lot already in which trees have disappeared. There's a lot of problems with trees back in that area as well. It's hard to keep up with them. Sacchet: That's my questions. Blackowiak: Thanks. Questions? Feik: I have nothing, thank you. Blackowiak: Deb, any questions? Kind: No. Blackowiak: Claybaugh: Craig, any questions? Just so I understood you correctly, you were going to install your own French drain in addition to what your neighbor had to try and provide for his property? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Mark Nelson: Yeah. There's a question there in the 16 foot wide driveway and it would be centered on the garage. And if the garage is 18, then you've got. Blackowiak: It would have to taper at the end obviously. Mark Nelson: Well yeah. We thought that there would be a foot there off the side of the driveway and then another 3 feet to the actual lot, so that's like 4 feet for the driveway. Claybaugh: Obviously you want the garage but you're looking to capture some additional square footage by adding a second story. Mark Nelson: Yeah, living space. Claybaugh: Are you looking to utilize, I'm assuming you want all you can get on a second? Do you need the square footage, the 100percent of the square footage that you're adding over a 2 car garage? Mark Nelson: Yeah. Yeah. Claybaugh: That's helpful to me because I think 1 car garage so, if it lends itself better to a family of 4 and you need that internal square footage, it makes it easier for me to entertain.., on 4. Mark Nelson: Sure. I started, I didn't quite start looking at how many people had 1 and 2 car garages in that area. Claybaugh: Yeah, I'll be honest with you. It's mox nix to me because... Mark Nelson: It's a lot of 2 cars, it really is. Back there. There's a lot of 2 car garages. Claybaugh: That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. This item is open for a public hearing so if anyone would like to come up and comment on this item, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, Rich, I will close this item. So comments from anyone before we move onto the motion? Kind: Madam Chair, I just want to make a pitch for alternative 4 which I hear everybody's kind of leaning towards. The rationale is that it's the same amount of surface coverage and it gives them 2 more feet of storage for a lawn mower or whatever. And then the idea of narrowing the driveway to 16 feet, which is the standard width of a garage door. Most driveways really are only the garage door width. That's what allows the surface coverage to stay the same. As opposed to being the full 18 feet so that's my rationale. Claybaugh: Question for staff. Did you confirm the front yard setback with Commissioner Kind's plan, Alternative number 4? A1-Jaff: Yes. It's 23.5. Claybaugh: Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: Which would be a 5.5 foot variance. Blackowiak: 6.5. A1-Jaff: Yeah, 6.5. Kind: 6.5? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: It's only 2 feet longer so I assumed it would be a 5.5 foot longer than what staff's recommendation was. I just added 2 feet to the recommendation which would be 5.5 foot. Blackowiak: I guess if you're including the 1 foot. Kind: I was going to affect the eaves later on in the conditions. I'm going to stick with the 5.5, ifI make the motion. Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments? Sidney: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to state that, for the record that I believe there's a hardship present here since we're dealing with a variance in this case. Because of the size and physical surroundings, shape and topography of the lot, there is a hardship and reasonable use in this case really is a 2 car garage in my opinion. So the property cannot be put to reasonable use unless a variance was granted. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you for adding that. Comments Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I went out there looking around a little bit so I was curious what the neighborhood is in terms of garages and I came away with the impression that many houses have indeed 2 car garages. Some have even 3 car garages. There are also some that have 1 car garage and some that have none. But I do think that it's reasonable use to have a 2 car garage. In the character of the neighborhood, that 2 car garage doesn't have to be really excessively big makes sense as well so that's where I'm at. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have anything else to add so I'd like somebody to make a motion please. Kind: I'll do it Madam Chair. Aanenson: Can we give clarification? It is 5.5. You are right. Kind: Okay, and the 7 foot for the side yard? A1-Jaff: Yes. Kind: Okay. Here I go. I move the Planning Commission approves the request for a 5.5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 7 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback and, oh are we still at 7 percent? Or did it change that? Is it still 7 percent? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sidney: No it's 11. Kind: It's 11 percent, thank you. Variance from the 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a 18 by 24 attached garage, and subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. Changing number 2 to read, the driveway shall be 16 feet to decrease the amount of impervious area, match the width of the proposed garage door, and leave a 4 foot setback area from the side lot line for drainage, grading, etc. And number 6 shall read, eaves may match the existing house and encroach into the new setbacks period. Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion. Kind: Go ahead. I'll leave my motion the way it is and you can add that. Sacchet: Okay I'll second. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Feik: A friendly amendment. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Feik: Number 11 to add, drain tile to be added to the south side of the garage to redirect runoff. Aanenson: I like that one. And also can we add, that we work with staff just to make sure, there seems to be a little bit bigger issue which we found out from the neighbor that we're directing it. So they work with staff to make sure we're directing it in the appropriate. Blackowiak: The runoff? Aanenson: Yes. The water. Blackowiak: In an appropriate direction. Claybaugh: Staff engineering has some raccoon and other issues out there. Another friendly amendment. I'd just like to firm up the soffit size to 12 inch on that overhang on the side yard setback. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: I accept those amendments. Sacchet: One more friendly amendment. Number 3. Show all proposed and existing contour lines. I assume that's on the plan. So maybe it should say on the plan. That's where you want to show them. Aanenson: Or on the survey technically. Sacchet: On the survey. Show them on the survey. Okay, survey is fine. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 5.5 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, the 7 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback, and a 11 percent variance from the 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement for the construction of a 18 x 24 attached garage based upon the plans received December 13, 2001, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway must be hard surfaced as per Ordinance #330. 2. The driveway shall be 16 feet to decrease the amount of impervious area, match the width of the proposed garage door, and leave a 4 foot setback area from the side lot line for drainage, grading, etc. 3. Show all proposed and existing contour lines on the survey. 4. Any off-site grading will require temporary grading easements. 5. Since the driveway is setback less than 5 feet from the side property line, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment agreement from the city. 6. Eaves may match the existing house and encroach into the new setbacks period. 7. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 8. Any portion of the structure less than three feet from the property line must be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 9. The location of the retaining wall may indicate that there are fill soils in the area where the garage will be constructed, a soil investigation may be required. 10. Contact the building department for demolition permit requirements. 11. The applicant will work with staff to install drain tile to redirect runoff. 12. The soffit size will not exceed 12 inch overhang on the side yard setback All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE FROM A WETLAND TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND LAKE DRIVE~ PRESBYTERIAN HOMES. Bruce Feik removed himself from the commission and did not participate in this item due to conflict of interest. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions of staff. Craig, any questions? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: Yes, I have some questions. With the 20 foot natural setback there, does staff have any concerns with respect to pedestrian traffic with it not being a mowed area, of people walking in and around the deck and encroaching on that natural area? Generous: Well two things. We would post that area as a wetland buffer. And secondly, they'd have, they're proposing a trail system on the west side of their building that we anticipate people would use more. The sloped areas aren't, it's not that great if somebody really walked in there but we anticipate that the vegetation would grow taller. And so generally you wouldn't get people to go into it. Claybaugh: So to summarize that's not a substantial concern? Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. I just want to state I was excited it didn't pertain to parking, Village on the Ponds and all. I guess that's all the questions I have right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions? Kind: My main question is about the 20 foot, first part of the buffer being the key, most important part and then the second 20 foot is really essentially a no mowing area is the concept, so it's the first 20 feet that are real crucial. Generous: Is no mowing. In the second 20 feet they could mow. In a standard wetland setback you have the buffer strip that's immediately adjacent to the wetland. Kind: Which is 20 feet, and that's the key. Generous: And in this instance yes, we're saying 20 feet. That's a key area. Kind: And there's, in your mind huge benefit to having that be 20 feet all the way around versus the 0 to 10. Generous: Right. Otherwise they could go all the way up and mow it right to the water's edge if you will, and the problem is with mowing, then they also have the lawn care where they put the phosphorus and what have you on there and that goes into the wetland system. Kind: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. With having two wetlands on this site. One is a constructed and one is an existing. This is the existing one or the constructed one? Generous: Correct. This was the existing wetland as part of the... Sacchet: Existing in the sense there was a wetland before but certainly being, has it been altered at all by the grading? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Generous: No. Sacchet: It's being left intact? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: As far as that's possible. So with the 6 foot, Option 2, really what changes is they couldn't have that deck and they couldn't have that further out, most further out protrusion of the building, is that what we're saying? Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Is there a way potential, this might be more a question for the applicant to move this protrusion and the deck further south? Has that been considered at all or, unless it would mess up the whole plan but. Aanenson: You can ask them. Sacchet: Other than that, well I'll ask the applicant. I think that'd be a better question for the applicant. In terms, that's the only question for staff. Finding (d). It's not self created. It's due to the requirements. That's always a little bit of chicken and egg situation there isn't it? Has there been any discussion with the applicant that if they would get a 20 foot variance, that they would provide something like additional planting or get a little more widening of those wetlands or something to balance the scale. Has there been any consideration of that? Generous: Well that's the recommendation that we're putting forward. That we get that 20 foot natural planting area. Sacchet: And then the signage that's included, is that intended to fulfill that need? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, that's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Nothing for staff. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Just a couple quick questions for staff. 40 foot setback, we're requesting in essence a 50 percent. Or we're going into it by 50 percent. Generous: Correct. Slagle: Are there, is there any thought to questions that might arise in other situations? I mean because within the one year that I've been here, wetland setbacks have been brought up numerous times and have had often serious debate as to the importance or in some cases the non-importance of those setbacks. So 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 that's one question. And then I guess I'll ask the applicant, I'm not sure I understand what significant re- working would be and that's from a layman standpoint so those two things. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Can I address the first question then? As far as the averaging of the setback, of the wetland. We're not impacting the wetland itself. We wouldn't allow that. We're talking about the buffer. In our mitigation, instead of saying averaging, we're saying it has to maintain the 20 all the way around so actually you're getting a greater, so that's the trade-off and it's the one portion of the building that we worked hard to get so you'd have an amenity in the back overlooking the wetland. So the thing we worked hardest to get is what's causing some of the problem and it's not the entire wetland. It's that one protrusion so we were trying to strike that balance and in effect we're saying by averaging 20, it's punitive on them and we're getting a better protection of resource. This goes back to Uli's point. It's what's the trade-off? What are we getting back and that's the protection of that entire area, the greater... Slagle: Sure, and I think as Commissioner Sacchet pointed out, I mean I'd like to hear from the applicant as to whether that can be moved because I think that is an amenity that certainly is appealing. Blackowiak: Alrighty. I don't have any questions of staff at this time so would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Ward Issacson: I'm Ward Issacson. My address is 8524 River View Lane in Brooklyn Park and I'm the project architect with KKE Architects. First of all, just quickly I know Bob discussed kind of a history of the PUD and the project. I just wanted to point out, this is a print of the '96 PUD and just to show you how we got to where we got. This shows a lot more site coverage than what we ended up having due to the capacity of the retention pond we had to add, and this also shows a little, this shows about a 20 foot setback to this building so that would be the only information we have when this retention pond was created and the building was kind of forced into a buildable area from this part of the site. That 20 foot setback from this PUD plan is what we based it on so I just wanted to point out that's kind of where we got to where we were. And then Bob also pointed out the existing parameters on the site that limit this project and those being number one, the existing curb cut coming off of Lake Drive. That's a non-moveable object and that's got to be 26 feet wide. There's a 5 foot sidewalk required and there's a requirement for snow storage and what not from the edge of the building. And like Bob also said, we need this width of the building at a minimum in order to make our parking lot work with stalls on both sides and the drive, so this is pretty much set. Up to this point is pretty much set. This plan shows this line being the 20 foot setback line. The second line being the 34 foot setback line, which was the option that staff had mentioned, and you can see that it cuts through this portion of the building and then it cuts through, almost all of the deck but it does miss this little portion of the building which is within the 42 setback line. And this line is the 40 foot setback line. You can see that that cuts through a large portion of the building. As far as from design standpoint, the 40 foot setback is extremely limiting. We would be cutting into units. We'd have to eliminate living units. We'd have to eliminate apartment stalls in the basement. We're cutting significantly into the commons space and the dining room, and it would really force us to do a large amount of re-design if it was even feasible at that point. But to stick with the 34 foot setback, let me show you this now. The 34 foot setback, it cuts through a good chunk of our dining room and as you can see, this is really the public space of this building. The first floor and your question as to whether or not this could be moved, it really can't. We're setting the center of this bay on this building. We're limited by, we're as tight as you can be on the other building with parking so we really can't, if we squeeze them this way we're intruding 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 into the parking lot and eliminating a drive aisle so we can't really shift it this way. And so we're really pretty much locked into this location. And then you can see this deck location is really about the only place that we can locate that deck as well but we've got living units on either side that we can't really build by. If the deck was eliminated, which would be a part of the option 2, I think it hurts the plan in a couple ways. First of all the deck would need to be eliminated and this dining room need to be cut way back, which would really limit the public space of this building, which is a little tight the way it is. And if this deck is eliminated, I think just the functionality of the building which is in large part because a lot of these units along this outside of the building don't have outdoor decks. The back side of the building do, so this is really the only way for a lot of these residents to get some outdoor seating space from this building. And this also ties into the site plan. We're trying to create. Aanenson: If it's helpful. This is the drive aisle that's why this can't go... Ward Issacson: If we move it down this way. Aanenson: Yeah, then you're into the driveway approach. Ward Issacson: Right, the building really can't. Aanenson: Then you get the driveway coming in. Ward Issacson: Yep. You've got the driveway coming in here and so we're really encroaching on that drive aisle and then also you can see how tight we are to this building. And this building is again determined by the depth of parking below so we're really getting it as tight as we can parking wise. We've got the 26 foot drive lane. Aanenson: With the canopy. Ward Issacson: And the canopy, and we're squeezed right in here. You can also see we're trying to create kind of a park setting in this back area and if we were to have to eliminate the deck, and part of that dining space, it would really hurt that in that there would really be no way for people to go out the back side of the building to enjoy this walk. People would have to come out front, walk all the way around down here and round the building that way. So I think the deck's an important feature just functionally but it's also an important feature...these color elevations that we had before. Because this, what we're talking about is this portion of the building basically being removed and. Blackowiak: Isn't it the top one? Yeah. Ward Issacson: Sorry. This...this one would be nicer. This part of the building really being, being removed and this would become probably a flat wall and this deck also is a pretty important visual feature. This is the main view you get driving down 101. And you can imagine this elevation if this roof line was gone and some of these features were, you can still do some things obviously but they, the dining space would be flush with the rest of it. Or recessed, and this deck feature would become... And it also serves as an important feature as far as you know, we've worked a lot with staff to try and break this building up into sections. You know vertically to try and change materials and do that kind of a thing and that's really an important feature to achieve that. I guess with that if you have questions. Blackowiak: Okay Commissioners, questions of the applicant. Craig, you've got a question? Sure. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: Let's see here. I just want to confirm on the sketch that you had up previously here that showed the trail coming up to the deck there. If I'm reading it correctly, the stairs come up. Lead up onto the deck. Cross the deck, down the other side which would address the question I had previously. Ward Issacson: We're trying to... We're trying to connect this walking path. Claybaugh: Okay, but it does it via the deck. Rather than going out around it, it goes up and over. Ward Issacson: Yep. Claybaugh: Okay. Well I agree with you. One of the functions of a central space is to be centrally located and what brief associations I've had...to me is a huge amenity. I'd never be able to get my grandfather into one, we've tried but if he could and he was sitting out there, he'd be grooving on it. He'd like it. The angular nature of the building is obviously, indicates that the property's been shoe homed in there so I respect the fact that you don't have a whole lot of latitude to go anywhere with it. I think it's a great amenity. I think that if the staff is comfortable with the 20 foot on natural setback, one thing I would like to add is with respect to the grade underneath the deck area. Rather than have it sloping down from the building to the wetlands, if they could do a break in there and break it to the side so whatever runoff was forced to go out wider and then come back down through a 40 foot setback. If it could be graded as such, do you understand? Ward Issacson: Sure. Claybaugh: That would be the only consideration that I would want to incorporate. Ward Issacson: We could tie an internal drain into the storm sewer system as well and all the runoff would be... Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing anything you can do to mitigate that or eliminate it. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, questions? Kind: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Well, I have a few comments more than questions. In terms of, what I'm looking at was when we look at where we can give a variance or not is how does it balance and we look at all the findings and all that but the one aspect there's a give and take. And one thing I don't really buy in what you're saying is, this could be moved but the question is the amount of effort it would take to move that protrusion. That dining hall, the deck, is it worth it? And it would definitely negatively impact the balance of everything so I would say it's not worth it but from looking at it from our viewpoint and in terms of looking at the city and the overall picture, now staff pointed out that by anchoring in that 20 foot setback you're giving something. Is there something else that you see you could do to balance the scale to justify that encroachment onto that buffer? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Ward Issacson: Well I mean we definitely could extend the wetland. That was an option to this portion. We could do some nice landscaping along the edge you know. Sacchet: So that would be possible, that sort of thing? Ward Issacson: Yeah. I think landscaping was possessing.., really develop this into a... Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: LuAnn, any questions? Sidney: No. Blackowiak: Rich? No. I don't have any questions either. Thanks. Vernelle, did you want to get up and say anything or, no? Okay. Well this item is open for a public hearing so anyone who would like to comment, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Rich? Slagle: Just a couple thoughts. Asking the question regarding the complexity or the difficulty of changing the project, I can understand what that is. At least I think I can. One quick question that I thought, and I'll just throw it out for thought is, would there be any way of, more to Bob. Bob, if you'll listen for just a sec. I apologize. You were talking, and I should have given you a second but could we change the wetland a bit, reconfigure it so that the deck is within? You take some of it but you give it further out, and I know we don't want to get in the business of wetland things but it's just a thought. You don't have to answer but I'm just throwing it out for consideration. And listening to the pros and cons as other commissioners have said, of weighing those things, I'm actually in favor, believe it or not, of leaving the project as it was originally designed. Because of the amenities of that deck, but that's why I throw out the question of the wetland, can you get both? Can you get a bigger wetland, it just takes a different path so I don't know if that helps anybody but that's where I'm at. Blackowiak: I don't have an answer. LuAnn. Sidney: I guess just a few comments. I think not granting the variance would have a huge impact on the project as it was presented and approved by City Council, and I think the deck and that whole portion of the dining hall is a huge architectural feature that I don't think I want to lose. So if that's the case then really how do we support a variance? I think Uli alluded to the fact that the city is getting more plantings potentially or more desirable green space around wetland and I think that would be a benefit. Although I have a little bit of a hard time trying to come up with reasons for saying there's a hardship. I guess the best I can come up with to support a variance is the fact that there is hardship due to the size and other constraints of the site for the type of development which has already been approved. So in that case I would support the 20 foot variance as stated in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. Well it's an interesting thing. Actually are we asked to punish honesty here because they're coming back and telling that the lines were different so I would certainly want to acknowledge that. It's commendable that this is even brought in front of us. I do think that it's not so much a hardship but I do think the request is reasonable. Yeah it can be interpreted as a hardship with the constraints and all that 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 but you could say that's self created because that's how they planned the building, but it's reasonable. I think it's a reasonable use to have that deck, to have that dining room, and I would go as far to say it probably wouldn't be reasonable to ask them to move it under the circumstances because this is not a wetland like the one we talked about earlier this evening where we have a sensitive natural setting. We have a patch of wetland, there's a few thousand square feet that has have an erosion fence around it while they graded everything around it. I mean what do we have to protect here is at a totally different scale than something when we look at Lake Lucy Ridge. So in that sense I think it's reasonable to grant them the 20 foot variance. However, I would like to see something that the city gets out of it. As I indicated before my questioning whether the wetland can be made a little larger? Well then you have to monkey with the wetland again and then impact the wetland so I would agree with the applicant when he stated the best way would probably be in the landscaping area and so I feel I consider this reasonable and would like to attach a condition that the applicant work with staff to increase the landscaping effort and let them work it out. That's where I'm at with that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: I agree with the fellow commissioners. I support the 20 foot variance concept. I think the architectural feature is very, very significant and important to the project and that the wetland is not pristine. That the idea of having this 20 foot buffer the entire width around the wetland is a good mitigation idea and the educational component is kind of an interesting idea. I like that too. Compromise is appropriate at this point in the process. I think if we made the applicant start over it would be punitive and really unfair so I support the 20 foot variance. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you Deb. Craig. Comments? Claybaugh: I agree. To send it back to the drawing board, to try to mitigate or eliminate this problem would... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree for the most part with my fellow commissioners. I did note in the staff report though it said that these were a concept plan so I don't know that they necessarily found a mistake. I think they just started from a point that maybe they shouldn't have started from but given that, neither here nor there, I like the plan and I don't know that necessarily that anything could be changed. I think the deck is a huge, it's probably the feature on that building. I just really don't want to mess with it either. I mean if we could move it, if we could shift to the south, great. Barring that, I really think it needs to be there. And taking Uli's cue, I think that in exchange, if we could get some increased landscaping, and also the staff report noted that this would be a good candidate for wetland restoration and I would encourage us to include a condition that the staff works with the applicant to devise a landscaping and wetland restoration plan, and that way I think we're all getting something out of it. It's reasonable to try to enhance that wetland since both the applicant and I think all the commissioners feel that it's an amenity so let's try to make it better and in exchange for the 20 foot, let's make it look good. With that, I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves a 20 foot setback variance from the required 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a 4 story independent living apartment building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 7th Addition based on the findings of the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 5, with the addition of a condition number 6. The developer will work with staff to enhance landscaping in the wetland area. And I'll let you add the number 7. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Well, and work with staff to develop a wetland restoration plan. Sacchet: The developer will work with staff to develop a wetland restoration plan. Okay. Kind: I'll second that motion. Claybaugh: Did you incorporate French drain or something of that nature to redirect the runoff from the deck? Sacchet: Condition 8. To have. Blackowiak: The applicant will work with staff. Sacchet: The applicant will work with staff okay. Blackowiak: Regarding runoff. Sacchet: That's accepted. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves a 20 foot setback variance from the required 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a four story independent living apartment building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 7th Addition based on the findings of the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback shall be measured from the edge of the wetland. The first 20 feet from the wetland edge shall be established as a "no mow zone". All disturbed areas within 20 feet of the wetland shall be planted entirely in native wet meadow or native upland buffer vegetation. The vegetation in this area may not be mowed or otherwise disturbed without prior approval from the City. The "no mow zone" shall be signed per the City's wetland buffer ordinance. The developer will install wetland buffer edge signs under the direction of city staff and will pay the City $20 per sign. 3. The developer shall record a conservation easement over the 20 foot "no mow zone". 4. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over Wetland 6000. Two interpretive signs shall be placed along the trail behind the western most building: one near Wetland 6000 and one near the proposed stormwater pond on the southern portion of the property. The interpretive signs shall be permanent and shall explain the functions of wetlands, wetland buffers and stormwater ponds. City staff shall review the content and design of the proposed signs prior to installation. The applicant will work with staff to enhance landscaping in the wetland area and develop a wetland restoration plan. 7. The applicant will work with staff to redirect runoff from the deck. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. (Bruce Feik did not vote on this item) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; CONCEPT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS; SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 8.52 ACRES; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3~960 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND A 2~873 SQ. FT. CAR WASH~ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD~ GALPIN BUSINESS PARK~ WCL ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Bradford Fry Erik Fritz Jan Maruska Doris French Jeanne Gilbertson PO Box 2107, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 2167 Baneberry Way West 2175 Baneberry Way West 2189 Baneberry Way West 2170 Baneberry Way West Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions for Bob. Bruce, we'll start with you. Feik: ... question is related to the proximity of the elementary school, if there's any restrictions on the type of use of the second building and/or products sold. Is there any restriction given it's proximity to the elementary school? Aanenson: No. Our zoning ordinance doesn't address that. Generous: Liquor is the only, probably the only thing. Aanenson: It's a half mile, I don't think that'd be an issue. Feik: That was my only question. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, questions? Kind: Dove-tailing on that, the attractiveness of candy and pop for after school, 5th graders especially that are a little more mobile. The proposed way of getting across our virtual freeway, Highway 5 that's under construction would be the underpass? Generous: Yes, as part of Bluff Creek they're putting an underpass in. Or Highway 5 upgrade. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: And then I noticed there's some trail things to get the sidewalks to the site a little bit better. I don't know if it was park and rec anymore. Aanenson: Let's show that... Kind: Yeah, that would be helpful. Aanenson: West 78th, the construction of West 78th does have sidewalks and then also the upgrade of Galpin. Kind: Just on the north side though, right? Generous: Right. And then it goes underneath West 78th Street and underneath Highway 5. Kind: Is how to get to the elementary school? Generous: Right. Kind: And then, so kids would still need to cross, so they would go under West 78th Street. Come up on the other side and then come back across topside. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: It doesn't seem very likely. Aanenson: Or going to the possible future date to get a light at Galpin and possibly West 78th at some future date there may be a signal there too. Be a controlled intersection. Kind: Galpin and West 78th probably will be signalized. Aanenson: Some day it will. Slagle: There's going to be stop signs? Aanenson: Yeah, it will be stop signs so you'll have that. Saam: The light will be at Galpin and 5, not West 78th Street. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: What do you think about that Rich? Slagle: No comment. Kind: Am I asking questions? Blackowiak: You certainly are. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: Should I just keep going with my questions? Blackowiak: Yes, go right ahead. Kind: Okay, Bob addressed the movement. It's right-in/right-out. Right-in/right-out. You have to go way east if you want to make a left turn. Aanenson: The only turning movement is at this point. Kind: Yeah. I'm thinking you know this is probably a place that I would use, and how would I get there. Generous: Go east. Kind: Just keep going east. The 90percent impervious is really what the PUD is all about. Is the density transfer. How did you arrive at that 90percent number? Bob gave me some, I had him do a little math problem during our first agenda item and would you explain that. Generous: Well actually I have the developer proposed it but we looked at the potential uses of the property and how much, well they came in with the Kwik Trip so they knew what that was going to be, and then they looked at the potential for the Lot 2 which is a southern one. Well it's in there but if you include all of it they look like they'll come in at 41percent. I did some calculations for you that would be about 65percent. 60percent all total. Kind: So why are we allowing 90percent in our PUD agreement? Generous: Well that's just for Lot 1. I mean it's 80percent for Lot 2. Aanenson: Yeah you're right. Typically what we do is we balance it for the entire site, and that's the application of the PUD in the overlay district is that we get that conservation easement on the north side. They get to use it for impervious surface so it might be better just to say we run a check and balance on the entire that they don't exceed it for including outlot or the conservation area. Kind: Right. And what would that number be? Aanenson: ... neighborhood district which is generally 65percent for neighborhood business. Generous: Which is the 135,000 square feet. Aanenson: So you could run it both ways. For the individual lot or we can maintain the balance and that's what we indicated to them that Outlot B can be used towards their impervious. Right. Kind: Even though Outlot B is on the north side and there's road right-of-way there. How much of that is really buildable? Aanenson: Well in deference to them, the underlying property owner, since I testified for the State in this piece, it does have value to it and the value to the city is that it's next to the creek. We have a nice trail amenity. If you do let your daughter ride her bike over there someday and you can get a piece of candy and walk along or have benches there, it's a nice, it's part of what we're trying to create. Those nice urban 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 features with the Bluff Creek corridor. And I think people in the Walnut Grove neighborhood or even further down in Long Acres, it's a nice walking. To take the dog and walk down and there's some other, whether it's a professional office or whatever else goes in that other parcel, it's going to be a nice amenity. And that's what we got with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. And the tool that we have to use to accomplish that is the PUD. So while the West 78th severed his property in such that it made it tougher to develop with the Bluff Creek. It gives us an opportunity to acquire a piece of property without having to you know, outright take ownership of it. We get it in a different tool so it's beneficial to them and also beneficial to the City. Kind: Well the landowner was compensated for MnDot coming through. Aanenson: Yes, he was. For the road right-of-way, but the position that the city took, myself specifically is that we would look at this property as giving him the impervious credit for that. We asked that they not sell it off, because that was their option to try to sell it off. So we wanted to maintain that integrity so we could, we would work with them when they came in for a project. And I think that's, as we're seeing more of these come through the process, this is a little bit different spin on the PUD and the overlay district. We're starting to see more of those as development is occurring along the corridor. Kind: Bob, in the staff report on page 3 you talk about the use of chainlink gates on the west elevation is not permitted. Where do you think is the best place to handle that as far as conditions go? In the PUD agreement? Generous: You can put it in both the PUD agreement and specifically on the site plan. Because that's where they are proposing a chainlink fence. Kind: I want to see if I've got a note there on the site plan. Do you know where the site plan starts? Sacchet: 27. Kind: Thank you. Okay, I do have a note there too so, I just wasn't sure where that made the most sense to be. Oh, how big is the pylon signage on the rendering? Generous: They're at 20 feet tall, 16 feet wide. Kind: And we're limiting them to? Generous: The 20 feet is... Kind: And what do we normally allow for business neighborhood for sign square footage? Generous: 60, well for business are you talking? Aanenson: It's less than that. Generous: I can't remember if it's 24 or 60. Kind: Oh sorry. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: That's alright. That's why I have it here. Kind: I'll bet it's 64 because that's what you put in here. Generous: Well that's our general commercial. BH. BG. Kind: And the monument sign are normally 24 square feet but we're going to allow them 64? My concern is that I don't want it to be real commercially looking right there. Generous: Right, and their request is 80 square feet. 64 is our general commercial district. Kind: Size? Generous: Yeah. Kind: Okay. But this isn't a commercial district. Aanenson: Yes. It's neighborhood. What our goal was, in making it, the design standards compatible in scale to a residential neighborhood. Height and all that. Kind: What was the answer? Aanenson: You don't get a 20 foot sign in a neighborhood district. Generous: You get a 5 foot. Aanenson: You get a pylon sign. Generous: A monument. Kind: No monument? Generous: You get a 5 foot monument. Kind: That's it? Generous: That's it. Kind: No pylon? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So the proposed PUD says that they get a 20 foot pylon. Generous: The development, yes. Kind: For this so .... they would share it. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: For both lots. Kind: Okay, well I'll reserve my comments about that until later. This is the questioning part. Lighting. 7 foot candles. I don't know what that means. 70 foot candles. Is this really bright? Up to 70 foot candles may be used below canopies and drive thru's. How is that going to be for the townhome neighbors? Is that going to be a beacon? Generous: Well it's under the 20 foot canopy straight down. You have the building. Claybaugh: They've got their calculations on one of the sheets here. On E-1 they got the foot candle dispersement rate. Kind: Well would it have to be that bright? I'm going to defer to somebody who knows what, for safety reasons what's good but not super bright, because this is in a neighborhood kind of thing so, I wonder about that. Oh Bob, I'm sorry. I don't know how close attention I was paying to when you went over this. Did you talk about additional landscaping on the north side as an idea for how you could break it, that wall that faces West 78th Street? Generous: We're requesting as part of the site plan that they revise the landscaping plans. Kind: Specifically to the north side? The north elevation. The elevation that faces West 78th Street. Generous: I don't know that we made that specific comment, no. Kind: Okay. of staff. Blackowiak: Claybaugh: I'm just thinking about how to beautify that elevation a little bit. That's it for my questions Okay, Craig. Questions of staff? Yes, on page 5. Under ancillary approved uses. Telecommunication antennas.., any size restrictions or? Generous: Under our telecommunication ordinance they have restrictions. So much above building height. Claybaugh: Okay. Do you happen to know offhand what those may be? Blackowiak: While she's looking for that Craig, do you have any other questions? Claybaugh: With respect to the Holiday station at one of town here.., what was the foot candle concentration of the canopy... ? Generous: It was in the 60's. Low 60's I believe. It's very similar. Claybaugh: And was that metal halide or was that a sodium? Generous: Metal halide. Claybaugh: That's all I have. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay Kate, have you? Aanenson: 15 feet above. And it may go up to 25 feet if the City Council approves it based on a demonstration that positioning and whatever way it works. Otherwise it's 15 feet above the existing, if it's attached to the building. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. Let's start over. So you've got the building and then 15 feet above that could be an antenna. Aanenson: If it's attached to the building. Blackowiak: If it's attached to the building. Okay. Or 25 feet at the discretion of the council. Aanenson: Correct, if it's demonstrated that it's, the positioning and the screening works that they could go higher. Blackowiak: Okay. What if it's not attached to the building? Can it be freestanding? Aanenson: If you want it, through that PUD allow it to be in there, it could go up to 80 feet then. Claybaugh: What control do we have over that? Aanenson: It's a PUD. You can put in what you do or don't want in there. You can write whatever you want. If you don't want that part in there. Sidney: Remove it. Kind: But in the past we've run into problems restricting where, especially cell phone antennas can go due to federal law. Generous: You could add a conditional use if you wanted to look at it. Claybaugh: I just wanted, I'm not looking at blanket coverage but some kind of control over something going in there that's a. Generous: You could put a maximum height in here. Claybaugh: ... for cell phone towers. Aanenson: Yeah, well you have to have a certain lot size too. Minimum lot size and... If you want to make it a conditional use, that'd be one way or limit the height. That'd be another one. Blackowiak: Could we totally strike it? Aanenson: You could do that too. Kind: I'm liking that idea. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, questions? Uli. Sacchet: Yes I do have, unfortunately a few questions so, but they shrunk quite a bit. On Page 5, we say no private clubs, lodges. We struck out community centers. We don't like hotels, motels with canopy drive thru's. We don't want showroom display areas and we don't want storage areas. What's the rationale? Generous: Well partially this is a neighborhood use. We're trying to confine this to uses that would be appropriate on that comer. Sacchet: And we think that would not be compatible quite with the neighborhood? Generous: Well a hotel on that comer, I'm not sure that's. Aanenson: If you look at the comprehensive plan, the definition of neighborhood use it says it meets the daily needs of the residents so that would be something in the neighborhood that they would use. Whether it's a dentist office or a gas station. Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer. On the next page, page 6. The hard surface lot coverage will be limited to maximum of 65 percent. But then we go into the table and document that they actually can go up to 41 percent so why don't we say 41 instead of 657 What's the 65 for? Generous: 65 is based on the neighborhood business. Sacchet: That will be the standard but in this PUD it's really 41 percent. Generous: Well on this, yes. Sacchet: So it's really just one in the same, it might as well be 41 consistently. On page 8. Aanenson: I just, I'm not sure, I have to confer with Bob why he put the 41 percent because I think if we're going to say we're going to average the PUD and keep the Outlot B and make it 65 percent. Sacchet: It's 65 with that outlot B, is that what's 65? Generous: It was A and B. That would be, the 41 percent includes both outlots and then the two lots. Sacchet: You lost me. It must be too late. Generous: It's like averaging the entire site but they take the impervious surface for Outlot 1, impervious surface for Lot B. Or Lot 2. Impervious surface on Outlot A, and impervious surface on Outlot B. Sacchet: Okay, between all four lots it's 41 percent. And the 65 percent applies to what then? Generous: Well that was just taken from the neighborhood business. Sacchet: So it really doesn't apply in this particular, specific context. It's all general. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Generous: As part of that table. Sacchet: Okay, I understood that before. On page 8. Kind: ... 41. Or we're not discussing yet, never mind. Sacchet: We're asking questions. Kind: Okay, sorry. Sacchet: Trying to. Page 8. On number (f). The drive thru shall not be located on the street elevation of a building. Well there are street elevations of 3 sides, or which ones are the street elevations? Generous: Well for Lot 2, it has Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5. Lot 1 has Galpin and West 78th. Sacchet: Okay. On page 10, number (e). A portion of the canopy may be moved. And you struck out up to 40%. A portion. Between 1 and 99 percent or? Generous: That would be at the discretion of the city. Sacchet: So they would, actually the city would get to see it. It sounds like we give them 1 to 99 percent? Generous: No. We'd have to approve subject to city approval. Sacchet: Subject, alright. Thank you. Letter (h). Lot 1, Outlot A and Outlot B are to be completed simultaneously. I don't know whether it escaped or it was hiding but is there a condition for that in the proposed motion? Generous: Follow the design standards. It's indirectly because they have to comply with the design standards and the design standards say you have to plan for... Sacchet: If we wanted to be explicit, where would we add this? To the site plan? Generous: No, because that only covers Lot 1. It would have to be a part of the subdivision. Sacchet: The subdivision. That would be 32. Okay. Let's see whether I got many more. I believe, oh yeah. Here's one more. Oh, page number? 16. 16. Streets and parking lot. Not that it talks about my question. Actually my question is what it doesn't talk about. Just want to confirm, all these roads are two way roads? Like we have these two that go to 78th, they're both two way? There's no one way? Everything is two way? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. And you already touched on how that traffic would flow. Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sidney: Maybe just a couple comments. Deb touched on this and I guess one concern if we're attracting more pedestrian traffic to this particular site, I guess I would like to see care being taken in terms of signage and just public safety. Safety aspects of people riding their bikes and crossing Galpin. I know sometimes people just come flying down that hill towards Highway 5 and they're not obeying the speed limit and I just worry about the crosswalk traffic and that type of thing. Claybaugh: ... development that's happening up on 41... put a lot more pressure on Galpin as well. Sidney: Right. Yeah, that's true. So that leads me to thinking more about traffic patterns and traffic in and out of this particular site and changes on 5 are going to impact that. So I don't have any real questions but maybe just more comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Rich. Slagle: I have a couple questions and one comment, dove-tailing on what Commissioner, actually 3 of them have mentioned and that is the traffic patterns and I've had discussions with Matt before and this is not the applicant's issue but I raise it with the commission tonight. That West 78th will be busier than we think it will be, and with a stop sign at Galpin and West 78th, I don't know if all of you realize there is no right hand mm lane. As I noticed the median in the middle of West 78th, for those taking a left to go to the school or to the community center or what have you, it's going to be very backed up at that point. I don't say that because I live off Galpin. I'm just saying at some point soon that will be an issue. What I have a question for staff is, getting back to Commissioner Kind's thought on how someone would traffic from the school or the community center to this now attraction. At one point I thought it would be businesses, you know office buildings and what not. I didn't even think about that but you literally will have to go under the tunnel, go under West 78th, arrive on the other side, have to go all the way to the comer, because my fear is if we have this map, is we're going to see kids coming across right at that first eastern driveway into the building, and it doesn't make sense. So my question is to staff is, can we take this trail. Maybe it's a question for Mr. Hoffman, but take this trail and wind it around this way so it connects up here. So it literally circles the property and that way people could access it here easily because we will start to force kids to cross Highway 5, and that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I mean I mean that with all sincerity and so it's very nice that we're thinking of the neighborhood concept here but I think we're actually putting an attraction in the middle of one very busy road and two, a road that I don't believe we all, I don't want to speak for others but I don't think lots of people think that it's going to be as busy as it will be. And that is my major concern and I have to be honest, unless I see that resolved, whatever the application is, I don't think I could approve it personally. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. I've got several questions now and I'm getting more every minute. So is it a tunnel all the way from south side of Highway 5 to West 78th? I mean you never come up? Generous: It opens up. Blackowiak: It does? Two times, okay. So then, okay. So why do they have to come back? Why do they have to go back under West 78th? Slagle: You could actually take the trail and extend it on the south side of West 78th and connect down into one of the tunnels. I mean you could. I don't know what the contour of that hill is, because if this is the picture. You enter the tunnel at the northeast comer of the field. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh okay. But I'm thinking what, okay there's no tunnel, I thought there was going to be a tunnel at Galpin and Highway 5 as well. Kind: By the church. It's between the school and the church. Blackowiak: Okay, well I know where that one is but I thought there was another one. Okay. Saam: It's an at grade crossing at Highway 5. Blackowiak: Oooh. Well that changes everything. Okay. I have a few questions then. Development standards, page 7. Material and details. (c)(2). Block shall be used as a base material. What kind of a percentage or maximum height can we put in there? Because they could claim their base is half the building. I mean. Generous:: 15% is the maximum... Blackowiak: So not to exceed 15%? That would be, okay. Alrighty. Page 12. Lighting and actually this also goes to another topic I didn't see addressed, loud speakers. I don't want any loud speakers there. I don't want them saying pump 2, you can go. I mean what can we do? I worry that that sound is going to carry. Well I'm worried about the neighbors that live, specifically above and that leads to my next question is what is the elevation of the neighborhood immediately adjacent, so the southern most or the southwestern most Walnut Grove residences and the convenience store? I mean what kind of elevation change are we looking at? How much higher? Saam: I'm not sure how much higher. I'd have to look at some plans. I know they're higher though. Walnut Grove is. Generous: It comes into like the second level out there. Saam: I don't have that information in front of me. Blackowiak: Okay. 30-40 feet? I mean I guess I'm not a real good. Saam: I don't know if it would be that much. Blackowiak: Not that much? Saam: 10 probably at least. Aanenson: 10 to 15. Blackowiak: 10-15 okay. Slagle: To the north you would have that. To the south you will actually be, those folks I believe will be lower. Southwest of... Kind: Autumn Ridge? 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Slagle: Yeah. Blackowiak: Yeah. No, I was just thinking of the southwestern portion of. The ones that would be over it more or less. Slagle: Southwest. Blackowiak: Yeah, oh I meant southwest of Walnut Grove. Southwest of the northeast comer, if that makes sense. I know that's why we're on two different things. Okay. Loud speakers, I don't want them or we need to do something to make sure that that's not going to be an issue for the people in the neighborhood. Streets and parking lots, page 16. I didn't hear anything about trip generation. Why don't we see trip generation numbers on this? Trip generation numbers? Generous: I didn't do those calculations. It was guided for commercial. Saam: Yeah, we did get a traffic report from them when we had earlier discussions with them about a year ago. They wanted to open up the median on West 78th Street approximately where their western most driveway is, which is now a right-in/right-out only. They wanted to have a full access around in that location so that's the only time we ever saw a traffic study done there. Like Bob said, it's guided for that and we don't see a problem with the traffic. Blackowiak: So you don't feel a need for us to look at those numbers? You're comfortable or? Aanenson: Well we used that original study to look at whether or not there'd be a break in the median and we decided at that time no, that we didn't want the break in the median. To keep that, as you guys were talking about before, on West 78th, SO you're not crossing into that lane. You're forcing it further down so you can have stacking. Blackowiak: Okay. And as Rich talked about before, that right turn. I mean has the city given any thought to a right turn lane off of West 78th going north onto Galpin? Saam: Going north onto Galpin. Claybaugh: I recently acquired some new land there. Saam: Yeah, I guess we almost.., could possibly look at that now. Blackowiak: I'm just thinking that we need to maybe be proactive and take a look at this before it goes too much farther. Saam: Sure. I don't know if that would be a part of this project. To me that sounds like a city project. A separate one. Blackowiak: Right. I mean I'm just, I'm looking, trying to look big picture here. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Saam: Sure. We haven't looked specifically at doing that yet. Rich has called me on that. When West 78th Street was being designed, apparently they looked at the traffic data and didn't warrant a right turn lane there. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, well I think all our questions are asked for now. This item is open. Oh I'm sorry, go ahead. Slagle: Just one quick question. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Slagle: Using this map, you know Matt that road that comes down through the condos or townhomes that's now stubbed at West 78th, will that be an intersection? Saam: Yep. That will connect to West 78th Street. Slagle: Are you assuming within months? Aanenson: I would assume by the time that project... Saam: Yeah, when the project's done, yep. Right now there's just barriers there. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. You attached a letter from the public works department, Carver County, and they had a concern about accessing directly to Galpin. Was that concern resolved? Saam: I, myself haven't talked with them yet. We don't see it as a big issue. I believe it's something we can work out with the County. I think the County wanted either a letter from us or a letter from MnDot saying that we were okay with it, and then basically they were going to be okay with that so. Sacchet: Okay thank you, that answers it. Blackowiak: Okay, and I'm sorry. I have one more question. The first building Kwik Trip, what is the approximate height of the building? How many feet because I believe it's 40 feet maximum? Generous: 28 feet. Blackowiak: 28 feet. Has there been any thought given to, if we've got a 28 foot building in back, do we want a 40 foot building in front of it? Or do we want to in any way limit the height of the potential building on Lot 2? Aanenson: Well we gave a lot of discussion on looking at this piece. Gas station.., number of people of looking at this over the last year, looking at the Highway 5 design standards and the like, I guess it was the staffs opinion that if you put this use right on 5, it has a completely different feel as opposed to an office building or restaurant or bank or something like that .... it will be either strip retail office, or institutional type use. We felt a gas station on the back, being screened by that and because we're putting that buffer on 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 the other side, which had some security and some other issues but with the buffering that we felt that aesthetically that seemed to make the best use as you're doing that view down the road from Highway 5. Blackowiak: Alright, thanks. Well, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to comment on this item, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Oh I'm sorry, you know what? I forgot the applicant. Do we have an applicant here? Paul Anderson: Yes. Blackowiak: Oh I'm so sorry. I saw all these guys sitting over here before and then they left and I thought well maybe it got too late for them. It's getting too late for me I guess. You just looked so friendly, you'd fit right in you know. Paul Anderson: Good evening Madam Chairman. I'm trying to wake up here, excuse me. My name is Paul Anderson. I'm with WCL Architects. We're the architectural firm on the project. Just to introduce a couple other gentlemen with us. Chuck Sameluk is representing the developer and Brad Fry is representing Kwik Trip in back so you know if we've got specific questions or whatever, I can kind of direct that at the varying people up here. I guess we didn't really want to do much of a presentation up here. I don't know, if there are specific things, try and get to us but it's getting pretty late and I'll just try to keep it short, if that's alright on your end. Our intent was to just to come in. We've been through all of the staff report and we've been working with Bob on this thing for, well I think we started, there was snow on the ground last winter when we started this thing so it's been around for a while and we've been just kind of kicking this thing back and forth and trying to work with what our developer would like to see here, and then also with what the city would like to see here, and we think we've come to a pretty nice compromise. Our intent tonight was pretty much just to kind of come in and we're comfortable with all of the findings that we've got in here. There was a couple 3 issues that we'd just kind of like to clarify. But I thought maybe before we got into that, might try, you had some different questions here and one of the first ones were the kind of the site coverage, the hard surface coverage. I don't have a specific number on the Kwik Trip, you know the overall site. What we've got written in the PUD is up to 12,000 square feet for building. Currently what we're proposing is 6,800 square feet. A little over that. I can't give you a total percentage on there but we're coming in quite a bit under what those overall are. If you take out, and use as kind of an example. If we take out lot, Outlot B which is the land across 78th Street, I think we came up with 46 percent total coverage on the 3 remaining lots so from our standpoint I think we're pretty well under what your normal standards call for. There was an issue on foot candles under the canopy and if you look at the drawing, that is specifically underneath the canopy. If you'll just see, look at what we've got here. The highest number I actually see is 66.3. Those are, that's the point. That's a point on the ground from one light that's directly above. I can't tell you what the average is underneath that. I'm guessing that's about 45-50 foot candles, which isn't that much different than probably the area that I'm standing now right here. It kind of gets down to being able to see what you're doing, one as the customer. Two, also for the people inside. They need to kind of keep an eye on who's doing what out there. You know if somebody's... getting ready to run, whatever. Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing to that too. And that's what we looked at when we put this building together, and Bob talked about the orientation towards West 78th and to break-up the building. The canopy is between the building and the neighbor's and we worked hard on that and again, the gas station, being on that comer, when you don't have the full egress which you talked about, right-in/right-out, it's not as efficient to get people in and out. You'd be going through whatever that other use is, whether it's a bank or whatever, so the efficiency works there. And then we looked at, and Bob worked with them 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 to get the canopy inbetween those two uses so again, even though that's the brighter point, that should mitigate, and that's what we were looking at as far as the Highway 5 design standards. What I brought up before so. Paul Anderson: We've tried to take as many of these things and keep them away from the neighborhood. We're buffering the neighborhood with the building along with, you've got this whole parcel on the other side, and that's where, as part of the agreement what we're trying to do... between ourselves and all the residences on the other side of the street. Maybe I missed it, there was some discussion on the antenna. Is there kind of a resolution on that? Kind: Not allowed. Paul Anderson: Okay, I didn't know. That will be a little bit of an issue for Kwik Trip. I mean we do, a typical retailer, you know a chain like this, they've got satellite dishes or antennas of some sort. Typically they're beaming sales data back and forth to a home office. Brad mentioned there's. Feik: But that could be screened or something. Paul Anderson: Some of that stuff, right. I think we can handle some of those things. I don't, there's not going to be an 80 foot tower here. Claybaugh: The issue is we want to know what kind of animal we're dealing with, and the fears of the unknown so that's where we strike a line through it comes from so. If they can fill in some of the blanks on that I think that would ease some concern. Paul Anderson: Yeah, I think we can tell us kind of what they typically use. The Lot 2 is kind of...at this point and we've got some ideas on what we're going to do there. We hope to be back here in a couple of months presenting the second phase. Kind of the second, final phase of this thing but at this point I can't really tell you exactly what's going to happen there. Claybaugh: Excuse me, could you tell us who you've had discussions with or? Blackowiak: Craig, I don't really think that's appropriate. I don't think we need to hear that right now. Do we? I mean. Claybaugh: Okay. Paul Anderson: We just started really preliminary discussions with Bob and staff here. I mean I floated a sketch by them just to kind of get some initial reaction on that but that's about as far as we've got at this point. There isn't specific tenants or whatever in there too. It's a multi-tenant building I think right now. I guess you did mention that there was a traffic study. It was done 6 to 9 months ago. I don't have a copy of that with me. I do know at the time, there wasn't anything that kind of jumped out at myself as being major issues or concerns. That's about all I can tell you on that for right now. Kind of going back then to where we were going to start, ifI can find my notes. The issues that we, as the developer have. If you go through the report, the City Forester had some comments and issues on our landscape plan. My understanding and I believe Bob can back me up on this is, she's looked at the plan before she kind of went, read through the PUD and kind of understood where some of the give and take was on this. Some of the discussion. What my landscape person is telling me is that they've had a conversation today, the Forester is generally 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 supportive of this with the one exception of, what'd she call it? Screening of vehicular use areas. I can't remember what page that's on. Page 10. And I guess that kind of gets down to I guess a question we have for the Planning Commission. Is what exactly this vehicle use area entails. What we are proposing would be that the vehicle use areas are those areas that are immediately adjacent to a parking stall, either in front of or on the side of a parking stall. Not a drive aisle, driveways, or kind of interior circulation areas throughout the site. What that would do, if I can... I guess kind of what our proposal would be, if you can see this up here. Kind of taking this southwest comer of the Kwik Trip site and berming or landscaping that with a 3 foot high berm or landscape hedge in through there. Then down on this side, taking that area and this area, and using that as our buffer to that site. I guess we're just trying to get out. That's our proposal to you. Blackowiak: Our Forester, she's not here tonight but that looks reasonable. Aanenson: Yeah I guess, that would be, the concern would be Highway 5. As a general rule when you're adjacent to the collector street, Highway 5, West 78th, our ordinance says that we do some sort of buffering so if we can leave it that we'll work on that because that's the intent... Blackowiak: Right, and without her being here, I don't want to make any assumptions. Aanenson: There was some ambiguity between her understanding and Bob's understanding of that condition so we'll get that resolved. Blackowiak: Okay. Paul Anderson: Then I guess, the other part of that is just our understanding that this landscape area is 3 feet tall, be it either an earthen berm or some kind of a shrub or a combination of it. It's still...maximum 3 feet tall. So but beyond that, that was kind of our only comments or questions. Whatever questions you might have for either Chuck or Brad, we'd be happy to answer those. Blackowiak: I'll start down at your end. Do you want, questions? Slagle: Sure, I just have a couple quick questions, and I want to preface it by saying this. That my family and I lived in Woodbury before we moved to Chanhassen, and I want to share this with the commissioners as well. This reminds me of the first movement in the city of Woodbury from what I call the core of Valley Creek Road, Radio Drive, the shopping mall, to starting to go outward to intersections, and I believe this probably the first intersection that we're reaching that has homes or townhomes in a close proximity. And that's why I just ask for a real sensitivity and I get the sense from you that that is on your mind as well, and I appreciate that. My question is, would you be open, and again I don't know if it's the city with the additional walkway around what I will call your south and east ends, and if that is the city, then we can talk about that later. But I just want you to get the sense that you have the school across the street and you will be a magnet for kids and I would much rather see kids going through tunnels and staying on that side of the road versus having to cross another street. And that's really the only, and then I had one question to Kate. I saw a map up there with elevations and it was a Galpin Boulevard elevation and it showed the car wash much further back than what I think the actual station itself, the building and yet on these diagrams they look like they're the same. Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe you can zoom in on this one. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Slagle: Okay, so it's not the one I saw earlier? There was a color rendition that. Generous: That was just a... Paul Anderson: ... pretty much the same. Slagle: Okay. Okay. So that is not. Paul Anderson: There's not a difference between the two. Slagle: Okay. Okay, so I'm not viewing this one from the west? This is just showing each building. Aanenson: That's just for color and material. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay. So that's my only question to you and concern. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Oh maybe a comment for the applicant and staff. Since there are data available for traffic and trip generation, or is it just traffic? Not trip. Aanenson: Well the applicant, this has gone through a lot of iterations and maybe Matt can speak to this too. The applicant requested a curb cut on West 78th. And it was the City Engineer's position that they wanted a traffic study to see what the stacking at that intersection would be. It was based, determination was made based on that and MnDot's approval of that. We would not let a curb cut happen at that location so it looked at all the trips and the turning movements, and the intersection functioned. It was just a matter of where the curb cut should be. And actually I believe that study may have even included 3 uses. 3 lots. Paul Anderson: At that point we were looking at 3. Aanenson: And then we're down to 2 uses now so it would actually be less than that. Sidney: I guess my comment would be that that type of data would help to support the application. I guess I'd like to see some kind of summary go forward about that in the application as this goes forward to City Council. I guess that's my only comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Just a quick question. Was that traffic study done before Galpin was cut off or after? Aanenson: Well the traffic just looks at trip generation. It's not how it's functioning today. It looks at a model of, if there were 3 uses, where would those trips go so it's kind of irrespective of what. They're not counting trips that are happening out there. They're doing a model to project what direction turning movements would be happening and that sort of thing. Slagle: So how is that different than...to the Westwood Church thing where we asked them to actually do a traffic study? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: You were doing the same thing. You were doing modeling. How many people would be coming to your church based on membership? What direction would they be coming? And that's all, it's all scientific kind of modeling. Slagle: I'm with you but I thought we asked Westwood to actually do a traffic study at the high school. Aanenson: Someone did ask that how many trips are going there right now, but that would be asking like asking Kwik Trip how many are in your current location in Eagan, if we were to ask them, can you give us a trip count of what's happening in Eagan. What we looked at is, where should the curb cuts be based on how many uses are at this? It's a model, not actual counts of cars. Slagle: Well I'll ask for further education but I'd just like to know in the future why we couldn't do that. Not just for this but anything we ask. Aanenson: You could. Slagle: Okay. Good, thanks. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Real quick. Just to see whether you're okay with some of these things that we've touched on, like the additional articulation on the north elevation. Any issues with that? Paul Anderson: I don't want to speak for Kwik Trip anymore than... Brad Fry: Good evening, I'm Brad Fry. I'm representing Kwik Trip tonight. 1626 Oak Street, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. I discussed with Bob this morning what we can do to try to accent or articulate the building a little bit more. What we're going to do is we're going to extend out. We have a two tone brick. We're going to extend out the tan color brick, and then we're also going to try to do pylasters on the, we don't have a good elevation. We don't have a color elevation of the north side, but we do have a black and white and what we'll do is we'll try to break up the windows with pylasters that will stick out. Bob and I discussed about 4 to 6 inches to try to create some shadowing. Sacchet: So that's being taken care of. How about, there's also somewhere it talks about additional windows. Is that the same thing? Brad Fry: Right. What we're going to do is, I had discussed that with Bob too is we're going to include, we have about a 14 ½ extra feet of windows that we have to include on the northern elevation and about 8 ½ on the western elevation, and we can accomplish that. Sacchet: The things that were struck out from the permitted uses, particular drive thru's was something that got whacked consistently and then the other uses, any of that an issue for you guys? Brad Fry: No. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Obviously you're fine with that 41 percent hard surface area. Looks like you're way below that. Well if you can't answer it, we'll pass it on. I had one more of this nature. Oh yeah, that's a Kwik Trip question, the loud speakers. Brad Fry: We can live without them. Sacchet: You can live without them. Fantastic. The lighting seems to be somewhat balanced. You need light to see what's happening. Brad Fry: Yep. And we've also worked with the City. They asked us to install additional lightings at the intersections so we could try to make that a little bit more of a safe area for pedestrians, and we have included those. Sacchet: And I don't know whether it's a question for which one of you. You don't have an issue with, in one place it says you have to put more understory trees in. Paul Anderson: I guess that's what I tried to address with some of those first comments was, subsequent conversations with the City Forester apparently they're quite comfortable with what we've got going. The only real issue is this kind of this screen of the parking. Sacchet: In the report it does state that you need to meet requirements with understory I believe, but it's yeah, it's in the context of the buffer yard. Paul Anderson: Right. It's our understanding that, she's pretty comfortable with this but we're very willing to work with that and. Sacchet: So you don't have an issue, that's my question. And then finally the concern about traffic for kids. Do you have any wisdom on that? Because it seems like that's definitely a contentious point for at least some of us up here. Brad Fry: I'll just touch base on it a little bit. It's going to be something that the city's kind of looked at is possibly signalizing this intersection. If lights did come up in this intersection it would be a lot safer. Sacchet: So, and I can see your point. It's basically you look at it's a city issue. It's not really your issue, which I think is fair from your viewpoint. Okay, that's my questions. Brad Fry: Just to touch base on antenna heights. I can't give you those exact heights right now. I don't believe that they exceed 8 feet. Sacchet: You don't need an 8 foot tower? Brad Fry: But we do need satellites to refer retail information back and forth and a pole to do lettering. Sacchet: Okay. Blackowiak: Alright. Bruce. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Feik: Yes. Quick question. What is the distance between the two entrances on West 78th Street? Matt, do you have that? Saam: Yep, I can give that to you. Feik: I want to ask that quick question while you guys are still up here. Paul Anderson: What was the question Bruce? Blackowiak: Distances between the entrances. Feik: The distance between the two entrances on West 78th. Saam: 200 feet. Feik: Are both those entrances necessary? Again, coming down to traffic and kids and the number of places the kids could cross and the number of, you've got a right-in/right-out just east of the car wash. I guess from a design perspective than a traffic, is that really necessary? Could we live with the eastern one which is going to be the one that's primary use for anybody going west, turning west or coming off of 5 and going back onto 5. They're going to have to go the easterly one. I'm just trying to limit the amount of cars turning in different directions with the kids and the sidewalk. Paul Anderson: The eastern most driveway gives us full access. Feik: Right. We'll keep that one. Paul Anderson: The other one's just an accessory use. It helps to break up the traffic movements. Usually, and Matt could probably attest to this too. If you want to have 2 intersections, you usually push for the 200 foot separation. Feik: But if you're sitting at the easterly intersection and wanting to go west, you've also got to look at the oncoming west traffic as well as the people exiting from the convenience store. Aanenson: But some of those people that want to go right and come in and go to the car wash. Now you're conflicting those people with the people that want to go west, so it allows those people to get in to the free right to come in that are traveling eastbound on West 78th. And so that allows them to come in. Now if they're all going down that same intersection, you've compressed all those trips at that one point. Unless the only people that are going to be able to come in would be coming up Galpin, taking a free right in at that. Slagle: I don't know ifI want to ask this. Is there a right hand turn lane from going eastbound West 78th into the development? Aanenson: A decel lane? Saam: No. That's all 30 mile per hour. I mean we're not talking, people are slowing down from 55 to make a right hand turn. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Feik: I'll just voice the same concern that the rest of these folks have. It's not just the kids coming from the school but you go north and east with those townhomes and there's a lot of people, pedestrian traffic potential coming from north of West 78th as well that are going to have to cross. I'm equally concerned for those pedestrians. Particularly the kids so I'm kind of, I've got some traffic concerns but I'll let those go til later. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Questions. Kind: The pylon sign is not normally allowed in business neighborhood. Why do you think you need it? Paul Anderson: I think generally it's kind of a landmark. A way to identify the area. Going west on Highway 5, 6 to 9 months out of the year people really aren't going to see much of this development. With the wetland down below, the number of trees that are growing in through there. You can kind of see that off of, if you want to look at this. This is a shot taken down Highway 5. This was taken about 6 weeks ago. The leaves aren't really on there but when you look at the height of the trees and you kind of look at our rendering, basically I asked the person doing the rendering, well we want to be able to see the building but middle of June you really aren't going to see anything going that direction down Highway 5. Kind: Except your pylon sign. Paul Anderson: Well, right. Kind: Sorry. Paul Anderson: Well basically we're looking for something out there that's going to say hey, this is where we're at. Kind: But it's serving the neighborhood. We all are going to know where you are. I'm getting my gas there, don't worry. If it's really serving the neighborhood, we don't really need a pylon that screams, I don't know. I just want to really have it be non-super retaily. More business neighborhood. Paul Anderson: We have really minimalize the size of the sign. From what we had originally talked with staff about, we were looking at about 80 square feet. Now we're back down to 64 square feet... Feik: Let's keep it in perspective. We're starting at 20. We're not starting at 85 or something. So you've got to get us up off of the 20, not down from there. Kind: Well 24, what did we decide was allowed for a monument sign? Was it 64 square feet of sign or was it 24? Generous: In the neighborhood business district it's 24 square feet of sign area and a 5 foot sign. Kind: And staff is recommending a 64 square foot monument sign, as well as this 64 square foot pylon sign. That's quite a break from what we would normally allow. Okay. The 70 foot candles, I heard you talking about that and goll I wish I understood that a little bit better. The Holiday station you feel has 60 foot candles? Generous: It was 60 something. I can't remember the exact number right now. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: I mean what's the lowest you can go? And still provide safety. Paul Anderson: This is average for what we usually use. Kind: Okay, I want to go low, not average. Paul Anderson: I couldn't tell you what the lowest rate you can go is going to be. Kind: So I could put a condition in there that says do the lowest, whatever it is. Paul Anderson: A lot of that's perception you know. If you're standing right here, is this low or is this low? It's all pretty. Aanenson: We've had two recent ones. We can get those numbers for you if you pass it onto council. The Citgo and Holiday. Claybaugh: There's the IDEW guidelines for recommended uses and what the foot candles should be and I've got a feeling you're right in there. Blackowiak: It'd be nice to have local so you could just to go and go to Citgo some night or Holiday and say okay, this is 60 foot candles and this is what it looks like. Kind: And loud speakers, you'd be okay with not having them. Cool. I'm glad you thought of that one Alison. Blackowiak: Why thank you. Kind: And evergreens, putting additional year round screening on the West 78th side of the building, which is not your front side, would you be okay with that as far as a landscaping solution? Breaking up that frontage. Paul Anderson: Part of that gets back to, the question I had earlier. Blackowiak: The Forester. Paul Anderson; Right. To what extent do we do that. We're very willing to work with staff on that... Kind: That's all. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: Most of them have been hit. Just what might be helpful is poll the foot candles from the Holiday station that went in and then maybe attach something from the IBEW guidelines before it got to the council for that use or purpose and what's reasonable. Blackowiak: Okay. Yes Rich. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Slagle: I just have one more thing. And I'm sorry I didn't bring this up earlier. I have a question, I'll throw to the commission too. This sort of seems like Dell and 5 with that office building and track with me for a second. You're going west on 5 and you want to go off to stop and get something as you head to Victoria or Waconia or something. You're going to go in, go north on Galpin, take a right. You're going to go in here and get your stuff. Then you're going to have to go all the way to West 78th, take a left and then go to Galpin, take a left, and then take a right on 5. I'm just telling you I think that that almost seems like that Dell Road thing where people were taking U'ies and I don't know the answer. I just thought of it, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be a quick in and out. And coming back, you're going to force people to go to West 78th or they're going to have to do a U'y or go up to Powers to get back on 5. You know what I'm saying. You're going east on 5. You take a left on Galpin. You go into the thing. The quickest way out is to go to West 78th, take a right, get up to Powers, get over to the left hand turn lane if you can, and then go east on 5. So I'm not really crazy Matt when I talk about my traffic concerns. I just want to raise that to the group that that's an issue and Bob, I hope you're thinking about that because I don't know how that's going to work well. Aanenson: The City Engineer made that decision with MnDot so that's locked in. Slagle: I'm not saying it shouldn't be locked in but we just don't say okay to the applicant. Boy, good luck. You know. I mean it's a concern. Blackowiak: Thank you. Paul Anderson: We'd love to have a break in the median. Aanenson: They tried very hard to get one, yeah so. Slagle: But stop lights maybe is the compromise. Blackowiak: Alright. I do not have any questions so. Kind: We still get a public hearing. Blackowiak: We still get a public hearing, thank you very much. Now it's time for the public hearing. We generally don't like to be here this late. Thank you for staying. Jan Maruska: Do you always put things that affect us last on your agenda? Blackowiak: Well we're still here too. Jan Maruska: We were here last year and it was number 7 on the agenda. I'm Jan Maruska, 2175 Baneberry Way West and the 3 of us that are here all back up to the wetland and we are eye level with the lights over at the community center. We can see the hockey lights through the trees all winter long. So it might be 10 feet but it's truly eye level. That's one of our biggest concerns. Now Commissioner Kind asked about evergreens on the back side of the property. What about evergreens on the north side of West 78th? I understand that isn't indigenous to the Bluff Creek area. However, it would protect us from the lights all year long rather than just in the summer. Because the hockey rink lights are not on as much in the summer because you have your longer days. We really need it in the winter when all the leaves fall off the trees. And that same thing applies to the size of the sign. I would like to see the sign size reduced, or that's 68 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 going to be glowing in our living room windows and our bedroom windows all night long. In reality I am opposed to it. The danger to kids is so great. I think that land could be used for something else that would not be such a magnet for kids. I am a teacher. I know, you know they're not all going to go through the tunnel. It's much quicker. We're just going to dash across 5. Or we'll go all the way out into the tunnel and dash across 78th Street. And the traffic concerns that you keep mentioning are very real. For kids. For adults. People on the walking path. This has been a nice, quiet kind of neighborhood, kind of area. Also their pictures showing the, that they're blocking and then they took it from 5. There's no way they couldn't have taken it from 5. 5 isn't open. They took it from West 78th Street. If they took it within the last few weeks. It couldn't have been taken from 5. But basically the lighting, the signage, the danger to kids are the things that those of us that live in Walnut Grove would be opposed to. I think there are much better uses for the land. Blackowiak: Anyone else like to speak tonight? Since you stayed this long. Just say ditto. Audience: Ditto. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well, seeing no one else I will close the public hearing at this point. Commissioners, time for comments and I'll start with Craig. Claybaugh: I believe there should be some room for compromise on the size of the sign. I'm not sure how we got where we are. And with respect to the lighting, I probably, you know who's responsible it would be or how it would be achieved but I don't believe they're out of line with the foot candles that they're looking for for the business that they're in. It's just a question of the contrast between what the neighbors needs are and what the developers needs are so I'm not sure how to resolve that. Beyond what the lady suggested with the plantings and so that would be the extent of my comments. Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb. Kind: I think that the concept of doing a density transfer to get the primary zone preserved is worthwhile. It seems like a good idea to me, especially when I hear that the surface coverage is going to be well below the 55% that we would normally allow. I'm not quite sure what the numbers should say on this chart but I feel like something needs to change here. Whether it be 41% or 46% or what. I think that needs to be changed. Telecommunication antennas/dishes if concealed from view at the public right-of-way. I'm okay with leaving that in there as an ancillary use. My concern was more for cell phone towers, monopole kinds of things and our experience on this commission is we can't prohibit that stuff anyway so I'm not even sure that should be addressed in this PUD. I liked Alison's idea about adding, I'm on page 7 for people who are trying to follow along. Of adding not to exceed 15 percent to the building's accent. The lighting issue, I would like the applicant to work with staff. I'm getting that to be the minimal amount possible and still provide some safety where they can make sure people aren't stealing things or whatever. And take a look at what kind of screening would help. If it needs to be on the north side of West 78th, let's take a look at that. I think that's fine. But I like the idea of putting it on, between the building and West 78th just because it would help break up to me what is kind of the not so nice looking elevation. So I liked the idea of having the evergreens there. What else were the bones of contention. Oh signage. Signage, goll. I think it should be monuments only. I'm willing to budge from the 24 square foot but I think they should be monuments only. Oh, and safety. Safety. Safety. How are we going to address that? I don't have any great ideas. I'm fried .... what other people have some ideas about how to address that tonight with some sort of condition. Take it away Bruce. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Feik: Signage. I have similar concerns on signage. I would like to maybe clear, approve the sign that's in the package is inclusive of all the signage that's going to be part and parcel of the future building as well. That is very clear that there's not going to be exterior signage on that future building. There is not additional monument signage. I'm assuming that's what we're doing too with the signage, this is for the project. So if they put a dental office or they put something else in, the most they're going to get is some street signage as far as the street number, and there's not going to be band, you know signage on the side of the building or insurance salesmen. Aanenson: They're looking at a retail user for that. Generous: They would get wall signage. Blackowiak: Yeah, they would get wall signage. Kind: But it's not addressed in here though. Generous: Yes it is. Kind: Where? Generous: Under the signage they're addressed. Page 12. Wall signage shall be permitted. Kind: Point number 5. He's got a whole table there. Feik: Is that lit or? Is that back lit? Blackowiak: It has to be by ordinance. Generous: Yeah. Feik: Back lit signage as well? Addressing the residents concerns, would those be limited to Galpin and 5 or would they be any of the elevations? Would that be? Aanenson: Well I think what we'll do between now and then is meet with them and we'll get a profile of where their elevation sits. The top of that roof. The top of that roof is 28 feet. The canopy, like the lights is 28 so we'll shoot a line to show them where that's going to, so we'll get their names and do that. Feik: The concerns on the signage I guess, I guess the big thing though is safety as it relates to pedestrian traffic. To tell you the truth, I could go either way on this based on the safety issue. If somebody had some compelling reason to deny, I might lean that way. It concerns me greatly the access for pedestrians to this site. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: Alright. Signage. I do believe a pylon sign is reasonable for this kind of use, and ifI look at this drawing, the sketches correctly, that pylon sign will be at the comer of Galpin and 5 so it will be the first small south and also on the comer where there are the lights. Now we have all those lights turning green, yellow, red all night long so, and they have a pretty piercing thing. I mean I'm on a little bit of a hill, I can 70 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 see them from my house. I don't think the pylon sign would be as piercing as those street lights. However, I would like, I think the balance that I see would be to restrict the height of the pylon sign so that the buildings effectively screen it to a large extent from the residential neighborhood. I think that's what I would like to propose about the signage. In terms of the antennas, I don't really have an issue with it as long as it's not an 80 foot telecommunications tower. I do believe that the hard surface area should be consistently representing 41 percent since that's obviously enough for what they're trying to do. Loud speakers, that's great that you don't need loud speakers. I do believe that could be an issue that is reasonable for the neighborhood to be concerned about. The safety is really a sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky thing. I don't think it's fair to hold this project hostage to a safety concern because, I mean I don't think it's fair. I really don't think it's fair. I mean it's a reasonable use for that place to have a Kwik Stop. To have a gas station with a convenience store, and yes it's a magnet for kids and yes there's a school across the street and yes that's an issue, but can we really hold the gas station responsible for that? I really don't think we can. I don't think it's fair. That's my comments. Sidney: My goodness. Hard act to follow. A few comments. I heard Kate mentioning sight lines. You'd have some drawing or something? Aanenson: No. What I said is we would work with these neighbors and we'd get the elevation of their house and show the top elevation of the building because the top of the building is 28. The top of the canopy is 20 so just to see where they're sitting and we'll do that. Show that... Sidney: Okay. And that leads me to my question. Can we have some sight line drawings or at least understanding of elevations and I think that would be part of the process of working with the neighbors to understand what they will see of this development. I think it can be worked out. I know lighting is a good issue in our neighborhood. We see lights that are unshielded from Chaska every night and it is really annoying. And then also I guess we talked about adding trip generation data or traffic data into the staff report, and for safety concerns I agree with Uli that we can bring them up, we can do the best we can but it's still really a parental control issue and maybe signage. Marking pedestrian crosswalks. Everything we can do I think we should do. Are we making too big of a deal out of it? Well maybe not because Highway 5 really is a scary road in terms of trying to cross it. Even with a car sometimes. Even when you have a light. But I do think that if staff can work on those issues and highlight what can be done to improve the safety concerns, that would be really great. Maybe a slight, if you're younger than 12 years old don't cross here and do it that way. But at least there could be some education done maybe at the school even about this is how you go if you want to go north or something like that. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Rich. Slagle: A couple thoughts. First, it would be great to have you in the city. I think you'll do a wonderful project. I'm not quite sure that this is the spot for this project, unlike some other commissioners who believe it is. Because of the attraction and just the layout, and I'm trying to resolve within myself how we address situations that come up that in my opinion have provided us with some real questions about either safety or traffic patterns or we could pick just about anything and I feel like as a commissioner we certainly can't use you as the example or the project that we need to dialogue with city staff on. But my point is, similar to another project, a large one that we approved, there is a lot of concern about traffic. And so what happened was is we approved it asking all parties to get together to talk and I think that sort of occurred. I don't know what the update is on that project, but here we sit with an option of...plan and it seems to me that anything that we try and do with the safety requirements, i.e. paths or what not is more of a city thing. And yet I don't want to approve this and have it go forward and have the city say well gosh, 71 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 we'll try and get to it but we can't hold these guys back. You know, and so my question to staff is what is my or our option if we have serious concerns about the integrity of this development with respect to safety and traffic? Aanenson: Well if you have, need some evidence of impurical data to say that it's going to be a safety problem. Slagle: I'm just trying to use common sense Kate. If kids are going through tunnels and crossing 2 streets. Aanenson: Okay, let's say it's not a kid attraction and let's say it's something else that the 2 acres comes in and it's another type of use that generates the same amount of traffic but there's no kids involved. Then what's the discussion level? Slagle: Well I think the discussion is a little bit lower but with the way the traffic patterns are, I don't know how it's going to work. Well. Work well. I think it will work. Aanenson: I'm just saying strip aside, the fact that there's a child attraction or perceived child attraction, and it's the same trip generation and a bigger use because we've looked at office use. Again we looked at 3 uses that were on this site. Let's say a retail center came in, a neighborhood retail center which actually allows quite a bit of square footage if you looked at neighborhood retail. And it had the same trip generation. Slagle: I guess let me, let me say it this way. I'm not so concerned as to so much what it is that's going there, believe it or not. I mean I think this will work. What I'm concerned about is how can we have a path that's on the north side of a very busy road, and you in essence have to go under that and then cross back over to get to a place. Aanenson: Can I ask a question of Commissioner Kind? Are your children allowed to just leave the school without being on a bus or a parent picking them up? Kind: No. Feik: Yes. Slagle: Wait a minute, you're telling me you don't think kids are going to be coming from the north part of Galpin and walking to school? Feik: They can bike. Aanenson: Can they bike to school? Kind: Yeah, they can bike., but the parents have to approve it. Slagle: ...that are north of West 78th. I mean I can name Walnut Ridge, Longacres, Forest Meadows, the new Ashling Meadows. They all are connected by a path. What I'm saying is, why wouldn't we as a city just say gosh, let's try and put a path on the south side and make it safer? Why is it such an issue to just grasp and let's run with it? 72 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Saam: Maybe they did and the grades don't work. You know there's a reason there's a tunnel there. Slagle: ... staff to find out why we don't have a path. Aanenson: That's fine but I think you're making a huge assumption that most of the traffic is going to come from underneath under the tunnel. I don't know if that's the fact. Slagle: Well I hope that's the case because the other case is that they cross 5. Aanenson: No, no, no, no, no, no. I think a lot of it's going to be coming from the north side of West 78th. Feik: There's the same problem though. It's exactly the same problem... Saam: Where should they cross? We have a crosswalk for them. Feik: You know we've got tunnels that have gone in there and I'm sure there's a number of elderly who are living in those townhomes for the convenience of townhome living that may want to walk for a half gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. Aanenson: There's a sidewalk on both sides of Galpin. There's a sidewalk on the north side of West 78th and you enter into this parking lot at this point so I guess. So you want a sidewalk, pedestrian sidewalk. Saam: Along the south side of West 78th. Generous: Of West 78th from the trail. Then you run into grade issues. We could have a stairways I suppose. Slagle: I don't know what the answer is but I'm just surprised that we aren't raising that question before this, you know. Aanenson: Sure. Saam: Well our city standard is sidewalk on one side of the street so you know that's, I mean here we have bituminous walkway on one side. We're sticking with the standard. Not everybody agrees with that though. Aanenson: If you want to recommend an additional sidewalk, then recommend additional sidewalk. That's fine. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Comments. Sacchet: Yeah, just 2-3 quick things. Rick, would you be alright if there's a sidewalk both sides of street? Is that basically what you're saying? Slagle: I guess what I'm saying is I don't think, I don't think someone should go under 2 tunnels, going under 5 and West 78th, arriving on the north side. Why not connect the pathway between West 78th and 5 and run it up the south side so it goes to this. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Feik: I would be okay with a light crosswalk with a push button where you can have the light flash for the oncoming traffic. Sacchet: For 784? Feik: For 78th. I'd be okay with a regulated crosswalk. Sacchet: Now there are 3 things here to consider. One thing is that across the street we have a mini golf, and it's not operational right now but I believe that it potentially could be operational again, or something like that which would have actually far greater, or at least equal attractiveness to the kids. So there's context here. But then on the other hand, West 78th Street is not going to be what it is now. It's not a small version of Highway 5. It's going to be a neighborhood type of, what did you say? Restricted to 30 miles. And they're going to open the mm into the neighborhood further up so it's going to be, really a neighborhood type road so in that context I think that diminishes it. My final point. Feik: Anybody who lives in Longacres that's going to Target is going to be on that road. Blackowiak: Yeah. Sacchet: There's going to be traffic. Slagle: People are using Pioneer, Lyman, 7, to avoid 5 right now. Sacchet: There's going to be traffic. I mean let's not make any assumption about that. However, the point about parenting. You brought that up. The parenting thing. I used to live just south of Highway 5 when my kids were little. We were neighbors. And there was this jumping heart bridge that we're all familiar with that is grossly under used across Highway 5 and it's not on the way, just as little as these tunnels are, or even less. However, our kids had very clear instruction. If they want to go to a friend across Highway 5. If they want to go with a bike to school and have to cross Highway 5, they have to go across that bridge. Otherwise they're not going to go. Now, did they always do that? You know I actually think they did. But you know it's a tricky thing and your point is very well taken. I mean this 78th Street is going to be busy. But I think the balance here is not to punish the applicant, even though there are questions about it. Slagle: And I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't, but my question is how do we resolve it. Kind: Well the sidewalk is a good idea. Aanenson: Sure, a sidewalk along the south side of West 78th. Kind: And I'm not sure how these tunnels work. I've not been through them. I don't think they're even paved yet, are they? Aanenson: You can go underneath them, sure. Kind: Well I'm going to go try them out. But anyway, how does it work? Can you come up on the south side of West 78th? It's just one big, long tunnel? Generous: No. It's broken. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Feik: There's 2 tunnels. Kind: But there's no daylight? Feik: Yes. Generous: Yes. Kind: So I can get out between the 2 tunnels? And then I end up in a wetland? Saam: Okay, this is West 78th Street. You're looking north going that way. Here's the first tunnel coming under 5. A kid's going to walk on this, then under the second tunnel under West 78th Street. It will wrap up and around. It will go to the west. Here's the driveway, the full access for Kwik Trip. Aanenson: So if you come out where you would like to Rich on that, come out on this side. Where Matt was just pointing, come out here. Come out on this side on this large wetland. Blackowiak: I'm sorry Kate, we can't see. Kind: You're not on the screen. You're not on the radar. So you're coming up over here on this side of this large wetland complex which is very steep Aanenson: as it... Claybaugh: Now you're concerned they're going to drown you know. Slagle: We don't even need to put a path there. There will be a path created. Claybaugh: Yes. There will be, that's right. Worse yet, they'll be out there doing extreme sports on it is what they'll be doing. But I think that the recommendation's going and I think that the council is in a better position. When would they meet on this? Aanenson: Well we would look at that and see if it can be done and how it would work and look at the grades and that's certainly something to look at. Blackowiak: Right. Okay. Let's move on. It's midnight. It's time. Claybaugh: Will that information go forward to the council then? Blackowiak: Yeah. Kind: They read every word of our minutes. Blackowiak: Oh they do, with rapt attention. Okay. Well my comments are pretty much the same. I think the major points have been covered. We definitely need to do some type of a path or at least look at our options for walkways, paths, connectivity. Making it easy for people to get there. Some type of a crosswalk. You know push signal crosswalk. Whatever it's going to take but we need to look at that, and I 75 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 certainly agree with Uli that we can't hold Kwik Trip responsible for the safety of all the kids. I mean we have to be responsible. It is guided commercial residential/medium density so if it's not them, it's going to be somebody else. Whether it's Kwik Trip or a Starbucks or a bagel shop or whatever it is, people are going to want to walk there so we're just going to have to make it as safe as possible and that's where, I think we're just going to have to move forward with that. I think there's a lot of direction here in the conditions. We just need to add a few and I think they've been touched upon so whoever would like to go forward with the motion, feel free. Kind: I'm looking. I'm looking for where it is. Sacchet: Page 23. Kind: I'll try it. Sacchet: You want to give it a shot? Kind: I'll give it a shot. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary planned unit development PUD 2002-1 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development based on the findings, the PUD findings in the staff report dated January 15, 2002. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak: Okay, all in favor? Sacchet: Do we need to make comments about things we want to change here? Kind: It is too late. I have some changes to the PUD. Sacchet: Yeah, we need to address those, don't we? Kind: No, or was that the next thing? Sacchet: No, no, that's this one. Generous: It's incorporated as part of the DC but it's really part of the PUD. It's the design standards. Sacchet: So we should make all our fixes to that now? Kind: Do our changes to the design standards now. I was thinking that that was with the next motion but let's do them right now. Okay. On page 5, there's no changes on page 5. Page 6, change section (d), the paragraph to read, the hard surface lot coverage will be limited to a maximum of 41 percent over the entire site. Any single lot may exceed the 41% requirement. The hard surface area of each lot is shown as follows, and then leave the table the way it is. On page 7. 2(c), number 2. Block, this is the bold face. Block shall be used as a base material or for building accents only. And then a new sentence, not to exceed 15 percent. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: That's the same sentence. Feik: Comma. Kind: Comma. Not to exceed 15 percent, thank you. Page 8. This is (f). Still under the same materials and detail section. Page f. This is just for my clarity and I think for future clarity of other people. The bold face type, it says a drive thru shall not be located on the street frontage of a building, instead of elevation. I was trying to envision drive thru's being on the second floor of a building and just was having trouble with that. Page 9. 8(b), the last sentence should say, wooden fences and chainlink fences are prohibited. And add a number (e) that says gate material may not be chainlink. Moving to page 11, under signage, which is (f). I would like to delete number 1. Relating to the pylon sign and leave number 2 as is. Allowing for the 64 foot monument sign for each building. Lighting. I think I would like to address that as, I don't know how to address that in the PUD right now. Let's see. I think I'd like to address that as a condition that. Sidney: Work with staff. Kind: Work with staff and is that appropriate in a PUD design standards? That the applicant shall work with staff to minimize the amount of lighting on site. And add a number (h) which states loud speakers are prohibited. And I think that's it for the design standards. Generous: Shouldn't you put it up under the prohibited uses? Kind: Where's that? Generous: Page 6. Blackowiak: Well it's not really a use. Feik: You could put it into lighting and speakers. Make it a joint section. Kind: That's all I could think of. Sacchet: Friendly amendment or do we need a second first or? Blackowiak: It's a little late. Sacchet: If you didn't second I second. Okay. And friendly amendments to, where are they? Oh, page 10. Number m. I believe this should say, this may be accomplished by landscaping. Not accompanied. Whatever. Now in the pylon sign, would we be able to accept a friendly amendment to restrict the height and size rather than take it out all the way? Kind: No. No. Sacchet: No? Okay. You made the motion. Kind: I'd like to try for it this way and see if it flies with the commission. 77 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Okay, that's fair. Blackowiak: Okay, are you done? Sacchet: I'm done. Blackowiak: Do you accept those amendments? Kind: I accept the amendments. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD 2002-1) rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development subject to the following amendments in the PUD design standards: Page 6, Section d. The hard surface lot coverage will be limited to a maximum of 41 percent over the entire site. Any single lot may exceed the 41% requirement. Page 7. Section 2(c), number 2. Block shall be used as a base material or for building accents only, not to exceed 15 percent. Page 8. Section f. The drive through shall not be located on the street frontage of a building Page 9. Section 8(b). Wooden fences and chainlink fences are prohibited. Add Section e. Gate material may not be chainlink. Page 10. Correct the word ~accompanied" to say ~accomplished". Page 11. Section f. Delete number 1 relating to the pylon sign and leave number 2 as is. Page 12. Add Section 5. The applicant will work with staff to minimize the amount of lighting on site. Add Section H. Loud speakers are prohibited. Kind, Blackowiak and Sidney voted in favor. Slagle, Feik and Claybaugh voted in opposition. Sacchet abstained. The motion failed with a tie vote. Kind: That means it didn't pass. Blackowiak: No, 2-3 and 1 if you're abstaining. Sacchet: Abstaining because I think a small pylon sign would be fair. Kind: Okay so wait, it did pass then? Feik: No it did not. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Aanenson: Abstain is a no. Blackowiak: Abstain is a no? Aanenson: A silent vote is. Generous: So it's a tie. Claybaugh: What does it take to get another motion? Kind: It takes getting that pylon in there. Sacchet: I guess the pylon and I would support it. Kind: Okay. So the pylon, maybe I wouldn't support it then though. Slagle: I have a question though. I mean I'm just raising this. Can you keep doing motions until it passes? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: She could withdraw her motion. Kind: I need to withdraw my motion and then Blackowiak: Make a new motion Kind: With all that stuff in there and including the pylon sign at, what's your suggested height? It was 20. Sacchet: 20 feet above. And the building is 28 feet tall. Claybaugh: The canopy was 20. Sacchet: And they're above behind. Kind: What is the... Aanenson: They're all 3 on one. Target, Perkins, that's all one sign. It's 20 feet for all 3 uses. Sacchet: I would settle for 15 feet. I think that's less than if there is and it's less than it's in a commercial area and I think 15 feet would be well screened by the buildings, especially since I would also propose to make it a little smaller. Kind: Okay. How about the Target one and the Perkins one are more monument style as opposed to... Aanenson: Well that is one of our recommendations is we won't accept that style. We don't allow that style. It has to be more integral so wide around the bottom or two posts. Kind: Is that in here? 79 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Generous: Well we limit it to 10 feet wide. Now we can expand that. That it must be a monument. Kind: I was just thinking that the Target one and the Perkins one are a little bit more attractive. Aanenson: ...two posts with a band across. That's what we were looking at. Something like that. Kind: Does number 1, at 15 feet in height cover that? Blackowiak: Or you could leave it as is and with the note to council that we were concerned about the height and they should maybe review potential for a lower sign. Kind: Okay. Sacchet: That might be simplest. If you're fine with that. Kind: I'm fine with that. Sacchet: Okay. So I second the re-stated motion. Blackowiak: The motion's been made and seconded. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD 2002-1) rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development subject to the following amendments in the PUD design standards: Page 6, Section D. The hard surface lot coverage will be limited to a maximum of 41 percent over the entire site. Any single lot may exceed the 41% requirement. Page 7. Section 2(c), number 2. Block shall be used as a base material or for building accents only, not to exceed 15 percent. Page 8. Section F. The drive through shall not be located on the street frontage of a building Page 9. Section 8(b). Wooden fences and chainlink fences are prohibited. Add Section E. Gate material may not be chainlink. Page 10. Correct the word ~accompanied" to say ~accomplished". Page 11. Section F. A note to City Council that the Planning Commission is concerned about the height of the pylon sign and asks that the City Council review this item. Page 12. Add Section 5. The applicant will work with staff to minimize the amount of lighting on site. Add Section H. Loud speakers are prohibited. 80 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 All voted in favor, except for Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: And for reasons of safety? Slagle: As stated. Blackowiak: As stated. Next motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-1, Galpin Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. dated March, 2001, creating two lots and two outlots, subject to the following conditions 1 through 30. Oh, did we already say what 31 was? Yes. Blackowiak: I believe that was added, yes. Sacchet: Yes, that was added by staff. Through 31. With the following fixes. Number 5. Silt fence. Whatever there is will be promptly removed after construction is completed. Number 22. As is with the addition, silt fence will be promptly removed after completion of construction. And adding a 32. That development of Lot 1, Outlot A and B will be done simultaneously. That's my motion. Kind: And just for clarity, it includes number 31. The developer shall record a conservation easement over Outlot B. Sacchet: Over Outlot B, correct. Blackowiak: A motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-1, Galpin Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated March, 2001, creating two lots and two outlots subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a development contract/PUD agreement with the city. The development design standards shall be incorporated as an exhibit to the development contract/PUD agreement. All development of the property shall comply with the design standards. The Galpin Business Park shall be required to pay full park and trail dedication fees pursuant to city ordinance. A 0' to 20' wide wetland buffer (with a minimum average width of 10') shall be maintained around this wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. Wetland buffer edge signs shall be installed, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall be purchased from the City for $20 per sign. Any disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be re-established using native wet meadow species from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan (Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental 81 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities) or other species as approved by city staff. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 40' setback from the wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer and setback shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. All silt fences shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands and storm water ponds. Revised storm water calculations shall be provided. On the grading plan (Sheet 2 of 5) the directional arrows between CBMH 3 and 4 appear to be going the wrong direction. The rim and invert elevations are not consistent between the grade plan (SP4) and the utility plan (Sheet 3 of 5). Revised plan sheets showing these changes shall be submitted. Based on the proposed developed area of 3.69 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $21,804.21 and the water quantity fees are $16,088.40. Current calculations indicate that the project proposes water quality ponding for approximately 4.41 acres. This results in water quality credits equaling $26,058.69. The project also proposes providing 1 outlet structure, which results in a credit of $2,500.00. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $9,333.92. This amount will be finalized prior to final plat approval. 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, 1006, 2101, 2103, 2109, 2110, 2203, 3108. Prior to final plat approval, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 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 minimum rock construction entrance must be 75 feet. Show the sanitary sewer service to Lot 2. Revise Arboretum Boulevard to West 78th Street. The minimum storm sewer pipe allowed is 12" RCP. Revise the pond outlet pipe to comply. Revise storm sewer, sanitary and water lines on sheets SP 1, SP3, and SP4 to match with the proposed utility plan. 82 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Revise Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5300 to show the most recent version of the plates. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site; however, additional information is still needed. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the 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 10 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, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. Silt fence shall be added around the perimeter grading limits of the site. The silt fence, shown on the plan adjacent to the existing wetland, should be moved to the top of the existing slope and away from the wetland. Also, this silt fence must be Type lll, heavy-duty. All silt fences shall be promptly removed upon completion of construction. All of the proposed rock construction entrances must be lengthened to 75 feet as per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 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 obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDot, etc. Cross-access easements will need to be obtained and recorded against the lots for each of the entrance drives. On the utility plan: -Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan". -Change the 8" tee on the watermain going to Lot 1 to an 8" x 6" tee and delete the 8" x 6" reducer. -Show the utilities easement. -Add a 6" gate valve on the watermain going to Lot 1 just past the 8" x 6" reducer. -Change the type of public watermain from DIP to PVC C-900. -Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer. -Change storm manhole 1 to a 3 foot sump structure. 83 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 a. Show all the existing utilities in Galpin Boulevard and West 78th Street. 29. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. -Show all of the existing utilities in Galpin Boulevard and West 78th Street. c. Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Grade, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan". -Remove the proposed water and sanitary sewer lines. 30. If the parcel on the north side of West 78th Street will be platted, show this area on the preliminary plat sheet. Also, show this area as an outlot or a lot. 31. The developer shall record a conservation easement over Outlet B. 32. Development of Lot 1, Outlet A and B will be done simultaneously. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: And for reasons stated? Slagle: As stated. Blackowiak: Thank you. Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit 2002-1 permitting development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions, and we have 1 through 3. Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion. Is there a second? Kind: Second. Blackowiak: All in favor? Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Should it say wooded species or woody species. That sounded funny to me. On page 26, number 1. And there should be a closed parenthesis after natural community category. Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit 2002-1 permitting development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: Native wooden species shall be planted on the property north of West 78th Street from the top of the slope (elevation approximately 958) down to the existing vegetation. Species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan (see Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities - Maple, Basswood Natural Community Category.) A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. 84 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 2. The slope area between the primary and secondary corridor boundaries shall be restored using native vegetation in order to ensure protection of the creek and the surrounding natural communities. 3. Conservation easements shall be placed over all areas within the primary and second corridors. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: For reasons stated. Okay, next motion please. Sacchet: Alright Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-1 for a 3,960 square foot convenience store and a 2,873 square foot car wash (Kwik Trip) plans prepared by Insites dated November 29, 2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 26 with the following fixes. Number 10 is the same as 17. Number 13 and 14 are a little bit contorted. Now I think what I believe number 13 should read, detailed occupancy related requirements will be submitted for review when complete plans are submitted. And 14 should read, the proposed building on Lot 2 is not included in this review. And number 25, the last sentence, copy enclosed should be deleted. And do we need to add the chainlinks here? Blackowiak: I think that's. Sacchet: Number 27. No chainlink fences or gates are allowed. Kind: I'll second that and I have a couple friendly amendments. Where are they? Number 4. Add a sentence that says wing wall shall be constructed of the same material as convenience store (brick). Sacchet: Accept. Kind: A chainlink gate is prohibited. Sacchet: That's number 73 isn't it? Or 27. Kind: But that's a fence isn't it? Or was that a gate? Sacchet: Both. No chainlink fence or gate is allowed. Kind: Got it. Number 7. This is landscaping section. Applicant shall increase number of evergreens along West 78th Street. And work with staff to determine which side of the street. 13 I have a different wording of this. Sacchet: Okay. If you've got a better one, by all means. Kind: Detailed occupancy related requirements shall be reviewed upon submittal of complete plans. Sacchet: Sounds much more beautiful than mine. Kind: Well your's didn't say that it was going to be reviewed. 85 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Will be submitted for review. Your's is fine. Kind: Oh you're right. Your's was just fine the way it was. Okay, I'm losing it. Wait there's more. Sidney: Sorry. Kind: I think the lighting we addressed before. I think that's okay. And did we address the safety? Sacchet: No. We need to say something about safety. Blackowiak: You know what, I think we could just make a separate statement. Let's do that. Let's just have it. Kind: And not have it be part of this motion, okay. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: How would you do it then? Blackowiak: Well do you accept her amendments then I'll explain. Sacchet: Yes. I accept my amendments. Blackowiak: Motion and second. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan /t2002-1 for a 3,960 square foot convenience store and a 2,873 square foot car wash (Kwik Trip), plans prepared by Insites, dated November 29, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City. 2. The car wash should be constructed of the same materials as the convenience store (brick). If the developer desires to use block, it should be used as a base or foundation material, or in decorative columns, rather than a primary building material. 3. The north and west elevations of the convenience store shall be provided with an additional 8.5 feet and 14.5 feet of windows on the north and west elevations, respectively. In addition, the northern elevation needs additional articulation. 4. The wing wall around the mechanical equipment shall screen the mechanical equipment from views from the west. The wing wall shall be constructed of the same material as the convenience store (brick). 5. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view and glare. The canopy lighting shall be completely screened from direct off site views through the use of screening structures around the lights or by recessing the lighting in to the canopy. 6. Pedestrian ramps will be required at all trail/sidewalk access points onto drive aisles. 86 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval. The applicant shall increase the number of evergreens along West 78th Street and work with staff to determine which side of the street. The developer shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. The developer shall provide a bicycle parking area and bicycle racks. Additional site furnishing shall be added, such as benches or chairs. 10. The convenience store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 11. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 12. The canopy over the pumps must be constructed with non-combustible materials or materials equivalent to one-hour fire-resistive construction. 13. Detailed occupancy related requirements shall be reviewed upon submittal of complete plans. 14. The proposed building on Lot 2 is not included in this review for building code compliance. 15. Utility plans: The water service and sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 must have independent connections to the public utility lines. The flow direction from CBMH 4 to CBMH 3 on sheet 3 of 5 is incorrect. The water service for Lot 1 must be sized for domestic and fire suppression demand and a PIV is required. The utility plan sheets submitted must correspond with each other. 16. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 17. A PIV will be required for the convenience store. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 18. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs are required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs as well as curbing to be painted yellow. 19. The fire hydrant located on the northwest comer of the property will be required to be moved easterly approximately 20 feet. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 20. Location of the fire department sprinkler connection on the convenience store will be required to be located on the west side of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 21. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 87 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 22. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. 23. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. 24. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. 25. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. 26. No chainlink fences or gates are allowed. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: This item will go to City Council on January 28th, SO all interested parties please follow that to council. I would like to just make two points of direction to the City Council. And I think that that's when we include the safety. One of them is that the applicant work with the Forester to talk about plantings and also potential screening for the neighbors to the north. And a second thing would be a safety, you know look at safety issues and I don't know what anybody wants to include, jump in but let's just make sure that safety issues are addressed, including but not limited to trails, crosswalks and signs. Go ahead. Claybaugh: Pedestrian traffic patterns. Blackowiak: Yep. Just kind of a separate direction for council to let them know that we're very concerned about this issue. Kind: And Madam Chair, and the third point would be, to highlight our concern about the pylon sign height. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: And size. Kind: And size, okay. Blackowiak: Alright. Well I think we muddled our way through that one. Kate briefly, what do you have for us? ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know we do have a work session at our next meeting which is February 5th. 88 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: You know that's the one that I'm out of town on. Aanenson: That's okay. Blackowiak: I'm sorry. Aanenson: The rest of you, we're altogether, that's great. We're going to go through the work session program that we'll be doing and the department's working on for next year to get some input. Engineering's going to give a little bit of information on it. After we've got a project approved we're going to walk through some scenarios so you understand kind of all the hand holdings, the management of a project. Got some good feedback for some ideas tonight. Look for some other ones. I think I'll talk about McDonald's and the history of the McDonald's site plan, when that came into the city. I think that would be, kind of got a comparison between this and so I think that'd be helpful. Maybe talk about some compelling reasons, kind of go through that. Bluff Creek Overlay, some of the applications that we've used. How those are working. Anything else that you would like us to talk about, get me some feedback. We've got quite a list already internally at staff. We're putting together some books for you, some things we talked about last time so I'll have those available too so I hope you can all attend. We'll try to start a little earlier. I know that's hard for some people. But if we can start, I'd like to start at 6:00, if that's okay. If everybody can make it by 6:00. Kind: Madam Chair, a couple of suggestions of other topics for that work session. Blackowiak: Certainly go ahead. Kind: That came up this evening. One of them is, and maybe this really more for the City Council to tackle, I don't know. But Randy Noecker brought it up as to a policy issue as to why don't we reimburse for trail. Labor costs. And that's maybe more of a question for City Council as opposed to our work session. Work session, I'm wondering if it makes sense for us to discuss possibly creating an ordinance around entry features for subdivisions, and what they should be like. We don't have anything in our ordinance that guides that at all right now, and I'd be interested in commission's thoughts on that. Business neighborhood uses came up tonight. Some of those things that are currently in our business neighborhood uses that are currently allowed are not neighborhood uses and maybe we should take a look at revamping that. Aanenson: Yeah, I'm going to look at that too. We're re-writing the whole code. That's our goal this year. We're going to go through how we've laid all that out. Yes. Kind: You're kidding? Aanenson: No. So we'll show you how we're working on that. And that's one of the things too is to look at all the specific zoning districts and what uses are permitted so. Kind: So maybe not for this work session but I imagine all this stuff will be brought to us. Aanenson: You will be seeing it because the Planning Commission will be seeing all of Chapter 20 so we're re-writing that so you'll see that. 89 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: Wow! That should be amazing. And then the historic preservation ordinance. I know Miss Rosie was taken off of the agenda tonight. It might be a good opportunity to talk about the creation of something. Aanenson: I also wanted to talk about transition zone. Show you different uses that we've applied. We do have in our ordinance it talks about what is a transition zone and we get caught in the middle of a meeting of trying to get, so again that's something I think would be helpful to put into your booklet. To talk about what we've used as transition zone. Obviously that came up on Puke too. Where we've got a large wetland. What constitutes a transition so I think that's kind of helpful to go back and re-visit. And I'm hoping if we can put together folders, things that you kind of as you're reading reports, go back and look at. So any other suggestions, if you don't think of it tonight, that's fine. Blackowiak: Yeah, e-mail Kate. Aanenson: E-mail would be great. Sidney: One comment Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Sure. Sidney: I guess what came up during Presbyterian Homes, I guess making sure that while, you know to what level should we be accurate with the concept plan when it comes in because it sounded like the, is it architect? I guess who spoke was misled by a concept plan and. Blackowiak: Well I don't know if he was misled or if he didn't. Sidney: I know. Sacchet: It came in handy. Sidney: Yeah, it came in handy. Aanenson: It was raised as a condition of the original report to verify that. So we pointed out in the beginning that we weren't sure that it looked right so we pointed that out from the beginning. Sidney: So I'm wondering when concept plans do come forward, if all setbacks, all buffer. Aanenson: That wasn't the concept plan he was working off. He was working off, the EAW kind of... Blackowiak: The 1996 document I think. Aanenson: Right so, it wasn't even an early drawing so, but that's a good point. Well taken. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Would someone like to note the minutes please. Sacchet: Yes I'd like to note the minutes and two corrections, since I want to prevent any new councilmen in their freshmen enthusiasm putting muzzles on us. On page 3, the second paragraph. 90 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sidney: What was said again? Sacchet: I'm not going to repeat that. Did you tape that Nann? Oh boy. Sidney: Nobody's going to be listening at this time. Sacchet: Okay. That statement on page 3, on top where I'm stated, okay thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking. You mentioned that too in your summary, that revisions that are required based on the conditions may lead to the loss of some lives. I think that was a little close to September 11th. This should be the loss of some lots, okay. Not lives. And then another real good one. Well there's one more. Listen to this one. Page 43. That one towards the bottom. It took me a while but after Sharmin was translating this to me it actually made sense. I however have one question. In your groan one sentence. I don't think Bob was groaning. I think this was in your group, one sentence. Your groan. Further down in the same paragraph, in those groan. It's the group one sentences. I think it was group. It certainly wasn't groan so...we're not losing lives. We're not groaning and if ever a council member studies this they should see it as such. Slagle: And wait, you're afraid of the council putting a muzzle on you right? Sacchet: It's just preventive maintenance. Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 2001 amended on pages 3 and 43. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 12:25 a.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 91