PC 2001 08 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, Craig
Claybaugh, and Deb Kind
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Matt Saam, Project Engineer;
Julie Hoium, Planner I; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT (A2) REGULATIONS TO DEVELOP A PARCEL LESS THAN 2.5 ACRES WITH A
SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 1800 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, DENNY NYSTROM.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Taping of the discussion was delayed.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify items brought up in the staff report. The applicant was providing
comments when the taping began.
Denny Nystrom: ...not put the house a lot closer to the highway for obvious reasons. I mean I like my
privacy and we're minimizing it on 212 there so I will follow where that line is at the 140 and the 110 to
protect that area and stay along the buffer. That's what I would like to do.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to ask
questions or make comments, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the
record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, does anyone have comments on this
item? LuAnn, want to start?
Sidney: Well I think the request is reasonable. We're following through on City Council's
recommendation or actual approval of the moving of the house. Since the applicant has stated that he
agrees and will comply with the conditions, I feel comfortable in approving this application recommending
approval.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. No comments? Bruce any?
Feik: No.
Blackowiak: Any other comments? Uli?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I appreciate, I do get a sense that you will take care of that place well. It's very sensitive area
with that fen right behind it. Rather than put more restriction on it, I'd rather see it cultivate into it well
and leave it at the 15% and trust that you will do what is in the best interest of the place there.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments Deb?
Kind: I agree with staff's findings. It's a parcel of record. It's a reasonable use to have a single family
home on that lot. I support staff's recommendation for approval.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I agree with what's been said. My only comments would be that ifI had to rank
conditions, I think number 1 is much more important in terms of keeping the 140 and 110 foot setbacks in
order than moving the house closer. Now if we could move the house a little closer, fine but I mean I think
the back is much important in this case so I would, if I had to rank them I'd say that would be definitely
number one for me so with that I'd like a motion.
Sidney: I'll make a motion Madam Chair. That the Planning Commission approve the variance #2001-4
from a 2.5 acre minimum lot size to permit the development of a 1.1 acre parcel located at 1800 Flying
Cloud subject to the following conditions 1 through 11.
Blackowiak: Okay, I have a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #2001-4 from the
2.5 acre minimum lot size to permit the development of a 1.1 acre parcel located at 1800 Flying Cloud
subject to the following conditions:
In order to ensure a high level of protection, the northernmost portion of the lot shall be preserved
in an undeveloped state through a conservation easement being recorded. (The southernmost
boundary of the easement results from a line being drawn between a point 140 feet from the
northern property comer along the northwest property line and a point 110 feet from the northern
property comer along the northeast property line.) No vegetation shall be removed, mowed, cut or
otherwise altered within this area. In addition, no structures shall be permitted within this area.
2. Impervious surfaces shall not cover more than 15% of the site.
3. Add a benchmark within 20 feet of the proposed house on the front setback line.
4. Consider moving the house closer to the road to better fit the existing grade and topography.
5. Show all proposed and existing contour lines. Also, add direction of drainage arrows to the survey.
6. Show all existing easements and structures within the property lines.
7. Show the location of the proposed on-site septic and well areas.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
The developer shall provide a tree removal plan. The developer shall install tree protection fencing
near the building pad or adjacent to site grading to protect trees during construction. The existing
trees in front of the property should be preserved.
The proposed driveway shall be of a hard surface variety (bituminous, concrete, or brick paver).
Also, show the proposed driveway grade.
10.
Two individual sewage treatment sites (ISTS) must be located for the lot. The sites must be
evaluated by a licensed ISTS designer and must be submitted for approval by the city in
accordance with Chanhassen City Code Chapter 19, Article IV.
11. Building permits must be obtained from the City of Chanhassen before beginning any construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: It has already been to City Council so what happens now Kate? Does it just, building permits
and.
Aanenson: That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, we're done with this one.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
ALLOW DECKS TO ENCROACH 12 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK~
CHAPARRAL 2N~ AND 3m) ADDITIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron Kramer 1022 Pontiac Lane
Merry Hudlow 1022 Pontiac Lane
Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Uli, you're nodding. Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all we're saying that we have these 4 applications that triggered
this. You don't state how much they actually encroach. I would assume it's just the 2 feet is pretty much.
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: That's what we're talking about is encroaching the 2 feet. Not more than 2 feet.
Hoium: All of them at 2 feet.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Then when you did the math, you give in here the breakdown. That was very helpful of how
many units there are. How many have porches and so forth. Looking at this data I basically come out that
about 10% in that development are an issue. Now my question is, out of the ones that do have decks, the
12 that are non-conforming. It's about 8%, how did they become non-conforming?
Hoium: When this PUD was originally approved, somehow some of the quad units got built with decks on
them originally. Some of they just did not get caught when they were originally built.
Sacchet: So this just kind of happened.
Hoium: Just kind of accidentally, yeah.
Sacchet: Just kind of happened. Okay. Now in order, nit picky question. Out of those that are not built
you say 4 would have an issue with the setback. Would they be okay with the 10 foot but not okay with the
12 foot?
Hoium: The 4 that would not have an issue?
Sacchet: In your tabulation you say that 20 units have no deck and 4 of those, if they build a deck would
have an issue with the setback. My question is, out of those 4 would they be, they'd have an issue to want
to make a 12 foot deck. Would they have an issue to make a 10 foot deck?
Hoium: No.
Sacchet: Okay. Then when we're talking about replacing the decks, we also include the option that they
would mm the deck into a screened porch. Is that somewhat synonymous? Are we talking about the decks
being rebuilt periodically?
Hoium: Are you asking can, if they have a porch can that be rebuilt?
Sacchet: Well if they have a deck and want to mm it into a porch.
Hoium: Currently with the current development contract, if they have a 12 foot deck they would need a
variance. If they have a 10 foot deck they would add a porch.
Sacchet: Okay. And then we have a special case where, these are duplexes.
Hoium: Four-plexes.
Sacchet: Four-plexes, okay. But they come in pairs where the porches are. If one has a 12 foot deck on it,
a porch that is conforming, but the one next to it would have an issue putting in 12 foot, and in order to be
conforming would have to make a 10 foot. Are there a lot of those?
Hoium: There are not a lot of them. There are a few. This is an example. It unfortunately couldn't get a
picture from the front to show it. I would say there are approximately 3 or 4 that have this issue.
Sacchet: So small enough in number that it'd be reasonable to make variances rather than blanket cover.
Okay. That's my questions, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Any other questions commissioners?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Did staff consider re-looking at the porch situation in conjunction with this deck
so we can maybe neaten up the whole thing?
Hoium: That was a consideration. If they maintain the 20 foot setback as with the 10 foot deck in the
current standards, it should not be a problem. However I would leave that up to you.
Kind: Our current ordinance says that screened porches or any kind of porch would have to be 10 feet in
depth.
Hoium: Correct.
Kind: So I'm submitting to my fellow commissioners that maybe it makes sense to take a look at that at the
same time here. That's all.
Blackowiak: And I guess I have one question too. Kind of in that same vein. We have decks that are non-
conforming, less than 20 feet from the property line. If they want to rebuild, and our ordinance says that
you cannot further a non-conformance. What do we tell them? Apply for a variance. Is that their sole
remedy or what is their option in that case?
Hoium: They can, according to our ordinance and after talking with the city attorney, they can maintain
and repair their decks.
Blackowiak: Okay, what if they have to rebuild them? I mean what if it bums? Something happens and
it's destroyed.
Aanenson: If it's less than 50% of the value, they can rebuild it. And if you add that to the value of the
home, more than likely they could rebuild it.
Blackowiak: Okay, and if it's totally gone.
Aanenson: It'd be the value of the unit, not just the deck. So more than likely they can rebuild it.
Blackowiak: And I kind of had an issue with that too. I was surprised that it was considering the value of
the entire unit. That surprised me but...and I'm not going there so, okay. Well if you don't have any more
questions. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the
microphone and state your name and address.
Merry Hudlow: My name is Merry Hudlow and I'm at 1022 Pontiac Lane. And we have applied for a
variance for a 12 foot deck. When we purchased the home in March we were told that we would be able to
build the deck. There is no deck there at all right now. Our neighbor that we share a parting wall with has
a 12 foot deck. The association would like us to build a 12 foot deck in order to match. They also allow
season porches. The association also allows 4 season, or 3 season porches now that you can add and if we
were restricted to a 10 foot, that would clearly make a very small season porch. You know also we were
required to list a hardship for why a 10 foot deck would be a hardship. Well it would have definitely
changed our priorities in purchasing the home. We came from an apartment. We're very big on being
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
outside, sitting outside, enjoying the outdoors. We did look at two existing homes that had existing decks
but for various reasons opted not to purchase them. We purchased this one with plans of a 12 foot deck in
the future improvement. Any questions?
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yes I have a question. Could you expand on your intentions for the screened porch. As I
understand right now that's limited to 10 feet on the current ordinance.
Ron Kramer: My name is Ron Kramer and I live with Merry at 1022 Pontiac Lane. Under just the
definition of what you just described earlier about the screened porch or the 3 season porch up above,
requirements if we were to go wider than 10 feet, that would require a variance because that's what your
rules are now, correct? Well the way I have constructed the foundation of this, because we were, we could
only do a 10 by 20 originally so I have footings at the 10 by 20 mark.
Claybaugh: So you're just going to cant out the deck?
Ron Kramer: Yes, my intentions are to cant out 2 feet and so ifa 10 foot, this is the first news I heard. It
was news to me that it's 10 foot wide is the limit, or 10 feet rather is the limit for a porch. Well then it
could be built within the, where the footing posts are, from the inside out and that would stay within the 10
foot requirement.
Claybaugh: For the screen porch?
Ron Kramer: The porches would. And then I'd have a little place to put flower pots or even walk around
and wash outside windows. And I have a permit for that and I have the footings dug and they're two-24
inch diameters so the footings are in for any possible future use.
Claybaugh: It seems to be a fundamental conflict between the deck and the porch. What is the reasoning
for the discrepancy between the two distances if they're considering a 12 foot for deck versus screen porch?
Since it would be back to the table relatively soon discussing the issue of the porch.
Hoium: This here is a picture of his property. It is at, the structure itself is at 30 feet. It's got a 30 foot
setback. So the 12 foot deck would be 18, have an 18 foot setback no matter what would require a
variance if they were allowed to build a 12 foot deck.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. The deck at the neighbors is 12 foot.
Hoium: Yes.
Claybaugh: But an adjacent neighbor who has a 12 foot deck, or can accommodate a 12 foot deck, you
still maintain that 20 foot setback. Could they put a screen porch in further out than 10 feet? Under the
current ordinance.
Hoium: That's what we need to decide. Right now under the current ordinance, no.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ron Kramer: I guess we're not planning on building a screen porch right away. Hopefully that will get,
add a porch up above right away. Hopefully that will be resolved...
Claybaugh: If you build on a 12 foot deck and come by in 2 years and look at a 10 foot screen porch, it's
going to look like you got caught in a code loop here and made the best of a bad situation and I don't think
that's the intention of the fellow commissioners or the staff either so.
Blackowiak: Deb do you have a question?
Kind: Yes. The staff's recommendation right now would not help these folks at this moment.
Hoium: No. Not for a porch.
Kind: Not for a deck either.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: ...no matter what because they're 30 feet right now. Just want to clarify that. But their neighbors
have a 12 foot deck so they're currently encroaching 2 feet into the setback, so they're one of those little
fluky things that happened.
Hoium: Correct.
Merry Hudlow: Right where we live there's just a slight curve and that's what bottled up everything. The
bottleneck right in there and if you look down, we live at the end of a cul-de-sac. If you look at the next 10
townhomes facing the road, they're all 12 foot decks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions about this applicant?
Sacchet: You're aware that you could apply for a variance obviously. I mean it doesn't mean you cannot
do your 12 foot. It's just that you would have to apply for a variance and get a variance approved. I mean
the way this works doesn't say it's impossible for you to make it 12 foot, but it's that you would need a
variance. That's correct right?
Aanenson: That's what they're applying for, yes.
Merry Hudlow: I understand that someone is going for an amendment for the whole area, but because we
are separate from that...
Hoium: A blanket type of variance.
Aanenson: That's what we're recommending is a blanket one. It still wouldn't solve this but that's
something you can include if you want to look beyond that.
Claybaugh: So we're actually addressing two issues?
Aanenson: Correct. Right.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: This is the big issue and the global issue of the...
Merry Hudlow: We were 1 of the 4.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, point of clarification. So we don't really have their variance application in front
of us because that's a separate thing?
Hoium: It's kind of combined as a blanket variance for the whole PUD.
Kind: It doesn't solve their problem.
Hoium: And this doesn't solve their problem.
Sacchet: Could we add it onto this that we grant their variance but we would need a write-up and stuff.
We can't do that...
Aanenson: We noticed the whole subdivision of Chaparral...
Blackowiak: I'm sorry Kate, could you clarify this a little bit more. So we're going to go, let's say we go
through and approve this amendment. Okay. They still do not have their variance. Okay. Amendment
passes. Assuming that. They have no variance. They still have to come and get a variance, correct?
Aanenson: Right, but I guess what we're saying is that if you want to go beyond the staff's
recommendation to accomplish it. Now we did notice the variance for this entire subdivision.
Blackowiak: So what you're saying is if we chose to say like 18 feet for example, that would accomplish
not only granting that variance this evening.
Aanenson: Or because there's an anomaly because they're on a cul-de-sac. If you want to find some other
findings of those, and that's what I think they're saying is that there is a unique circumstance with the cul-
de-sac there that's pinching their property. If you want to give that as a rationale for...
Blackowiak: I just don't want them to come tonight and have to come back again. I guess that's kind of
my whole thought.
Merry Hudlow: I also have a question.
Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead.
Merry Hudlow: You know we're new to this. We've never done this so we were kind of surprised when
this came up as an amendment and then going to City Council. I guess I was under the assumption that we
were applying for ourselves and our lot, and then after tonight we would be allowed to proceed if you
should approve it to build.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's not quite how it was written. Kate, if you want to address that question or Julie.
Aanenson: If it's the PUD amendment, that would have to go to the City Council too.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: So that would have to be.
Ron Kramer: Are we lumped into...
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Would a variance, could that supercede a PUD amendment? I
mean no, it couldn't.
Merry Hudlow: We've paid the money. We've filled out all the forms for a variance.
Blackowiak: Right. How was this noticed in the newspaper? PUD amendment?
Hoium: Correct.
Aanenson: The staff's recommendation is, this isn't the only anomaly that's out there so instead of trying
to solve it on a one lot basis, was to look at the entire PUD and say that's the way to solve the problem.
Claybaugh: And that makes sense. It's just that we have some petitioners in front of us, even if we vote to
the affirmative, it still doesn't address their problem.
Aanenson: That's correct. So the other alternative was to say, give them that specific lot or those lots that
are on the cul-de-sac relief from that and make a different standard.
Merry Hudlow: I realize that this is a problem but we've been doing this since May. We found out, you
know no this, no that and we had to apply for a variance and then we were too late for the July, or June
meeting. Then we got bumped from July.
Blackowiak: Oh you didn't want to be there anyway, it was a long one. I mean you wouldn't want to have
been there.
Sacchet: May I ask another question?
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Sacchet: What is unique to their situation that could be added to the conditions here so they're covered
because I really like what you worked out. I don't think it should be a free for all. I thought you found a
very good balance, and I think in all fairness to the 80% of homeowners that respected that 20 foot setback
and 8% that didn't, we don't want to make it a free for all that everybody all of a sudden can do what we,
because if we aren't fair to those that respected it and made it 10 foot instead of 12 foot. But what's
unique to their situation that would make us want to grant their variance?
Hoium: One issue that's unique is that their neighbor does have a 12 foot.
Sacchet: The neighbor has a 12 foot. Anything else?
Hoium: It's in a cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: How many others are in cul-de-sac?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: There's a number of cul-de-sac's in there.
Blackowiak: Sorry if we're bogging you down with numbers here but Deb pointed out something that, as it
was noticed I believe that it allows the amendment is to allow decks to encroach 12 feet into the 30 foot
setback, which would accommodate their request, okay. So in other words, by granting this request, if we
change decks must maintain an 18 foot setback, if we chose as a commission to go that route, then that
would be resolved this evening, am I correct in assuming that?
Hoium: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Hoium: If I could add one thing. One of the other reasons we chose to do this as a blanket amendment.
This, the homeowners association replaces decks yearly. I believe you have a copy of this. The projected
years that decks get replaced so this is an issue that could continually come up so we thought if we just did
one blanket, it might solve some of the problems in the future.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Merry Hudlow: Which I can appreciate, you know the whole amendment idea. I guess we just want...
Blackowiak: You just want a deck. I understand. Bottom line we want a deck.
Merry Hudlow: We waited for 5 months.
Feik: I need to clarify something for myself as it relates to the petition here. If we in your recommendation
change your item number 1 to an 18 foot setback, does this then need to go to the City Council?
Aanenson: Yes.
Feik: And what is the delay for these folks in that process?
Hoium: What is the delay?
Feik: Delay.
Hoium: 2 weeks.
Feik: Because otherwise they could get a variance tonight and be done and they could be constructing,
assuming permits tomorrow.
Blackowiak: No.
Aanenson: It'd still have to be recorded.
Sacchet: And we don't have the documentation for the variance in our package. We can't give the
variance.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Merry Hudlow: That's originally what we applied for and we had our carpenter out.
Blackowiak: Yeah, it can happen. Any other questions of the applicant?
Feik: Well on behalf of the council and staff, I apologize for this unintended delay that this might cause
you.
Blackowiak: 2 weeks.
Sacchet: Monday.
Blackowiak: No, it would not be that Monday. It has to be in 2 newspapers so.
Ron Kramer: Then do we have to apply for a variance?
Blackowiak: No.
Sacchet: We'll take care of it.
Merry Hudlow: So you're telling us we cannot apply individually tonight as originally planned and start
construction?
Blackowiak: Excuse me Uli, Kate. So this is not an individual variance tonight. I mean I want to get this
straight. It was noticed as an amendment to the PUD so if it goes to council it would be 8-28, correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: August 28th.
Sacchet: There is a possibility that we will cover your situation with this so if you just bear with us for a
little bit. Don't give up, okay?
Ron Kramer: Because we had nothing to do with trying to do an amendment or change the PUD. We just
want...
Blackowiak: No, I understand. It's just that when multiple variances come in at one time we ask ourselves
a question, does it make sense to look at the entire area as opposed to doing item by item.
Merry Hudlow: Which I understand.
Blackowiak: We're trying to take a bigger picture here. So actually I have a question for staff but did you
have anything else you'd like to add?
Ron Kramer: ... be able to make that work with construction beginning the 28th?
Blackowiak: I would not say that. Let's just wait until the vote's over and then we'll tell you. We'll give
you the information after our vote is over, okay? Alright, thank you so much.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Merry Hudlow: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Blackowiak: And I noticed that there were several other applicants as well. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak to this issue? Any other applicants this evening? No? Okay. Kate, before we move
on I have a question. We're talking about Chaparral 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additions in the background and the
amendment to only the 2nd and 3rd. IS 4th single family or what's the difference?
Hoium: 4th is non-existent.
Blackowiak: Oh, okay. So we'll just cross that off. Okay, that takes care of that. Okay so, this item is
open for public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments or ask questions, please come to the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening commissioners, Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. There are a
couple of things that you should keep in mind when considering this request for a variance. One of the
repercussions of making a blanket approval of course would be that the other homeowners will expect
similar treatment if you do this. It'd be difficult to deny another subdivision the same thing. If you're
going to make an exception in this case. The other factor that you should be aware of is the requirement
for impervious surface. Looking at the definition of impervious surface in the code it says any material that
substantially...gravel driveways, parking areas, buildings and structures. The definition for structure, if
you look at that includes boardwalks. Last year we gave the city a copy of a letter we received from the
DNR. The DNR specifically stated that impervious surface includes a deck. We have copies of that letter
if you want to see that. It's only logical that if a boardwalk is considered to be impervious surface, why
isn't a deck considered to be impervious surface? If the planning department believes that a deck is not
impervious surface, you should be aware that there are products on the market that you can put under your
deck and make it an impervious surface so are you going to restrict this product from being used on decks
if that's true? And the city would have to specifically perhaps forbid the use of that product, which is a
little unreasonable I think. I don't think you can argue that the DNR definition of a deck has an impervious
surface applies only to the shoreland. If it's impervious in shoreland, it's impervious no matter where it is.
Logical. Therefore keep in mind that setting a precedent for granting the variance will likely result in a
request for variance from other property owners and secondly that the, certainly the deck area should
be... in the category of impervious surface. And taking into account the decks in this area. Nowhere in the
staff report is there any data on existing impervious surface for these homes. They're called low density so
there's a requirement I believe of 30% for PUD. I liked Commissioner Sacchet's remark about avoiding
the blanket variances as opposed to granting an individual variance which could be well warranted in some
cases. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Kate and/or
Julie, a couple comments. Impervious surface as I calculated, that would be approximately 20 square feet
per non-conforming deck. If this were to go through, do you have any idea of what the impervious surface
coverage is right now? 200?
Kind: 10 times 20.
Blackowiak: I thought it was 2, an additional. From what is allowed times 10. So that would be only 20
per deck. Yeah. Do we know what impervious is at this point?
Hoium: Per unit?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Isn't it a per project basis on a PUD?
Hoium: I'm not sure what the impervious is. There is a large open space, part of this.
Blackowiak: Is that Meadow Green Park? Is that part of this?
Hoium: Correct. It's on the map if you want to show.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I know.
Hoium: Several of these lots are large per unit which also has more impervious, or open land. I do not
know the exact amount of impervious surface.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then what about the question of setting a precedent. Do you feel that there are
any other PUD's in the city that would be potentially affected by an amendment such as this? Do we need
to worry about that or?
Aanenson: What we've given you is a schedule of the decks that are in place. Decks that are going to
come in for refurbishing. Some of the requests that we've received in the past. The city has not interpreted
as we have a cantilever, a window, a fireplace as the impervious underneath. We haven't calculated it that
way before. The DNR did say on the lakeshore that they would be, but we haven't interpreted it that way
in the past.
Claybaugh: Have they made a distinction between a ground level deck and an upper level deck?
Aanenson: That's how we have in the past.
Claybaugh: Right. Does the DNR make that distinction?
Aanenson: On the lakeshore lot. That was their interpretation on a lakeshore lot.
Blackowiak: Kate I'm sorry, I guess my question was is there another PUD or another area? In other
words, if we were to go ahead and approve this amendment tonight, do you feel that there's any other area
that would be impacted potentially by such an amendment? I mean would we be setting a precedent or
opening a door to another PUD or is that not a concern for us this evening?
Aanenson: Well we're doing a blanket variance request on the next subdivision. We have done them. It's
not that uncommon. I guess we're not trying to over penalize one person in that subdivision. We're trying
everybody that's in that subdivision, in that homeowner associations following the same general type of
rules, and that's why we did explain this to the applicant. Maybe we didn't explain it clearly. What
direction we were going. How we were noticing it when it got tabled. We made that decision to do it so
while we don't want to penalize them, we also want to treat everybody, the other 3 applicants in the same
light so that was the staff's position on that. To treat everybody similarly. Instead of sitting here with 4
requests deciding who gets it and who doesn't, to try and look at it in a bigger picture.
Blackowiak: Right, I understand totally what you're trying to do. Okay, do you have a question of staff?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Yeah, point of clarification. You kind of indicated this as a neighborhood as a PUD has a fair
amount of green space. Is it safe to deduct from that that this whole thing is not very close to the limit of
impervious? I mean it'd be nice to have this really specific and nailed down. Can you at least be very clear
about what, how you see that? I mean if they're not talking about a huge amount of additional impervious
surface. We're talking about this 20 or what?
Blackowiak: 20 feet.
Sacchet: 20 square feet per location.
Blackowiak: Per non-conforming deck. There are some that are conforming.
Sacchet: Which we already established about 10% so we're talking like a dozen or so of those. I mean is a
couple hundred square feet additional impervious potentially an issue there? I mean it seems like if it was
planned with kind of a generous amount of green space I would have a hard time believing that it would be,
but I'd like to hear where you have a sense of that.
Aanenson: I guess that's our opinion. This was done in 1979. Park was extracted as part of the open
space for this development and I guess that's the opinion that we would be having.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other? Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask Kate and Julie, compared to the last meeting where we had the request
for a variance approval from the home on the east side of Lotus Lake regarding a 3 season porch, is the
main difference between what's being presented today and then the hardship only? I guess I'm having
somewhat of a difficult time trying to think back to the meeting where we were somewhat pretty clear as to
what we decided and then I'm getting today's input and going huh, you know.
Aanenson: Well I think there was a neighborhood standard in place here where most of the units do have
decks or porches and that's the homeowners association standard.
Slagle: Whether done legally or by accident.
Aanenson: Right. Again the original plat was done in 1979 so it goes back a number of years. So those
standards again treating the association as one PUD. I'll let Julie answer the questions on how this was
treated differently.
Hoium: In the last variance, it was a side yard variance and they were single family homes. It's trying to
keep structures away from each other in single family resident areas.
Slagle: And I'm with you. I'm just going back to where in that situation the next door neighbor was in
favor of allowing that to be built into the side setback.
Aanenson: Right, and were there other design options in the other one? Probably. This one they all have to
go, they go towards the front so whether it's 10 or 12, the only option they have is towards the front of the
street. I guess and that was our position, was there other choices to put the porch when you've got a
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
narrow, to get around the side of the house and those sort of issues. So this one it's, they're all going to the
front of the units. Or the back.
Hoium: And they're all designed to have a deck.
Slagle: Okay. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.
Blackowiak: Any other questions I guess or does anyone have comments?
Slagle: Did we close the hearing?
Blackowiak: You know what, I should probably do that. I guess I didn't see anybody else. If anybody
else would like to make a presentation, please do so at this time. I don't see anybody else. I will close the
public hearing so commissioners, if anyone has comments? We'll start down at this end. LuAnn? Rich?
Bruce, any comments?
Feik: Well you know it'd be nice to solve this once if we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments? No? Rich? Deb?
Kind: I support granting an 18 foot setback to be consistent with the entire PUD. That was the way it was
noticed in the paper and I think that would solve the applicant's situation this evening. I would also like to
add a condition that before going to the council staff shall calculate the potential maximum of impervious
surface for the entire PUD so they have that information in reviewing our recommendations. And I also
would like it to include porches as well as decks.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then Kate I don't have a date but would it be August 28th, was I correct in saying
that that would be the City Council date should this go forward? Okay. Thank you.
Aanenson: 27th.
Blackowiak: 27th? Why am at the 28th?
Aanenson: Tuesday.
Blackowiak: Okay. 27th, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Absolutely, I have to make a comment. I very much agree with you Deb that we should include
porches, screen patios, whatever they're called, in this. And that we should ask for impervious information
to go to council. However, I totally disagree with you Deb on making it a blanket 18 foot. I think that's
totally unfair to 80 or 90 percent of the people in that neighborhood that built the 10 foot deck and tried to
conform and now all of a sudden the 10 or what percent that is left that hasn't built it, and the 10 that built
it without asking, they can build a 12 foot. That's not fair to the 80% that built a 10 foot. However,
however. I would like to add a condition that states for those units that have a 12 foot deck next to them
and haven't built one, that could allow to build a 12 foot so it matches up with the neighboring one. Which
would cover our people that spoke, it would cover their situation. They could forward, doing their deck but
I'm very vehemently opposed to make this a blanket free for all extra 2 foot. I think it's very unfair to how
many people?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: What would you suggest then? I mean maintain a 20 foot setback except in cases?
Sacchet: I would say the additional condition would say for those with a 12 foot structure next door, 12
foot deck or patio, they would be allowed to encroach a maximum of 2 foot into the 20 foot setback, but I
really think we need to maintain the 20 foot setback requirement in order.
Blackowiak: Okay, and then the same condition number 2. Decks shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet,
would you be comfortable with that?
Sacchet: Yes, leave the other ones the way they are. Basically at that one.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig you have any comments on this item?
Claybaugh: A question of staff here. I want to come back to the city's definition of hard cover with
respect to cantilevers and that. Do you include that in your calculations for hard cover?
Aanenson: No.
Claybaugh: Okay. So in my mind an upper level deck would fall under the same criteria. Certainly when
you look in the context of additional 2 feet, there's room for green space underneath. For ground catch.
Were the non-conforming decks in this subdivision or this PUD, were those all built solely by the builder at
the time that the buildings were constructed or?
Hoium: I do not believe so. I do not know for sure.
Claybaugh: Okay. Initially that's what was stated or previously that was stated. They were built at that
time and it's just something that slipped through. Is that an accurate statement?
Hoium: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay, so it isn't a question of what my respected colleague would call a free for all. Okay?
Okay. So I would agree with Deb. I think that porches should be included. I'd like to see the hard cover
calculations and have it identified that it does or does not include those deck calculations, cants and such in
the hard cover calculations. Maintain a 12 foot maximum deck projection and go with the 18 foot setback
as Deb had initiated there.
Kind: Madam Chair, may I have a rebuttal to Uli? I want to make a case for changing it to 18 for all of
them because many of the decks are going to be repaired. They're at that age now where many of them are
being replaced and those folks that have the 10 foot deck I'm sure would love to add the 2 feet and as long
as they're within the setback that's fair for everybody else, I think they should be able to do that. When
they rebuild their deck.
Sacchet: Out of those that have 10 foot, do we know how many could actually expand to 12 without
encroaching? Sorry, that's kind of an unfair question to ask on the spot.
Blackowiak: One point I guess I'd like to make too before we start getting into all these numbers, is that I
am guessing that, I think this was a PUD that was established in 1979, over 22 years ago. We probably
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
don't have a lot of original owners there. So I guess one thing I would like everyone to consider is, you
know whichever way we go, and I'm not trying to sway anybody, but that we should maybe consider that
these people possibly, probably, I don't know, weren't the ones that initially put in the decks. So what's a
reasonable standard for the neighborhood if we're going to go from that point? And you two look like
you're going to duke it out so I'll stay out of it.
Slagle: Madam Chair?
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Slagle: Could the argument also be made that there is a fair number of 10 x 12's or 12 x 20's that need to
be replaced too that potentially could be replaced with a 10 x 20 or a 10 x 12 if we adhere to that, that
minimum size, or excuse me maximum sized. I just got to tell you, I understand the sensitivity of the
development. The uniqueness if you will of the cul-de-sac's and what not but my hesitation on voting for
this currently is the fact that in essence we could be rewarding folks who don't, even though they might not
live there anymore, not adhering to the rules. Building x, y, z structures and then the neighbor comes 2
years later and says, guess what? I want to build this, and the only way it's going to match up aesthetically
to my neighbor, who might not have done it right, is to do this. And if you do a blanket, then the difficulty
is taking it situation by situation. Now the down side to that is lots of times and lots of variance requests
here at city hall. But I'm just telling you, that's how I feel.
Blackowiak: Very valid.
Kind: Madam Chair, can I respond to Rich? The problems, the advantage of changing the PUD is people
don't have to come and get a variance and prove hardship. With the PUD they don't have to prove
hardship tonight and I think it would be difficult for them to prove hardship so we wouldn't be granting
these variances. The only way to do it is to do a blanket PUD amendment.
Slagle: But aren't we in a way by this being presented as a PUD, we're in essence forgetting what's
happened and.
Kind: I understand.
Slagle: I know what you're saying Deb, absolutely. But I'm just trying to apply this now city wide and to
folks in other neighborhoods are saying gosh, you know. Like the gentleman at Lotus Lake, we can argue
that back and forth but gosh, I got rejected. And I had the neighbors supporting me and these folks, not
Merry and her friend, but just anybody coming and saying because the guy next to me has his deck 2 feet
longer and it encroaches, not within code, I want to build it because aesthetically it looks right. So I have
the answer to that.
Blackowiak: Craig, did you have a comment?
Claybaugh: Yeah I do. Back in 1979 I think the focus probably wasn't on outdoor decks and certainly
wasn't on finishing basements but over the past 20 years certainly things have changed. A lot more
emphasis on outdoor spaces and certainly I think most people could agree that a minimum standard deck on
something like that wouldn't be 10 feet anymore. It'd be closer to that 12 foot. I think that's why you're
seeing some people push the envelope there and try and get that additional 2 feet. And certainly a screened
porch put on top of a 10 foot deck I don't think is in keeping with what today's standards are either so I'm
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
looking at it in the context of what people expect and what these people need to do to keep their properties
current in the marketplace, I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Kind: I'll make a motion.
Blackowiak: I was going to say. We've got a lot to think about so if somebody would like to make a
motion, please feel free.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the development
contract for Chaparral 2nd and 3rd Additions to allow porches and decks on the four-plex units if they meet
the following. Number 1. The decks and porches must maintain 18 foot setback. Number 2. The decks
and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet. Number 3. Before going to council staff shall calculate
the potential maximum of impervious surface for the entire PUD.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second with the following addition.
Blackowiak: We just need a second first.
Claybaugh: Okay I'll second it.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments I guess.
Claybaugh: I'd like to include the word minimum 20 foot setback.
Kind: Minimum of 18 foot setback?
Claybaugh: I'm sorry, 18 foot. Decks must maintain a minimum of 18 foot setback.
Kind: Accepted.
Blackowiak: And porches?
Claybaugh: And porches, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments?
Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the
development contract for Chaparral 2nd and 3rd Additions to allow porches and decks on the four-
plex units subject to the following conditions:
1. The decks and porches must maintain a minimum 18 foot setback.
2. The decks and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet.
3. Before going to council staff shall calculate the potential maximum of impervious surface for the
entire PUD.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
2.
Blackowiak: Okay, motion carries 5-2. Commissioners who voted nay, any further comments?
Sacchet: I believe I made my position clear. I don't think a blanket 18 foot is fair overall. I see your point
but I definitely oppose it.
Slagle: Likewise.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I guess this one then goes to City Council on August 27th. So the applicants,
Merry Hudlow and sorry, I didn't get the other name.
Aanenson: There were 3.
Blackowiak: Well yeah, just the ones that spoke this evening. I guess I'm addressing her. Staff, I'm
assuming you'll talk to them but it will be resolved.
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: It will be resolved on August 27th SO please talk to staff about what happens between now
and then.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 30
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW HOMES TO BE LOCATED 20 FEET FROM
THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE~ CREEKWOOD ADDITION (610 & 620 CARVER BEACH
ROAD)~ COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Maria Lundsley
Kari Romportl
Bill Coffman
Kirk Friedline
10 Hill Street
620 Carver Beach Road
600 W. 78th Street #250
620 Fox Hill Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, before we go to questions I would just like to make a point. We had this as a
variance free application and the reason though it's coming back with a variance is because of
recommendations we made, is that correct?
Aanenson: That is correct, and the council also directed. It's going for final plat approval and the council
did recommend before final plat approval that it come back to this process with a variance request.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, and the variances would give us increased tree protection, potential of houses pulled a
little closer to the driveway and street, and so you feel that this would be generally in the city's best interest
to do something like this?
Aanenson: Well what we are getting.
Blackowiak: What are we getting, yes?
Aanenson: It's always a balance because again it depends on the home type that's going to go. Whether it
be again a two story or rambler. Whether it's elongated. The trees in the front are always the most
difficult to save because that's where all your delivery is going. That's where the grading. That's where
your most impacts are so based on that, by pulling them forward we're trying to save the trees in the back
and we try to balance where the existing two driveways are in place. There's already been, it's devoid so if
you pull the house forward you're kind of sliding into that area that's already devoid of vegetation. So
what we're getting on the back is we're getting a permanent easement on the back of those and there are
some significant trees so that's the trade-off.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you so much for clarifying that. So with that are there any questions of staff'?
Slagle: Kate, can we see that map again on the overhead? There we go. Okay. So it's safe to say we're
not going to talk about the lift station tonight? I'm kidding Kate. Okay. So you're take Kate then is the
tree loss on the front, by creating that preserve area or preservation area in the back, we are coming out
ahead?
Aanenson: We hope so. Again, based on past experiences, the trees in the front are always the hardest to
save. We have a driveway location cutting for utility service when you try to bring the laterals in. That's
where the most degradation occurs. So with this, we can attach a condition and that's the conservation
easement and there are some significant trees that are on the back side.
Slagle: The developer pretty sensitive to that front, wherever they can?
Aanenson: He has done other development in wooded areas so I'm assuming that people looking at these
lots are hoping to buy them because they're wooded and that's what they're looking for so.
Slagle: Okay, that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff'? Uli, go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions. When we say that we do put an easement on the slopes, how do
we define the top of the slope? Basically where it starts going steep?
Aanenson: That's the 30%, yeah. That was all, when we talked about it in the previous subdivision, there
was a lot of discussion whether or not that was a bluff. It was not determined to be a bluff based on the
survey. There's a narrow band in there that is steep but the entire slope does not meet the definition of a
bluff. We did take an easement over it because of the creek and that's on Lot 7. The area that was shown
in blue on that plat and that's the slope easement and then the area down by the lakeshore, the other area in
blue so we already have an easement on that and that would be the creek easement.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: So it's basically the line where the incline starts, changes.
Aanenson: Correct. Yes.
Sacchet: So that's the top. I just want to be real clear what we say there. Now on Lot 8 we say the house
could possibly be moving closer. Is it really realistic to move that across the utilities there, the water and
sewer? I have a little bit of problem believing that.
Aanenson: There's enough depth that again it really depends on the style of home that you're going to put
there. It could be done. I mean it meets the, it could stay where it is right now. We're giving them the
option of whether they want to move it or not but.
Sacchet: Yeah, it seems awfully crowded to try to put it across.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: Now when we say these conditions are not generally applicable, well they sort of are. But it's in
the benefit of the city, I mean it's a reasonable thing. We recommend it and so we want to do it but I think
we're doing a little bit of misstatement when we say this is not applicable generally to other places. I think
generally we want to try to find the best balance. Is that a fair statement?
Aanenson: ...to have it meet. If we're getting additional preservation, then I think that's the trade-off and
we are.
Sacchet: Then the last question is kind of a technical nature. We say that when this from setback is
coming down to 20 or is less than 30, then the back has to be added. Are we saying that that would happen
proportionately? Let's say they make it 25 in front, do they need a 35 in back?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: Or are we saying that if they take any of the encroachment into the 30 foot, then they have to
make it 40 in the back? I mean what are we saying there?
Aanenson: If you want to make it proportionally, we can do that. I guess in.
Sacchet: But what was your intent Kate?
Aanenson: That we have room in the back outside the conser, if they're going forward then we also want to
say that you've got room in the back.
Sacchet: In order to be specific, what we're actually asking for, are we saying if they encroach at all into
the front setback, then they have to give us 40 in the back or what's the idea? I think that's important to be
specific about so they know what we're actually asking them to do. Because there are several ways we
could go. We could say well the sum between the 2 has to be 60, because it's 30 and 30. Or if they go 20,
then it's 40. If they go, you know. Or we could say if they encroach at all, then it has to be, maybe we
didn't think quite that far but I think we should nail that down.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: I guess my response if we try to keep it as simplistic as possible. I mean if we want to say 1 for
1, that's probably the most simplistic. They go 25 feet instead of.
Sacchet: Maybe the applicant will want to say a statement about that. I'll wait with that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it?
Sacchet: That's it.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of staff?
Claybaugh: I've got a question for the applicant. I can wait.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well we'll get to that then. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Bill Coffman: Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Bill Coffman of Coffman
Development. We basically concur with staff's recommendations for these variances and I also agree with
Uli's comments about making it proportionate to what we use in the front, added to the back on a 1 to 1
basis. We would be agreeable to that. Other than that, we concur and I'd be available for any questions.
Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, are there questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: The pads that are shown on the site plan here, what size are those?
Bill Coffman: Those are 60 by 60.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: So basically you're fine with all the, like tree preservation and the slope preservation idea. That's
all fine with you?
Bill Coffman: Yeah, absolutely. We have wooded, you know it's a wooded area. We're selling wooded
lots. It's to our advantage to preserve the natural topographic features that make this site interesting. As
you can tell we are preserving pretty much all of the very interesting features. The bluff, the creek, the
slopes and so forth and that's my intent. I have several other subdivisions I think demonstrate the ability to
save trees, as well as saving trees in the front yard as in Shadow Ridge on Lake Lucy Road. We've got
numerous trees in the front so many homes that have in fact survived for close to 8-10 years. So it is
possible to save trees in the front. If given that flexibility to adjust with that front yard. Give us some
wiggle room we can save more trees.
Sacchet: Now if we say there will be a 30 foot tree preservation easement in the back, that wouldn't create
a limitation for those lots where we may not want to move close to the road or?
Bill Coffman: No. No, I'm comfortable with the 30 foot tree preservation.
Sacchet: And you would like to see proportional in terms of as much as encroach into the front, so that
much you would want to increase in the back?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Bill Coffman: Correct. If we went with a 25 foot front yard setback, we'd have a 35 foot rear yard
setback.
Sacchet: That's the limits? Okay.
Bill Coffman: That's correct.
Sacchet: That sounds reasonable. Thank you.
Bill Coffman: It is reasonable in my opinion.
Blackowiak: Alright. Any other questions of the applicant?
Sidney: Madam Chair I guess back to the beginning. It almost seems like we're ending up kind of
discussing things that would be discussed in a PUD, such as flexibility and development of the site and
such things which I don't associate with a variance. Why wasn't this brought forward as a PUD in the
beginning?
Bill Coffman: Well historically PUD's are very difficult to get approved because of opposition from
people who live in the city that maybe aren't even associated in this neighborhood, and people like myself,
developers, we often take the path of least resistance and we came in with a variance free plat. Out of
necessity quite honestly. And it's unfortunate that a PUD would not have been more appropriate under
these circumstances. It wasn't appropriate.
Sidney: Well I guess I still think that we're at the same point of discussing flexibility in development so
standard subdivision plus variances equals a PUD and I guess I would you know, recommend people in the
future that just go for the PUD because we're talking about the same kinds of issues right now.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant? Deb, any questions?
Kind: No, I don't.
Blackowiak: I don't have any questions either. Alright. Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing
so if anybody would like to speak before the commission, please come to the podium. State your name and
address for the record
Kirk Friedline: My name is Kirk Friedline. I'm at 625 Fox Hill Drive. It's about 2 blocks down from this
development. I have a question about future development in the area and if this variance is given, does it
give me the right to maybe come to that 20 foot line with my property also? Or at least approach that with
the council? And not only me but the neighbors, if the neighbors to the, would be north, decide to sell their
property to a developer also, are they automatically going to get this 20 foot variance? How far do you go
within the community to allow this?
Blackowiak: Kate, would you like to answer that?
Aanenson: Hence the staff's original recommendation. Herein lies the problem. I think in the past what
we've done is there's single family subdivisions. There's been accusations that we've been giving things
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
away so we made this, it was a staff's recommendation that this come in as a straight subdivision. The
Planning Commission and the Council redirected this application to come in with variance requests. It
wasn't at the request of the staff. The reason it's being supported is for tree preservations and certainly
anybody coming in and subdividing has a request to ask for any variances as a part of their plat, and if they
were to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it had merits,
then I'm certain that they would consider that.
Kirk Friedline: So there's no 2 block radius or 5 block radius?
Aanenson: No. It's specific to this plat.
Kirk Friedline: How many houses originally came in on the non-variance?
Aanenson: There was 2 original homes on the site.
Kirk Friedline: But there was an original.
Sacchet: It was the same.
Blackowiak: Yeah, it's the same.
Kirk Friedline: It was 9 houses?
Sacchet: It was the same.
Blackowiak: This came through initially as a variance free submission and because the Planning
Commission felt that there was possible merits in moving homes forward a little bit and possibly saving
more trees, we asked the, we passed it through as a variance free submission but asked the City Council to
take a look at it and to see what they felt. So the City Council decided that there would be some value.
That was their decision so that's why we're seeing it again tonight.
Sacchet: I think that's, if I may comment Madam Chair, I think it's very important to understand that.
That if this variance goes through, it doesn't allow them to put more houses on there. It went through
totally variance free and in order to be more sensitive to the environment, to preserve more trees, it was just
that we considered this variance. It's very important to be clear about that. We're not saying that people
can go make a development, a subdivision and count on the 20 foot. That's not how this came in.
Kirk Friedline: Right, but in the future does that, does it set a precedence that I can do that? With my
property.
Blackowiak: No. It has nothing to do with any other property. It has to do with this property. And
bottom line is it went through as a variance free and it's been approved that way and if it does not, City
Council has final say so they will either say yes for the 20 foot or no for the 20 foot, and they look at each
project on it's own merits.
Slagle: But because we're requesting a zoning variance, the reason it was not passed because it was not a
public hearing.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: The first time.
Slagle: Publicized.
Blackowiak: Correct. Because it didn't need to be because they weren't asking for it.
Slagle: Correct. But we then asked for it.
Blackowiak: We asked for it, yes. We said, we thought there was some merit to it so that's why we're
seeing it again.
Slagle: And do we still believe that?
Blackowiak: We're just going to have to figure that out aren't we.
Slagle: Open ended question.
Blackowiak: Okay, it is a public hearing. If anyone else would like to come up and make comments.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I think my mathematics,
I don't know you tell me how this goes. The city, or you originally approved the plat with a 60 foot wide
street.
Kind: Right-of-way.
Debbie Lloyd: Right-of-way. Okay. Now it's 50. So the city is giving up 10 feet there. Now you're
giving up another 10, which you're balancing off with the conservation easement but the city still comes
out short 10 feet the way I do my math. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Kate can you comment? Do we, what was our original right-of-way?
Aanenson: They showed a 60 foot. You recommended 50 foot right-of-way with asphalt width of 32 I
believe.
Saam: 28.
Aanenson: 28 foot.
Blackowiak: Which was slightly substandard but mirrored by the...
Saam: It's within the city code. 28 to 32. Our standard is 31 but.
Aanenson: For a cul-de-sac, sure.
Blackowiak: So do you have any comment to that? Or no? Okay. Alrighty. Anyone else like to make
comments? Okay, seeing no one else I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, do you have any
comments on this item? Rich, do you want to?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Let me start. I would say this, that the benefits so far from what I've seen and what we had done
previously outweigh my concern. I just share that I did get an overwhelming sense that the benefits of the
preservation area in the back outweigh the reduction if you will with the front setback. I mean it sounds
like it's going to be somewhat better but, and that's the only now concern like gosh, you know. I thought it
was going to be a much better value for the community and the city by including that preservation and
extending it if you will, so I'd just like to hear maybe Kate address that at some point. If you can. That
might be too tough Kate, I'm sorry.
Blackowiak: Kate would you like to jump in now?
Aanenson: All I can say is, you'll have to make that decision. You know whether you feel like that.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's fair. Any other comments?
Sidney: Well since I made a comment and I still think we're talking about PUD language with the variance
and I guess if somebody on the commission has some good ideas about how to state hardship, why is there
hardship, I think that's the most important point in recommending approval. Do we have a solid case for
that?
Sacchet: May I address that?
Blackowiak: No. Let's just do our comments. Okay, anything else? No? Bruce.
Feik: Just want to reiterate that this did come through as a variance free development. If this were not
passed, I guess it's a question for Kate. Would the applicant have the ability to go resurrect the 60 foot
wide street or 60 foot wide easement and did so and also conform with the setback. The normal front
setback. How much more of these trees would we lose? If my calculations are correct, it's close to 20 feet.
Aanenson: Yes. It would be slid back, the house. Yes.
Feik: So we're going to lose, or the developer and the homeowners and everybody's going to lose another
20 feet of these mature trees. I mean they have the option to do this if we don't.
Aanenson: We have to step back a little bit and say, you know we're looking at boxes and this is the point
I'm trying to make with you before. We're looking at a 60 by 60 box. That does not necessarily represent
the home. It could come in at a completely different configuration so we have to be careful about that. I
guess that we have to go by is our experience with people that are buying a wooded lot, for the most part
are buying a wooded lot because they want to save the trees.
Feik: I guess what I'm getting to is most of this was done to accommodate this body.
Aanenson: Right, and to give flexibility to say if there's a way to slide the house so we can save a tree, we
don't have to come back, hold somebody up. Exactly. And the other thing is we are getting a permanent
easement, which we didn't extract with the first subdivision. We're getting something permanent in
perpetuity that has some significant trees in the back.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Any comments?
Kind: I support this variance. I think it was my idea in the first place. So I think it's a great idea. I'd like
to add some language about minimum of 20 feet rather than saying it's 20 feet because the builder may
decide to put the home at the 30 foot and I'd like to give some flexibility there depending on what
significant trees could be saved. I agree with clearing up the language in the second condition about the
give and take with the, whether the front yard setback is used or not and have the back yard change
accordingly. I think it's a good idea. I think it's worth it to save more trees if that's possible.
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few comments. First I'd like to address LuAnn's comment and question about the
hardship. Because the hardship is the question and so if whether it's, that it's not applicable generally to
other properties. Those two things don't stand. I agree with that. However, it's my understanding that our
evaluation is not just based on hardship. It's also based on the reasonableness of the request and now this
request was actually suggested by us, by the council because we feel it is reasonable. Now I mean if you
want to be... certainly hardship on the trees that are going to be cut but I don't think that would apply too
far. But it's reasonable. It's a reasonable request to try to preserve more trees. Now I think we would
have to clean up that language in the findings because there is no hardship. It's a reasonable request. That
was suggested by the city for the purpose of saving more trees. And that this situation is somewhat
applicable to other properties but as we've discussed with the gentleman that came and made comment, it's
a very specific context. It's the context where an applicant comes in with a subdivision that does conform,
in this case 100% totally variance free. And then in order to make it a little better, and more sensitive to
the environment, we grant this variance. We're not setting a precedence that people can start planning,
they can make subdivisions and plan their pads 20 foot away because that's definitely not what we're. I
think this is clarification. We're on safe grounds and then if we put in an aspect that this is proportionately
how much it encroaches in the front setback, that the back setback has increased and we get a very tangible
benefit. We get that tree preservation easement, which I think is very significant. It's very important, and
it was not part of it before, was it?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: And that the applicant is happy with that. In addition to that, we get a preservation easement of
the sloped area, the creek area, which I think is also very significant and is a huge benefit to the city so I'm
very clear. I'd like this to go through.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other comments about this? Okay. Alright. And I don't have a lot to
add. I felt that what came through before as a variance free application was good. I think what is before
us tonight is a little bit better and I think that I do feel that the city is making a gain in some sense. Of the
trees, the easements, the conservation easements. I think that makes sense and it makes just a better
application. And we have to remember that we're the ones that requested it so that's something to think
about too. And again the City Council can do with it as they please. If they decided that they like the
original one better, then so be it. But at this point I would be comfortable with this going forward so.
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. Variances, we have the final say on, is that right?
Blackowiak: However they can be appealed within 4 days, correct Kate?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, 4 days. So if somebody would like to appeal the variance, they can appeal.
Kind: On either side.
Blackowiak: On either side can be appealed directly to the City Council within 4 days of our meeting.
Kind: I just wanted to clarify that.
Blackowiak: Comment?
Sidney: Yes, thank you Uli. I think the point is well taken that the language in the findings needs to be
strengthen and I'd like to see that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, with those comments. Would someone like to make a motion?
Sacchet: Sure, I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves variance #2001-5 for a 10 foot
yard setback variance from the, for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be located 20 feet
from the front property line, located a minimum of 20 feet. Is that?
Kind: Yeah.
Sacchet: A minimum of 20 feet. Add the word minimum. Minimum 20 feet from the property line with
the following conditions 1 through 3 with change to condition 2. The second sentence. If the applicant
elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard shall be increased proportionately. I believe
solely within the context of our discussion that will be clear enough. That's my motion.
Kind: I'll second that motion.
Blackowiak: There is a motion and a second. Any comments?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #2001-5 for a 10
foot front yard setback variance for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be located
at a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, with the following conditions:
All lots within the Creekwood subdivision shall be permitted a 20 foot front setback with the
exception of Lot 7.
Lots 1 through 5 shall dedicate a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the southerly 30 feet. If
the applicant elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard setback shall be
increased proportionately.
The home on Lot 6 must be setback 20 feet from the front property line to maximize the setback
from the top of the slope. A preservation easement shall be dedicated over that portion of Lot 6
located between the top of the slope and the most southerly property line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO
PERMIT A RELIGIOUS FACILITY~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND
FILL WETLANDS~ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF A RELIGIOUS
CAMPUS~ AND A VARIANCE FROM THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3101 TANADOONA DRIVE~ WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bob Bergan
Lori Johnson
Sandra Steelman
Jan Quist
Martin & Donna Jones
Dan & Gretchen Starks
Bill Coffman
Bill Naegele
Pat J. Connolly
Brady Halverson
John Justus
Steve Lattu
James Haugen
Dan Russ
Jim Tiggelaar
John Getsch
Peter Brandt
Scott Vergin
Maren Christopher
Alan Dirks
Karen Dirks
3241 Tanadoona Drive
Camp Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
Camp Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
7331 Dogwood Road
7321 Dogwood Road
3301 Tanadoona Drive
600 West 78th Street, #250
3301 Shore Drive
2008 Grand Avenue, St. Paul
44th Street, Edina
701 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis
840 Fox Court
600 West 79th Street
6791 Brule Circle
701 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis
7530 Dogwood Road
7570 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
9203 Lake Riley Blvd.
7431 Dogwood Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners do we have any questions of staff?
Sacchet: Yeah I do have questions. Some are pretty specific details. The mechanical, electrical and trash
piece that's on the northeast side of the structure, that's underground?
Generous: It is partially underground.
Sacchet: It's underground from the parking lot side and then you have the wall. Yeah, okay. I just want to
be clear because that wasn't totally clear. Now, one thing I'm a little confused about, when we talk about
the height guidelines, we talk about office industrial district and we also talk about the highway commercial
district. Do they both apply?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: They both apply?
Generous: Office institutional and highway corridor districts are both impacting this property.
Sacchet: They're both applicable, okay. Just want to be real clear about that. Now, you say you calculate
the building height to be 42 ½ foot. How do you calculate?
Generous: The ordinance specifies for building height, you take the highest ground level next to the
building or if it's a lot, 10 feet above the lowest ground level and the average of the gable height.
Sacchet: Okay, so you take the average of the gable and you take like from the parking lot.
Generous: No, then you take the lower level and go up 10 feet.
Sacchet: And that's how you come up with the 42 ½. I just want to understand how you do that. Now,
when we talk about Highway 41 and West 48th Street eventually connecting there. 78th. Yeah, get my
numbers straight here. We're saying that this will become the primary access?
Aanenson: Correct. It's our opinion and that's why we did the wetland permitting at this time is that
ultimately if there's a signal, that's where that would be their, as they expand and they develop that side of
it, would be the entrance.
Sacchet: That's something I want to hear from the applicant because the way I see their layout, it's not
necessarily laid out that that would necessarily be the primary. You say the only significant stand of trees
would be lost if the water level is allowed to be higher, so by keeping the water level the way it is we would
basically see safe that stand of trees there, is that correct?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Now when we all, and I think you stated that. I want to be real clear about that. We will also
ensure the runoff would stay the same for the Arboretum property to the south.
Generous: Yes, the rate of runoff must be maintained at pre-development rates.
Sacchet: While we allow them to raise the water level it wouldn't?
Generous: No. They would still maintain it. It's just we would kill all the mature trees.
Sacchet: So the runoff would be mitigated either way?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay. Now I didn't see a tree inventory and I don't know, is that because the trees are in a
wetland?
Generous: Correct.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Are there trees that are not in a wetland that are impacted?
Aanenson: Yes. Not impacted, no. There's additional trees on the site in the back.
Sacchet: But they're not impacted?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer. In the comparison of required and proposed landscaping, there is
one, only one item...where we say we require 24 island/peninsulas and they're proposing 8 islands and
peninsulas. However they make the whole thing orchard style so I assume that's why you didn't focus in
on that? I mean can you explain that please?
Generous: That's correct. We're giving, they're trying to do a unique project in there for the parking lot
landscaping.
Aanenson: Do you remember the Arboretum wetland permit that we looked at where they were trying to do
the water gardens? That's similar to what, we're doing some experimental with that on a smaller scale on
this project.
Sacchet: Similar idea there?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Then we allow them to do smaller plantings to have more plants rather than the size?
Aanenson: That was Jill's recommendation.
Sacchet: Is that something we generally allow because it sounded like we're really changing ordinance by
allowing them to do that.
Aanenson: Well I think Jill made that interpretation based on the scale of this project. It's so large, to get
for the size of that proportional, to try to get more trees on the site. To allow them to put smaller trees.
Sacchet: I don't have a problem with the concept. My potential issue is that you're effectively changing
the ordinance. We say well if you.
Aanenson: No, it's just caliper. It's you have to replace caliper.
Sacchet: Yeah. So we're, our requirement is caliper, not number of trees in general? That's my question.
Aanenson: Yes. That was Jill's interpretation, yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. The wetland fill, and that's probably more a question for the applicant but from staff
point of view, why does that need to happen now? I mean if that street is not going to go in til second
phase. I mean if we refer to the applicant but I wonder...
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: No, I'd be happy to answer it. I guess we always wanted to make clear that they can
accommodate the wetland working on site. Again we believe that there is pending development. You're
going to hear from them tonight, that would like to see this road built to provide access. We want to ensure
that a driveway at a minimum can be placed on the site and that they can accommodate the wetland
mitigation on site at this time. It is not boxed out at a future date so we believe that permitting now ensures
in the future, as for the same reason we asked for full disclosure on what the ultimate build-out's going to
be and so they're doing it in a piecemeal fashion. We want you to see ultimately what the campus is going
to look like. What the church and what additional facilities they have so we felt that it was important that
we can show you how that would work so we don't have to come back and try. We've eliminated that as
an option. That driveway.
Sacchet: So from your point of view it's beneficial to do the wetland alteration up front?
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Specifically the mitigation. Now we leave it up to the developer to determine when they want to
do the impact.
Sacchet: And that's generally our approach. That mitigation has to happen before construction so we're
trying to be consistent with that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer.
Aanenson: So we're not trying to come back later and fudge it somewhere, right.
Sacchet: The traffic. You're confident that this is good traffic level? I guess Matt, that's more a question
for you.
Saam: With this phase, yes. I would defer to the traffic study that Bob spoke of. An independent firm
completed one and while they, I believe they said at Tanadoona and 41, it would be a level of service D.
That is acceptable. It's not the best. However, prior to any additional development we would for sure
want another access.
Sacchet: Thank you Matt. You shouldn't ask me to ask the questions first.
Blackowiak: I'm so sorry. It won't happen again.
Sacchet: The wetland boundaries established were inaccurate. It states in your report, so is the revision,
the revised plat is accurate. Is that what it is?
Generous: Yes. That was the intent of them having...
Sacchet: Okay. Because I'm not very clear. I mean the new one doesn't show buffer while the previous
one did, and it says the square footage for the mitigation to the east. It actually looks smaller in the new
plat so I'm a little disoriented to be honest about that.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: If you stay with the conditions of the approval, those would still remain the same.
Sacchet: It doesn't change what we're approving, yeah okay. Then it refers to a drained wetland basin that
does not get impacted. Is that the piece to the northeast that overlaps into what the Puke people are
supposed to mitigate?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: No.
Generous: The city, there's a wetland located on the city's property which is to the east, and then on the
prospectus this may be a wetland and we'll determine that.
Sacchet: Okay. That's the one we're referring to?
Generous: Yes, that shows up in the national wetland inventory.
Sacchet: The one that is being restored by the Puke development, does that at all touch onto this property?
Generous: Not that I'm aware of. The city's doing a project up here.
Sacchet: That's separate. Totally separate. There's nothing, okay. That's what I wanted to know about
that one. Vegetative depressed areas within parking lot. Is that those ovals in the islands?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: So I would like to think they were hills but they're actually depressions?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: How is the water going to get in there? Are there gutters? If there's no gutters so the water can
flow in?
Aanenson: We'll let their landscape person describe that. They'd be happy to talk to you about that. But
that's similar to what we looked at with the Arboretum project.
Sacchet: Okay. Well that sounds intriguing. The variance findings. The variance is basically for the
height, right?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: That's the one thing we're doing a variance about. If called by another name, belfry or tower, it
would not require a variance. Well I can understand how a huge roof like that would not be called a tower.
That would be a little bit of a stretch. How, you're stating that there is a hardship here. Can you elaborate
on the hardship?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: Well it's based on what their vision is for that building as your social, community center. And
to do that they need a significant architectural feature and this is it. They've gone with the big roof. They
could have gone with a tower.
Sacchet: Well I don't have a problem with, actually I think it's a wonderful building but I do have a
problem with how they're wording it because I don't see the hardship. But we'll get back to that. This
project development is unique project. Well, does St. Hubert's qualify as a religious campus? Does
Eckankar qualify as a religious campus?
Generous: Eckankar is a religious campus.
Sacchet: So it's not unique. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not self-created. What does that mean?
Due to the confluence of ordinance requirements and requirements of the congregation. That sounds like an
awfully big.., of words.
Generous: The highway corridor district says they can have 3 stories. The OI district says they can only
have 2 stories, but they don't have a height limitation, and then we revised the ordinance recently to say
what that third story was.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, the hardship is that there's an ordinance. That's a little tricky to define. Then I
think we, you collected that in your handout that conditions 13 through 23 of the wetland alteration permit
really go with the site plan, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Thanks for bearing with me.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, do I dare?
Kind: Believe it or not I have more. But I crossed off a bunch of them because of Uli. The road, the
future road that will basically extend to West 78th Street, would also benefit future development of the
Zimmerman property, which is further to the west. And I believe that was, I was at a City Council meeting
where that was being discussed about sewer and water and that sort of thing. Wouldn't it make sense to
have that road extend into the Zimmerman property and benefit, be another outlet for that area that's back
on Dogwood Road?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Sure.
Kind: The answer's yes, okay. That was a quick answer. Moving along, page 4. Wetland restoration
normally is something that the city in the past has embraced and specifically Village on the Ponds area
where there's now standing water where there was none before and some trees are in the standing water
that are sort of surviving, or maybe are dying. I'm not sure what state they're in. And in the past our
Water Resources Coordinator, Phillip Elkin has advised, or been an advocate for doing wetland
restorations, for instance on the O'Shaughnessy property. He was interested in raising the height of that by
2 feet so there'd be standing water and the wetland that's between the Pulte project and Longacres, same
deal. And certainly there were trees in those situations as well. How is this different than those situations?
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: Well based on what Lori's told us, they're looking at, as part of the wetland conservation at
providing habitat diversity and enhancement. The legislation is to promote that you create open water so
that geese and ducks would have habitat. Well now they're saying we need other diversified habitat as part
of that so they're not as gung ho on having open water.
Aanenson: Can I just add another comment on the Villages on the Pond. If you recall we spent a lot of
time talking about, they wanted a more formalized landscaping and we said we wanted something more
natural. There was a lot of discussion on that and we ended up eventually going to the more natural, and I
guess we did meet with the applicants today and that really is what I think we came to concurrence on. Is
that we're willing to work with them on some of the areas to make them look better. If they want to put
some different vegetation. Take some of the buckthorn, reed canary out but it's our intent that they're
going for a natural setting, looking at the building. We think because that's the trees sitting there, that we
want to enhance that natural feature and I think we're in concurrence on, understanding what they want and
they understand where we're going. We want it to look nice but looking nice doesn't have to be highly
maintained, manicured type so I think we're in concurrence on that.
Kind: Okay, thank you. Page 6. I'm not even sure where I wrote this here. I think I relate to the
landscaping. I have some concerns about pedestrian movement. Some minor concerns, and being the
visual person that I am, I drew on this drawing. I'm going to just pop it down here so everybody can see it.
This is the planting plan, and I extended sidewalks. This was the only plan I could find that showed the
sidewalks were being proposed. My concern is that if you park here, how do you get to the building?
There's no way to get across these islands because what's being proposed are tall, native grasses which
basically don't encourage people to cross them. So I was wondering if it made sense to add a similar kind
of island was going on here, in this area to encourage people who are walking along here to cross down on
this sidewalk and these people to cross that way and provide sidewalks to get them across to the main
sanctuary. Same here. The sidewalk that extends on the north side of the church area, I would like to see
extended so that people parking here can get off the street, out of the parking area sooner and walk along
the edge of the church to the main sanctuary. Probably use this path down there. And possibly extend then
to the.., creating another access point from the parking lot to this lovely pad area, which I just think is
wonderful having this pedestrian trail system in here. Similar to what Eckankar has. There are two access
points here and here for this parking lot, but this parking lot is really, I didn't see an obvious way to get
onto the path. Those are my thoughts there. I do have more questions. Oh, the trees, we have double the
amount of trees. I just want to make sure that our tree person has taken a look at the distance between trees
to make sure that they will mature nicely.
Generous: She's reviewed the plans, yes.
Kind: Thank you. And about on page 7, and it talks about it in other places as well. This access point
that's on West 78th Street essentially requires the street to go through an existing home that's there, and
I'm assuming Westwood does not own this home. And it's sort of, I don't know, a concern to me that we
require a street to go through somebody's home that's not even being discussed here.
Aanenson: Right now it's proposed as a driveway. It's not a public street.
Kind: Okay, we're looking at a proposal that requires a driveway to go through somebody else's house that
they don't own.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: We're not requesting it at this time. If they do any future development, they're going to have to
accommodate that. Correct.
Kind: Just a little concerning to me. Oh, the traffic report, I did not see on there, and maybe it's there. It's
kind of hard to read them sometimes but was there a study done for what the traffic would be if this was
developed as residential, which is what it's guided for?
Aanenson: That was the addendum that we e-mailed everybody.
Kind: I didn't get that.
Aanenson: Sorry. We can go through that real quick.
Generous: We requested that the applicant, or their developer, engineer look at one, the preschool that is
part of the project, and also whether or not, if this property had developed as single family residential. We
told them 100 units. They could probably get more in there. The outcome of that is it changes the peak
hour traffic. The a.m. peak hour traffic goes up to 100 trips per day. 75 that are generated by the project
and then 25 that are incoming trips, so it would have, it would increase the number of a.m. peak hour trips.
These would be the first phase in the development during the weekday.
Kind: So net net, if this was not rezoned, it actually would generate more traffic during the normal peak
times?
Generous: The peak hour generates, yes.
Kind: The Sunday time is obviously the time of biggest concern for the traffic. Has there been any discuss
about other traffic management options like a police officer or just kind of a small time zone that they could
help with the traffic flow?
Generous: Well there was a little bit of discussion today when we went over the wetland mitigation plan,
and they were looking people will do some, change their behavior if it becomes inconvenient. Nothing
formal within our recommendation though.
Kind: Because I know that's quite common. My church does that. They have a police officer helping with
traffic flow but it's not a state highway, so I'm just curious whether that's even a possibility or not.
Generous: Yeah I'm not sure about, at least a police officer. Definitely traffic demand management
strategies could be incorporated. The carpooling. Use of shuttle buses. Things like that, or changing
hours of operation.
Kind: Okay. I'm almost done, almost done. Oh Bob, on the conditions. I called you earlier today about
cleaning up some of these conditions. Are those incorporated in this handout tonight?
Generous: No. That was just a revision to straighten out what should be in the.
Kind: Rats. I think that's it. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, you have any questions?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Feik: Yeah I've got a couple. I'd like to go back to the traffic study. If this was developed as residential.
That traffic study compared the first phase of this only, if I recall with if it were 100 units of residential
which would be more than what encompasses this first phase. 100 units would take this entire parcel.
Generous: Right.
Feik: Right. So there was no traffic study done to my knowledge then which takes in consideration the
total use of this property with their vision, their long term vision of how the rest of the parcel would be
used.
Generous: Well they did that as far as, that's where the level of service F scenario came in. That's their
buildout scenario. But at least on our condition they would have to revise that and say, what would the
traffic look like with West 78th, or at least that access point in there. And we think that would drop
Tanadoona way down because we think people would go to that light, especially if they're making that left
hand turn out onto 41.
Feik: Okay. The other question I had, and I didn't have until you were giving your talk about this, you had
mentioned that based upon the initial development, the size and scope of this did not require an
environmental impact.
Generous: Assessment, correct.
Feik: Assessment. If they had come in with the entire project, would it have required?
Generous: No, we looked at the cumulative impact of the project.
Aanenson: Right, and again that was our original directive to the applicant. We wanted full disclosure of
what the entire, they could have come in and just asked for a conditional use for a church but we asked, and
they agreed, that's the way to go was to show ultimately what their plans are for the property.
Feik: And then even if they were to come in for approval for the entire parcel today with all of their vision,
it would still not require an environmental assessment.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: Okay. I just want to be clear on that.
Aanenson: But based on the traffic study, they would need some additional.
Feik: Right. Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: LuAnn questions.
Sidney: Of the applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Just a couple of quick questions. Again regarding the traffic study. Was there a traffic count or
study done of the current situation at the high school? Do you know?
Aanenson: Of Westwood at the Chaska location?
Slagle: Correct, at the Chaska location.
Aanenson: No.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's it for right now.
Blackowiak: Actually I just have a couple quick questions of staff. Since we're on the traffic theme here.
If there's somebody that's coming up on 41 going north, they have come off Highway 5, they turn north
going on 41. I'm assuming there will be a left turn lane to get onto this proposed West 78th. Am I correct
Matt? I'm kind of looking at you but would that be a correct assumption?
Saam: Yes, I believe it's a straight left through.
Blackowiak: So what does that mean?
Saam: So in other words there's not the 3 lanes there. I don't believe right now there's going to be 3 lanes
on 41 as MnDot's doing it. There will be a straight and then a left lane and then a right lane for people to
go around.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we're not worried at all about stacking or coming off of, that was kind of my
concem.
Saam: Yeah, that's what the traffic study looks at. Level of.
Blackowiak: At the stacking?
Saam: Well the level of service rating takes into account stacking, the time you're waiting, queuing at
lights, that sort of thing. So that's what brings that level of service grade down.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Bob or Kate, Bluff Creek Overlay District. Does it have anything to do with this
property at all? I'm sorry.
Generous: No. It's located to the east...
Blackowiak: Okay, so basically we don't have to be concerned about that at all?
Generous: No.
Blackowiak: You just gave me a look. On the southeast comer of the project, I didn't get out my ruler and
compute this but do we have any bluffs over here on the southeast comer?
Generous: No bluffs. I had that same concern but then I looked at the plans. They're 1 foot contours
instead of 2 feet so it looks steeper than it is.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. They looked a little close together so I just wanted to
make sure we didn't have to deal with that. Okay. Well that's it for my questions of staff. Would the
applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the podium and state
your name and address for the record.
John Justus: Hi. My name is John Justus. I'm an architect with Hammel, Green, Abrahamson. We have
offices in Minneapolis. 701 Washington Avenue. We just moved Monday so I've got to remember our
address. We have a number of people here from the church and we also have other consultants that could
assist us tonight. And I'd like to introduce just a couple of people, if that'd be alright with you. And it
would be nice if the senior pastor, Joel Johnson... I'd just like to introduce, this is Pastor Joel and I draw
for a living and he speaks so I'll let him give him a chance up here. And we have James Haugen, Steve
Lattu with the church. They're both with the church. And Brady Halverson is our landscape architect.
Pat Connolly is involved with project management for the entire process. Jim Tiggelaar in the plaid shirt is
our civil engineer. So I think as we, they might have information that's specific to their expertise so they
can help answer at some point tonight so first Joel, thank you.
Joel Johnson: Joel Johnson. I live at 1806 Valley Ridge Trail North here in Chanhassen and it's good to be
here. We were actually here several years ago. We didn't think it would be another several years before
we would come again but this is an exciting time for us obviously. But just a brief history. Westwood
Community Church is the daughter to the Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie and we started services here in
Chanhassen on Easter Sunday, 1995. We met at that time in the Chanhassen Dinner Theater in the
Fireside Room for about 6 months. We outgrew that room and we went into the main dinner theater
because there was no facility in this area that could accommodate us at the time so it was a bit
unconventional to be in the main dinner theater when you come to church and have to choose a 2 top, 4 top
or 6 top for our seating capacity but it worked very well and we stayed there until December of 1997 when
we moved to the Chaska High School, and they have been exceptional to work with. We're really grateful
for the wonderful facilities that are there that have met our needs in a great way and we think we've been
able to help facilitate good partnership with the high school and district 112, as well as the Chanhassen
Recreation Center, St. Hubert's Church. When you don't have your own church home, you use whatever
you can get and there's been a gracious attitude in the community. We've been grateful for that. And we
have been very patient in moving forward with a building plan, partly because we wanted to understand
what we were going to be about. Partly because we wanted to focus on building people within community
before we built a building, and we find now being 6 ½ years old, have identify. We've established a
healthy church. We have a commitment to community. It's our middle name. Westwood Community
Church. And we seek to partner together with other agencies in the community and look forward to a great
future so just a little bit of historical perspective of where I am.
Kind: Thank you.
John Justus: I think staff did a great job in presenting the project so far. I'd like to maybe just highlight a
few other things if I could, and of course be available for any of your dialogue or comments or questions.
If we can go back to the site plan. I think you have a really good understanding of the site context and
we've tried very hard to work within the context. We like to think of a broader context of being these large
parcels of land that start with Minnewashta Park, the Campfire Girls, Camp Tanadoona. This large parcel
and then the Arboretum so we want to make sure that we preserve the character or build upon the character
of those 4 parcels. And we feel that suburbia is kind of encroaching upon Highway 41 and there's kind of
a different character beyond 41 to the west, and we would like to preserve the rural nature of the land,
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
which really begins I think at that location and so it's been our intent to be very respectful of this parcel.
It's a wonderful piece of land. It's agricultural. It's rolling. It has kind of it's own wonderful beauty and
it's a privilege to be an architect to work on such a parcel. We also want to make sure that the building
dignifies the land and that the land also compliments the building so I think it's important that we provide
balance in the design between our buildings and the land. That's what we've tried to do very strongly to
link these properties and also to respect this rural character. When we were beginning the master plan, we
tried to find the geometric center of the site, and we wanted to make sure that the buildings centered or
found the heart of the site as much as we could so that we preserve the open space as it abutted the
different residential properties, the Arboretum, the Camp Tanadoona. We also tried to set the buildings not
at the high point, and a lot of times in religious architecture you set church structures at the high point of
the site. And I think the high point of the site is 1037 or something like that. It's more towards the west up
the hill. We tried to bring the center of the site and the buildings down the slope somewhat to kind of find
the middle ground in elevation so that they didn't stand out but they begin to harmonize more with the
ground, and we constantly were thinking about how can we integrate this structure into this rolling land.
And so that was an important ingredient. The master plan is organized informally. It's not a formal outlay
of buildings but we tried to configure them so it was more informal and to preserve again the natural
qualities. We developed 4 main structures in the master plan. There's the initial phase has been described
as an interim worship space. It's about 70,000 square feet on 3 levels. We tried to make it as compact as
we could. We tried to locate the third level, kind of nested into the roof structure so that it didn't appear to
be a 3 level building. It appears to be 2 level but there's actually rooms and facilities in that third level. So
the initial structure is about 70,000 square feet. The footprint is about less than 1% of the total acreage of
this site. And the other 3 buildings, and I'll say in the future. One will be a large social gathering space
where you call it a lobby to the main worship space. And I know some of you have been to facilities.
There's a large gathering space. It's a social place where community is built. The other third facility
would be the, what I'll call the permanent worship space, and that will be about 2,400 seats. 2,400. So
it's a good size room. So you have the permanent worship space, which is located at this location on the
site. This is the gathering space, this round circle. This is the Phase I. Then this is more of a facility for
students. Gymnasium, youth room, that sort of thing for junior and senior high. The first phase of parking
is configured into 2 lots and we wanted to learn from the orchards that are along Highway 5. They're kind
of beautiful geometric forms. They have kind of a man made imposition on the land and we thought that'd
be kind of an interesting cue for us to organize our parking lots like orchards so they have a linear quality.
As you look at them from a distance, they have this orchard kind of feeling to them. And they're a cue that
we saw from the area is that there's linear stands of coniferous trees and we just thought it'd be very nice to
reintroduce that on the site. We did it on the northwest portion of the site right here to suggest the entry
and to provide a wind row because whether we like it or not, there is strong winds that come across that
lake from the northwest. So the first phase parking, or it's broken up into 2 lots, and then the future
parking on your drawing is identified as number 11. So these would be future parking lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4 so
eventually it will be 6 parking lots. We try to break up the parking lots in a geometric forms but they're
kind of scattered around the site. More closely related to the setbacks of parallel property lines than relate
to the buildings. They're kind of at just a position to the building to create their own individual form.
Number 10 on your site plan is a play area for students or for youth and right behind that is a 9, which
would be a small chapel nestled into the woods. I think it was stated earlier, the only wooded area of the
site really falls beyond element number 10. This entire area is heavily wooded. We've tried to keep from
interrupting that, except for maybe a small chapel which would be really a nice contemplative environment
back in that area. In the foreground there's a parking lot in the future and a building which is kind of is
undesignated right now. It would be a building that would be a shared use with the community in some
way, but we just haven't identified what it is but there's an attitude that what can we give back to
Chanhassen? How can they, the neighbors utilize this site? We've talked about the main access points and
40
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Phase I, Tanadoona will be the main drive to the site, and thus the development kind of tends toward the
north. And this drawing doesn't show it but we've already talked about that Tanadoona will be realigned
to meet 41 in a perpendicular fashion. The two dashed lines here and here represent the right-of-way
alignments. The 100 foot distance of where 78th Street will meet Highway 41, and so the driveway that
would be for future phases would be along that, the center line would be about this point and it would not
have to go directly through the house, but the right-of-way from 78th does go through the house. That is an
issue for the future. So I think the issue was discussed about primary access. You know where is it going
to be? And I think because this would eventually be signalized, this probably will become the primary
access I will call it, and then once when it was on the site, you could, there was a driveway located in the
future that would parallel the sight line heading west. Site property, or one could come around this wetland
feature and head north back towards the Phase I access. So I think you're probably right that that will
become a primary access point. I think that you've already discussed the nature of the program, education
the lower level. Interim worship space, which eventually become a fellowship hall on the main level, and
then offices on the third. I think you have a good understanding of that I believe. I want to talk a little bit
about the architecture and why we came up with what we have. Maybe we can, we'd like to call this, it's
not a very good word but call it park architecture and I think what we did is we studied architecture from
the 20's and 30's that was developed around the country and you see it in national parks and different
pavilions. And so we tried to learn from that and you see how that was properly integrated into the
landscape and into sites all over the country, and how could that application to this particular site because
of this desire to preserve this park like feeling from one parcel to the next. We wanted to anchor the
building and so the ground is important and the church has a philosophy about their own foundation which
is theological. I won't get into but we did want to anchor the building and have it grow out of the site, and
so thus we developed a sense of solidity to the base. We developed a rock exterior that has a strength to it.
A sense of permanence so that the building's properly anchored to this site. And then we wanted to create
a light.., above that so we developed a fairly open exterior which gets one really great views to this piece of
property and it allows light to come into the future fellowship hall interim worship space so it could be a
really wonderful space to dine or to socialize and look out onto this beautiful site. So we developed pretty
much a continuous band of windows above this stone base which separate the stone base from this, I'll call
it this tent like roof. And we wanted to emphasize the horizontal in the roof so it kind of created a contrast
in the rolling nature of the land and this tent, which is kind of resting upon it. So the roof has a certain
scale to it. We don't have belfries. We don't have towers, which could be really a great much greater
height. We tried to devise the roof structure such that the roof wasn't too flat, nor was it too steep and we
looked quite a bit at the proportions of the roof to make sure that it had a dignified scale, but yet it didn't
become too lofty. So we settled upon, those of you that are carpenters or builders, it's a 7:12 pitch. We
looked at lower than that. We thought it was a little too squat. We looked at higher than that, we thought
it was probably too lofty. And we needed a certain amount of volume within the space. We'd like to have
a column free, pretty much a column free interior space for worship so we don't interfere with sight lines,
and because it's over 100 feet of span, we do need quite a bit of depth of structure. Thus the height rises
for a structure like this. Is there a hardship? It only becomes in the sense that you need structural depth to
accomplish these spans. And it's nice to have a certain amount of volume within a room of this size so that
you don't feel like the ceiling or roof is coming down on one, but you need a little bit of volume for music
and for speech, that sort of thing. For acoustical reasons so thus the 42 ½ feet that's calculated. And so
from the south, from the east you can see this view of the strong base, which is stone, and I think we
brought some samples. I don't know if you wanted to see those. Just so you get a feel for the type of
materials we're thinking about, they're all natural and Westwood's a good name. Wood, but this is the
color of stone we had proposed and it would surround the base. Provide this solidity. We have a glass and
metallic windows in the middle of the building, and then the roof as Bob stated, would be either wood
shingles or a color which you see very often in the residential communities that is as close as we can get to
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
what wood shingles would look like, and they call it weathered wood or something of that type. We'd go
with a fairly heavy shingle so it would be an approximation of what wood shingles would be like, so we
just haven't made that final decision at this time. These wood samples would reflect the type of wood that
would trim the building and at the gable ends there's some greater portion of that. The other view, I'll be
done just a minute. Sorry I'm taking so long. The other view I think is very nice, it's as when comes in the
drive from Tanadoona and as one enters the site, the building really is more one to two stories from that
northwestern side and you can see the base projecting out as a walkout would. The glass band, which kind
of gives this building it's airiness, and emphasizes the view so, I could go on but I should probably stop.
And we are more than, we'd love to answer any questions you might have or enter into some sort of
dialogue if you'd like.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of this presenter? Rich?
Slagle: I've got a couple. As you're looking northwest, these 4 doors, what are those?
John Justus: I'll pull it up so you can see. The air handling equipment for this portion of the building, the
western side of the building. Or the southern side of the building is located in that area and those would be
air intake and exhaust louvers. They aren't doors but they'd be louvered. Air intake into that portion of
the building.
Slagle: Okay. And one last question. On your site overview, before we put the samples up, if the access,
the primary access coming from West 78th, where do you see that road again? I just want to make sure I
understand our driveway or whatever we want to call it.
John Justus: You can see the alignment of West 78th is right here. The two dashed lines. That's the 100
foot right-of-way and I think the drive would have to align with some sort of, with that West 78th Street.
Slagle: Okay, so if I could ask as you go west, now west of that private property, where do you see the
road, right there? And then going...
John Justus: Yes, it would probably be at almost the center line on the right-of-way I would guess. I'm not
a traffic engineer but I would guess it would.
Slagle: So you would see then the traffic flow going into the parking lot, as you indicate 11 on the
southeast side of the property, and then winding up past number 8 into the next parking lot. Is that?
John Justus: Yeah, I think your drawing, the drawing behind you also, you have two options when you
enter on the southeast comer. You could head toward the north and go around the wetlands. Or you could
cross over and go towards the west.
Slagle: Okay.
John Justus: So essentially it'd almost be like a ring road you know.
Slagle: Gotchya. Okay. Okay, that's all.
Sidney: Madam Chair. Question about materials. You were saying that you haven't quite decided
between shakes or asphalt shingles. I guess my feeling would be that shakes would really help the building
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
dignify the land, like he said. I say we put that in with the vote for going more natural in terms of building
materials. The other question, well question. Well the question I have I guess is about field stone and you
said there are decorative concrete masonry items. Where do those fall? Are we talking field stone? Where
we have the drawings and it's depicted as stoneware with these concrete decorative things?
John Justus: There are products. You can lay up a stone wall, just stone from the site or stone brought in,
or there are products available which replicate stone, which we would like to research because of cost.
There's a good difference between an all natural stone wall, real stone and what I'd call a decorative stone
wall or something that typifies that. And we'd just like the opportunity to look at those two products. It's
a cost difference really.
Sidney: Yeah, well still, but you're putting a lot into this whole site and the whole congregation is. I'd
really vote for as best you can do here. I guess I was thinking if we're talking decorative concrete masonry
like you're taking concrete and then making... No, nothing like that please.
Claybaugh: You're talking about a cultured stone product.
John Justus: We call it cultured stone. Yeah, kind of a big word.
Sidney: So anyway, I guess that would be good I think for City Council to understand where those
elements would be. Where you might have different products on the building.
John Justus: Yes, we would have one or the other.
Sidney: Yeah, one or the other.
John Justus: Yeah. It wouldn't be, they wouldn't be combined. It'd just be a matter of, the same as the
wood shingles. Either we have all wood shingles or all asphalt. And there's quite a difference in cost
between the two.
Sidney: Oh certainly, yes but like I said, it may be worth it. And though I think the building is lovely.
John Justus: Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? No? Any questions of this applicant?
Kind: Yes. I can't remember what it was. Oh, what did you think about my sidewalk ideas?
John Justus: I wonder if you can come in and apply tomorrow to our firm. I think that those are good
suggestions. When you go to the Arboretum parking area there are no sidewalks at all in the parking area.
You walk in the road and I think a lot of us are used to that when we go to different shopping areas and I
think it's always better to separate cars and people. You're absolutely right. And perhaps we could look at
that and see if that would make some sense, because that's a long run there, and add some additional
sidewalks. I think we could definitely look at that.
Kind: I think you'd end up with trampled perennials if you don't give people a way across.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: I didn't talk enough about the parking lots. They really have been designed. They're not just
a sea of pavement, but we really made an effort to change their elevations. Introduce some new ideas
inbetween. It's 20 feet between parking bays. Single bays are 20 feet. We're going to landscape that.
Change elevations. I think it's, and also deal with some of the runoff matters so I like the creativity that's
gone in the parking lots.
Kind: And then my other question has to do with that drive going, extending West 78th Street. What are
your thoughts on negotiating with that homeowner to extend the right-of-way through that property? Could
you elaborate?
John Justus: You know I can't elaborate, but someone from the church would have more knowledge of
what the process would be involved in acquiring that piece of property. Whatever may happen. Would
someone like to address that? Is anyone brave enough to?
Blackowiak: And if you could just please state your name and address for the record.
Steve Lattu: Steve Lattu, 840 Fox Court, Chanhassen. And we have been in contact with the homeowner.
Just to give them an idea of our ultimate build-out and what it would entail and obviously because the plan
showed a dotted line right through his house it's kind of, we were kind of nervous about that so we have
had dialogue with the homeowner and expressed our desires to work together for that ultimate access.
Kind: Thank you. I understand this is way off in the future but that was my concern that the homeowner
would see a dotted line through their house and be a little concerned. The other point I wanted to clarify I
think for Uli and Rich is that number 6 on that illustrative site plan is going to be the future main sanctuary
so that's the primary destination on Sunday mornings.
Sacchet: 6.
Kind: Yep. Does that help you see that in the future that West 78th Street would be the main entrance?
Slagle: Somewhat.
Sacchet: That helps.
Slagle: It helps and I know that's what it is. I have just concerns about the traffic. Can I ask a question,
more to staff but it might involve an answer from the applicant? We talk about Puke having a
responsibility or a commitment to share the costs of a West 78th intersection. We have this applicant who
would receive benefit from that as well. We have other applicants which I'm not sure, quite sure who they
are yet, that might also receive benefit from this extension of West 78th. My question is this. Has anybody
determined what the actual cost of that intersection is, and in essence brought the parties together, including
Pulte's commitment and sort of said okay it's x. We do have to buy a property. I certainly don't want to
even speak to whether they'd be open to that or not. But I guess what I'm trying to say is, we keep talking
like this is way out in the future and I'm not quite, how do I say it, convinced. But I'm not comfortable yet
with the traffic pattern and the study with respect to just Tanadoona handling the church, just to be honest.
And so my question I guess, has that dialogue started or can you give us an update?
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. There are two potential development properties to the, I
guess it would be to the west of this and right now, because this is not a subdivision, a public street cannot
44
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
be extracted. The only way to make this a public street would be someone to petition the city to ask for a
public street. At that point the city would conduct a feasibility study. If they were determined a feasibility
study and they would decide who's the benefiting parties. This project needs a driveway only, not a public
street. So that's going to be an issue that the feasibility study and the council's going to have to address to
say, if it's a public street, who's going to pay for that cost? And also, if the house was to be relocated or
bought, that would be a part of that too. But right now the only thing the church would need would be a
driveway access. The right-of-way coming across from Pulte is 100 foot. If this is a drive, it certainly
doesn't need to be 100 foot. We look at leaving a local street 60, or a driveway significantly less than that.
So if somebody else wants a public street to service their property, the procedure which we've explained to
those parties would be to petition the city for a public street and they would conduct a feasibility study. So
that's the process, and that has been explained.
Slagle: So ifI hear you right, with this applicant a driveway is the only thing required and the 100 foot or,
in essence they could get around cutting across this house?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think it's their position in good faith that that's probably not the best way
to try to fudge something. The Arboretum doesn't want it to cross their property. We've met with them.
They've met with them. I think, I don't want to speak for them but they want to do the right thing and
ultimately put the driveway in. If somebody else wants a public street or needs a public street, then the
process would be to come to the city and petition for a public street. Or the two parties could work
together and figure out a mutual, and that has been suggested. I'm not sure the dialogue's gone...
Slagle: So I guess just my question is, and I'm trying to raise that awareness level that I think that that
dialogue hopefully happens. And the sooner it can happen I think the better so that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have further questions?
Kind: No, I didn't.
Blackowiak: Of the applicant, no? Any other questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. Thank you Madam Chair. Maintaining the existing water level.
We seem to have a little bit of a discrepancy of opinion. The staff report says it would decrease diversity,
and actually I think in some of the documentation of the applicant there's a statement made that raising the
water level would increase diversity. Do you want to speak to that at all?
John Justus: I would like to have someone assist me in that. Speak to that, ifthat'd be alright. Perhaps
Jim or.
Aanenson: Just let me comment on that. I asked, Lori has been gone for the last couple weeks. I asked her
not to appear and if we're going to go into that dialogue, I would recommend that we wait on that and have,
because we're not prepared to address that at that level. So if you want to go in that direction, I'm
uncomfortable if you want to talk about that because we don't have the expertise here to address that.
Sacchet: So you would say that could be a topic that gets postponed to the council decision, assuming this
passes tonight?
Aanenson: Yes.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: Yeah I think we have all the, we can work with the city staff and their expertise to resolve any
issues...We have a good relationship. We can work out to what would be pleasing to them. And to us so I
think that's possible.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
Aanenson: Yes, we had a meeting about that today and I think we're, everybody's on the same page so.
Sacchet: Yeah, and if that's an issue that you want to bring up to represent to the council that will be fine.
With this driveway. For one thing I wondered, currently the way you do the wetland mitigation you I think
somewhere state in the documentation in the staff report it's stated that it's kept to as narrow as possible to
minimize the wetland impact. But then we heard some thought tonight that maybe this could be a street
that could go through to the west side. It seems like there's possibly a conflict there in terms of, and I don't
know even by from the church side, from you guys and that is something you would at all consider to have
that drive become a street that goes through to the neighborhood to the west. Is that something you'd say
anything about?
John Justus: I really don't have a comment about that. I agree with, I think we've talked enough about the
fact that we need to enter into a dialogue about that but all we need is a driveway, which would have as
minimal an impact as possible in crossing this water flow and wetlands so that's our intent. But someone
else may want to do something else.
Aanenson: I can answer that. The design does accommodate a public street if that were to happen.
Sacchet: Again please.
Aanenson: The design does accommodate a public street.
Sacchet: It would accommodate it the way it's designed?
Aanenson: Yes. If it became a public street.
Sacchet: Okay. It could accommodate it without impacting further.
Generous: This is the maximum area.
Sacchet: Okay, good. That's a verygoodanswer. In terms of traffic. There are acouple of aspects. I
actually got calls from concerned residents that were concerned about the traffic impact. Now personally
the church that I participate in only has one access. It's a little less people. It's probably in the 400 to 500
people amount, and I thought well how does this compare? And so I have a question to you, which is
probably more to the pastors than to the architect. When people arrive, do they pretty much arrive at the
same time? And then even more importantly, when they leave, do they all leave at once because like in my
case, people, they somewhat arrive relatively close. Again not really that close. Kind of scattered up but
especially when they leave, it's very much spread out. I mean some people leave right away. Others hang
out. Others go to kind of fellowship gathering. Have a cup of tea or what have you. And I wonder what's
your practice because I think that does impact the traffic. I mean if you say amen and it's finished and
everybody flies the coop, I think then you have a traffic problem with 1,000 or so people hitting that road at
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
once but if your practice is to have some fellowship afterwards, some socializing, a cookie, what have you
and people leave over the spread of an hour, I think it's not going to be quite as severe so is that something
you would be able to give me a reference point please.
Joel Johnson: Yeah I think one of the things you're seeing in churches today, and even in the architectural
design is they're combining space for gathering. 20 years ago you would see a fairly small vestibule or exit
place because generally people left but now they gather. They stay and so the exiting does vary and people
do stay longer. In fact you saw it in the design here, the dedicated space for gathering because people do
want to stay and fellowship together and spend time together.
Sacchet: Thank you. And just one comment, it's definitely very dignified proposal. I just want to
commend you. I think you did a tremendous job.
John Justus: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Blackowiak: Any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I would just like to comment that the full build-out initially, I don't have any
substantial concerns about the traffic but towards the latter end of the build-out, on it's full campus setting,
I have substantial concerns so. You commented that you had a dialogue with the adjacent neighbor there.
Could you comment as to the status of that or how it was received or?
Steve Lattu: The dialogue with Kevin and...
Claybaugh: Just an initial meeting. Okay. Like you said, you're just required to have a driveway in. I
guess that's took the form a comment. I come back to what Bob had expanded about the diversity of the
wetlands, the different classifications and because a wetland habitat contains water doesn't mean that it
necessarily supports more wildlife so that's, I think he made a very good comment on that and clarified that
so that speaks to the water level there. Big concern is, like my fellow commissioners, the traffic. My
understanding not required at this point but I'd like the concern noted.
Slagle: Madam Chair, can I just ask one question?
Blackowiak: Yes.
Slagle: Is the applicant open to if somehow we deem it necessary or some series of events, would you be
open to allow it on Highway 41 to have a law enforcement officer, some traffic assistance there at
Tanadoona?
John Justus: I wouldn't know how to answer that. I know it's a state highway. I don't know what kind of
jurisdiction would be involved with that.
Slagle: Well the answer, I guess if it's.
John Justus: If it's deemed necessary, certainly. I would think that they would, as part of a management
program. I wouldn't know why they wouldn't be concerned about their own people gaining access to the
site in a safe manner. I don't have a good answer but I'm sure it can be resolved.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you have any other presentation? Any other members from your group wanting to
get up and share anything with us this evening? I don't want to cut anybody off.
John Justus: Well I think the landscape design is an excellent one and if there's more comments or
questions about it, Brady can answer those but I just appreciate your willingness to listen to us and your
comments are really well taken. And I guess we want to provide a facility for the church and for
Chanhassen that you're all proud of. That you'll take your relatives and show them that this is a great
building for Chanhassen so that's what we're hoping. Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. However, before I do that I have
had a couple requests to take a brief recess. So we will recess for just a few minutes and we will be back
shortly after 10:00 to continue with the public hearing.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point.
Blackowiak: I'd like to call this meeting back to order. This item is open for a public hearing so at this
point in time if there's anyone who would like to get up and make any comments, please step to the podium
and state your name and address for the record.
Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. For Kate's benefit, wife of Deanna. I know you guys talk quite a bit. I'm
going to actually talk from the perspective of kind of two interests in this whole thing. One of the interests
is if you look at the map. Our property is just to the west of the development, the church. There's actually
2 properties there and both of us are planning on entering into some kind of development in the future.
Hopefully the near future, so that's one perspective I want to make sure you sort of understand in terms of
perspectives. The other perspective is, as a member of the neighborhood that is on Dogwood Road which
is connected to Tanadoona. That's our access point out to Highway 41. So a couple things I'd like to say
from a neighborhood perspective first. I think you've already said it and you've seen it and we're very
excited by the development that the church is proposing. If you look at it any way you want to, their intent
to keep the theme of the land, the architectural, the architecture of the buildings, just the great use of how
they're trying to use the land, it's a great thing. So all those things are really, really positive and I think
from a neighborhood perspective, you know if you look at alternatives to this, this is a great alternative for
us. Now having said that we also have some interest and some issues. Interests are again from my
perspective and my neighbor's perspective next door, and actually some other neighbors, the feasibility for
doing future development there again within the near term hopefully. And that creates an economic interest
in the neighborhood. The other thing that I think has been mentioned is there's a sewer and water
feasibility study that's in process for the entire neighborhood and if the development doesn't proceed
forward, then that makes the feasibility of doing a sewer and water project much less feasible for us as a
neighborhood. So there's an economic interest there. There's also a shared economic interest with the
church in terms of access to the properties. There's also an issue, or an interest around timing. Again, no
proposals have been brought forward yet to the Planning Commission or the Council on the development,
but we intend to do that in the near future. And also within the context of the neighborhood, we're all
looking for sort of continued by and from the neighborhood in general and making sure that we're all
working together. And so far I think we feel like a lot of these interests are being fairly represented as we
sort of stand here together today. Again the key issue for us, and I think you've all sort of started to detect
that is around traffic flow. We have recently started meeting with the church. We had our first meeting in
June to actually look at the plans for what the church was trying to do. Again, you know my comments
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
earlier about in favor of the architecture and land use and all that stuff, again I'll reiterate that. We are
very much in favor of that. The one issue that we raised at our meeting in June was around the traffic.
And we realize traffic study has been done and all that stuff. We have since met with the church, as
recently as Saturday and have agreed to start to work together to try to mitigate that issue as we go
forward. And feel like we are making progress. We're not there yet but we're making progress. So again
just to kind of reiterate, fully in favor of this whole thing. If we can work through the issue around the
traffic and part of the issue really comes back to that West 78th Street extension if you will, and when that
gets done and what that starts to look like. So I think we have the idea that we'll all start working together
as we go forward. That's the commitment that we feel we've gotten from the church as we go forward.
Assuming that happens, assuming that we all work together and try to resolve the issues around the traffic
and so forth and I think we're there so, if you have any questions for me, I'm perfectly willing to answer or
try to answer questions.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you commissioners. Any questions for...
Sacchet: Since you offer. Can you be specific about, do you have an interest in West 78th Street coming
through to your property?
Peter Brandt: Yes. Yes I do. Again if I, I'm the abutting property right to the west. As we've looked at
alternatives for development of those properties, and there's 2 of them put together, it becomes very clear
quickly that the feasibility of going through on a West 78th Street kind of access is much more feasible,
both economically and from keeping the look and feel of the entire neighborhood than trying to go through
on the Dogwood Road side. I don't know if any of you have driven back there but it has a very unique
looking feel and there's a very clear intent on the neighborhood side to try to keep that look and feel if we
can.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Lori Johnson: Hi, I'm Lori Johnson. I represent Campfire Boys and Girls, which is the owner and
operator of Camp Tanadoona since 1924. Our address is 3300 Tanadoona Drive. I too am eager to
welcome the church as a new neighbor. They have put a lot of time and effort and have come up with some
wonderful plans. Our only concern at this point is the traffic issue. I only got to glance through the traffic
study and so I'm not aware of exactly when it was done, you know as calendar wise but I think things were
not probably taken into consideration that Tanadoona has some very sporadic large use that goes up and
down Tanadoona Drive. Large events which are primarily on weekends, 300, 400, 500 people. Our large
Halloween event. The fact that in the summer for 12 weeks 50 staff people live there and come and go. So
for about 3-4 months of the year we have very high use. We have 150 day campers that are dropped off by
their parents each morning and picked up each afternoon between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00
p.m.. Then we have resident campers that come, all 100 of them that come with their families on Sunday
between 2:00 and 4:00 as church would be, hopefully we'd just miss maybe but, so we have a lot of large
use and yes, in our wintertime things are much slower at Camp but spring and fall are quite busy and it
seems to hit the weekend time when church might be kind of conflicting so we are concerned about that
Tanadoona Drive traffic. So I thank you for your time.
Blackowiak: Thank you. I should ask commissioners if they have any questions of her.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Dan Starks: My name is Dan Starks. My family and I live at 3301 Tanadoona. This is my wife's and my
first opportunity to come to this commission's meeting and we're certainly very impressed with the fair
mindedness of the group. We're new residents to the neighborhood. I'd like to express just two concerns.
The first on the traffic side. Purely from a lay perspective, I certainly don't know what the expert process
is to evaluate traffic but if we work to just come out on, pardon me but as we just work to come out on
regular mornings, we have a check of a time making a left hand turn on 41. When that traffic light goes on
5, we get a bows of traffic and when the traffic light turns on 7, we get a bows of traffic back and I just
can't imagine how we would be able to really get out with a significant increase in traffic at that
intersection given the trouble that we have with really fairly light use today. That's the first thing. And so
I just want to, from a practical perspective just kind of add that little bit of common sense that the, to kind
of question the expert process to make that assessment. The second thing would be, when we researched
our purchase of the property, we were especially concerned about what's the church going to do. We
didn't want to live in a rural setting with something that would be obnoxious or that would disrupt the
wildlife, and we've got quite a little bit of prairie investment and really would like to be a good neighbor in
that respect maintaining as much of a natural look as we can and we bought as much buffer property as we
could to help do our part to maintain as natural a setting as we could and accommodate the wildlife. And
we kind of through our realtor got the assurances from the church that this was going to blend into the
environment just as much as possible and so we thought this could be a pretty good neighbor situation and
we'd very much like it to be a good neighbor situation and do our part and hope that the church would be
very diligent in doing it's part as well. What struck me that was very much a surprise was fitting in with
the environment. I really didn't expect to hear about a request for a height variance and that to me, I
appreciated every bit of the words on the attitude to me saying, and then besides we're going to build
something that's above what the ordinance permits. That jarred my expectations and I really didn't
appreciate the idea that we ought to be able to do this because if you don't like that, we really could have
built a tower. I mean you know that again, it just was not quite the attitude that I'd like to see as a
neighbor, or even just looking at what's objective. I just, I do have a third minor point in here. I don't have
a conclusion from it and would just ask the expertise of this group. I'm always concerned with a zoning
variance, or zoning change thinking, I appreciate all of the high hopes of this particular owner. I appreciate
that as time goes by ownership situations fail and financial circumstances change and this is quite
ambitious investment overall over a period of time and the question that comes in my mind is, with a zoning
change, if this owner then changes and disposes of the property, have we then put ourselves into an
environment that is within the completion of the Planning Commission and of the neighborhood and I'd just
leave that as an open question. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I get your last name again? I kind of missed that.
Dan Starks: Starks, S-t-a-r-k-s.
Blackowiak: Thank you very much. Did you have a question?
Sacchet: Yes. I'm kind of interested to hear from you, with you looking at this proposal do you feel that
this proposal is sensitive to the environment? You really didn't address. You said well you have an
interest in that, but you didn't express whether you thought that this approach from the applicant actually
satisfies that or are you dissatisfied with it?
Dan Starks: I don't know this group. I don't know future plans. The one thing that I could, there are parts
of this that I very much appreciate that to me display exactly the kind of sensitivity we would hope to see
from the neighbor. What didn't display that was the height and I see the, where this property there where
50
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
that 21 acres, I see the parking lot abutting right up against this. It's not clear to me what level of tree
protection we've got. I'd like to add my own to add as much buffer as possible, and then I'm also thinking
as we get a, as there's a request for a height variance for the first property, this isn't the main chapel.
What's the main chapel going to look like when that plan comes and what kind of environment are we
establishing with already a height variance on the first building for future buildings. And I appreciate the
level of assurances that have been offered, but on the other hand this is out of spec for height and that is a
little unsettling.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Kate the last two people have talked about traffic and a little bit about the zoning
and variances. Do you want to just take a brief moment to make any comments?
Aanenson: I'll let them team talk about the traffic study but the background should include, they did
include traffic counters. Should have picked up the background traffic. We do recognize and the traffic
study says the most difficult turn movement coming out is going north on 41 from Tanadoona. That will be
the most difficult turn movement. Again looking at this with the peak hours, recognizing the morning peak
hours are the most difficult, or will be coming from the Pulte development, morning peak hours. Excuse
me, that would be evening peak hours. And the industrial park is morning peak hours. Again looking at
this when we compared it to a residential, there will be congestion but it should be offsetting, most of it.
Now the Campfire Girls, again we'll have to take that into consideration in working with them. Looking at
the events and we're going to have to coordinate some of that with the church. Looking at that.
Blackowiak: I'm wondering if those, would the Camp Tanadoona numbers have been incorporated into the
traffic count.
Aanenson: They should have been. There were traffic counters out there. Yep, traffic counters picking up
the background data so there's modeling and traffic counters out there so there should...
Blackowiak: Currently, so that we're getting the high peak of the camp at this point?
Aanenson: Yes. I'll have to let them speak to it.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
Alan Dirks: Do you have time for one more?
Blackowiak: Certainly, come on up.
Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. My wife and I and family are new residents on Dogwood and first of
all I want to say that I fully support Westwood in the fact that they're going to be a neighbor. I think it's
an ideal neighborhood. Or neighbor for the neighborhood. I like what they're doing. I hadn't really
thought about things Dan had thought about, and I thought he brought up some good points about what the
future buildings would be, but I was thinking that the 2 ½ foot variance wasn't very much considering they
weren't building on the highest point of the land. If they were building on the highest point of the land and
also going for a variance, that might be a thought but then Dan when I was listening to you talk I thought
well he's right. We really don't know what the next buildings are but that would be something to keep a
watchful eye but it did seem like they were trying to work within the intent of the ordinance, which was
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
keep the profiles down so I appreciated they weren't on the high spot. The traffic on Tanadoona without a
means of guidance seems to me to be a little bit crazy and so both in the terms of turning left when you're
going north, coming off of 41 and turning onto Tanadoona or Tanadoona trying to get onto 41 going north,
either way. But there's been a little bit of talk about this building right here, and I think that it was kind of
almost pointed at the church that this alignment, there's a reference made about this alignment going
through that neighbor's property and it's unfortunate but I also think it shouldn't be hung on the church
because they didn't line up 78th from 41 in the first place. A little bit of, and I'm not here to point blame at
all. I'm just saying that that comment was made that well, are you planning? What are you doing with that
resident? Well, bottom line is they didn't line it up from the east to begin with and so they're kind of stuck
with where they're at. So my personal view is that this is going to be the main entrance. It would be great,
we have plenty of time before the church opens. It seems like the parties that are going to benefit from the
traffic would be, I was writing a little list of them here. There's the West property of course that was
already spoken about. There's the church and there's the Arboretum. Whether or not like Dan said
exactly, we don't know when the Arboretum gets developed or who knows if it will get developed. They
could sell that tomorrow as soon as the apples study is done. And then there's Tanadoona and Dogwood.
Or anybody who's off of those two roads is going to benefit. There's the Pulte neighborhood that's going
to be impacted by additional traffic on 41. There's the other neighborhoods that are on the east side of 41.
Certainly all those people would benefit from the intersection on 78th. That's a good chunk of people,
residents in the city. It seems to me that as part of this process moving forward, since there is plenty of
time, the city could go ahead and use some of your influence to put all those parties together and say listen.
There's a lot of benefit right now. I don't think it's fair to the church to go ahead and say okay church, you
may only need a driveway but we know you'd like to have 78th. I think if, and I don't want to, I'm not
putting words in anybody's mouth. I'm just saying if they had a choice and money was not an issue, and it
is an issue certainly for a church that's supported by private parties, is that they would rather have a
controlled intersection that was planned for that kind of traffic. Certainly I think if the city would just go
ahead and get behind and help them and help the neighbors, help the properties to the west and put a little
initiative behind this rascal and figure out how we can handle that traffic and move it up to 78th. One other
thing. Is that I have a little extra incentive for this, is that I'm from a greedy standpoint. I mean we're on
Dogwood. It is a beautiful neighborhood and there's going to be pressure to develop this property here off
Dogwood, which would really be crazy. It's already a long cul-de-sac and we want to keep the narrowness
of the road to preserve the trees. We've already seen in a previous one where the emphasis has been to
preserve trees. So certainly we would object to that very strongly to go ahead and say well, they already
have access to that other development so the city doesn't need to look at further development of West 78th.
So in summation, take that part of the city. Get those parties together and make, don't saddle or don't put
the monkey on the church's back or just one property owner's back because there's a lot of parties that are
going to benefit from 78th, that access to this property. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Bob Bergan: Hi, I'm Bob Bergan. I live, my wife and I live in, well in the church's parking lot. Well on
the other side of the church's parking lot. And well my wife is a church worker and we really appreciate
the fact that there's a church coming in and not 385 Puke houses. The only thing we have a concern with
too is the road. I always feel like I'm going to get hit from behind coming on 41 getting onto Tanadoona
Drive and the sooner that we can get the 78th Street through the better. Now the city has tried to put
Dogwood through, all the way through to Highway 5 and the main concern, and I haven't even heard this
tonight, the main concern is safety. I've had fire engines that have sat in my front yard because they can't
get down the roads with the big ladder trucks and stuff. If there's a fire at one of the places down on
Dogwood, or now the new developments back in here, there's just no way they can get back down in there.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
And they've been, we've had studies go through there before where they've tried to get the roads widened
and they've tried to do different things but when it comes right down to it, they just can't get through there.
It's a dead end. When you go down Tanadoona, it's... Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Karen Dirks: Hi. I'm Karen Dirks. The other half and I just really, I just wanted to say one thing. I know
that that traffic study was supposedly done, but I can't believe it. I think that they forgot a lot of things,
number one construction is now going on on Highway 7 and on Highway 5 and on Highway 41 so there's a
lot of people I think that are probably avoiding the area so how can you do a logical traffic count right now.
That just doesn't make any sense. I for one would avoid that area if I could. I think that they forgot
preschool when they first did it. They forgot all the major events that was already mentioned at Camp
Tanadoona. I don't know that they considered fully all the development or the traffic coming that will
come in with the Puke development or the new business parks across 41 and there's always Southwest
Christian High School that's just south on 41 which is growing, growing, growing. And all the residential
developments that are on the other side of 41 that were briefly mentioned so I highly question the traffic
studies.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I have property at 7500 Dogwood Road. We've owned
property out there for 30 some years now. It's changed a lot. It's going to be changing a lot more. We are
extremely happy to see the church's proposal. With the same caveats that most people have expressed
about the traffic. I do want to make one comment that I haven't heard people say. The realignment of
Tanadoona Road makes a lot of sense. The church does need two accesses. Even one just on West 78th it
would still make sense to have a good access at Tanadoona Road. This proposal does provide that. It does
take a step in the right direction but the West 78th seems to make a lot of sense for the whole area. The
infrastructure of the whole quadrant or whatever you want to call it. If you just look singularly at the
church property, it doesn't really need it. Highly desirable but if you look at the whole area, it comes
screaming out so I just want to make that comment.
Blackowiak: Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to comment this evening? If not, I am going to
close the public hearing and before asking for commissioners comments, I'll just let you know we are going
to finish item 5 tonight. So if you're here for item 5, Brown's Car Wash, we will be dealing with that this
evening. Item number 6, review design standards we are going to move that to our next Planning
Commission meeting as old business. There's no time line that we need to do on that so that's going to be
at the next Planning Commission meeting so if you want to hear about design standards, you'll have to
come back and see us again. But Brown's Car Wash will be on tonight. With that, Commissioners. Time
for your comments and I'll look down Rich's way. Would you like to start?
Slagle: Sure. Let me start by saying this. I approach this from 3 different viewpoints. One is, obviously
as an appointed member of the Planning Commission. Second is a neighbor in that my family and I live in
the Longacres development. And thirdly, I approach this as an attendee of this church and having
expressed that in and revealed that to the group a long time ago, feel very comfortable in seeing this as
objective as I can. It's wonderful. I mean plain, simple, this is a wonderful proposal. Excited, tickled as
you could be. All of that said, as that appointed member of this commission, the overall community benefit
in my mind is there with this proposal. The only thing I have concerns about and express that is the traffic.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
And I want to ask one question of staff. Am I to assume correctly that there will be an intersection at West
78th. It just won't extend westward. Is that correct?
Aanenson: That's what we're trying to get a meeting of the minds. I think that's what we're saying. At a
minimum.
Slagle: But today as we stand, where will West 78th, it will end at Highway 41.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: So there is an intersection there. It just isn't going westward on West 78th. Currently as we sit
here.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: But there will be an intersection?
Aanenson: Right.
Slagle: And so that said, it's just a difficult situation with the traffic and one of the things I just, as I started
just noting things down here and looking at the proposal, I noticed on the traffic study, and this is headed
up on page 5, it says Mr. John Justus. It talks about the use, expected Sunday trip generation and I'm not
quite sure I understand church 2003, and I'm sorry I didn't bring this up before. But if I look at the
number of I think cars going in and coming out, I'm still left with a fairly decent number after 1:00 that are
still in the church, I think if I figured that out right, and I don't have to have an answer now but staff if you
can look into that. It just seemed to me that there were a fairly good size number of cars theoretically still
in the church after 1:00. And so I'm just wondering again about the numbers. And that again is on page 5.
Stated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Show the result at Sunday, Wednesday and weekday, so forth and so forth.
So to make a long story short, I concur with the gentleman over here that hopefully the groups can get
together and talk about that West 78th because otherwise West 78th is not put in, I have a serious concerns,
more so from being an attendee at Chaska High School, and then also as a neighbor trying to get out on 41.
I mean I can tell you that similar to the description of I think Dan, wherever he went, when you're trying to
take a left and the flow, you can tell when the lights are there. When they're on and someone's proceeding
and when there's a red light. I mean you can definitely tell. What I just don't know enough about is what a
Sunday morning would be like so that's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: I think that's an outstanding proposal. The building architectural elements are lovely. I guess I
had comments about the building materials, which I won't repeat but overall it's just a tremendous
proposal and it will be a tremendous addition to the community. I do share concerns with just about
everybody in the room. I think about the traffic and I think we do have data that could be gathered at
Chaska High School on Sundays to understand what the current traffic situation is like, and I guess I would
put that forward as a possibility that to supplement your traffic study, to actually do some studies at the
high school and we could understand what the traffic situation was like there. That might give us more
information to make some recommendations. That's it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Bruce.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Feik: I too like the project very much. I did have a quick question for Kate, ifI could digress briefly. As I
understand, everybody has a traffic concern here, and rightfully so. Do two non-regulated or two accesses
to 41, neither of which have a stop light, does that benefit this project in any way? And if it does, is there a
potential for the applicant to petition the city for a temporary egress midway through that parcel to the east
and north of that private homeowner, for an additional access until such time as the West 78th Street
intersection could be completed.
Aanenson: Part of that would be a question for MnDot because they have jurisdiction on access points in
that road. That's something we can look into.
Feik: If it doesn't require a metered stop light at this point and everybody thinks that this is going to be
very beneficial to the community as a whole, and we are in control of that, we being the City of Chanhassen
is in control of that.
Aanenson: I'm not sure it's going to, if you've got an offset intersection that close to the West 78th coming
out, I'm not sure what that would do because you're actually offsetting it slightly so. You're still going to,
the left mm.
Feik: It'd only be a couple hundred yards apart. They're not going to be more than another 100 yards to
get to the other...
Aanenson: Right, and generally the spacing requirements on a collector street a quarter of a mile so, I'm
just saying with the offset so, we can look at that.
Blackowiak: And Kate, is that the primary zone right there? I'm sorry, I'm going back to the primary zone
but yeah we can't, could we even go across the primary zone?
Aanenson: We own the property. We may have to cut down trees. You know.
Blackowiak: Would we want to I guess is the question maybe.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Because it's Bluff Creek primary zone.
Feik: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I think Westwood Church is and will continue to be a great community asset
and I'm excited to see this project. Hearing about it for a long time. I think the architecture's beautiful. I
love the architecture concept. I think you're going to get a lot of new members who just want to go to the
space so that will be neat. I support the variance. I support the zoning changes. I think they are necessary
to bring this forward. I would like to see a couple conditions added. One for the pedestrian movement.
One to encourage the applicant to, and I think with the help of staff, get together and discuss that future
road and the traffic signal. And I would also like to see a condition that requires the applicant to come up
with traffic demands, strategies if the city deems it necessary. This first phase I'm not as worried about.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
It's the future that we need to take a look at. I also have a few other tweaks to the conditions that I talked
to Bob about earlier today. Mostly just to neaten them up a little bit. The height variance of 2 ½ feet I
think is very reasonable, considering this is not next to any other buildings. The scope of the project. It's
57 acres and it's not on the highest point on the land. I think 2 ½ feet is very reasonable so I support that.
And I guess that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few comments. I'm not the type of person who gets excited having a church on
every street comer, even though I certainly consider myself a religious person in my own way, but that said
I do think this is a fantastic proposal. I'm very impressed with the quality of the proposal and the amount
of effort that went into it. The thoroughness with which it was thought through and everything. Very, very
impressive and I don't have a problem with it. I think it's a great asset to our community to have that come
in. I do have a concern about traffic and I have a real big problem with the findings, the way they're
worded for the variance. I don't have a problem with the variance of making this 2 ½ foot higher than the
literal ordinance require. As you stated, it's not on the high point and it makes sense. It's a, I think to me
it's a good thing. However, the way the findings are worded in the staff report, the first finding, the literal
enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. I have a very hard time seeing a hardship in
not being able to have the roof quite as high as you want. So I would want to say well there is some
hardship, but there's certainly not undue hardship. But that we had in a previous issue this evening,
fortunately from a legal viewpoint, it's my understanding that we have to balance not just hardship but we
have to balance it with the aspect of reasonable. And I would say that it's definitely reasonable to have that
height under this circumstances, particularly but there is some hardship. There is not undue hardship and
I'm very clear about that. Then the second finding, the proposed development is a unique project. We
have at least one other religious campus in town. Again I think it's reasonable aspect but it's not unique
and I would want to say the proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to this city because it
isn't. We're misrepresenting when we say it is unique. And then I have a particular issue with the
continuation of that finding. This building is intended to be the focal point for the Westwood Community
Church. I don't have an issue with that but the issue that comes after that. And as such, it's architectural
design should raise one's spirit. Now first of all that's not how it's worded in the staff report. That's how
it's worded in the legal document that's to be signed so I have an issue that we have a discrepancy. But I
have even a bigger issue with the fact, I'm part of the clergy in my church so I certainly myself so I
certainly consider myself spiritual, but in this place, this statement is way out of place. This does not
belong into this document so I would like that stricken from that. And then the third aspect that I have an
issue with, the alleged difficulty or hardship is not self created hardship but due to the confluence of
ordinance requirements and the requirements of the congregation. Well, to be blunt we might as well say
it's not self-created. It's created because the ordinance is not allowing it. None of the hardships have ever
been self-created because they're all created because the ordinance oppose it. And that doesn't work, so I
would say we should say something like the alleged difficulty or hardship is not completely self-created
hardship but partially to all these big words, confluence and so forth. And I think that should be sufficient
to have a legal basis to pass this variance because I would like to pass this variance, but with accurate
statements please and not referring to raising the spirit because we're not raising the spirit here. We're
building a building. That's two separate things. I think it's very fundamentally separation of religion and
whatever the other thing is. Now about the traffic. I asked this question when everybody leaves in one
lump and that was somewhat reassuring that they're spread out but having lived before in the neighborhood
just next to where the new St. Hubert's Church was built, I wasn't there very long because I moved to,
actually near to 41 so I have both experiences in my back, but when new St. Hubert's Church, and that I
would think is a smaller congregation that we're going to have at Westwood. When they came in it was
56
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
literally impossible to get out of my neighborhood when they let out from a service. It was real issue. I
mean it was very unpleasant. And now living at 41, I just live east of 41, if I want to take a mm, a left mm
onto 41 or off of 41, it doesn't bother me when cars zip by me like less than a foot away at 65 miles an
hour, but I know a lot of people it does and so I would think we have to be very sensitive to that. I wonder
what we can do because, and I agree with the comment that was made that it's not fair to put this whole
burden onto the church here with this one project, and I want to be very clear about this because I feel that
if the city approves this proposal, the city approves, I assume some responsibility for the traffic situation
there. I think that we have to be very clear about that. And I don't know how best to mitigate that but
ideally I would like to see a time table for a studying and pinning down the possibility of having West 78th
Street extending into the church property, and eventually cross it to the Dogwood neighborhood on the
other side. And I'm a little bit hard pressed to think that that doesn't need to be done until second phase. I
think that is something that should be looked at before. Actually somewhat in parallel with implementing
the first phase because I would expect that could be a real issue with Tanadoona Drive. I think we're
asking for a difficult situation. I can see that we can hire a policeman to go wave his arms when it's
tough, but that's a band-aid. That's not a really permanent solid solution and I think we should, from the
city side, from the applicant's side, from the neighborhood side, make an effort. Define what that effort is.
Put a time line to it as to something like a year to study this situation and then determine what the time
frame is to implement something within another year or so. Something to that effect. That's my comments
thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Craig, any comments?
Claybaugh: I've got a question for staff. One of the petitioners or speakers that identified that there was a
feasibility study being done on extending the utilities on 78th over to the Dogwood.
Aanenson: That was coming the other way. It's Tanadoona coming down.
Claybaugh: It's Tanadoona coming down?
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: Right down along?
Aanenson: Right, the city's project, BC-7, BC-8.
Claybaugh: Parallel with 41 ?
Aanenson: Correct. It goes down Tanadoona. If the development wants to request additional service to
get down there, there's a petition and that'd be a separate petition for that. And that's to get municipal
services down Dogwood. Or an alternative site is also looked at, going along the lake for the sewer. And
that petition is in, isn't it Matt?
Saam: Yep. They're currently looking at putting.
Aanenson: And that's for utilities only.
Saam: Putting sanitary along the lake and water and Dogwood.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Craig if I might add, I was there today. Talked to a survey crew. The gentleman there mentioned
that the plan was to go along the lake but there was a recent effort to maybe take it up along Dogwood.
Aanenson: Other way around. Flip flopped. Other way. It was going to go along Dogwood.
Slagle: Okay, and now they're down at the lake?
Aanenson: Right. Just less degradation, correct. So we'll look at the difference.
Claybaugh: I agree with all the fellow commissioners. I think it's a fantastic project. I think that a lot of
thought, a lot of soul searching's gone into the design of it. Again that being said, with respect to the
height, I agree. I'm big on...pipes but it needs to be pointed out that, you said a 100 foot span. About 100
foot span between a 6 and a 7:12 pitch is 4.2. You're asking for another 2 ½ feet. The difference is
negligible, but I'm certainly swayed by the argument that it wasn't built on the highest point of the land but
I think that needs to be said. I am curious about the following buildings. Identified that this building, the
initial building, Phase I was going to be the focal point in the overall vision for future buildings to see the
worship hall competing with that or exceeding that. I'd kind of like you to expand on what your thoughts
are at this time on that. If you could please.
Blackowiak: Craig, actually our public hearing is closed. Kate, what do, procedure.
Aanenson: It's up to you.
Blackowiak: Yeah, at the time, that was the kind of questions. Stand up quickly if you want to give a
couple minutes.
Claybaugh: I apologize for not asking it earlier but it's just a question...
Blackowiak: Yeah, this is just our comment time so we need to kind of.
John Justus: We'd be glad to provide studies that would show heights of future buildings and what our
thinking is and work with staff. See staff on that. And bring them as you would like so, we're prepared to
do that.
Claybaugh:
John Justus:
Claybaugh:
John Justus:
Claybaugh:
Blackowiak:
Claybaugh:
it.
Okay. But you do see this building as the mainstay in terms of.
Yeah, I didn't ever use the terminology it was the focal point. That was staff terminology.
Okay.
So I didn't introduce that.
Alright, thank you.
Okay, any other comments at all?
Yeah, like everybody else, substantial concerns with respect to the traffic and how to address
Don't have any new ideas. Just substantial concern.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: And I pretty much agree with my fellow commissioners. I think the project is very nice. Well
thought out. I'm glad we saw the whole thing at once because it's often difficult to see the big picture if
you get a little piece at a time so it's nice to have the entire campus laid out in front of us so we can get a
feel for what's being planned and what we can expect to see in the future. And I think if the future
buildings resemble or are compatible with what you're showing us this evening, we'll be very happy with
what's going to be out there because I think it's a very nice building that we're seeing this evening. The
theme is traffic. I mean I think we can all agree that that's just a huge issue. However, I guess my point or
my thoughts on West 78th are that, if what is required is a driveway and that's all that's required, correct
me if I'm wrong Kate, we cannot ask, can we ask anything further or?
Aanenson: We've asked for the two parties to meet. What we've also suggested is the party that wants to
develop petition the city for a feasibility study for a public street.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then that's just basically, that's the other party. It really has nothing to do with
Westwood this evening is what you're saying? In terms of meeting with the neighbors.
Aanenson: ... site design, we've asked them to accommodate if that was to happen and there may be some
benefit to them. The city would maintain a street for their driveway purposes, that sort of thing so yeah.
There are mechanisms to, and we'll continue to try to have a dialogue between the parties.
Blackowiak: Alright. Looking through the findings and recommendations I certainly, well I guess for the
most part I agree with what Uli suggested for changes. I guess I'm.
Aanenson: I apologize. They were recommended changes. They didn't get transferred to their findings.
They were changed in the original ones but they did not get changed in the second. Were proof read and
changed so if you take the findings that were in the original text of that, that's what should have been in the
findings in the second.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. But overall I just think it's a very nice looking
project and will be a wonderful addition to the city and the area. So with that I would like a motion or a
series of motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use amendment
from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the staff report.
Sacchet: Second.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use
amendment from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the staff
report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Could I have another motion please.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and Institutional, OI based on the findings in
the staff report.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning
of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and Institutional, OI based on the findings in
the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Next motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. dated July 6, 2001 with a 2.5 foot
variance from the Highway Corridor District building height regulations and a one story variance from the
Office and Institutional District regulations based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the
following conditions 1 through 37. And do I need to specify that this is a new, new report?
Aanenson: You can say revised.
Kind: The revised report that we received before our meeting tonight, with the following changes, and bear
with me group here. I have a few. I'll start at the very beginning. I would like to strengthen condition
number 3, the last sentence to read, regular maintenance shall be required to keep the area aesthetically
pleasing and functioning properly. Number 4. I would like to add this sentence. An easement for access is
also required for future maintenance of wetlands. Number 5, I would like to delete because it's redundant
with number 24. Number 23, I would like to delete because it's redundant with number 4, which I just
revised. Number 24, I would like to add Uli's favorite condition which adds a sentence saying the silt
fences shall be removed upon completion of Phase I. Number 27. Wait, I don't know what number we're
add. I would like to add a new condition.
Sacchet: 38.
Kind: 38, thank you. The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies.
For instance, carpooling, scheduling, traffic, police, shuttle, etc. Another condition, are we up to 39. The
applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the southeast islands of
the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area further to the east to connect with the
mowed trail. I hope that makes sense. You'll have to look at the visual example. I'll submit that. Am I at
number 40 now? Condition that staff facilitate meetings with interested parties to negotiate an agreement
regarding future West 78th Street extension and a traffic signal that would be mutually beneficial to all
parties within, help me out here.
Sacchet: One year.
Kind: One year of approval by the City Council. That's it. That's my motion.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay there's a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: Yeah. Is this the place to also mention the rewording of the findings?
Aanenson: It should be.
Sacchet: Okay. If I may add that the finding A be reworded to read, the literal enforcement of this chapter
would cause some hardship and is reasonable. And then cross out the whole rest because we're not doing
towers here. Then B. The proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to our city, and cross
out the whole rest because as the applicant has indicated, the idea of this being the focal point is not from
them and the other part we discussed. And then finding D. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not
completely self created hardship but partially due to the confluence of all the wonderful stuff.
Kind: I'll accept those.
Blackowiak: Okay, so there's a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., dated July 6, 2001, with a 2.5
foot variance from the highway corridor district building height regulations and a one story variance
from the Office and Institutional district regulations, based on the findings in the staff report, as
amended, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security
to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
All proposed vegetated, depressed areas within the parking lots shall be maintained on a regular
basis to remove sand and sediment. Regular maintenance shall keep the area aesthetically pleasing
and functioning properly.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. An easement for access is
also required for future maintenance of wetlands.
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
61
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions
of approval.
No burning allowed, trees removed need to be chipped or hauled off.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Include the south and north parts of the site in a minimum 50 scale drawing.
Add the benchmark to the plans that was used for the site survey.
Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed ponds on the plans.
Add all existing and proposed easements to the grading plan. Also, show the storm sewer on the
grading plan.
Define all of the different line types and symbols in the legend on the plans.
For all proposed and existing utilities, show the pipe type, slope, manhole rim and invert
elevations. Also, call out all watermain tees, bends, etc.
Add a detail sheet to the plan set, using all applicable city of Chanhassen detail plates.
Show a proposed concrete driveway apron at the entrance off of Tanadoona.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported from
the site, the developer will need to supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and
approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in
Chanhassen, if should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork permit
from the City.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction related activity must be sodded and/or seeded and
disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Both storm water ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water
quality standards and provide rate control that meets the pre-developed conditions for a 10 year
and 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Staff has received drainage calculations for rate control of the
ponds but water quality calculations are still required.
Prior to building permit approval, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The
storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
Show all erosion control on the grading plan. In addition, silt fence should be added along the
south property line at the edge of the grading limits. All sift fence adjacent to ponds, creeks,
wetlands, etc must be Type III heavy-duty fence. Add a wood fiber blanket over the steep slopes
62
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
on each side of the proposed building. A rock construction entrance must also be added at the
access drive to the site. All silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction.
23.
All of the utility lines within the development will be considered private and will require permits
and inspections through the City's Building Department.
24.
Prior to any development after Phase I, a second access point to the site is required at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
25. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
26. The building must be of Type I, II-F.R., II one-hour, III one-hour or Type IV construction.
27.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
28.
Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
29.
The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
30.
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 the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
31.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota Uniform
Fire Code.
32.
Required access. Per 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.1 fire apparatus access roads shall
be provided in accordance with Section 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150
feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. See also Section 902.3 for personnel access to the building. Exception # 1.
When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the
provisions of Section 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. Exception #2. When
access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, non-
negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief is authorized to require additional fire
protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Summary: because of the topography and non-
negotiable grades and wetland alterations, in lieu of fire apparatus access roads, the fire
department will allow the site plan as submitted with the addition of the fire department standpipes
to be located in areas so designated by the fire department. These fire department standpipes will
be equipped with 2 ½ inch outlets. The fire sprinkler contractors bidding the project should be
made aware of the fact that standpipes will be required even though the fire code does not require
63
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
standpipes. The architect must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the number of and
locations for the standpipes.
33.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is
required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable to and during the
time of construction. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all weather
driving capabilities. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.2 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This access road
shall be made serviceable and maintained prior to construction. Submit plans for road design to
the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to permit being
signed by the Fire Marshal.
34.
The fire hydrant shown on page C-501 will need to be re-located a short distance. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact re-location of hydrant.
35.
The developer will be responsible for a portion of the cost of the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
36.
The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies e.g.
carpooling, scheduling, traffic, police, shuttle, etc.
37.
The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the
southeast islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area
further to the east to connect with the mowed trail.
38.
Staff shall facilitate meetings with interested parties to negotiate an agreement regarding
future West 78th Street extension and a traffic signal that would be mutually beneficial to all
parties within one year of City Council approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay, and one more motion please. Wetlands. Are you ready Uli?
Sacchet: I put it away already.
Kind: I can do it. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration
Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet, which is .74 acres of wetland subject to the following conditions,
1 through 12. And I have no changes to those.
Blackowiak: There's been a motion made, is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: I just want to point out that this is based on the revised wording we got today and not on the
wording that was in the staff report because the wording in the staff report had 23 conditions, through 23
which were not part of this motion, just to be clear about that.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Correct, thank you.
Kind moved Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet (0.74 acres) of wetlands subject to the following
conditions:
1. All applicable plan sheets shall be modified to incorporate the revised wetland boundary.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan that includes a
wetland monitoring plan.
3. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Those buffers proposed to be counted as PVC shall
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet).
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city
staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
7. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
8. The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit ad storm water ponds.
10.
Type III sift fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer, or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
11.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A or a similar seed mix that
is approved for wetland soil conditions.
12.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions
of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONVERT AND EXPAND A
SELF CAR WASH STALL TO A TOUCH FREE CAR WASH AND A VARIANCE TO THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SETBACKS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7901
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.~ RON BROWN, BROWN'S CAR WASH.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners to you have any questions of staff'? Craig, any questions at all?
Claybaugh: I don't have any questions right now.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all, there is talk about the two parcels have been previously put
into one zoning lot, but then in another place it talks about, there's a condition that they have to be
combined into one lot. Can you elaborate on that?
Generous: The building official put that in because he's concerned about requirements for setbacks from
property lines. This has been done previously. We just need to provide the back-up materials.
Sacchet: It needs to be established clearer?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: But it's in place?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. Then next, we're talking about the impact on this property cost by the
widening of, was it.
Generous: Great Plains.
Sacchet: Great Plains Boulevard, and that impacted the lot size aspect. Before that it was not.
Generous: It was in excess of 20,000.
Sacchet: It was in excess of the minimum lot size. Now my question is, was it also okay with the
impervious surface? The impervious surface percentage, was that okay before that impact happened by the
road?
Generous: Under the original site plan which was approved as part of a central business district zoning
yes. But by rezoning it we change the standards so that they're 65% coverage.
Sacchet: Okay. And then, yeah and that kind of leads to my next question in that where these findings we
have this recurring theme, due to city action, due to city action, to overcome previous city action and due to
city action. It's a very convincing item here. It's basically that this has been caused by city period. Is
that...
66
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: ... acquisition of right-of-way, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Thank you, questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The acquisitions you framed it in the staff report, on page 2 that 14 feet of
right-of-way was taken from the property. I'm assuming that the applicant was compensated for it.
Generous: Sure.
Kind: So, I mean they got paid for that land that was taken.
Generous: So did we take it's entire value by buying 14 feet? We reduced it below 20,000 square foot
through that acquisition. We need to rectify that if you will.
Kind: Okay. That's my only question.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions?
Slagle: I've got to understand that again Bob. So we took some land from this applicant, compensated him
somehow, and your last comment I didn't understand.
Generous: Well by taking the land we brought him below the minimum lot size requirement. And so to.
Aanenson: Did we compensate him for that portion of it I guess is what we're saying.
Generous: Yeah, this is enough that he doesn't have, he can't use the property.
Aanenson: Right, making it non-conforming.
Slagle: Okay, I just wanted to understand.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? Name and address please.
Ron Brown: Ron Brown, 8102 Dakota Lane. I don't know if you've looked at this whole packet here. I
would assume that you did. But, well this is upside down. What we're really heading onto here is only 3
feet into the grass here. This out here is pretty much all parking lot now so as far as taking green space
away.., it's not taking away that much at all. We're going to match this building with all the materials on
this building. Same metal roofing, same siding. Same garage door, same everything. It's kind of
something here. The siding matches the other building right next door so does the metal roof. These
garage doors are used on everything.., so I think it will mm out okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is there questions of the applicant?
Slagle: Are you okay with the signage concerns?
67
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ron Brown: Yeah. Yep, yep. That was something that I guess has been going on for quite a while from
what my father told me. We no issues with that at all.
Blackowiak: Questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. You proposed widening the driveway to West 79th and staff,
they're suggesting it stays the same.
Ron Brown: Yeah. I was out there and walked the area and put little buckets out and drove in there and it
will be tight you know but I think they'll be okay.
Sacchet: It's doable, okay.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
Sacchet: It's not a major issue?
Ron Brown: No, I don't feel it's a major issue at all.
Sacchet: Adding all these extra trees, do you have an issue with that? It took me a while to figure out
where they all go but then they're quite understandable.
Ron Brown: Yeah, it did me too. I guess they were talking about putting trees in this area down here.
This is open. It wouldn't create any problems at all. Nor would this. As far as in here, what they had
talked about I guess we would just have to be careful that we don't put something in there that's going to
grow to be 15 feet wide before it gets to be 20 feet tall so it doesn't hang over the driveways or the road.
Slagle: Or block views.
Ron Brown: Well, block views is another issue but there are both entrances here so I mean you're not
going to block, a car coming in here has to come in here, the exit way over here so I don't think the views
would be too much of an issue. I guess you've just got to be real careful.
Sacchet: So it's doable.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
Sacchet: Okay. And then I wasn't sure whether I fully understood this. There was some sequencing with
the signs like some signs have to come down at some point and some signs at a later point. You're all fine
with that?
Ron Brown: I know exactly what they're talking about.
Sacchet: You know what they're talking about? Well are you fine, I want to know whether you're fine
with it?
Ron Brown: Yeah, I'm okay with that. It seems that the building we built, the touch free car wash we
have now, the signs do not comply so they want us to get them to comply. And there's also one sign on the
68
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
building that we're going to remodel right out on the street here, there's a wall mounted sign that in 1984
when that was built I'm sure was in compliance, but now that we're rebuilding the building they want us to
put a new one up that complies with everything. I'm fine.
Sacchet: And then my final question, the last condition talks about maintaining a green area south of the
storage door on the building expansion with the exception of an area immediately in front of the door.
You're alright with that one?
Ron Brown: Yeah, that's going to be a little tough. You know if we could, I guess what I don't understand
is, if you have a 3 foot apron out there Bob, is that what they're talking about that they want us to just stay
with is the 3 foot apron?
Generous: Yes.
Ron Brown: Rather than have this out here? The only thing we do is we bring a forklift in to bring salt in.
If that's a real big issue I'll get a couple pieces of plywood laid down...I don't want to mm that into an
issue, no. It's something I can live with.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant?
Slagle: I've got just two additional Alison.
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Slagle: More to Bob as well but as I sit and look at this rendition, this drawing here, and then Bob's idea
of saving some additional green space by making that curve. I actually go there quite frequently. Do you
take the new 5 dollar bills yet?
Ron Brown: That wasn't our fault. That was the government.
Slagle: But I'm raising the question of the curb because in, I usually go to the green side of things but I
know like in our Suburban, you know it's hard to sort of judge where you are when you're coming up to
the bank ATM's or what not, and I'm just wondering is it smarter just to have it as a straight line so people
can pull in and just so, you know what I mean? I mean I'm just throwing this out to the group and also the
applicant. Because I'm starting to think maybe just a quick, if we don't need that. I don't know. I mean
your view on it.
Ron Brown: On our part, seeing that you do have a Suburban, where the box is, oh where the heck are we
looking here? Where the box is that you would put your new 5 dollar bill in, there's going to be a big steel
pipe in front of it.
Slagle: In a round about way I'm also suggesting Heather drives the Suburban.
Ron Brown: As far as I'm concerned, I would rather cut the curb straight. Of course I think it would look
better, it'd be easier to get in. If that's going to be an issue from stopping the project.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay? Alrighty. Thank you.
Ron Brown: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak on this, no?
Okay. Had to give you your chance. You're here late. Alright, seeing no one else, close the public
hearing. Commissioners, your comments please.
Kind: I think improving the looks of that older building will be a nice addition. I think that's an important
street in our town being close proximity to the Dinner Theater. A lot of new people see our town for the
first time. And this opportunity to bring signs in compliance I think is kind of an added bonus. And I think
it looks good. I think it's a good project.
Blackowiak: Uli, any comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have two questions from staff. First, where in the conditions does it refer to that bubble
in the driveway need to stay? I don't see it. And I don't know if it's because it's 11:15 or what.
Ron Brown: Number 11.
Sacchet: Number 117 Oh okay. Okay, it's that and then also, so and then, it's together with the one about
that green space in front of the door. I would be comfortable getting rid of that number 11 to be honest. I
don't think we gain much by doing that and I think it's a safety issue. I tried to, I would want the
plantings. I would want the tree plantings a required, but I think on that bubble there is more of a safety
hazard than an enhancement of green space personally. And the green in front of the, whatever door we
call it, storage door, it's kind of, I think it's kind of funny. I mean if you need to go in there with a forklift,
it's in the middle of town. It's a utility place and I think the trees will give it some of the character of green
space that we try to add and I don't think the little extra green space is going to make a difference in that
sense. And also in the context that the impervious surface issue was originally also alright, according to
what you answered my question earlier similar to this lot size, I think it would be fair to be little bit flexible
here. That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments?
Claybaugh: I agree with Uli's comments with respect to the utility function standpoint. And I think it will
turn out okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, and I guess I don't have anything new to add. Straighter seems better. I mean
anybody that drives a large car can attest to that. I certainly can, but I would be, you know, I guess I could
be persuaded either way. So I guess I don't have a strong feeling. It's getting late so, I need a motion
please.
Sacchet: Alright, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 2001 with an 8.8 percent
variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the findings of fact
and subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. And please note not 11.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
70
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Kind: I'll second that with one question. Does that cover your getting rid of the plantings in from of the
service door?
Sacchet: Yes, with those pulled.
Kind: That was in 11 too? Got it.
Sacchet: The number of plantings, is the number of plantings in 117
Generous: No.
Sacchet: That's a separate one so we're covered, yes. I think we're covered.
Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Any more discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 2001 with an 8.8
percent variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the
findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Add a benchmark to the plans which was used for the site survey.
3. Add a legend to the site plan.
4. Show all proposed and existing contour lines.
5. The proposed addition cannot be built across the property line therefore Tract B and Parcel A must
be combined into one lot.
6. Detailed retail occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
7. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8. The developer shall plant eight trees on site in the following locations: two ornamental trees at the
north end of the grass area between the buildings, one overstory deciduous tree in the peninsula to
the east, one ornamental tree in the northeast comer of the property, three overstory deciduous trees
in the southeast comer of the property.
9. The developer shall submit a landscape plan to the city prior to the building permit.
10. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the expansion, the signs on the touch free buildings
shall be replaced. All non-conforming signs on the self service car wash building shall be removed.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
New signs on the self-serve car wash building will be installed after the remodeling.
sign permit is required for each sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
A separate
Blackowiak: Okay and again, item number 6, review design standards will be at the Planning Commission
work session on, tell me the date again please Kate?
Aanenson: The 21st.
Blackowiak: August 21st. So if everyone would please keep your packets.
Feik: What's the date again?
Blackowiak: August 21st.
Sacchet: That's when we meet at 5:00?
Blackowiak: Are we going to do it at 5:00 o'clock that evening?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're starting the meeting at 5:00.
Slagle: When you say keep your packets meaning?
Blackowiak: Number 6 and the supplemental design standards. If you want to just keep those two.
Because I'm guessing nothing's going to change between now and then. So okay Kate, back to new
business.
NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: I'm just going to tell you what else is on. We'll put the design standards on and then there's
two other code amendments on that night in the work session.
Blackowiak: Do you have an itinerary or what are we doing for the work session? Are we going out to
look at things or?
Aanenson: We're going to say that for our regular one in October. I thought it would be helpful to put
together some things that I think would help to talk about. Level of discretion, the review procedure,
reasonableness. Talk about some of the issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We did the mapping
with 1987 aerial photography and we've overlapped some things so we're working on that right now so I'm
going to show you where we're at with that. Again a little refresher on Robert's Rules of Order. Meeting
formats and code interpretation things. So if you have any other suggestions, kind of more nuts and bolts
stuff. We'll go out in the fall on a regular one and tour some projects. Also going to put together a slide
show for you too on that meeting on the 21st. Just some things that are happening this summer since we
can't get out to show you.
Blackowiak: Any other old business?
72
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: I don't think so.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated
June 19, 2001 and July 17, 2001 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: Did you have something you want to add? That's where it should go. It doesn't go.
Kind: Is that where it should go, or under open discussion?
Aanenson: I need to have Vicki take, open discussion by our by-laws is when we've noticed something that
we're kind of going to a work session for. If we put something on that we're going to discuss in an
informal setting, that's open discussion. Ongoing items is.
Kind: Is where I should bring up ideas for, to add to the list? I appreciate this being in my packet. I want
to give positive feedback for that. And you're like me I noticed, you put things that are already done on a
list. Couple things that came up tonight that I think it would be great if staff could look into them and
report back. One is review building height restrictions for non-residential districts. Just to kind of bring
them in snyc. We have an issue tonight where one district defines story as a limiter but not height and I'm
wondering if we could just go with height alone.
Aanenson: Do you remember we talked about the design standards. You remember we had the discussion
when we said in the bluff, the limiting factor on that was the Highway 5 corridor study. Remember when
we talked about the design standards, we said do we want to go with the limitations of the Highway 5 or do
we want to break away from that and go with the underlying district?
Kind: Right.
Aanenson: I'm not sure we reconciled that. There's a note to that in the design standards but that's what
we should talk about.
Kind: Yeah, so I just want to highlight that. And then the other ordinance that came up tonight that I'd like
us to take a look at is this caliper concept for being an okay way to meet our buffer ordinance. Whether we
think that's a good idea or not to change our ordinance to say, maybe to meet a certain amount of caliper
inches rather than a certain amount of trees. Because I like the solution. We get more trees and I think it's
so true that the smaller the tree, the better the chances of survival are. And in a few years they end up
being the same size anyway.
Aanenson: I guess yeah, and a point to that was being, based on the scale of that project, by just putting
the requirement, they're way exceeding that we felt more was better in that circumstance. Right.
Kind: Right. And maybe that's not appropriate. I'd be interested in staff taking a look at that. Whether
we want to put that caveat in our ordinance or not.
Feik: I had one real quick.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Feik: The applicant for the deck that came in this evening, when was that original application put in, do
you have any idea?
Aanenson: They were contacted. It was the meeting that we had backed up because we went til 11:30 the
last time and they were contacted. Told about the position that we were taking because 2 other people, 3
other people from that same neighborhood came in.
Feik: What I'm getting at is, I'm wondering since it seems as if that issue was a little hijacked as it relates
to those individuals, whether or not a refund could be given on their application fee. I don't think that we
should be charging them for that.
Aanenson: I can see if it was because the homeowner association put one in too so I can check on that,
sure.
Kind: Good idea.
Blackowiak: Any other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have two real quick ones. One thing I like to clarify that I'm a little confused about in the
context of the Puke development, it's my recollection that when we talked about wetland mitigation for
them that I seem to recall that they would have to do that wetland mitigation work before they do
construction.
Aanenson: That's correct. Puke has not started. We had a pre-con meeting last week. We were again
informed that they have to do that first or sequentially. And people that are working out there is MnDot
over our project. Puke has not started yet.
Sacchet: All that grading is.
Kind: That's a lot of dirt. Wow.
Sacchet: Oh my god. That I'm glad is still being recorded. The other thing, this is startling. Since we're
talking about the fen setback ordinance as being worked, I don't know whether you guys get the Friends of
Minnesota Valley thing. They're talking about fen in there so I brought my copy in case you would want
that so I'll pass that onto you.
Aanenson: And did you get your planning magazine this month? Read that in relation to our design
review. That might give you some more time. There's some great, it ties back into the city comforts which
I've gone through before. What makes good design.
Kind: I've got two. Which one are you?
Aanenson: The Planning Commission Journal.
Kind: The one that's more magazine like? Okay...
74
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay, anybody else? We're adjourned.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
75