Loading...
PC 2001 11 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Deb Kind MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; Matt Saam, Project Engineer, and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Chairwoman Blackowiak made a brief statement on how the meeting would proceed for the evening. DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. In the Villages design standards it calls for a goal of 35% of rental to be affordable and to this current TIF plan calls for 24%. Could you speak to that? Gerhardt: Yeah. We have been working with Met Council and they will be a little more flexible in allowing us to spread outside the Village on the Ponds to accomplish the affordability factor for that site. Kate, has the City Council taken action on the flexibility of that also? The modification of that? Aanenson: Correct. As we looked at the Livable Community Act and the goals, that's one of the points that we made is that it's difficult in that circumstance, the rental and we have met with the Met Council to discuss that and again that's going to be our goals to try to work in some other areas. And we won't probably be able to achieve all of the rental component. Affordability. Kind: But our role here is to determine whether this complies with our Comp Plan and our design standards for Village on the Ponds and right now the 35% is a goal? Is that how we should be thinking about that as opposed to that's a hard, fast number because this does not meet that with the 24%. Gerhardt: I thought the City Council modified that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: No. In reviewing with the Met Council, that would be our interpretation of that. It would be a goal we're trying to achieve in good faith effort and that's what their expectation that we're making good faith effort to achieve what we can within the city's financial interest. That it would be a goal. Kind: Okay. Thank you. Gerhardt: So what Met Council has agreed to that we would have to make up that difference of affordability. Not on the Village on the Ponds but that we would get credit for the Puke development. If we should happen to do more affordable units anywhere in the community. Some of the developments that Julie Frick has done through Carver County, we would get some credits for that. Any other projects that might meet the definition of affordable we would get credit for. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Anything else? Kind: No. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: What we are looking at as the Planning Commission is just the correspondence to the comprehensive plan and PUD. We are not looking at any of the financial implications of this. Gerhardt: That's correct. Even the City Council on Tuesday night will not be looking at the true financials for the development. How that's handled is through a private re-development agreement, which we've hired Mark Ruff to work with Presbyterian Homes to do what is called a but for analysis. And they have to prove that they have the need for city assistance and but for that assistance we could not create those 36 units of affordable. 33, I'm sorry. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Questions? Sidney: My question has been asked. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich? Slagle: I'm going to hold on for right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Actually I do have a couple questions here. First of all, is this TIF district tied to a specific project? So in other words, if the project does not go forward, is this TIF district ended or what's the status of that? Gerhardt: Yes. We would not create the TIF district. If you remember, I was back here with the Lake Susan Apartments and we approved, had you approve a resolution for that project for TIF assistance and the financials did not work out at the last minute on that district so we did not certify it. So we did not create the district. If that holds true with this project, we would not create the district. And this is a parcel specific. If you look at the map. All we have taken into account for this district is the entire Presbyterian Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Homes site. We're not including any other property as a part of that. So all the increment collected from this site would be created from the Presbyterian project itself. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess it was my question I guess was parcel specific versus project specific. So if this project does not go forward, nothing happens. No harm, no foul. Gerhardt: That's correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Second question has to do with, and I'm sure that this might be a silly question but property taxes on a non-profit, do they still, do non-profits still pay property taxes at the same rate I mean as everyone else? Gerhardt: This project isn't a non-profit I don't believe. It's a market rate project. Blackowiak: Well it's owned by a non-profit so I guess that's kind of my question is, is how does that affect the underlying the taxes, underlying this whole thing. Gerhardt: No. They will be paying taxes. This is, the Presbyterian Homes is, help me out here Vernelle but I believe they're just going to be the manager of the project. Vernelle Clayton: Well they're currently going to be owing but they'll probably... Gerhardt: Okay. It will be a market rate project. So under that condition I believe they have to pay full property taxes. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess that was my question. You know do non-profits pay full property taxes? And that would be something I'd like to know. Gerhardt: Most true non-profit apartments do not. They will sometimes make a payment in lieu of taxes. Or they will qualify for a low income so it's, what is it? A-1 apartments which will pay like 1% versus a market rate project will pay 2% of it's market value in property taxes so they have a lower tax rate. In this case it is going to be fully taxed because that's how they get their increment. If they don't pay property taxes, they don't get any increment. Blackowiak: Well that's I guess, that was my question. I mean if they don't pay full, that means something is decreased somewhere along the line so I just want to make sure that I understand where we are with that. So you're saying full taxes, full increments. Gerhardt: Yeah, and it's not money up front. It's a pay as you go so as they pay property taxes, those new generated property taxes would go back to make those 33 units affordable. Blackowiak: Okay. That's my questions. Rich. Slagle: Just a couple. Todd, ifI may. The TIF, the creation of the TIF if you will, is there a dollar figure that you have in mind that that will end up resulting in? Gerhardt: Well right now we're anticipating to be somewhere in the range of a million to a million 2 would be our guess. And that's about 6 to 7 years worth of increment. That's something we're negotiating with right now. And through this year, the legislators changed the tax structure in how property taxes will be Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 calculated and one of the groups out there that benefited were apartments. They will see a substantially lower tax rate. If this project was brought to you a year ago, we'd probably be here asking for anywhere from 11 to 13 years worth of increment. And because of that rate change we are now in the 6 to 7 year window. If you read through the plan, this is called a housing tax increment district and they run for 25 years. And it's our belief that after the 7 years you have 2 choices. You can decertify the district and put it back on the tax rolls or you could take the increment from this project and make other projects in town affordable to help assist other projects. So we have that flexibility. So you can either decertify, put it back on the tax rolls or take that increment of, I think it's roughly about $180,000 a year and create other affordable units in town. Slagle: Having, ifI may continue. Having not been part of the TIF situation before, I'm going to rely on your input, and can I say you're comfortable with this obviously? Gerhardt: Oh yes. Slagle: Okay. Last question. Do you see any additional TIF, whatever you want to call them, district fundings in this development coming forward. What I'll call Village on the Ponds. Gerhardt: I believe there is one more site for multi-housing on here and, but we've had no discussions on that. I'm sure Met Council would like us to try to get some affordability in there so if there is the possibility, it might be another one of those apartment complexes. Kate, do you know what site that is? Or Bob? Aanenson: There's two on the west side. East side. East side of the church. Gerhardt: Could you point on the map, just so everybody. Aanenson: This area. Gerhardt: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: If I may ask another question of clarification. So is the timeframe like, you say in the document talks about the 25 year timeframe. Now you're talking that it may be a 6 to 7 year timeframe would actually be sufficient. Is that part of the negotiation that will go on when the financials get ironed out? Gerhardt: Yes. It's called a Private Redevelopment Agreement and in that agreement you'll have a promissory note that says we will promise to re-pay you $1,120,000 if you create $1,120,000 in increment over the next 6 years. So it's called a pay as you go. If they create it, we will reimburse them. And we can keep up to 10% for administrative fees out of that so the operation of the TIF district, we have to do an annual audit on it and there's some reports that need to go over to the Department of Revenue and the State Auditor. Sacchet: You actually touched on the other question I still had. The context that Alison brought up with there being a non-profit organization behind it. Obviously this only works if they pay taxes. So if they for some reason would put the non-profit framework in place to reduce the taxes, it would automatically reduce the TIF framework, correct? Gerhardt: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: It's an automatic contingency. It's not something that we would need to formalized because it's built in. Gerhardt: It's built in, that's correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's answers it, thank you. Gerhardt: Sure. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I just want to clarify our role, I mean this discussion's interesting but our role is really to decide whether this conforms to the comp plan and our zoning districts, plain and simple. Gerhardt: That's correct. Kind: Okay. We don't get to decide whether this a good idea or not to do a TIF district. The EDA has already decided that it's a good idea. Gerhardt: That's correct. Kind: Okay. Just want to clarify so I make sure I'm thinking of this the right way. Gerhardt: The EDA has taken formal action on it. The City Council is really the body that will ultimately decide if the district is going to be created or not and they will be doing that next Tuesday. And that's a public hearing. Kind: In the staff report you recommend that we approve the attached resolution and there's several resolutions in here but I think I found the one that you think we should approve. Gerhardt: It's the very back on. If you were to mm it right over. Kind: Oh, the very back one? Gerhardt: Yep. Kind: Okay. Now to me that resolution is saying that this body approves the tax increment district. Really we are approving, basically declaring that it's consistent with the comp plan and zoning. We don't really, this resolution isn't appropriate for this body, is that, am I understanding our role right? Gerhardt: No. If you read kind of the. Kind: It's just the very tail end of it kind of a deal? Gerhardt: Yeah. Kind: Okay. Gerhardt: I mean you have to, you're approving the plan and the plan outlines the overall development of 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 the project and so you have to approve the TIF plan, the document inside here and that you're approving that the development of this apartment complex is consistent with the overall development of the community and it meets the comprehensive plan. That it meets the zoning. That we will be creating employment opportunities. Enhancing our tax base into the future and so that's what this resolution that was drafted by legal counsel is saying. Kind: That makes sense. Thank you. Gerhardt: You're welcome. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Sidney: I have one question. Looking at your objectives, on number 6. Affordable rental housing would not reasonably be expected to occur within Development District #8 and it goes on. Could you elaborate on that for the reasons? I guess what I'm trying to do is have you explain more about the basis that you believe that there might not be affordable. Gerhardt: Well a good example would be the Lake Susan Apartments. We toured those about a month ago and I think the rents in that area were in the range of $800 to $1200 and we're looking for affordability in $650 to $750 range. So what we're doing with this increment from this project is writing down the difference between that $800 and $1200. And in making those affordable based on state and federal guidelines for the affordability rents for certain incomes of family. And so without this increment, this would not be an affordable project as defined by state statute and the federal government for those rents in the $650 to $750 range. So that's what that statement is saying. Sacchet: So the tax break is just on the affordable units or on the whole thing? Gerhardt: Yep. That's what the 33 of the 161 units. When you create a TIF district, only 20% of the units can be used for affordable. So that's what we're doing. 20% of the 161 is 33 of the units so under this type of TIF district we are writing down solely the rents for those units and I don't know if I included their rent schedule for this, but they're in that $850 to $1200 range. And then in some of the dementia units they have a healthy deposit in the 5 figure area for the individuals to stay in those. So these units would not require a deposit to be in there. So they would be for seniors. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Alrighty. This item is not open for a public hearing this evening so at this point we need to have any discussion we may want to have and then make a motion. So I'll start with Deb. Any comments? Kind: I just think that our role is to decide whether this conforms with the comp plan and zoning and I feel that it does, with the caveat that 24% is working towards the goal of 35, but it is stated as a goal. Not as a requirement so I think that it complies. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Comments. Sacchet: I'm fine with it. Appreciate you're clarifying some of the aspects that are actually not directly related to what we're looking at but it helps to understand it better. Gerhardt: Not a problem. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sidney: I agree with the recommendation. Slagle: As well. Blackowiak: Okay. With that I'd like a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves the attached resolution declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 8 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole, and that's Attachment #3. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Resolution #2001-01: Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution (Attachment #3) declaring the program and plan for TIF District No. 8 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: And this is going to be heard before City Council on the 13th, is that correct? Gerhardt: That's correct. Blackowiak: A week from tonight. Gerhardt: It will be a public hearing. Blackowiak: At that time. Okay, thank you so much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 425 LAKOTA LANE~ TIMOTHY WISE. Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions? Rich. Slagle: Julie, just one. Can you tell me in May of '92, was that approval that was denied for the garage addition, was that by the Planning Commission or was that by staff'? For the building? The garage addition. It looks like the house addition was approved but the garage addition was Grove: Slagle: not. Grove: At that time I don't know if it was the applicant who decided not to build the garage addition or staff at that time said a variance would be needed and they dropped the issue. It did not go before Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Slagle: Okay. Kate, there's someone in the back who might have an answer. Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll wait for the applicant to come up. Okay. Slagle: That's it for right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions? Sidney: Couple points of clarification. Sorry I didn't have a chance to call you this afternoon but on page 3, second paragraph. This development was platted prior to the adoption of our ordinance. Could you clarify which ordinance you're talking about. Grove: The bluff ordinance. Sidney: Okay, bluff. So not setback. It's front yard setback in this case. Grove: When the lot was platted it was before any city ordinance I believe. Aanenson: For the bluff ordinance which required the 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff, that ordinance wasn't in place at the time. Grove: At the time the house was built. Sidney: Okay. And then, let's see another one. You included in their packet, well in the report the minimum driveway separation is as follows. Can you speak to the importance of that in this application? Grove: At which point? Sidney: This is zoning, page 1207. And it was marked the minimum driveway separation or was that just. Grove: That was just starred from something else prior to being copied. That was just showing that the setbacks are there. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, is that it? Sidney: Yeah, for now. Sacchet: One quick question. In terms of you make a statement that this variance would not be applicable to outlots on Lakota Lane. When I'm out there I actually looked how many of these buildings have 3 car garages already and it seems like most of them indeed do. There was only one other building, I think it was house number 535 that has a 2 car garage, but I believe that house is quite a bit further set back. On your list, do you actually see how far that one is set back, just for our reference. Grove: 57 Sacchet: 535 I think was the other one. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Grove: It's set back 100 feet. Sacchet: So that's plenty setback so we wouldn't create a precedent. Okay. That answers my question, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Deb, any questions? Kind: No. Blackowiak: No questions, okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make a presentation? Please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Tim Wise: I'm Tim Wise. I'm at 425 Lakota Lane and I don't really have any changes except to the dimensions of the structure. The plans actually show a 12 by 22 plan, and the analysis shows it as 12 by 20. So I'd like to have that corrected. Otherwise I don't have any change to the findings or the recommendations. Blackowiak: Okay, 12 by 20. Can I ask you a question then? How does that affect, is it set back farther from the front of the garage? Does it still run parallel to the back? Tim Wise: No. The setback will be 42 feet. And it doesn't change that at all. Blackowiak: Doesn't change that at all? Tim Wise: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Tim Wise: I think it's just a typo. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Tim Wise: And then the issue with why the garage wasn't put on in '92, that was my decision not to put it on. My understanding was they allowed me to put the addition on in '92 and because it wasn't coming any closer to the street and neither was the garage and I just decided not to put the garage on at that time. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Deb, I'll start with you. Kind: My only question is, staff the 20 foot, is that overhang eaves? Grove: It was a typo. On the plans it does show that it's 22. Kind: It shows 22 on the plans. Grove: Right. Kind: And actually if you're counting the overhang it would be a bigger number. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Maybe they're counting the overhang with 22. Kind: Maybe. Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions for the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah, quick question if I may. The trees, you have very nice oak tree on the site there. That probably would not be impacted. Tim Wise: No, we'd just trim it. Sacchet: Okay, you're just going to trim it. You think you'll kind of curve around it? Tim Wise: Yeah, I intend to leave those. Sacchet: Yeah. Just for my own curiosity. Tim Wise: Yeah, I wasn't planning on changing that. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, do you have any questions for the applicant? No. Rich? Slagle: Just one. More to staffifI may. So in Tim's letter to Bob he states it was approved in '92. He just chose not to follow up on the garage addition but in the staff report it says it was, if I read it right, was not approved. Do we not know for sure? Grove: We do not know for sure. I was not here at the time. From staff who had been here prior, their recollection was that it was not approved. It was just the addition that was approved. We don't know for sure. Slagle: Okay. But nonetheless it would work, I mean it's not falling outside in any of our limits as to what he can do, is that correct? Other than us granting the variance. Grove: Correct. Slagle: Okay. Tim Wise: Actually if you look at the garage addition, it actually sits farther back from the addition that was approved in '92. Slagle: Okay. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments? Uli, you want to start? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: I think it's a pretty clear request. I have no problem with it. The finding (c) that staff says, the proposed addition may increase the value of the property. I would make that more affirmative. I would say the proposed addition will increase the value of the property, but that's not the main purpose. I support approving this request. Blackowiak: Okay. Comments? Sidney: Yes I guess I agree with staff's analysis and I do believe there is a hardship due to the topography of the lot as stated in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. No? Deb, any comments? Kind: I agree. Blackowiak: Alright. And I don't really have anything to add. I do agree with the findings as they're set out in the staff report so with that I'd like a motion. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I make a move that the Planning Commission approves the request for an 8 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 12 by 20 foot. Kind: 22. Sacchet: Should we say 12 by 22 foot garage addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 4. Kind: I second that motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve the request for an 8 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 12 x 22 foot garage addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit existing and proposed elevations for the garage addition. 2. The applicant shall show driveway access to the garage addition. 3. The driveway may not be widened beyond the property line. 4. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Kate, Julie, there's no. Aanenson: It wouldn't go forward unless it's appealed. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is really Board of Adjustments? Aanenson: Correct. So unless there's an appeal, any person aggrieved of the decision has a right to appeal it within 4 days... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. the same. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. much. And I guess I was going to ask that because there a couple here, the next two are also They just didn't really say Board of Appeals specifically. Okay. Thank you very REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 7000 UTICA LANE~ HEIDI CARISCH/VERNON HALL. Public Present: Name Address Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Heidi Carisch & Vernon Hall 7000 Utica Lane Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes. I just, these two pages in the staff report. One has the survey on it and the other has that list of the setbacks. On the survey, the neighboring homes are set back 60 feet to their existing deck and the other side is 68 feet, is that right? Grove: Correct. Kind: Okay. On the sheet you just rounded up to 70 feet, is that what the deal is? Grove: Yep. Yep, it was approximate. Kind: It should actually be 68 feet, okay. I just wanted to make sure we had apples to apples going here. And then the applicant is actually 62 feet from their existing porch. Grove: Correct. Kind: And they currently have no deck. Grove: Correct. Kind: And the majority of the neighbors do have decks. Grove: Correct. Kind: Got it. Thank you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question. What kind of precedence are there? I mean we have obviously looking just at the drawing actually put in the staff report, the house to the immediate north has a setback that is the same or even slightly less, and it does have the deck the whole width of the house. And that troubled me a little bit. I mean it looks like there's an element of precedent involved. Could you touch on that please? Grove: Well the deck to the north was given a variance. That was the one property in this area that has been given a variance. The variance was, they had a deck and they were adding onto it. Slagle: Which way? Grove: Which way were they adding on? They were adding north, not towards the lake. Adding north. It was the same setback. Sacchet: They maintained the same setback but they made it he whole width, okay. I think we need to be very specific. Also that deck, is it a second level deck or first level deck? Not that it ultimately makes any difference but. Grove: It looks to be a second and, there's a picture right here. Sacchet: Both, okay. And that was, a variance for that was approved in '97. That's pretty recent, okay. That answers my question, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: No. Rich, any questions? Slagle: Yeah, I have a question. The current homeowners, how long have they resided in that house? Grove: I do not know. I believe they are here. Slagle: Okay. So I'll ask that question. The reason I'm asking that is, my next question is, when was the porch put onto the house? It appears as when, in 1960 when the house was built, it was within, maybe not at that time but current zoning laws, right? Setbacks. Grove: Yep. Slagle: Okay. The porch obviously is not within the approved setbacks so at some point a decision was made, and I'm not sure if it was before or after an ordinance went into place. Do we know? Grove: We don't know. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: We're not sure there was a building permit. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Grove: We didn't find a building permit. Aanenson: There's no record of the building permit for the deck. Back in 1960 there was no planning staff and so we don't. Slagle: We don't even have a history of when that porch was put on. Grove: Correct. Slagle: Okay. That's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Well it sounds like you have a couple questions for the applicant so would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make your presentation. Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Vernon Hall: My name is Vernon Hall. I'm at 7000 Utica Lane, Chanhassen. And I don't know, do you want to answer a couple questions first. I know you had questions. Slagle: I think I can already tell that you probably weren't there in 1960. Blackowiak: Not making decking decisions at that point, right. Vernon Hall: We've owned the house for 7 years is how long we've been there. So I've seen some of the pictures and I wanted to show the neighbors to the. This is the neighbor's house directly to the south. Again just showing the decking that's there because it's, you were looking on also the site plan that it shows that it's not totally within compliance also. And I just wanted to show also a more update plan of our decking and make some comments on that. This is an updated one of the existing with the whole site plan of it showing that the existing porch there and the deck wrap around has changed a little bit and then ending in the comer, again it's changing. We're lessening the deck area a little bit on the north end also. And with that also there's the hard cover, I mean just to make note also that you saw the note in there from the DNR as far as the runoff and concern of that. Right now existing to the south of the screened in porch it's basically solid concrete for at least the size of the porch, if not larger and that would be eliminated. That would become green area, green space there on that. And then this is a bigger plan, just so you get a good view of what we're talking as far as the decking space. And then again it doesn't show it clearly on this because it doesn't have the existing but the existing deck that we're asking for would actually come back a few feet from what's there now. And from the roof line actually it comes back about 4 feet where the surveyor's measured it. The existing from where the building is so the roof line hangs out about another 3 or 4 feet there. Sacchet: May I ask a question for clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: Are you actually eliminating the lower porch underneath? Vernon Hall: No. It would be under the existing, underneath. Sacchet: Okay just to clarify, thank you. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Vernon Hall: This would be the screened in porch area there. That would be still there, and again as you can see we'd be eliminating the hard area over there that's all existing now as hard cover. And also then to the north side of the house which is just a slope hill down now that we're planning on to tier that and again to control some of the runoff to the lake there. So and also in the recommendations I know if it was approved as far as vegetative screening in place, I mean we're totally willing or even have some plans to do more of that. Slagle: IfI can ask as well. In your request for a variance you mentioned 61 feet. The report says now 62 feet. If I'm tracking right. Do you have any issue with just keeping the porch at 62? Vernon Hall: No. I mean again we're going to be regressing back. Slagle: Understand. Understand the porch is a little further out than you're talking but just wondered, 62 feet is fine as well? Vernon Hall: Yes. Yes, and again we're back about 4 feet I think from where it's existing, the roof overhang is now. This is an elevation view, just again to kind of show what we're proposing as far as a deck on the west side of the lake. Any questions? Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? No? Anybody? You have any other questions? Kind: No. Blackowiak: No, I don't have any at this time. Vernon Hall: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, this item is open for a public hearing so anybody wanting to come up and comment on this item, please step to the microphone and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Our ordinance states that a reasonable use can be defined as a use made by the majority of comparable property within 500 feet. I get stuck on this every time we go over a variance. And I think I'm starting to get it now. The majority of the property owners within 500 feet have decks, and so the request is reasonable. And since several of the adjacent lakeshore property owners have reduced setbacks, there is a pre-existing neighborhood setback and granting this variance would not depart downward from those standards. And if we do grant it I would add a condition that the patio be removed as a condition in addition to staff's recommendations. Slagle: You mean the porch? Kind: Patio. Blackowiak: I think the concrete. The impervious. Okay, Uli. Any comments? Sacchet: Yeah. This was an interesting adventure. When I first looked at this, for one thing when we get these variances the idea is not that we approve them all. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: True. Sacchet: I mean the whole point, the approval of a variance should be the exception because why have rules otherwise? ... rules if everybody comes and asks for an exception and we give them a variance. And then being the environmentally focused person, these buildings are awfully close to the lake and from that angle I was really uncomfortable with the idea to allow further, not necessarily further encroachment from the distance but increasing the amount of encroachment into the natural buffer. However, considering the precedent in the neighborhood I have to agree that in order to be fair, it has to be considered a reasonable request, reasonable use and based on the precedent I don't think it would be fair to deny it. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well, this was difficult for me too Uli, to analyze and I think I would like to disagree with the two commissioners who have spoken, and I'll state my reasons. I do believe that staff has outlined the reasons that there is not a hardship. There is reasonable use of the property, and I do have a problem with increasing the non-conformity in it and further encroaching into the 75 foot setback and I think that is such an important setback and we've always talked about that in Planning Commission as being a very important setback which we should maintain. And I think by doing that, increasing the non-conformity, we are setting a precedence and I really don't want to cross that line so I would feel more comfortable denying this request based on that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich. Slagle: I have a thought and a question to staff. In 1997 when the variance request to the neighbors to the north I believe was granted, do we have any information? And if I have received it I apologize having just flown in but I guess what I'm trying to think, what I'm trying to find is what was the reasoning in '97 that they granted a variance approval? Grove: We don't have much information. There wasn't much from the minutes of that meeting. Basically it seems that. Aanenson: This was Board of Adjustments that made the decision. Grove: They were looking at it as replacing an existing structure. More looking at it as a repair to what was already existing. Slagle: And fair to ask, without probably having the answer was, how did the deck get put there in the first place? We see a lot of these don't we? Grove: Yes we do. It happens. Slagle: Well, let me throw one thought then is we've had discussions here regarding this setback. And for all who are here who are interested, there's been lots of debate in the last 6 months about setbacks from water. And to the point of where I think we came pretty clear that we wanted one defined number and that would apply throughout the city. We were getting away from all the different averages and who your neighbors, how far they're back and what not. So in a lot of ways, I mean this is the number. I mean plain and simple and just trying to think out as to how I will go forward with votes because the more variances we find that have been approved, it really limits us to saying yes because we have to obviously be fair to you. If your neighbor was approved, and yet you have the dilemma of you just keep creating new 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 precedence because I think if your neighbor had not been approved, I will throw out I think I would vote against it and I don't want to be unfair but I think just to try and set fairness throughout the city. Because we get some doozies of requests. That's a good word. My 5 year old and 3 year old would probably get into those but, so I think my thoughts to the rest of the commissioners is, I think I will vote for the approval but I do so pretty reluctantly. That's all. That's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Yeah, I struggled with this one as well. Looking at it in terms of what is the number? What's the right thing to do and looking at the property, I certainly can see why they would like to have a deck and take advantage of that entire, that's just a beautiful setting back there. So looking at that I certainly understand their reasons for wanting to do that. Yeah, we do have numbers. We do have certain rules. However I think one of the reasons that I look at, look favorably on this would be that the fact that the neighbors did get approved and again whether or not it was a rebuilding or actually a new deck, I don't know they want it classified. I feel that when you go ahead and do something like that and grant something like that, it's hard to say no to the next person just because the number isn't there. So I guess those are my thoughts. It was a hard one but I'll need a motion for this. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission approves a 13 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a 39 foot. Actually I don't want to say the size. For the construction of a deck based on the fact that there is a pre-existing neighborhood standard and granting this variance would not depart downward from that standard. And that it's a reasonable use because the majority of the property owners within 500 feet have decks. And I would like to make it contingent on 4 conditions. The first 3 are stated in the staff report and I would like to add a fourth that says, the existing patio shall be removed to reduce the hard surface coverage. Aanenson: Point of clarification. Can we use the word concrete. Kind: Thank you. Existing concrete patio shall be removed to reduce the hard surface coverage. Sacchet: I second that. Slagle: Can I, point of clarification? IfI can ask staff. Or actually ask Commissioner Kind. Is there a concern of what's underneath the deck as far as rocks? I mean obviously you wouldn't want patio bricks so I mean do you want anything? Aanenson: Well part of this concrete patio is off to the side. Additional, it's not underneath. It's additional to. Slagle: No, I understand that completely. What I'm saying. Kind: Do I want to make a condition what can be underneath that deck? Slagle: Yeah, or what can't be. Kind: I think the deck is in itself considered hard surface coverage so really what's underneath of it probably is not a factor. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. We need to vote on this. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 13 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a deck based upon the findings presented in the staff report and the revised plans submitted on November 6, 2001, contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that provides vegetative screen from the lake. 2. The applicant should demonstrate that no additional stormwater should be directed to the lake. 3. The deck may not be enclosed. 4. The existing concrete patio shall be removed to decrease the amount of hard surface coverage. All voted in favor, except LuAnn Sidney who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to make one point though. I guess a point of clarification. I feel we should have a maximum width for the deck. I understand you may not want to have a width and length, based on changes in the plans but I'm thinking maybe we need to talk about. Slagle: Do we need to then re-vote? Because it's already been approved. Kind: Right now it has, I put in the motion a 13 foot variance so that means it needs to maintain a 62 foot setback so that really does limit the width I guess. Blackowiak: Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure because you didn't list a specific deck size but as long as we're okay with not going any closer to the lake because that's my point. Kind: And that's what that 13 foot prohibits. Going any closer to the lake than where they currently are. Sacchet: I'd also like to point out that the revised plan that was shown actually pulled back. Kind: Pulled it back quite a bit, yeah. Sacchet: So I feel comfortable with that being in there. Aanenson: Note of clarification again. I guess staff's finding of that would be that your acceptance was based on revised plans dated today. We'd ask for a copy of that for the record. Sacchet: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, that sounds fair. Okay, so this item was the Board of Adjustment and Appeals item so any aggrieved person may appeal the decision of this board within 4 days to the city planning office. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR TEMPORARY USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6791 BRIARWOOD COURT, SAWHORSE DESIGNERS/ BUILDERS. Public Present: Name Address Noreene Zill Mark Piatkowski David A. Senner Jim Hurt Troy & Lynne Eggers 6817 Manchester Drive 6833 Manchester Drive 6829 Briarwood Court 6791 Briarwood Court 6791 Briarwood Court Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Rich? I'm sorry, you're still reading but. Slagle: No, I have no questions. Blackowiak: LuAnn? Sidney: No comments at this time. Blackowiak: Uli? Sacchet: Yes, definitely have questions. So one you already addressed. In order to have a second, third, fourth kitchen in a house doesn't really require any particular permit except a building permit, correct? Grove: Correct. Sacchet: To have an extra bathroom, same thing. Extra whatever, finish your basement, same thing. Family. Family is parents and kids. I really don't get it. We have parents moving in with their kids, same family. I think this doesn't fly. I guess that wasn't a question. Blackowiak: And your question is? Sacchet: Why the heck do, sorry the English, why do they need a variance for their parents to live with their kids? It's one family. They can get a building permit, build a kitchen. They can build a bathroom. They can build whatever they want. They can get a building permit but not a variance. It's not a multi- family house. Grove: According to the zoning, the definition of a single family, well of a dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance is that it has one of all of the amenities, and this would have two in one specific area. Sacchet: But that doesn't make it a multi-family house. We don't have more than one family in there. I mean there are lots of houses that have more than one kitchen. Certainly tons of bathrooms is pretty popular these days. I'm sorry to pounce on that but I don't get the point. I think we're off track with this one. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: This might be an issue for future work session. Changes in ordinance. I mean that might be something we need to look at, but. Slagle: IfI can ask. So from staff's perspective it truly is in essence a contradiction perhaps, there's some confusion around an ordinance that you really have to bring this up to us like you have. Aanenson: It's the state law and we've adopted it, correct. And they've come in and asked for it and complied with all the requirements. Slagle: And it basically says, and I apologize if it was in there to read but if two kitchens are in a house that becomes then a multi-family dwelling, is that verbiage? Aanenson: Yes. Grove: Potentially. Slagle: Okay. Because what I'm... Aanenson: You can have other tenants there too, correct. It's when you have other people living there. You can have up to 5, I agree with Uli. It's a fine line and if we're moving into a rental housing I think this provides also clarity. Protection for them too. It's a City Council has directed to move towards a rental housing. Slagle: I guess what I'm getting at to the commissioners though is, here we perhaps have a situation where, at least initially, at least from two of us there's this wow, this might not even be needed to be talked about like in this forum and we could find ourselves actually going against the State. State law, is that what you said it is? Which is just opposite of what we kind of talked about recently where if it's State law we really have to try and stick with it or even go beyond it. Here now we're sort of questioning a State law. So I guess and sort of with Uli's way. Aanenson: Well I guess the other point of clarification is, is it coming the correct way is that what we don't want is someone altering the exterior appearance which is critical that you don't have a door that you completely separate. Now it's two actual separate dwelling units. The intent is that it can easily be converted back to the one dwelling. When you provide additional parking spaces for the tenants, where you've got a separate entrance, separate meters, some of those things where you could call and we may not know. This is the control way we go through. We know and the neighbors know what's going on next door because we do get complaints on that situation. Where people are renting out and they may provide a separate entrance. Changing the character of looking as a single family home. Sacchet: Now we just heard that the character of the dwelling doesn't change. The utility meters don't change, which would support my case that it's really not a multi-family situation. Grove: We would concur. Slagle: I guess what I'm wondering if, and this might be easy, is could it just have been decided at staff? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Does it have to come to us? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Correct. It's a variance. Requires a public hearing. Grove: According to the ordinance. Sacchet: Now here's the real question. Is it within our reach to say this doesn't need a variance? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: It's State law is what you're telling us and we need, okay. Aanenson: It's in the zoning ordinance. You have to look at the 4 findings and attach reasonable conditions. Blackowiak: Okay. So maybe there's not a lot of room for discussion. I mean we really don't need to discuss a lot and we'll just move forward. Okay. Sacchet: It's a non issue. Blackowiak: Deb, do you have any questions at this point? Kind: Yeah, for staff right? Is that where we're at? Blackowiak: We're asking staff right now, yes. Kind: This new condition that you handed out to change condition number 3, to include this temporary aspect seems to address kind of the main issue with that might have neighborhood concern which is this could be rented out in the future. So that's the point of that. Grove: Correct. Kind: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: That's it? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to come up and make a presentation? Please state your name and address and step to the microphone. Troy Eggers: Troy Eggers, 6791 Briarwood Court and I'd just like to say that the floorplan that was presented today is the existing floorplan. We haven't made any changes to that so that's basically what we're looking at doing. That's all I had. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Troy Eggers: Do you have any questions for me? Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? No. Troy Eggers: Thank you. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. David Senner: My name is David Senner. I live at 6829 Briarwood Court and I certainly think that a couple should be able to improve their property for their parents without a lot of variance problems. I think a couple of the questions that I had were addressed by Mr. Sacchet and one was the temporary nature of the variance and I understand that it, if the property is sold that the variance terminates. Because people were wondering about the rental, like you had mentioned. And the other thing was what the definition of single family dwelling was and I'm in agreement with you. I think that in our country I think we've gotten away from parents living with families and I think it's a bad precedent to set that we have to get a variance to allow that to happen comfortably so. And the other thing is that, what kind of precedent would be set in the rest of the neighborhood if somebody had a variance for their family and parents to come live with them. And if this is granted, does that set a precedent that other homes in that area could get a variance more easily so, I kind of think it's opening a can of worms myself. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, would you like to address that? Aanenson: Sure. In the State of Minnesota this is the one use variance. Typically you cannot get a variance to a use. You can get a variance to the bulk, which would be the height, the setback, the width, but you can't get a variance to a use. This is the one exception in the State of Minnesota. We've had this ordinance on our books, the State's had it for, our city attorney said forever which is facetious but it's been on there a long time. In the 10 years I've been here this is the first request we've had. Anybody can have their grandma live with them. You can have related people living with you. Anybody. We've got that all over town. If you want a separate facility such as this, there is a mechanism that provides for protection. That they go through the certain criteria that this board reviews to see if it's being met. That's the process that this group is going through. Whether there will be a rash of these or not, this has been 1 in 10 years. I don't know. Based on economic circumstances, but people can have a member live with them. It's just the separate kitchen facilities and separate living quarters, that's the standards that are in place. David Senner: But what is defined as a separate facility? Because I know people in other neighborhoods in other states that have had kitchens and things put in and haven't had to have a variance though. Blackowiak: Kate, can you answer definition of a separate facility? Aanenson: They're living independently. They're not in a bedroom on the main floor sharing the same kitchen and bathroom. They've got their own living quarters. A separate living quarters within the same dwelling. That's how this is being defined. Blackowiak: Okay. David Senner: I would, I mean a lot of houses have separate living quarters. Blackowiak: Right. That's what I was going to say. I know a lot of people that have microwaves and fridges and so on and so forth in their basements but not necessarily anybody living there. Aanenson: Right, and they're living there and that's their permanent address at that and they've got a separate living space. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 David Senner: Well we've got possibility for a living quarters in our first floor and our second floor. Why not the basement? Aanenson: Again, the intent is that it's completely independent living. The two can function separately except for the same driveway. That's the intent and that's the way our ordinance describes independent dwelling unit. So they're not sharing a common kitchen, refrigerator, that sort of thing. David Senner: And what is the definition of single family residence? Aanenson: What I was reading from was the definition of dwelling unit. David Senner: Yeah, this was a second question. Aanenson: We just have a definition of family. We used to have up to 5 people but that's against State law so definition of a family or dwelling unit is as many people as you want. There's no limit on if you had your cousins and brothers living together, there's no limit on that. That's unconstitutional. And just for point of clarification, if anybody wanted to rent their house for a year, they got a job transfer to Europe for a year or they did a mission trip, people rent their houses all the time for a year or two. That's also another type of arrangement people make. Single family dwelling means a detached building containing one dwelling unit. And again the definition of dwelling unit would be that you've got independent living so again because this has 2 independent living. Blackowiak: Okay, so 2 bedroom areas, kitchen areas. Aanenson: Right, and the primary purpose is to live there. A lot of people have kitchens in their basement for parties, entertaining, that sort of thing but the primary purpose of this, what they've been totally upfront about is to have somebody living there. It's not for entertaining. It's to have another family members live there. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. David Senner: Well we still don't know if their unit is not a single family, right? Blackowiak: It's still a single family, correct? Aanenson: Yes. The ordinance allows for this variance to become two independent living units within that single family home. Blackowiak: Right. So it remains a single family home. Nothing changes, but as Kate was saying, State law allows one variance. Only one exception to the definition of a family living in a house. Help me out here Kate. Aanenson: That's what the variance is for. To allow more than one independent living. Blackowiak: More than one independent living area. So nothing has changed with the zoning. It's still a single family home. Nothing's changed with that. David Senner: Well I guess on the proposal that I got, it says variance for temporary use as a two family dwelling. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: That's correct. David Senner: And my question is. Blackowiak: Two separate living areas. David Senner: Is this a two family. Sacchet: Would it be a two unit dwelling? I mean it's like I'm hung up on this family thing. Aanenson: There's two families in there, if we want to call it that, correct. That's what the variance is for. Blackowiak: Right, but it's still a single, a residential single family. It's zoned. Aanenson: The zoning has not changed to allow two families there. It only goes with this specific, the applicant and request. And it goes away if their situation changes. David Senner: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Mark Piatkowski: Mark Piatkowski, 6833 Manchester Drive, Chanhassen. I'm the President of the Woodridge Heights Homeowners Association. Speaking for several people in the neighborhood, and I do commend you for having your parents and your in-laws moving in. It's an excellent opportunity to bond, especially with the grandchildren, although I do have questions about the temporary use of it. Is it something that goes away at the end of, when they move away or when their parents move out? Obviously our concern as a neighborhood is more vehicles in the neighborhood, more parking for cars for the grandparents, as well as property values of the neighborhood itself. So there are some confusion in regards to what's written in the document so they're obviously looking for some clarification to that. On the recommendation, on item number 5 it talks about by definition a 2 family dwelling is classified as an R-3 occupancy, therefore I'm not sure what this next thing means. A one hour separation. Kind: Fire. Blackowiak: Fire wall. Grove: Building code. Mark Piatkowski: Okay. And there was some confusion in regards to the letter that was submitted by Sawhorse. It talks about, there was, they do not intend to have a separate entrance to the lower level. And on another letter that sent in to the Chanhassen, City of Chanhassen, line item 4 says, it's not, I don't know if it's written correctly or not. It said utilities. Do they intend to have separate utilities installed? It sounds like it's almost asking a question as compared to stating no, they do not intend to have a separate address. Obviously we're concerned about a separate address thinking two different homes. Obviously it goes into a different type category for the neighborhood... Blackowiak: Okay, Kate let's see if we can go through his questions here. No separate utilities. No separate address. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: The variance runs with the parents or to the sale of the house. Any other questions I'm not answering? Got them all? Okay. Kind: Oh parking was one of them. Blackowiak: Parking. Kind: How many cars are allowed in a driveway and parking on the street and that sort of stuff. Blackowiak: As with a single family home. I mean you can't really restrict, I mean as long as it's an operable car, you can't really restrict. Mark Piatkowski: Right. There are covenants in the neighborhood which will direct that otherwise and we'll address that if necessary. Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, if there's anyone else who would like to come up, come on up to the microphone. If not I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please. Rich, why don't I start with you. Slagle: The only thing I would ask is, and I don't believe it will make a change but what the heck. Should we put cannot versus will not in the request for utilities? Aanenson: Sure. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, anything? Sidney: Yeah I'm in favor of granting a variance and I see this as a wonderful opportunity to encourage families to make use of, well an opportunity to have "mother-in-law apartments" in their homes. I think it's going to be an important aspect of future living for all of us. And I think the one thing that I do recommend that we add to conditions is that, I'm still worried about whether or not the lower living level could be rented and I guess I'd encourage us to think about adding a condition that would state the living level, lower living level will not be rented separately. It sounds like they're able to rent the whole property but I wouldn't want to encourage people to think of you know finishing off the basement, adding a sink and renting it out. Of course they do that for college students all the time but maybe not in Chanhassen. I want to make sure that the rental question is addressed so agree with the staff's conditions and the overall intent of granting the variance and would to recommend to do so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well I made plenty of comments already. It's one of these things where you'd almost rather not ask and just get your building permit it seems. I still have an issue, I see the State law aspect in this and if we call it a two unit dwelling instead of a two family dwelling, I think that clears it up a little bit because it's obviously one family. But I really wouldn't want to set the precedent. Everybody that wants a parent to move into their house has to come get a variance, I mean that just doesn't fly. And even if they want to 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 build them a kitchen or a bathroom or so on, an extra bedroom and a deck or what have you, it's still one family. Crying out loud. But by all means I don't want to complicate this issue further and please let's pass this quickly. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I agree with my fellow commissioners, and I would have a question for LuAnn. Do you feel that the condition that staff just handed out this evening covers the temporary nature of this and would preclude rental as an option? Sidney: I guess I'd like to state specifically. Kind: Specifically. Aanenson: I guess that was our intent, and just to take what LuAnn was saying was that if the Eggers are living there, and so that it doesn't become, that they're kind of the main tenant. They have to be the tenant in the house. If they were to move and the grandparents still stayed in the basement, that the two go together. If that makes sense? That was our intent with that language and if you wanted to tweak that, if that's what I'm hearing you're saying, similar thing. Sidney: Yeah. Just state no rental of the separate unit. Blackowiak: Uli, another comment? Sacchet: Yeah, the condition number 5. Kind: Is not a condition. Sacchet: It's not. It doesn't work. I think the first sentence should come out. We can say. Kind: I think the whole thing should come out. Sacchet: Well, I think there is some purpose in there. We say it's proposed to be members of the same family and therefore can be classified as a one family dwelling. I think that's significant. And it actually covers the concern of LuAnn's in terms that it's not intended for rental. I think that would actually be implied in that. Blackowiak: Well maybe we can add some verbiage into that to address both the rental issue and the proposal that members of the same family occupy the dwelling units, and kind of weave those two together in some way to make 5 a little more clear. Okay, that's possible. Well my only comments are, I certainly agree with this idea. We're talking tonight about affordable housing and about these other issues and this is certainly a good solution to a lot of people I think wanting to have parents move into them. I'm glad you came forward and kind of got us talking about this issue, even though it might seem silly to get a variance. I think there is an element of protection and the neighbors that talked about this I think brought that forward. Is the reason the city does that is to ensure that people are not going to finish off and rent out basements to just anyone, and this is the reason we have some of these seemingly trivial. I shouldn't say trivial but kind of questionable variance requests. Sacchet: Interesting. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Interesting. There we go. Interesting requests but there is a reason for them and I think it's for everyone's protection and I think certainly in this case it certainly works well and sort of carries forward the intent of this statute so, with that I would like someone to make a motion please. Slagle: If I can throw out something just quickly, and I'm going to make an assumption I believe is 100% correct, but I do want to just ask it. I assume this is okay with the parents. Jim Hurt: You want it in writing? Slagle: No, no. Just a nod of the head will be fine. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Madam Chair, I can make a motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: I move the Planning Commission approves the request for a temporary use of a single family dwelling as a two unit dwelling located at 6791 Briarwood Court, subject to the following conditions 1 through 5 with a couple changes. Number 3 be changed to what was handed out this evening. Did anyone read this out loud so that the people in this room have heard this temporary part? Shall I read it out loud? Blackowiak: Go right ahead. Kind: I will do that. Number 3 now says, the variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is temporarily permitted as a two unit dwelling for such period of time as the Eggers family and their parents reside at the property, or until the home is sold, whichever comes first. So that's number 3. And then number 5. I'm going to make an attempt here at this condition. It should say, since it's proposed that members of the same family occupy the dwelling units, it can be classified as a one family dwelling as defined by the building code. Therefore the second unit may not be rented separately. Oh, and number 2. This is Rich's change. Separate utility services may not be established. Sacchet: Can not. Kind: Can not. Can not, may not. Slagle: Whatever is. Kind: Actually which is correct? I'll let you decide that. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Can not, second. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a temporary use of a single family dwelling as a two unit dwelling located at 6791 Briarwood Court, subject to the following conditions: 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 The dwelling has an appearance of a single family dwelling including the maintenance of one driveway and main entry. 2. Separate utility services can not be established. The variance will be recorded with Carver County specifically stating that the dwelling is temporarily permitted as a two unit dwelling for such period of time as the Eggers family and their parents reside at the property, or until the home is sold, whichever comes first. 4. Permits for alterations must be obtained from the Inspections Division before beginning any work. Since it's proposed that members of the same family occupy the dwelling units, it can be classified as a one family dwelling as defined by the building code. Therefore the second unit may not be rented separately. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: This is a Board of Adjustment and Appeals issue so anybody who is aggrieved by this decision may make an appeal in writing to the city planning staff within 4 days. Thank you. I think at this time, I said we'd take a break at around 9:00 but I think it's going to be right now. I'm ahead of schedule, and there are two reasons for this. One, I would like to take just a quick break, but number two. We were just given a fairly substantial letter from the applicant, 4 full pages and I would like to maybe take 10 minutes so the commissioners can have time to fully look at this before we start a discussion on this item because I think it's probably going to be very important to what's being said. So with that, let's take a 10 minute break. Quick break, read and then we'll reconvene. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY~ REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, A2~ TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ RSF~ PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPERTY INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A PRIVATE STREET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD~ POWERS CIRCLE~ ARILD ROSSAVIK. Public Present: Name Address Virginia & Donald Coban 8821 Jim Kozlowski 8730 Greg Kahler 8742 Jayme D. & Carol R. Lee 1380 Tanya Parks 8750 Brenda Hill 1360 Jackie, Molly & George Bizek 8750 Arild Rossavik 8800 Rick Echteinacht 8746 Steve Buan 8740 28 Sunset Trail Flamingo Drive Flamingo Drive Oakside Circle Flamingo Drive Oakside Circle Powers Boulevard Powers Boulevard Flamingo Drive Flamingo Drive Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Cheryl Doty 8736 Flamingo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Any questions for staff right now? Kind: Not right now. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: No. Blackowiak: Rich, do you have any questions for staff? No. Before I go to Uli, and anybody who knows Uli will thank me for this. How are we going to proceed on this? Should we ask all of our questions in terms of land use, subdivision, everything? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Just go right down the line. Generous: Because you'll just be making a recommendation. Whether you approve it or deny it and it goes on so we need to create that record. Blackowiak: Okay well, Uli. Go to it. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a couple questions, as you obviously guessed. Two key questions. The land use, when you said it's domino affect. The land use is the first step? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: And so if we would want to do anything, the land use would have to be in place first? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Now my question is the reverse. Could we put the land use in place and deny the rezoning and subdivision or would it be preferable to keep it all in one package? You understand my question? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Because the land use, at least by my reading the land use request is the most cooked while the rezoning and subdivision is a little more questionable. Aanenson: But legally standing the most discretion you have is at the changing of the land use recommendation, and that's where your standing should take place. If you concur that it should be, then you would go through the rest of those. Sacchet: So we should do it as one? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: Correct, but having said that, you should also look to the subdivision because you are going to make a recommendation to the City Council, while they will make a decision. Whether or not they concur with you, we don't know but you should review that as a part of it. Sacchet: So to be really clear about this Kate, we do not want to split this thing apart? We want to deal with this as one thing? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: That's what my first one. The second major question I have, the staff report refers to this proposal or something similar to this proposal having been denied in 1998. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: It doesn't give much more information than that and my question is, what is different in this proposal here from the proposal that was denied in 19987 Generous: We reviewed the subdivision. There's nothing different. Sacchet: There's nothing different? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: So okay. Well that probably will be a question for the applicant why it should go through now when it didn't go through in '98. Okay. I had about a dozen more specific questions but I'll hold off. Blackowiak: Okay. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, my name is Arild Rossavik at 8800 Powers Boulevard. True enough the application was submitted before and I'll get into what has changed here since the last time and it's basically not that much of a change on my side. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me sir. Could I just get you to pull the microphone down a little bit. I think we could hear. Thank you. Arild Rossavik: I will go back and point to that we didn't do that good presentation last time, and I'm a little bit more prepared this time. I want to go back to, I don't need... Talking about so much about the planning here and zoning and stuff like that. Here a copy that you have... City of Chanhassen sends this letter to me in '95 and they said that they.., property taxes and they sent also on page 2 here, basically they have spent about $4,400,000 basically on the project bringing down Powers Boulevard. And in addition to this, they brought down water and sewer. There's a lift station sitting down right there now for $225,000. Nobody's using it. And this is, this water and sewer is stubbed into the property for 7 lots down there on previous...and for pre-use. Nobody's using it. They also sent me this assessment pages, and you will see my lot here, actually it's Lot number 2 is projected future units as 6 on it. This is projection done back in '93. So what I'm trying to do here to get the city to use it's resources. We have a huge investment there. I see the city as a huge investment there in infrastructure that's not being used. And we have another problem here on the property, and we have pictures up because we have a lot of traffic going down on Powers Boulevard now. The city projects in with these last years 10,000 cars a day. This is not the quiet 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 area anymore. And also we have the traffic on 41 being shut down. All that traffic has now to date moved over to Powers Boulevard. We got all the traffic from 41 and even when 41 's going to be opening up, we have no guarantee that this traffic will move back to 41. Most likely it won't because like the shortcut going down to Powers Boulevard, across 17 and coming down to Chaska. So the zoning of the area definitely changed and I didn't do that. Because of the layout of the property, we have pictures here to see that delivery trucks coming down to the neighbor on the north here, he's backing up on Powers Boulevard. And it's 45 miles an hour. That's not a good condition to be in. And these pictures here, he is backing in from the Powers Boulevard. The delivery van. And this is not a good condition. And to top it off here, I got this letter from, we have a copy from BFI. They refuse now to do delivery of waste from my property. And what is next thing to come up here, UPS? Federal Express? You can't do delivery to your property because of they don't want to back out on Powers Boulevard. It's 45 miles and there's heavy traffic. To top it off, we have this picture here. This is the result of development the city did the last time.., because they took the culvert away from my driveway and they didn't lift it enough so I have a flooding problem here. And in the winter here, this is what we're looking is pure ice. And even the city acknowledges they have a responsibility for.., down there if there's being reconstruction here being done they will, they suggest that we fix that problem at the same time. I feel that rezoning will not change the character of the area. I got townhouses next to me. High density townhouses are 3 houses down the street. So to put, like you said the PUD to the north and the west, they define the character of the area. And we go back a little bit in the staff report you'll find out this was actually supposed to be low density as a part of the Lake Susan project back in 1980 actually. And you can see that from, that's also in the staff report also. And so the appropriate zoning for this area is RSF, residential zoning. We have just what we call this spot zoning down there. Why... the 2.5 acre minimum size actually when the city is in shortage of lots actually? It doesn't make any sense to me. In addition of this zoning here, for lots, 5 more lots affordable lots. Actually affordable housing, single family housing. The intention is to develop these lots and sell them out for people to build houses themselves on them for reasonable cost. So we definitely meet the comprehensive plan of affordable housing here in Chanhassen. And we'll also increase the tax base for the city. And so finally we can get paid back from this huge investment they have on the water and sewer charges. The staff acknowledged that the use is compatible to the area, so it would not.., and can accommodate without existing services. Meaning the infrastructure's in place and would not generate significant traffic. I mean extra traffic compared to what it is now. If you looked up on a little bit further up there where we have townhouses, there with rather high density. The development now and cul-de-sac, they would provide, that would eliminate the traffic safety and we won't have this problem because trucks and my cars and UPS can come in and mm in around on the cul-de-sac. And if we look back here on this picture here, you can see the cul-de-sac will actually be, would be where the sign is actually and you see the property line, so I'm giving up all my land basically for the cul-de-sac. And my neighbor to the north there, he would have the most benefit from this cul-de-sac because as you can see, he cannot drive into his lower end of his warehouse there. He can't mm around. He has to back out again because the property is where the line is. The person...up there, he has to drive back again. So he is, as far as I'm concerned, he's the best benefactor from the cul-de-sac and this development in the first place. There are no... natural resources or physical features that cannot become... We can fit this into the cul-de-sac or the property asking developed. The tree in the front and two in the back and I don't see any big issue that they cannot be accommodated in the back there. And the reason we're not, unable to... residential, industrial use of his property. It's not an issue here actually. He can go up and as long as the city approves his business there, that will just go on. Proposed subdivision, findings number 1, 2 and 5 and 7 need to be adjust accordingly, as in the proposed additions. No changes need to be made to private, the findings. It's the city's findings actually. And 13, the rezoning findings need to be adjusted to reflect that property can be developed within the performance standards of the zoning ordinance and will not depreciate and must further identify with the rezoning is not inconsistent with official city plan. In conclusion I ask the city to adopt the findings factor and recommendations attached at the end of staff memo, but make changes to paragraph (a) and (c) 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 thereof to indicate the proposed list consistent with comprehensive plan and can be developed in conformance with the performance standards. I ask for the city then allow me to work with the staff to address the various planning issues identified. Questions? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Deb? Kind: No, I guess not at this time. Blackowiak: Okay. No? Rich, you hiding or do you have any? Slagle: No, I don't have a question right now. Blackowiak: No. Okay Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I'm going to ask a couple questions. Actually quite a lot of questions. See how far we get. So the question I brought up with staff before as how is this different to what was brought before the city, was it 3-4 years ago. You basically state it's not all that different. It's pretty much the same so you agree with staff's assessment of that. Now you mentioned some things that are benefits. Making this development go through. It's making use of the resources, the sewer. It solves the problem with the access. Obviously you'd have garbage pick-up again. I mean those are important things. And there are benefits, definitely. And are those the type of things that happened since this came to the city before? Arild Rossavik: Well that's happened since the traffic has increased and also since we did the presentation last time, I must say we didn't bring in several issues. At that point in time I didn't think about it actually. So I didn't bring about the water and the sewer problem at that point in time actually. That was in place. Sacchet: So are there any other things you can think of that are different in terms of, what I'm trying to understand is this came in pretty much the way it is apparently. A couple years ago it was turned down. Now you bring it back. Pretty much the same thing as it was then. Why should there be the decision this time? Arild Rossavik: Well I just think that the situation has changed a little bit. The city is looking for reasonable housing. And definitely that's definitely changed. Sacchet: Got more developed. Arild Rossavik: More development and use existing infrastructure. Sacchet: You got more traffic. Arild Rossavik: And more traffic and the city doesn't, well the fact is whether you even increase the tax base. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, I think that's reasonable answer. But backing up, kind of at the end of this question. I mean if this came in like that, those couple years back, I would assume that some of the similar recommendations and issues were raised that are being raised now. Arild Rossavik: Yes, but they weren't addressed at that point in time actually. We didn't address the issue. We just came, I just came to the hearing last time kind of without me making. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: It didn't go to this level. Arild Rossavik: No, we didn't go to this level actually. Sacchet: Okay, that's what I want to know because. Arild Rossavik: It didn't go to this level. Sacchet: On that basis I would like to ask your patience in going through questions because I'd like to get a sense of where you are at with some of these aspects that staff raises in the context of this proposal. So if you don't mind I'm going to go through a lot of questions. Hopefully you're quick. One of the issues that staff is raising that the lots abutting Powers are too small. What's your feeling about that? Arild Rossavik: Well I don't feel they are too small because they are, I mean the townhouses going a little bit north of the 3 houses, they have much smaller lots facing the same thing actually. What the staff had a problem with before was that somebody would put townhouses on those lots because technically they could go townhouses. You know we're not going to put, we just...because the variance I think is for 8,000 square foot for townhouses. But I'm not interested in putting townhouses in. We'd put in residential houses. Single family houses so that was the, that has never been an issue with staff before that abutting Powers Boulevard because they were basically, they will be facing Powers Boulevard but they won't be driving in from Powers Boulevard. They'd be using the cul-de-sac and coming in from the back side. Sacchet: Grading significantly impacts the character of the site. You already said you didn't fully agree with that, but you would be willing to try to minimize that. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, of course. Of course. That's just technicality actually. Sacchet: Because on the west side there was mention that the topography lends itself to tuck under type of houses. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, that's not a problem with me actually that was. Sacchet: Impact of Lot 4 with the ravines. Arild Rossavik: Well, the technical thing I got 3 ravines on my property and there's a little flat thing where actually the house will be. Or actually it will be before that. So the ravines will be back, won't affect the house there but the ravines will be actually not touch the door. And the last time the city was asking an easement on my ravines in conjunction with the park and such, and it doesn't make any difference because they will not be touched. An easement can be in place... Sacchet: So are you saying you'd be willing to move that building site forward east to some extent? Arild Rossavik: Yes. And they probably can show it better than I can. Sacchet: And that's the one on the southwest, isn't it? Arild Rossavik: Yeah, this is the one on the south, right. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: So you'd be willing to move that forward. Now you mentioned the idea of easements. Now staff was on this report such as the conservation easement over the westerly part of the property, as well as a drainage and utility easement of the ravines so what's your feelings about that? Arild Rossavik: Okay. The drainage, right now goes on the side here actually and there's no, whatever they need to have in that, I don't have any problem with actually. It's just a technical issue more than anything. Sacchet: Having a conservation easement like the way they're proposing. I guess that's the blue color... Arild Rossavik: Yeah, I'll give the land up. No issue. Sacchet: Okay, that's what I want to hear. Lot 6 could also, you'd also want to move that other easement and that wouldn't be that big an issue? Arild Rossavik: Yes, it should be worked out actually fine actually so I don't see that... Sacchet: So there seems to be not that much of an issue on the west side. It's more an issue on the east side where there's certain.., accommodations on landscaping buffer and berming. Are you referring to the townhouses and what it is up north which is a very well taken point. On the other hand we're looking at the conditioning to the large lot to the south so. Arild Rossavik: Well even the large lot to the south would be minimized impact because we don't' have a common driveway. My neighbor and myself we have a common driveway. The neighbors to the south they have their own driveway cul-de-sac down there so they'd be minimized impacted. And houses would not be so far after the first houses down there. Sacchet: The well and septic system, I assume you're fine with that. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, whatever. I'm fine with that.., going to be hooked up to water and sewer. Sacchet: I don't know whether we will be able to hear from the owner to the north because he's definitely.., in this. Are you working together to some extent? Arild Rossavik: Well I have tried to get his attention on this matter and he is here today so he probably, you can ask him yourself about that actually. I have been trying to send a letter to the effect that he would benefit from this being here. I think he's more concerned about his business actually. How it will affect his warehouse down the road. Sacchet: ... how he benefits. The tree situation. There's a fair amount of trees in the staff report that is suggested would need to be planted to establish the minimum canopy coverage as well as a significant amount of plantings as a buffer yard. What's your sense? Arild Rossavik: I have no problem. Whatever it takes. There will be minimum impact on existing trees on this development. Sacchet: Okay. What they talk about additional 3 trees. Arild Rossavik: Yes, so I will provide whatever additional trees they need to have. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: And they really have probably the most intense point then what it comes down to is that the requirement of the cul-de-sac like staff showed that it would have to come back, and really, I mean realistically, looking at this either way it is right now I kind of wonder how well accommodated that Lot number 1, that pad is now with the cul-de-sac going back pretty much with.., flag lots. Realistically speaking I think that's not a far fetched assumption. How do you feel about that? Arild Rossavik: Well, if that's what they think. But let me just show you something here. Where's an additional plat zoning there and if we go back to the picture, if we looked at the now picture there, and you see I'm giving up most of the land and maybe I can talk to the neighbor into giving up 3 feet of his land. Then we can move the cul-de-sac, then the cul-de-sac will accommodate him at a better level and all the way up there. That's a technical issue. Sacchet: Actually that touches on my last question then. Hopefully it's the last one. There is this retaining wall along the cul-de-sac towards the north and when I looked at the property, it does actually look.., to that garage from your house.., and the retaining wall will pretty much cut the access from.., north. Arild Rossavik: I addressed that issue before with the people who designed this because this is a 2 dimensional drawing. It's not the 3 dimensional drawing, so as a matter of fact his boulder will not be affected by the cul-de-sac at all. Sacchet: So it would keep his driveway... Arild Rossavik: Yeah, he would keep his driveway on this cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Well but that's not what staff put in as if this would move forward. You would be required to actually access the cul-de-sac the way I understand the staff report. So I wonder to what extent that is possible with the differences of the elevations. Arild Rossavik: Well it's my understanding, talking to the engineer when we did the.., would not affect this cul-de-sac at all. With the original plan, the revised one it was moved down a little bit actually which was on the first plan. Because that would became a very sensitive issue. They could go out there and point out exactly where the cul-de-sac got but as you can see on the picture here, the cul-de-sac, I have enough space on my land to put the whole cul-de-sac on my land. So the only thing, if he gives up a couple of feet on his side, then we don't, we can more adjoin the cul-de-sac actually. Sacchet: So you would expect that he would do some grading to actually... Arild Rossavik: Yeah, whatever. I think so. Sacchet: I think that's enough questions right now. Thank you for your patience. Blackowiak: Alright, commissioners. Does anybody else have questions of the applicant? Kind: I have one quick question. You commented that you stubbed in for 6 or 7 homes on your site for water and sewer. Arild Rossavik: Yes. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: And I'm looking at this chart with the assessment roll, and it looks to me as though you and your neighbors all pay the same amount, whether you had 4 units, 5 units or 6 units. You didn't pay extra for 6, as I understand it. Arild Rossavik: Just look at present assessment. This assessed present assessment on it. Kind: Present total assessment? Arild Rossavik: It's supposed to take, yes. Present total assessment because I can't, they can't assess me more. They came out because I just had 1 lot at that point in time. If you look at that potential future units, they didn't say it was 6 units there. They said potential future units and my neighbor has 4 potential future units. Then present total assessment is just for 1 unit. So if you times that by 6 actually, when you get $12,000 or actually $14,000 taxes coming into city just from my property. Saam: Commissioner Kind, if I could add something. Just point of clarification. There's 1 sewer stub, 1 water stub into the property to serve both, yes. To serve both the northerly parcel and Mr. Rossavik's. The assessment sheet that he shows is proposed future units that we used to propose his assessments. We looked at this property and said possibly 6 units in there. You have to do that when you're proposing assessments, and like he said, the property to the north was looked at for 4 units so he could possibly be assessed for 4 units. And just to add, neither he, Mr. Rossavik or the property owner to the north have been assessed yet, and I think I mentioned that in the staff report. Arild Rossavik: If I just make a little comment on that because his letter here when we would assess those, we pulled it back again because for legal reasons they couldn't assess us so. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions of the applicant? No? I don't have any questions either. Thank you. Arild Rossavik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, this item is open for a public hearing so if anyone would like to come up before the commission, please step to the microphone and state your name and address please. George Bizek: My name is George Bizek and my address is 8750 Powers Boulevard. We have the adjoining driveway at the bottom of the hill. At this time I do not wish to develop this property. I bought this property to have some space. It was obvious that it was laid out to begin with for large lots for a reason. Because of runoff. Because of, you look at a topographical map of the area, it's steep. That's why I bought the property. I don't want it to change and I don't want it to be stuffed down my throat that I have to change. As far as him referencing my property as a warehouse, a business. He has called you people over 3 times to go through my property to see if there was anything in non-compliance with my property and Cindy with the city did not have any problem with it. The trucks backing out of the driveway, you might, okay the red G&K truck, if that's a problem with the backing out of my driveway, I'll quit getting dry cleaning you know. The reference to trucks not delivering to us, I don't have a problem with that. The only thing the garbage company, and I talked to Cory over at the garbage company. Over at BFI because they want them curbside. That's the only reference they said. They're still going to pick up our garbage but they want it curbside. He's making an issue out of this to try to sway, to get him to develop this property. The city must have any records if there's ever been any accidents there. We have no median crossing there. Everyone who leaves our house goes down and makes an illegal U-turn on the first curb cut for the next cul-de-sac, including Mr. Rossavik. I don't know, it's pretty obvious that this really wasn't 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 meant to be chopped up that small because of the topographic layout of the property. I think it should remain that way and I think I have a bunch of neighbors here with the same lots that feel the same way. Blackowiak: Thank you. Sacchet: Could I ask something? Blackowiak: Sure, quick question. Sacchet: Since you're so much incline with this, if I could just ask a few quick questions. You already express very clearly that you don't like the idea of being forced to develop. I had some other questions here. There's some benefits in this that there is better access to cul-de-sac. Having access to water and sewer, would you consider that an advantage? George Bizek: Well water and sewer's there already. It's stubbed out on the property. Sacchet: You're not using city water and sewer. You have a well and septic system, is that correct? George Bizek: Right. Sacchet: So it's not really a benefit for you then in that sense. I mean if this goes through and you would have to access your property, your home from that cul-de-sac, do you think that would be doable? I mean considering... George Bizek: If this goes through I'm hiring an attorney and I'm suing the city because this is. Sacchet: You don't want it? George Bizek: I do not want it. Sacchet: You don't see any benefit? George Bizek: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. George Bizek: And the water and ice he shows at the bottom of the driveway in the picture that he put up himself just shows you what kind of runoff we've got. It's a large piece of property. It's all sloped. The road does not take the water. Our lots take the water. It takes it down. There's a walk path that they put in. After a heavy rain, across the ravines on the back of his property, you can see water that those walk paths are wet for a week from the water coming out of those ravines. I mean that's the amount of water. It not only gets it from our property, it gets it from the development behind us. I'm fine with it. I don't want any change. Sacchet: You made yourself plenty clear, thank you. Slagle: Let me, ifI may. Blackowiak: Mr. Bizek, could we have, I guess Rich has got a question for you. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Slagle: Just one more question. I hear you. I guess what I'm trying to decide is, is the reason you don't want your neighbor to develop, is it because you are going to be asked in essence, or required to change your driveway into a cul-de-sac? Because that seems to me the only thing from my, use of your current property that will change. George Bizek: I think it will be a detriment to the value of... Slagle: Okay, that's what I'm trying to get to. So it's the use of his land in such a way that you believe it's detrimental to your's? George Bizek: Absolutely. Slagle: Okay. Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve Buan: Hello. I'm Steve Buan at 8740 Flamingo Drive. Been here one other time doing this since the last time. IfI could have some of those, one of those maps. The large plat map that showed the area. Generous: The grading or? Steve Buan: No, the larger scope. To put some of this in a little more context to make some of the commissioners members that haven't been around. I was an original buyer in the Lake Susan Hills West development, right adjacent to Mr. Rossavik's property. You'll notice the large park area back here was originally guided to be developed. That's when we bought our home, there were potential plans for that. The city backed out of those and decided to not intensively develop this part of the park. They just put a gazebo in there. Made a flat area and left the rest of it natural. Large prairie area that's, it's a reverted prairie. Planted to convert it from agricultural use. Probably grazing. At the time with a lot of large trees in the bluff area right along this area here, which then also the one large ravine cuts right across these back lot lines here. Another large ravine comes onto my property and down here. In 1993, summer of '93 with all the rains there was a significant rain storm in June of that year. This ravine on this side sounded like Niagara Falls. The water was just pouring out of all these back lots, across this park and coming down into there. They had to come back and put large rip rap boulders in there to protect the ravine from cutting back into the properties back there. I think the parks commission made some correct decisions in not developing this. They decided to leave this a natural park area. It fits in well with the upland park being in this area. And the transition area down to the lowlands of large lots, not density development still allows a connection to the lowland park over here. To go in and densely develop all these lots across here, you're cutting off natural corridor of transition of wildlife and also views and other natural amenities that go with this park. You therefore are then changing amenities for the entire area, city of Chanhassen. Not just people that live adjacent to that. That's one issue. Just trying to address some of the things that have been brought up here. The delivery issues I believe they can be addressed through other means. In fact I can't understand why there hasn't been turnarounds mandated for those properties on their property, much like in other cities. You go out to Crystal, New Hope, anywhere up there, anybody who's got a front a Winnetka Avenue or a major front, they have a T-shaped driveway where they're mandated to have a turnaround so they don't back down. There is a turnaround at the bottom so I don't see that to be a problem. And one major problem I have, even with the development, if it ever got that far, is those houses being so close to Powers Boulevard, right along here, that I feel it's a detriment to the community. There's no precedence for houses being fronted up into residential single family homes with their back lots being butted up to 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 there. Yes, these houses are along Powers Boulevard but they from on the side street and therefore it just degrades the quality of the residential single family and adjoining areas. It just doesn't work. Doesn't work at all. Let me just conclude my remarks with, and I don't know if this got included in the current package or not but I submitted with 3 of my neighbors a letter to the Planning Commission in '98 and I'm just going to read it here. In response to notice of public hearing regarding request for rezoning and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, we as interested parties submit the following written comments per this notice. The ravine and bluff topography on the western side of this property and adjoining areas of several other properties is part of an integrated, interdependent, natural system. This ecosystem contains a complex biodiversity of plants and animals. Numerous species of trees, shrubs, and perennial plants of varying age classes from sapling to dead and decaying are present. Tree and shrub species include white pine, red pine, spruce, oaks, maples, cottonwood, ironwood, cedar, sumac and many more. This plant life system supports a wide variety of animal life, including ground nesting birds, earth and tree cavity nesting birds, numerous song birds, bald eagles, owls, pheasants, wild turkeys, deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and many more. The city parkland immediately adjacent to the southwest is directed to be a natural landscape park. The ravine and bluff system is a vital and important part of this park. Several species of animals and birds utilize the prairie grassland area for food and the ravines and bluffs for shelter. To encroach and damage the ravine and bluff complex would diminish the value of the park to the residents of Chanhassen. The character of this portion of Chanhassen is defined by the dramatic rise in elevation and stand of large, mature trees. The vertical rise from Powers Boulevard to the crest on Flamingo Drive is approximately 100 feet and is unmatched throughout Chanhassen except the bluff area of the Minnesota River valley. Unique features encompassed within the approximately 3 acres of ravine and bluff structure are a signature of this area of Chanhassen and should not be obscured or encroached upon by further development. Therefore we strongly oppose the proposed rezoning and subdivision of this property. Submitted by Steve and Christie Buan, David and Cheryl Doty, Greg and Shireen Kahler, and Jim and Sue Kozlowski. And are there any questions anybody might have of me. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? No. I would ask, I did not get a copy of that in the current packet. Steve Buan: No, it was in the last one. Blackowiak: Yeah, if you would just get a copy to Kate so that could be included in the packet that goes to council. Just written comments. It's nice to have copies of everything so that council knows what we're seeing. Okay, thank you. Jayme D. Lee: My name is Jayme D. Lee. I live at 1380 Oakside Circle. I'm the neighbor to the south and I want to state my opposition. We have a large lot and it butts against other large lots, which maximize the appeal of the large lot. Privacy, seclusion, unobstructed views. It would be an ungraceful intrusion to stick 6 houses in there, into the lot in the middle and would severely degrade the appeal of all of the bordering lots. The degraded appeal of my lot would in turn I believe degrade the value of my lot. And what recourse would I have to collect fair compensation for my lots. Other concerns, there are definitely traffic concern. Currently there are 2 residents that are right turn only. The 2, and I do from time to time see them doing a U-turn at the opening in front of our Oakside Circle and I'm concerned that if we have more residents there without, with only right turn, right turn, that we're going to have more people turning U-tums there and it could present a dangerous situation where people are stopping in the left lane to turn, to take a U-turn there. Also I'd be concerned about children, the shape of our property, it has a pointed comer which goes up into that very excellent wild land that was just talked about. And I would be concerned of children going up there to play as they would want to. Perhaps it would present a liability to 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 me if they would hurt themselves on my property. Would that mean I would have to put up fences on my property? I'd have concerns about that. Any questions? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? No. Thank you very much. Brenda Hill: Brenda Hill and I'm at 1360 Oakside Circle, so I'm 2 lots down to the south. And I want to state my opposition also. The reason that we bought the place, our homestead that we bought is because of the large lot. Because of the scenery out in back and there's a lot of wildlife and stuff like that. I think it would be detrimental to our property as well. Looking out my back window, seeing all those houses, that's not what it was meant for. It was meant for a large lot and that's why we bought it. I oppose. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rick Echteinacht: Rick Echteinacht, 8746 Flamingo Drive. I purchased my home 2 years ago. It was after the last decision was made that this area would not be developed. I'm up behind the lot being considered for change and just like the previous individual stated, the view that we have, the wildlife that goes through our back yard and down through that area is something that we looked at when we were purchasing this home. And it was kind of our understanding when we purchased the home that this decision had been made previously and I don't see any change basically from what was decided in 1998 and I would oppose this change. Any questions? Blackowiak: I don't think so, thank you. Donald Coban: My name is Donald Coban. I live at 8821 Sunset Trail. I live over the top of the hill. I was, or we were one of the first houses in the whole neighborhood. There was a neighbor to us when we built back in '75. We have 2 ½ acres and the reason we picked that spot was the large lot. Just big enough for what we wanted to do. And as things grew up around the area we became large lots and that was really great because we could see anything we wanted to do. As you can see, we've got a pretty good spot up there. We've got the park area adjoining us and it looks pretty good, so I agree with some of the things that the other people have said here. We're going to kind of suffer with the animals and things that go through our property and we can see out in the park. I just, I don't want the project to go through for the same reasons we discussed back in years before. Another little comment I've got to make is that they commented about 10,000 cars a day. That means you're going to see a car through there every 6 seconds. I don't believe that. That's 24 hours a day. It just doesn't come out right. Any questions? Blackowiak: I don't think so. Thank you very much. Arild Rossavik: I'd like to make a comment on... Blackowiak: You know, let's let everyone have a chance then if you'd like to come up again, you know as a public hearing, that's alright. Virginia Coban: My name is Virginia Coban and Don didn't ask one question that I would like to ask. Mr. Rossavik keeps saying that this is for low cost housing and I would like to ask him what he intends to charge for these lots, and if it does fit into the affordable housing guidelines. Blackowiak: Okay. I think we'll have him answer that when he comes back up. Virginia Coban: Okay, thank you. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, is there any of the other neighbors who'd like to get up and add anything else? If not, Mr. Rossavik, why don't you come up. Oh, excuse me. Carol Lee: Hi. My name is Carol Lee. My husband spoke a couple minutes ago. There were a couple of things in the materials that were passed out that in looking over them earlier this evening I feel are in error. There is a letter in the materials that is a 1996 letter from an engineer who states that there is not a wetlands issue in the area. In 1996 late, and 1997 there were significant changes made in the roadway on Powers Boulevard. And Mr. Bizek told you that there is a runoff issue in the spring, during the rain storms. In our area ourselves we find that the front area by the road is so soggy in the springtime that it's difficult to mow. So I would submit that that letter dated 1996 is at this point in time inaccurate, partly because of continuing runoff area and because there was the road worked on after that which that letter does not reflect. In addition on page 5 of the materials that was passed out, there is a recommendation that states that in order to control some of the drainage, that berm should be placed on some of the facing properties on Powers Road. I'm assuming that that would include our place which is south of the property and to place a berm on that material would further be detrimental to the drainage of that vicinity and would also be detrimental to our property value. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Would you like us to respond to that? Blackowiak: Yeah Kate, if you have anything to add right now. Aanenson: Lori's the person that does wetlands. It's her opinion there are no wetlands. We would concur there are drainage issues. We pointed that out. Two separate issue. The drainage issue. The buffering is required along a collector street. It's part of the landscaping ordinance, and that was one of the issues raised with those lots is that the lots were deep enough to accommodate that. They wouldn't access onto Powers. That's not allowed but that they have enough screening in the back yard through the berming. We wouldn't berm on somebody else's property, but that they provide a noise barrier, lights, that sort of thing, along Powers Boulevard. Blackowiak: Okay. Saam: Kate, just to add something to that. Miss Lee's concern was that we would make her property berm also. No, we obviously won't do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate, now you're differentiating between wetlands and gullies, which I think this letter did to a certain extent. Aanenson: Correct. And as by state law, as a wetland as classified by state law. Wetland Conservation Act and the drainage issue which would have to be worked through if a subdivision was to go forward. Blackowiak: Okay, which is not to say that there aren't drainage issues but it's technically not defined as a wetland is what we're saying. Aanenson: Correct. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, great. Is there anyone else before I give Mr. Rossavik a chance to respond? I guess to a couple things. Why don't you step up to the mic. Oops, sorry. George Bizek: I'd just like to address the issue of the cost of the lots. When he approached me to give me to develop the lots, he was giving me different figures of what these lots would sell for than the ones that he's applying to the city. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rossavik, why don't you just come up right now and if someone else wants to add something, they're just going to have to come after you. Arild Rossavik: Just to address the issue of why did the city bring down Powers Boulevard in the first place. It was nothing like if nothing changes. But the fact is, we have all 212 coming out now stopping at 4 right now. The next development there is Powers Boulevard. It's going to be an access road. It's going to be, these figures I have from the city for 10,000 cars a day. They don't come from me. And they can be as early as 5-6 years down the line. So either my neighbors like it or not, it's going to be heavy traffic on that road there. And also this turning around they're talking about, well most traffic will go down and hit 212 and go towards Minneapolis so by turning it won't be a serious issue actually at that point in time. I understand they don't like change. Talking about the pricing on the property. What I have in place is actually with the homeowners. They're the people who's helping out people. They put a couple of thousand dollars down of their own pocket money, and they could call their own contract could help from them. They set up a plan for that so we have about, becoming somebody goes in and appraise the property. How much it's worth and then they'll give it, they come up with a couple thousand dollars so they can build a house there, and they have about 20% in equity the day they move in. That's the goal of my planning there actually. That's the reason they don't need big mortgage payment. Pay no mortgage insurances. So this is actually the best way I don't have any pricing on this thing because you know pricing changes. It is an approach that I will not be involved with. I will provide, if it's being improved, I will, these lots will be available for sale. Not to develop for but for single persons to purchase these lots actually, and would go up and see what the price is going to be basically based on the best development cost there and whatever actually the market value and point is they will have 20% equity... Blackowiak: Okay. And Mrs. Coban had a question, I'm sorry. What was that question again Mrs. Coban, did you have a question about? Virginia Coban: ... how much he was charging. Blackowiak: Oh, what he was charging so we, okay. Arild Rossavik: Like I said, we have to work...that would determine the price of the lot. Virginia Coban: My question was whether it fit in with the guidelines of affordable housing. Arild Rossavik: I don't know what affordable is. This is going to be single family housing. Blackowiak: Alright Kate, what's affordable housing? I mean it's very unlikely. Aanenson: 134. Blackowiak: 134. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Arild Rossavik: 134 in Chanhassen? Blackowiak: Well that's the Met Council guideline for affordable, for a single family house. Whether. Arild Rossavik: It's going to be very tough to get in I can tell you that but I mean it will definitely be low, what normal pricing would be in Chanhassen. Blackowiak: Right. That's what I'm saying. You're not going to be subsidizing anybody or anything? Arild Rossavik: No. Blackowiak: No, okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, may I ask one question of the applicant? Is this plan that you've proposed the only plan that you would be willing to accept? Arild Rossavik: No. I'm flexible you know. Slagle: Let me be more specific, in number of sites. Oh, lots on the property? Arild Rossavik: Slagle: Yes. Arild Rossavik: That's flexible. I mean it's the city loss more than mine because they lose the tax revenue basically and it would just bring the cost up to get a lot actually. Because the development cost is going to be the same. It's about $150,000 to bring in the cul-de-sac. That's money I have to come up with. And also, after I have come up with all the money, I have to give it to the city as a public street. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: That's it, thank you. Okay, seeing no one else I am going to close the public hearing. Kate, before I go any further, I know I said I'd do something at 9:00. What are your feelings on issues 6 and 7? Aanenson: The applicants are ready. They're here so. Blackowiak: I know. Aanenson: It's up to you. The by-laws say 10:30 1 believe. Blackowiak: By-laws say 10:30 and I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page on that. Alright, well that being said let's yeah, let's move forward with this. Commissioners, we need to make our comments on this. Deb, why don't you start. Kind: I'll keep my comments brief. I think long and hard before I make comp plan, land use changes and this is clearly guided as residential large lot for the future. I really don't see a compelling reason, to borrow Craig Peterson's, my mentor's terminology to change that designation. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Comments? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, couple quick comments. Obviously this is a bit of contentious situation we have here. I do want to commend staff for being sensitive to the natural aspects. To topography, the trees, the slopes and all that. I appreciate that. It's difficult to untangle certainly the two lots, the one to the north and this one. I do believe it would be, in terms of our terminology, spot zoning.., those lots and it would not blend in. I do feel that the subdivision is not really feasible. I don't personally have a problem with the variance request for a private street or the access part. The rezoning sounds fairly okay. Actually rezoning does not sound alright. It's the land use that sounds relatively okay. I do see that there are some problems. In one of the letters that came from the applicant, actually both from his lawyer I believe, it was pointed out that these large lots are an anomaly within an area of a lot of single family and to the north even multi-family situation. I do believe though that it's become very clear tonight with all the different neighbors that spoke up, that it is a cohesive area within that parkland and the large lots so that we have to be sensitive to that. I don't think I can support passing this at this point. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah I look at the request for a land use map amendment and I do have problems with that, as preceding commissioners have stated. There's no compelling reason that I can see that we should change the land use for this particular area. It would change in my opinion the character of the neighborhood. I can see in the future if the number of lots might be reduced, that might not be such a problem. I do think that the encroachment into the drainageway, which we're talking about, and I guess I'd encourage staff for council to maybe do a short drainage 101 course on this particular site because that seems to be an issue. I believe staff has characterized it as a significant drainageway which should not be encroached upon. And as Uli stated, this does provide a connection point between parklands, large lot does serve a purpose here and for us to spot rezone I think would be a real problem so I would not support this. I believe this development would be premature. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I have some thoughts as well as a couple of questions for staffifI may. The development to the north, the townhomes. What was that zoned prior to being moved into? Aanenson: Lake Susan? Probably all A-2. Or agricultural. A-I, A-2. Slagle: Okay. So just a hypothetical here. If the applicant here today was not this gentleman but the other gentleman on the north lot, my question is what would we be thinking? You know. Because we have talked as a group, now I'm addressing the commission. We have talked as a group about the fact that in the future there will be changes. You know as reality sets in, as we're going to hear from another applicant on some other changes. Go with the times. And as I sit here and think of Powers Boulevard, it's going to be a busy road. And the development of the city is going to start going south. So we will have a pocket if you will, of large lots that will be at some point in the future surrounded by neighborhoods that many of you live in. It's obviously to the large lot owners that doesn't apply but to a lot of the neighbors who spoke. So I'm again just trying to think of that in a long term approach so I'm not going to stick with, and I respect the thoughts of we don't want to get into changing the zoning. Or at least encouraging that. But I do think that we have to be open to that. The question that I threw out to the applicant of a development that was not quite as packed in. I'm just letting the group know that if it was a different application I would have at least some more openness to it. So with all that said, I can't approve it now but I'm also just throwing out for the residents here today, at least this person, this commissioner believes that as time goes on that will be developed at some point. And premature is probably the best word that I can think of right 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 now, but I'd just encourage everybody to be talking because that will happen at some point. So with that said, that's enough. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners that at this point I think it is premature. I do believe that there is a real relationship, I mean the only way that I would even consider it would be that the two, 8750 and 8800 came in together. And then at that point in time we could look at how to best preserve some of those natural features because by going ahead with 8800 before 8750, in other words before the lot to the north, I think you're losing some opportunities and losing some of the possible connectivity between the parkland on the west behind the lots, and then the parkland to the east of Powers Boulevard. So I think that you know if and when these lots do come in, it needs to be together. We need to look at overall how it can work and how we can kind of keep some kind of a trail or some kind of an open space going through that. But yes, it is premature. I believe it's premature. So I would not support a land use amendment at this point in time. With that I would like to have a motion. In fact I need 3 motions. So jump in. Sacchet: The Planning Commission, well let's make it all in one. The Planning Commission recommends. Aanenson: You can do it all in one. Blackowiak: Can we take? We don't need to do them separately? Aanenson: No. Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks as well as the Planning Commission recommends denial for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. And I would like to comment, to emphasize Commissioner Slagle's comment that inevitably it will be developed at some point and I hope that at that point our discussion here with this will allow you to bring a proposal in that's going to be... Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second that. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks as well as the Planning Commission recommends denial for rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on November 26th. Thank you all for coming. Kind: Madam Chair, can I clarify that with staff? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Sure. Kind: I just want to clarify that that little caveat that Uli added at the end was not part of the motion. Sacchet: That was a comment. Kind: That was a comment that was made before it was seconded. Aanenson: Let the record show that. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO VILLAGES ON THE PONDS TO PERMIT FOUR (4) STORY BUILDINGS WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET AND THREE (3) STORIES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET AND AN AMENDMENT TO DETERMINE A FORMULA FOR CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND VICE VERSA, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS I, LLC, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions? Rich? Slagle: I'll start. Blackowiak: He raised his hand. Slagle: I raised my hand on this. Bear with me Bob. I want to understand this in layman's terms and just bear with me. The original plan, let's call it the concept of Village on the Ponds, I'm reading here in 1996 it called for 322 dwelling units. Are we on track for that or is this request that we're seeing today allow, and I'll ask the applicant as well, allowing for a lower goal or is that still on target? Generous: Well actually we would be able, potentially be able to get more dwelling units within the project because the senior housing counts for less dwelling units. But we're right on, we're at 161 units in this project. There is 162 across the street so we're right on target. Slagle: Okay. The question I had on the center, what I think you determined or showed as one. Generous: Sector I, yes. Slagle: Sector I. Explain that description of how you see that center? You said pedestrian, was that right? Generous: Right. Slagle: Okay. And we're still proceeding along that line? Generous: Right. We have, as part of the design standards there's actually a build to requirement. We want to create a public realm so wide sidewalks, 14 to 18 feet with street furniture and places for people to 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 gather. Nice landscaping. Decorative lighting and so we want to try to create a sense of place in that core, at that intersection. And we anticipate that all four comers will have very similar design elements in them. We have, well on this southwest comer we have the bus shelter and then there will be like the little courtyard area adjacent to the building. And then a connection through to the parking behind. Slagle: Okay. And prefacing this, and my commissioners know this.., not having been part of this when it first came, I wasn't able to hear a lot of these things. Last question before I continue with the applicant at some point, in our schedule we have a request to amend the PUD for 4 story building. Number 7 on our agenda is to approve a plan for a 4 story building. Are those synonymous? Meaning if 6 doesn't get approved, is 7 going to happen? Generous: They would have to either get a variance or reduce the building height. Slagle: So 7 is made on the assumption, as on our agenda item, that 6 is approved? Generous: Correct. Aanenson: You're just going to make a recommendation. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Not necessarily because it goes to council. Aanenson: You just need to make your recommendations independent and send them onto the council, but you're right. There is implications. Slagle: 6 needs to happen from our group. A recommendation for 7 to then be recommended, we wouldn't. Blackowiak: We wouldn't say no to 6 and yes to 7. Slagle: Gotch ya. Okay. Just trying to see... Blackowiak: It wouldn't make sense I guess. It's getting late. We could, who knows. LuAnn. Sidney: Nothing. Blackowiak: Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. Your pulling your trip generation numbers from this Trip Generation 6th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers. Is that a generally used accepted authority in the industry? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Just wanted to confirm that aspect. The answer is yes to that? One thing I don't understand is, we increased the capacity of these buildings by 1 floor, but we don't seem to increase the number of trips versus before and after that change. How's that work? Generous: Different trip generation rates. Aanenson: Seniors. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: The senior nature of... Generous: Yeah. Because of this dementia units have .32 trips per unit. Sacchet: Hopefully they don't drive, right? Generous: Yeah. But they do have people that will visit and also the employees that come in, and so those are accommodated in our trip rates. Sacchet: They might forget where they're driving. Generous: That's why the bus is there. Sacchet: And a similar question. When you have your total square footage, in the previous table before the change it was 391,000 and now we are at 372,000. Similar question. Why are we less when we have more floors? Generous: Because we converted square footages to residential dwelling units. As part of the original PUD they were, that was a footnote to this table and we just got rid of the footnote because we used it. We put residential in Sector IV and no office in. Additional office in Sector I, but it reduced the total square footages. Sacchet: Alright. And also you checked your math in the table against. Aanenson: Somebody did. Sacchet: Somebody did. That's my question. Blackowiak: Deb, yes. Kind: I faxed a chart. Let's just say that. Sidney: Oh Madam Chair, I do have a question. Blackowiak: No, go ahead. Kind: Want me to keep going as long as I'm speaking? Okay. I've got to chew my little hot tart here. Okay, sorry. The old standards allowed 50 feet in Sector I. The new standards allow 50 feet in Sector I. So it's really the definition of story that is being changed. Just want to make sure I'm tracking here. Also, in our old standards it stated that retail and office buildings, let's see. Oh it didn't state, it doesn't say anything about office on the first floor. In our old ordinance. That's a new thing? I'm sorry, I'm confusing myself and I'm probably confusing everybody else. This is on page 4 of the design standards where it talks about building height. Generous: Yes it was. Kind: And I thought the language about first floor, retail office buildings without residences above should be limited to 2 stories, but that's the only mention of retail and office on the first floor. The new one talks about, in Sector I we want to have residential with street level commercial or office in Sector I if we're 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 going to allow this 4 story thing. So that's new. Goll, I didn't even notice that until just now. Sorry about that guys. Aanenson: That's to make sure we get the commercial on the first floor which was the intent. Kind: And when I read that I take that to mean that the entire first floor should be retail, or commercial office. Blackowiak: Should be. Kind: Should be? Could be? Portion of it? Aanenson: Substantial. Kind: Yeah. What's staff's feeling on that? What was your intent by this language? Generous: Well, not that we require the entire first floor to be. The Presbyterian Homes is an example. We negotiate that on each one. I don't know, we could come up with the criteria. Aanenson: I think we should put something in there. Kind: I do too. Should it be a percentage or? Aanenson: As soon as we put a number, we're not going to hit it so I don't know. Kind: Okay. Aanenson: ... something we can get from the attorneys to put something in. Kind: I think that's it for staff. Yes, that's. Oh! Would you speak to how, if we shift commercial to residential, or residential to commercial, how does that affect our tax base? Generous: Well that's a big assumption. I doubt you'd go from commercial to residential. Slagle: Wait, that's not what you asked, right? Kind: I said either way. Slagle: Yeah, what's it do? Kind: What does it do to our taxes? Generous: Well apartment units pay more, or they're based on the commercial rate. They pay 2% I believe. Kind: So it's a wash? Generous: Pretty much. buildings, so. You do have a low higher valuation for commercial but then you have lower story 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Aanenson: You can get more density so. Kind: Interesting. Okay. That's it for my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well I had a question about what's driving this whole discussion about the trip generation rates and square footage. And then talking about the total square footage for Sector I. And it seems to me that being able to not, well that's not a good way to state it but, to not have to do another EAW is a driving force for this. Aanenson: Well I think there was also a commitment that we would stay within certain parameters. Certain design parameters for that, kind of our guiding principles and certainly there was a commitment level on the traffic. We've heard time and time again from the residents so we certainly don't want to exceed the traffic level. That's not our intent. What our intent is to go back and examine as the uses have filled in and we have more known's.., certain other things that are driving that but we want to be able to provide as we move along some of that flexibility as these come in. So we don't want it to exceed the ultimate approved trip generations. That's not what we're trying to do. Sidney: And then based on the numbers that you have here, you're able to meet that? Aanenson: Correct. Sidney: Right. Aanenson: That's the bottom line. Sidney: Right. Slagle: IfI can ask. Is there a, on staff's part, is there a desire or an expectation that can be stated that it will not exceed those? Aanenson: Yep, that's fine. I think what you're saying is maybe there'd be an intent statement through this intended through this PUD amendment that the intent is, and just as I stated before, put something in like that? Is that what you're looking for? Slagle: I need to think how do I say this? Again, in my short term here, this project has had more changes and updates than any project I've seen. Now albeit that's a very short window, so what I guess I'm asking is, is there some ultimate goal that we have for this development that is in essence, I don't want to say concrete but I mean it is sort of there. And everybody now understands what the playing field is as times change. I keep hearing as times change. We have this ultimate traffic trip generation goal. Am I going to hear 6 months from now that that now needs to change because of XYZ? And I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just trying to get an idea of what's happening here. Aanenson: We certainly don't want that to happen. This has been a long term project. It's pretty cutting edge when we put this. Not a lot of people doing this at the time. So based on the knowledge we had at the time, and the expectations, we put together design standards. As this has evolved, and we've recognized some things that we needed more strength on, and just for example the ambiguity of saying you can go 50 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 feet but you can only be 4 stories. 3 stories. We're recognizing some of that. I can't predict what, you know we know some of the other things that are coming in. I think you'll all be pleased with that. There's going to be use that we hadn't anticipated but we're not trying to do that. Slagle: Sure, and that I appreciate. I'll just throw one thought out for just toss around. We have a limited space. We have some interesting roadways. We've heard descriptions of what traffic does and doesn't do, okay. I mean I'm just thinking as just plain Rich Slagle from Chanhassen, that area can only handle so much traffic. I don't know what that number is. I'm assuming it's this trip generation figure that we've come up with, so I guess I'm just asking staff that, is there one area that we're sort of going to put that cap on and make, I don't, make's the wrong word. Encourage the developer and others to work within that, leaving that alone. Aanenson: Correct. Since this was approved, we're still at that number. That number has not changed. But what we've done is say within that mix, as long as you don't exceed that number, we're allowing certain mixes to occur. If you have more assisted living, then maybe you can bump it up here but we don't want to exceed that overall. Slagle: Okay. Cool. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate I just, maybe it's Bob. Can you walk me through a little bit on these allocation, the reallocation conversions? How are you getting these numbers? I mean assuming the new ones are correct, and you know I don't even care. You're getting these based on traffic? Generous: Yes. I tried to equate everything to trip generation rates, and then there's ratios that you can develop between different uses. And so if you divide the trip generations for apartments by retail you get a factor. And so that's what we used to, and then you have to bring it to a common denominator. If you're going from residential to commercial, then you have to go from unit to square footage. And so I did all the math on a spread sheet to come up with those numbers and then we rounded it to the nearest 10 to make it easier for everybody. Aanenson: And that goes directly to the heart of Rich's question. They wanted to change and we said we're not going to change if we know we're going to increase traffic so we had to come up with a methodology to back fill our position that does this support that, and that's exactly what this chart does. That's why we support that. Slagle: And I only say this in jest but is that the same source as the Culver's numbers? Aanenson: That was supplied by, they supplied that number. Slagle: There was confusion on those numbers. Aanenson: They supplied those numbers. This was our methodology based on standard applied trip generation. To give you some rationale basis to make the decision to swap within. Blackowiak: Okay. So then, I mean just for example 1 residential apartment unit equals 2 elderly independent units. That came from a book? Generous: No. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Blackowiak: Where'd that come from? Generous: They show a trip generation. An apartment unit has so many trips that it generates. Elderly housing has so many trips. Blackowiak: Half as many basically. Generous: Yes, per unit. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: And so I did all those ratios for all the uses to come up with this conversion chart. Slagle: Congratulations first of all. I mean good job of putting this together. Generous: And again it was back to, we wanted a rational basis to do that. Kind: And I checked his math. Aanenson: We were audited. Blackowiak: Somebody had to do it, right? Kind: It worked. It worked, he was right. Blackowiak: Well my second question is dwelling units. I wrote down 322. I'm seeing that a couple different places, and then I thought I saw another place. Where did I write down 433? Where did that number come from? Was that in this one or was that in the next? It could have been in the next. Aanenson: Original PUD. Blackowiak: No, it wasn't original. It seems like we're getting more dwelling units and I'm wondering where they're coming from. Generous: Well there is a potential if they converted because the residential they're proposing doesn't use all their allocations. There's like an additional 90 units or 80. I don't remember the number right now. Blackowiak: Okay, maybe that's where it's coming from. Explain that to me. Help me out with that. Generous: Okay. We started with 322 dwelling units for the project. Blackowiak: Right. Generous: Because they're converting some of those apartment units to elderly housing and assisted housing, they're not using as many. Blackowiak: Okay, so you're talking. Again you're basing that on trip generation. So it has nothing to do with units per se? 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Generous: No. Blackowiak: So you can't say you've got more units. You have fewer trip units or I don't know how you'd want to put that. But it has to do with driving. Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: The whole thing, it's traffic. Generous: Traffic is there. Blackowiak: It starts specific units. Okay. So then I guess my question is, if you're talking about, tell me about this 90 units. What are you talking about this extra 90? Where am I getting this number? Generous: Well that, if you do the math just on the residential, they're providing, what is it? 71. No, 20 dementia units which are 3 to 1 ratios so that's 7 units instead of 21 so you picked up 14. Blackowiak: Picked up? Generous: Well you haven't used 14 units for trip generations. No, it's more trips. Slagle: We need a city accountant here. Blackowiak: This is just, sorry. I'm sorry but I just, I had a real problem with this whole. Generous: There is total number of units. Yes, you can get more but the senior housing would count less against those units. If that explains it. So you're still at the, trips that you generate with 322 units, if you add the total units developed, they'd be the same. Theoretically. Slagle: Vernelle, do you have more answers? Blackowiak: Don't even go there Vernelle. Vemelle Clayton: I'll wait. Blackowiak: Okay so, I'm just wondering if we're going to get more units or if it's, how many units are we going to have? Aanenson: You possibly could get more units. Blackowiak: Do we want more units? Aanenson: Yes, that's a question you have to. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what I mean. Okay. Well I'm not going to go there right now. Does anybody have any more questions for staff? We'd better move on here. Alright if not, would the applicant or the designee like to make a presentation? Name and address please. Vernelle. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Vemelle Clayton: Vemelle Clayton at 422 Santa Fe Circle. I would rather, I'm comfortable with this. We're comfortable with everything that's been suggested to be approved. We don't have any questions, and I would rather just answer your questions rather than speak to this. Because I'd like to have a chance for these guys to get on. So if you've got any questions I'll hang around. I'll sit down if you don't. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, questions for. Uli. Sacchet: I have one question Vemelle. In what's being proposed here for us to recommend approval for, it says in Sector I, 4 stories residential with street level commercial and actually before it was 50 feet. Retail office buildings without residences above shall be limited to 3 stories, 40 feet. However what you're actually planning to do, according to the next thing which we hopefully still get to talk about, you have 4 stories that is all residential, and you have 3 story where the first floor is partially commercial, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Is there a reason why, are you asking for more flexibility there or why this discrepancy between what you're actually doing and what? Vemelle Clayton: We actually were more specific in our request initially to focus just on this project. I think staff thought it would be better to have a more general standard. Aanenson: Can we answer that question? Sacchet: Please. Aanenson: There wasn't street frontage. Our intent was street frontage. That building that's forward doesn't have street frontage. Generous: The internal street. Aanenson: Internal street frontage. Generous: It has tOt. Aanenson: The part that we're talking about is frontage here. These buildings...that frontage. Kind: On tOt it does. Aanenson: Right, but that's not the access to the street. Where we're trying to get the retail part. Where you've got the pedestrian. Generous: Where you're parking right in front. Vemelle Clayton: Our main concern is this comer. Aanenson: Maybe it needs to be clarified in the amendment specifically. The streets. Lake Drive. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: I think it's.., when we go to get specifics of the proposal. I just wondered whether there was something I'm overlooking and you answered it, thanks. Blackowiak: This item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak to the Planning Commission, come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments on this. Slagle: I'll start. I'm just sort of confused. I mean truly, and I guess what I'm, and I'll own some of this that I just need to get more in depth the history of this development. And we'll have coffee sometime. Because I'm still not clear on exactly what is intended other than I understand the stories has changed. You know stories as in buildings. So I understand that but truly, I mean and based upon some of the questions I'm hearing, and I'm just asking this out loud. Do we as a commission have a pretty good understanding of what's happening with this development? And if the answer is yes, then I have a lot of work to do. But I guess I'm just wondering, it just seems that we're raising questions and they're legitimate questions, and I almost. Here's my fear and this is where I'll end this. Is I have a fear that we're now being asked to approve this, in what I think a rather short order, and then coming along in possibly 10 minutes is to approve what I'll call a fairly major development in this city. And I think I'm getting by the pace of what's happened in the last half hour, they want this approved tonight. And I'm just throwing out as a concern to my fellow commissioners, is everybody okay with what's happening here and the pace? And if the answer is yes, then we'll proceed but just throwing that out. Okay. You don't have any answer it now. I'm just throwing it out for consideration. Sacchet: Should we make comment to this? Slagle: You don't have to. Blackowiak: This is comment time. Sacchet: I would like to make a comment to this because I think it will be overstatement for me to say that I understand the whole framework of this, but what I do understand that there's some flexibility needed and from the memo that was passed out tonight, I also understand that the City Council supports that flexibility to be put into this framework. I do think. Slagle: IfI can interject. Sacchet: Yes. Slagle: I believe 2 of the council members were not present. Sacchet: Correct... I do believe that, I personally am comfortable with this framework. I don't think it needs much deliberation. It certainly doesn't mean that I expect everybody to feel the same. Blackowiak: LuAnn, what about, do you have any your comments? Sidney: Yeah I think, you know we're faced with the situation where this area is developing slowly. I think Kate has stated that already. And we are going to see changes. We're going to have applications come in that are very attractive and in this case we have one that's going to be presented to us hopefully tonight for development and it seems reasonable, a reasonable use for the land. And stepping back and looking at the intent of the PUD, I believe it still fits the standards and we've had to make a few changes here. A lot of 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 math that we generated to make sure that we're still within the limitations of the trip generation. Then we're talking about adding another story, which I don't think is a significant, these are insignificant changes so the spirit and the intent of the PUD is still there and we're saying that we have a very attractive development that's being proposed. That we'd like to make sure that we incorporate so I don't have any problem. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I agree with LuAnn. We allowed 50 feet before. This is still 50 feet. Whether we call it 3 story or 4 story, it really doesn't make any difference to me. I would like to see some language put in regarding what we expect for street level commercial/office. Whether we keep it flexible and say a portion of the first level needs to be retail office or do we want to put 25% of that needs to be at least 25%? Blackowiak: Or a majority? 51%. I mean. Kind: Whatever. Sacchet: Then on the issue, considering that it's going to be specified in the plans we get to see. Kind: The plans that we are going to see currently have about 25% as retail/office on the street level frontage. 29%? Okay. Vernelle Clayton: I would appreciate it if you could leave it up to the, you're going to see the plan tonight, which at this point is anticipated to have the least amount of retail on the street. I really don't want to open the door to having less than what we really what for the rest so if you accept 25% here, which really kind of works for a number of reasons, including the drop off, I don't want to have to fight the battle with every applicant that comes in for another building to see if they have a standard where they only have to be 25% on the street. Kind: We could for instance say a majority needs to be a retail office and then make it an exception for the one that we're about to see because of the memory care units need to be on the first floor or whatever the reason is. Aanenson: I think that'd be fine. Just one other point. We did talk to some of the neighbors. This is one that is... it could be the 4 stories. They are concerned about views. They'd like to see the top of the steeple. I think we need.., so if we're going to be a little more specific, I think it'd be nice if we left that one. The height limitation on that building that is just right next to the residences. I know Vernelle stated that she doesn't want it but I think it's better if we put in the amendment, as long as we're amending it, that that be limited. Vernelle Clayton: I don't have a problem with your limiting the height here. I just didn't want to have everybody come.., and say on these buildings they only have to have 25%. Aanenson: Correct. I raised thattoo. I agree. Kind: Right, right. But we want to put something in there about it. Aanenson: Well one approach we talked about is it had direct frontage onto, name the specific street. That would alleviate this particular. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: Oh, with pedestrian sidewalk frontage. Aanenson: Correct. Those would fit, yeah internal streets. Kind: Has what percent a majority of commercial/retail on the first floor? Or commercial/office, I'm sorry. Slagle: Let me throw something out there. And Vernelle, I know exactly what you're asking for that flexibility but my question is, is let's just say this particular applicant that we'll see next has a very legitimate reason not to have much, that would make sense for whatever reason. At some point as the development continues, those requirements are going to have to be in place because, or otherwise you'll end up with the last 2 applicants being told that their development has to be 100% just to make that, whatever figure it is. Vernelle Clayton: That's my point. We don't want you to... Slagle: Oh just this one? Vemelle Clayton: Right. Aanenson: Right. Slagle: Okay. Kind: Suggestions. Sacchet: Yeah, here's a suggestion. Could we make this aspect of this commercial require...that they have specific area rather than the whole Sector I? Would that work? Blackowiak: Yeah I was wondering if we could just do, is it Outlot F? Is that what it's called? Generous: Yes, or Lot 1, Block 1, 7th Addition. Vernelle Clayton: This one is currently Outlot F. To be replatted. Sacchet: So if we make this part applicable just to refer to Outlot F, would that accommodate your concern? Aanenson: 29%. The remaining shall be, and then whatever number you put in there. Blackowiak: A majority. Kind: A majority. Blackowiak: Which can be from 51 to 100 percent. I mean and that allows some flexibility. Kind: Okay, was I still commenting? I think we should also add in an intent statement to, I'm calling it the footnote but it's really the paragraph below the sector totals under number 5 where it talks about the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 building square footages may be reallocated between sectors inbetween uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, and we probably should put some intent in there. With the intent to not increase traffic in the development so that our Planning Director knows what the intent is. Something like that. That's it. Blackowiak: My comments. This is just a very confusing thing. I understand the height thing. 50 feet is 50 feet. 3 or 4 stories, I don't have a problem with that. I understand the idea of keeping traffic to a certain level. The extra numbers really kind of threw me for a while. Signage, I do not feel that we should change any signage requirements. 20 feet is plenty and I think that that needs to just stay as is. And I think that we need to also consider, I don't know if we want to do this on specifically on this outlot or say, could we consider this as height changes on this outlot only? Or do we say that height changes are okay in Sector I except on, how do we achieve that? Aanenson: Except for that one lot? Blackowiak: Except for that one lot. Is it just that one lot or are there other lots? Aanenson: I would just, if we could say except for... Adjacent to Great Plains, lot. Generous: At Pond Promenade. Aanenson: Yeah, we should call that out. The neighborhood... Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say. We need to either say you know, it can only be on Outlot F or it can be everywhere except for this other outlot and I don't, or the separate lot and I'm not sure what that is. Bottom line is it's, overall I understand the height thing. The numbers, I could have a week and probably not get these all figured out but. Slagle: Let me ask, are we in danger. I shouldn't say danger, but is there any concern that if we approve this for the height and we just get some more clarification time to allow whether it's through meetings or you guys providing more information. There's no concern. Is that okay to do? I mean there's no danger in that path, right? Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Well let's just move on here. I think are we ready for a motion? Are we close? Sacchet: I'm ready for a motion. Kind: Go Uli. Sacchet: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending section d. as follows, and 1 through 5 that is. With let's see there's a couple fixes. The height, actually it's the number of stories aspect. The height really don't change but the number of stories for the building on the northeast comer. Staying with the old framework, meaning the 3 and 2 story. And with statement on the number 5 identifying that the intent is not to increase the total traffic loads. Deb, can you help me splice in that percentage of commercial please? Kind: Yeah. I'll second that and I'll make a friendly amendment that the parens of number 3. You're suggesting that number 3 be as stated in the staff report right now? 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, with the addition of excepting the multiple stories of the northeast lot. Or building. Blackowiak: On Promenade and Great Plains. Sacchet: Right. That that would stay with the 3 and 2 rather than go to the 4 and 3 stories. Kind: Okay. So we could, I'm trying to figure out where I would add this sentence. Here's my suggestion first for a condition. And maybe it's even totally a separate condition, I don't know. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority of the street frontage. Sacchet: Let's make that a separate. Blackowiak: Commercial, office or retail? Kind: What did I put? Blackowiak: Commercial/office. Kind: Commercial/office. Isn't retail commercial? Sacchet: Yes it is. Blackowiak: I thought we had. Okay we have commercial/retail or office/service. I guess maybe. Kind: Maybe commercial/office or retail. On the majority of the street frontage. And just have that be a separate condition? Sacchet: Yeah, I would recommend that. Kind: Maybe that makes life easier. Sacchet: So that would be number 6. Unless you want to splice it into. That's clear. Kind: Yeah. Put it in there wherever it makes sense. Aanenson: And did you want an intent statement in your motion. Kind: And the intent, Uli did add the intent statement. That was in his motion. Okay. Blackowiak: Uli, do you accept that amendment? Sacchet: Yes, I do accept it. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending section (d) as follows: d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent. 2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - four stories (residential with street level commercial or office) 50 feet (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to three stories) 40 feet, except for the lot on the northeast corner of Promenade Pond and Great Plains Boulevard shall be limited to three stories and two stories respectively; Sector II - three stories/40 feet; Sector III - three stories/40 feet; and Sector IV- four stories/50 feet. Building height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, and other architectural and roof accents. The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g. pedestrian passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelling Total Square Retail (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Units Feet Sector I 114,500 83,500 0 160 198,000 Sector II 60,000* 14,000 0 0 74,000 Sector III 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0 TOTAL 174,500 97,500 100,000 322 372,000 *Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel. Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic loads. The following factors shall be used in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses. 1 Residential apartment unit = 0.32 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 0.52 elderly (independent) unit. 1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service. 1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail. 1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional. 600 square feet of office/service = 1 residential apartment unit. 4,110 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of retail. 950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional. 160 square feet of retail = 1 residential apartment unit. 300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service. 290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional. In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 6. Buildings adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks must have commercial/office on the majority of the street frontage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: This goes to City Council November 26th. Generous: November 26th, yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Do we need agreement to go beyond 10:307 Aanenson: Sure, if you want to. Blackowiak: I mean I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm not sure. You decide if you want. Should we stay til 11:007 Do you want to set a time limit or til we fall asleep? Okay, let's just move on then. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF A FOUR-STORY, 90 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS AND A THREE STORY, 73 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, A TOTAL BUILDING AREA OF 254,100 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING UNDERGROUND PARKING AND APPROXIMATELY 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA ON A 5.11 ACRE PARCEL ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND MAIN STREET, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS, SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Rich, why don't you start. Slagle: Bob, just a couple. As I look at the plat if you will of this development, and seeing where they are going and seeing that it calls for commercial space, albeit not as much as originally intended. Where would the parking be for these commercial users? Could you help me out? Right smack in the middle of it? Generous: And out in front. We have short term. There is, probably for the tenant owners they're going to have underground parking that they'd be able to access so they leave the surface parking available for customers that come in. Slagle: So ifI can ask, and I apologize ifI should know this but inside, what I'll call the interior of these two buildings, how many parking spots are in there? Generous: Oh, I'd have to count them. It's on the site plan. Slagle: Just rough. Vemelle Clayton: 83. Slagle: 83? Okay. And then the commercial would be basically, if I'm looking at this, so like the southeastern and the eastern and northeastern part of it. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Generous: It'd be the entire frontage. Slagle: Okay. And then how many parking spots do you see to the southeast and I guess east? I mean is there a number? Generous: Southeast? Slagle: Well, I'm trying to figure if 101, so this second building sort of facing St. Hubert's. On the street. 15-20, 25, something to that effect? Generous: Yeah, around that. On one side.., so about 30 on both sides. Slagle: In a sense, fair parking. Vernelle Clayton: Not an excessive amount. Slagle: But fair. Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, is that it? LuAnn? Sidney: Yeah Bob, excuse me. I guess one thing I was noticing and it was not highlighted at all, or discussed that I could tell is the underground parking numbers. Did you, do you have that, is it in here? Generous: They do provide it, I calculated the numbers. They actually exceed what our parking requirements would be. The breakdown. Sidney: I guess that that could be. Generous: They have a total of 207. 83 are on grade. 72 are underground in Building I and 52 in Building II. Sidney: Yeah, that might be useful to have that in the staff report. Sacchet: I have 2 questions. I actually had 3 but I was able to count, there were certain vinyl colors even though 3 pretty much look the same, or 4. Now the thing with the windows, the window types. That seems a little open ended.., little bit more. Generous: Well we were looking at planter boxes in it. Some shutters. Maybe some round tops or half rounds on top. Sacchet: Accent type things? Generous: Yeah. A lot of window accents. We wanted to really give them flexibility. Sacchet: It's just a suggestion and they can. Generous: Yeah, they work with us. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Sacchet: Not really specific. And then my second question, it says here there are 2 urban wetlands. I can only see 1 really there.., said in the report there was 2. Generous: There's 1 wetland up in the northwest comer of the site. And then another one in the southwest comer. Sacchet: Oh, that's a wetland too? Generous: Right. That's a wetland on the end. Sacchet: And so that was my actual question is by moving that pond from the, what's that northwest next to the wetland, we actually move to this smaller wetland which is actually nice. Generous: Yeah, it opens up the southern exposure into St. Hubert's so it will improve that. Sacchet: ...okay. That's my questions. Thanks. Blackowiak: Deb. Kind: The roof type, this might be an applicant question but maybe you know. The roof shingle type, is that an architectural shingle or is it flat? Can you tell which I prefer? Generous: Yeah, that's an applicant. Kind: I'll ask the applicant that. As to what it looks like. The vine recommendation for the garage level is basically to break up the wall, because it's still going to be brick. It's basically just to kind of break it up, because it could be a pretty tall wall. Generous: They created on the south end of the building too. There's a patio area above so that will help. Kind: That looks really cool. Generous: Yeah, to soften that edge. Kind: My concern is that we're not going to be having this rock face block on the base, like we do in the apartments across the street. Generous: Right. And we're working on those. Kind: You're already working on that, good to hear. The palette that was passed around, I agree. I would like to see more boldness in the colors. I'm getting into commenting here but does staff feel it would be okay to achieve that boldness if necessary with EFIS or stucco kind of material? Because this is kind of in the accent area of the building. Generous: Well I think that's an acceptable alternative. Actually when we looked at the elevation initially we thought it was a stucco finish because. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: I thought it was too by the drawing, the renderings looked like stucco. Okay, I was just curious if we thought it would be an acceptable way to achieve that. Okay. Plantings. Oh, meters and utility boxes are not shown on these plans, as far as I can see. Did you talk about that at all? Generous: No. The applicant, their architect could probably. Kind: Mostly what I'm interested in is how they would be screened. The sidewalk that you're suggesting in the conditions, you're suggesting, could you point that out where you're suggesting that that goes again. Generous: Initially, one of them would be connecting from here out to Lake Drive. And the other one would connect actually both buildings out to main street. Kind: So there is a sidewalk there already though? Generous: Yeah, but you don't have this connection to get people across. So we'd have to have head ramps here and here, and one there and there. And so someone could actually do a loop within there if they wanted to. Kind: Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Slagle: So you could, if I can ask, are you continuing that sidewalk on the first building down to the south? Generous: Yes, that would come here and then come across at the top of the ramp down into the parking area. Kind: The Building II, how do you propose to get people out to that roundabout? Generous: They would have a connection right here. Plus there's this pass through right in the comer to get people out to that intersection. Kind: Okay. Blackowiak: Actually I think most of my questions were answered, except getting back to the whole sidewalk thing. Is there currently a sidewalk on the south side of Lake Drive? Generous: I don't believe so, no. Blackowiak: Okay, because I didn't, I don't really see one. Is that, on this side right here. I'm talking about. Kind: What's this? Blackowiak: Yeah, I don't know if that's a sidewalk or what that is. Kind: What's the checkery line? What's that checker pattern along? Generous: That would be a sidewalk that is done as part of the subdivision for this. Blackowiak: Okay, and that will happen when this. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Generous: As part of the development approval they're required to do that. Blackowiak: Yeah I was too, but then I'm like, I'm curious as to when it comes around, if you look at the, let's say I don't even know. Northwest or northern most point of the building. Look at the comer. Go up a little bit more of Building I. There. Now is there going to be any way to get around back? Is there going to be a sidewalk or where? I mean I see the same width of line. Generous: There's a sidewalk here. Blackowiak: Well what is the same width of line? Do you have any ideas on that? Kind: Is that a trail? No? Blackowiak: I don't know. Generous: Well that's, yeah. I believe that's intended for a trail or sidewalk to this patio area on the back side. Blackowiak: Well no actually, on the fourth page of the plans on the landscape plan it looks as if something is continued around about the same width as the trail or the sidewalks. Kind: Along 101. Blackowiak: Along 101 and I'm just wondering what that is. Generous: When 10 l's realigned there will be another trail. Blackowiak: So that will be eventually a trail right there? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Well that's good. Alright, well that was my big, my major. Okay, so any other questions of staff? No? Alright, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. And thank you for staying up so late. Alan Black: Thank you. I'm Alan Black, Senior Housing Partner to Presbyterian Homes. We're at 3220 Lake Johanna Boulevard in Arden Hills. Thank you for the opportunity to come forward and respecting your time, I've got maybe just a very brief background of who the applicant is. Presbyterian Homes has been in the metropolitan area since the early 1900's. About 1930 providing care to about 3,000 residents in the metro area. And we provide exclusive care to older adults and we have a continuum of care responsibility in our mission and that is to provide care to people of all levels of need. The history has started with nursing homes. More progressively over the last 10 years we've been developing assisted living, independent living.., communities throughout the metro area, and this project represents a continuation of the strategic plan to serve those residents in the southwestern metro area. We continuously find ourselves in conversations with people who want to expand those services and as we look at this area here, we felt there was a strong need. That need is predominant when you begin to look at how nursing homes have evolved, we have.., misplacement of nursing homes throughout our metro area. When they 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 were developed, which was during the early 1960's, a distribution of older adults were not in Chanhassen. This whole southwestern quadrant. As a result many of the care related options are not available in the community and our focus is on providing and creating greater continuums. This project represents an opportunity to do just that with both the assisted living and the independent living. Even the assisted living further defined in providing some memory care so our goal is to try to use residential options rather than institutional options to create service options for people. Places for aging in place. This will relate to some other campuses we have that will provide you the skill care piece. We have campuses in Minnetonka, Spring Park, Bloomington, and so this will be a continuation of the spoke of what we're doing so we're glad for the opportunity to provide housing and services. With that I think you've seen our project. I heard some interesting dialogue about trips and I'd like to reaffirm and maybe add some additional comfort in that about the average age of the people that we serve, even in our independent living is about age 82, and I saw that there was no distinguishing made between the various types of senior housing. Our's being kind of a service driven model. We probably have even fewer drivers, fewer trips than may be most typical non service related senior housing so we get some comfort there. We don't have a lot of residents out of memory care driving. However we might surprise some people with that in that we do have couples who continue to provide care to a spouse, who may be occupants of an assisted living facility and I think that is one of the opportunities that we're glad to have is to keep families together. So we might have some unusual situations to speak of but I think they'll be reasonable. We knew that you wanted to address specific questions and we thought rather than going through the 53 recommendations, maybe we'd point out a couple that we thought were maybe worthy of some additional discussion, and not necessarily resolution here tonight. But just an opportunity to express our interest in continuing some dialogue to make sure that our project can comply. Meet with your approval. And under the recommendations, we wanted to go through the vines that we talked about. We thought those were probably precipitated by concern about making sure that this building has an aesthetic appeal that doesn't reflect those buildings that maybe has not hit the mark for you in the past. We would concur. We want to have this building attractive. It's a focal point away from the church and some of those areas. We'd like to explore continuously with staff those items that could make that, for example we're using extensive amount of brick in that area rather than rock face block as an example. If we're going to cover it up with vines, we might want to come back and say you know, is it really a good idea to use brick in those areas. Or maybe there's some other ways to approach it, but we would just like the opportunity to continue to work with staff and come back to you with some alternative ideas. We have some other folks here with me tonight who will be available prior to the City Council meeting who I think may have some interesting ideas and if some of those ideas has merit we'd like to have some flexibility besides the use of vine as the sole method. Number 7. Additional fire hydrants. We're a little concerned about how those are going to impact us in terms of parking. We want to make sure that we have certainly adequate amount of fire suppression capacity on the site, but 5 additional hydrants has both impact to us in terms of both site and cost to the project. We'd like to explore that to make sure that that in fact is the right number and maybe as we look at some of our building type constructives, then that number may want to change. So we'd like to keep that item just open for discussion. Item number 24. We jumped way back. We certainly appreciate the level of detail. We're not sure that we've been through this before in a project so we're stretching ourselves here to try to anticipate which ones are the ones that are really important. 24 and 25 I'd like to put together in our wetland buffers, and the concern we have today is we're not sure exactly where the definition of wetland buffers are, but the 40 foot setback in number 25, from the edge of a wetland buffer, we're somewhat concerned and if I could just point to the area right in here, we're not exactly certain where the wetland might be, and if this current building actually meets that. And I don't know if staff has looked at that. If we think we're in compliance. Blackowiak: Excuse me, Kate or Bob, do you have any comment on that one specifically? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Generous: No. I've had discussions with Lori. I thought that was a utilized wetland, and I'll have to clarify that with her. Alan Black: So if it'd be reasonable we'd like to just continue to leave that one kind of open and see if we're okay under that area. This wetland has been kind of a hard one. We do have some decking and so forth and we have some trails through there and we wanted to respect and not create a requirement that we can't currently meet. Number 35. We concur. We'd like to continue, it sounded like from Planning Commission, you're wanting us to work with staff towards those things that can add architectural detail. And since number 35 is not well defined, we want to understand that ourselves because there's a need for us to try to design a building that works and also prices in so we'd like to continue to work with staff but right now we're not certain which level of responsibility we would have and staff would have and frankly reach a conclusion there. And then lastly number 44, public drainage and utility easements be required over the public's storm sewer line. Minimum easements shall be 25 feet, and we just haven't had a chance here to look at that and see if we're in accord with the current site plan to do that. I'd be our intent to do that but we just want to make sure that our current project meets that. I think we condensed our's down to 6 or 7 items out of the 53 so we didn't react negatively to any of the recommendations. We want to continue to fine tune and work with staff on these items if we may. And with that I would pause and try to take questions and we have our architect here, co-developer and contractor Mark Eckloh and housing construction and see what we can do to answer your questions to get the project. We're glad to have an opportunity to get to this level of detail tonight. Blackowiak: Alright. Okay, commissioners. Questions of the applicant. Deb, start out. Kind: Two questions. The shingle style, is that an architectural style or. Alan Black: I believe those are flat shingles and I think the nature of it typically because the elevation heights we're at, it's our perception that may be a very, very expensive item and we're not sure on a 4 story building at this location that there'd be any opportunity to see those. If we were down into a lower scale building, I think that would have a lot of merit but we're just not sure that that would be the best place to spend the dollars on this project today. Kind: What sort of precautions can you take to make sure that there's not that ripple effect in the summer and is there a certain kind of felt that can be used to limit that or? Alan Black: Okay thank you. Maybe I could pass that question to this is Mark Eckloh. Mark Eckloh: My name is Mark Eckloh. I'm with Senior Housing Construction. Co-developer on the project. And I live in Chaska. To answer your question specifically, with the height of these buildings, typically what we have is fairly low roof styles on the main body of the roof. Probably in the range of a 5:12 typically. Because of the height of the building we're usually fighting the foot restriction of the 50 foot height to begin with. The second thing is when you look at the elevation of the building, we do not want to draw attention to that big mass of asphalt so typically by trying to lower that and make that less of an appearance is our goal. To answer your question specifically about the rippling effect, this is an XP25 fiberglass shingle which is completely different than what's on residential and because of the thickness of it and because of the fire requirements, the fire code requirements to this shingle, you don't get that rippling effect that you are referring to that you see in residential construction. Kind: There's a few apartment buildings around too that get it too. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Mark Eckloh: Okay. Kind: So that's my concern is I want to make sure it's a quality looking building, because it really is. And I sure would hate to have the shingles detract from that. Mark Eckloh: We do have some feature areas though, on the entrance to these areas and these lower roof areas that are proposed to be a different type. There was some discussion about, and correct me if I'm wrong Ward, that there was some discussion about a standing seam metal roof on some of these areas and so some of the lower areas that you see on the model, there would be where we would spend the money and make a focal point of the roof as opposed to the broader flat area up on top. Kind: Okay. And then meters and utility boxes, that sort of thing. How do you propose. Mark Eckloh: One per building. Kind: One per building. Mark Eckloh: One here, one there. All the utilities are paid for by Presbyterian Homes. It's included in the residents rent. Kind: And are they outside? Will they be screened from public view, or are they located inside? Mark Eckloh: I don't know how Chanhassen handles their meters per se but typically with one on each building, they're usually some kind of fashion on the outside but they're not objectionable. It's not like they have a whole bunch of them. I don't know how they do their water meters. Usually that's some type of remote so there's just a counter on the exterior of the building so it's pretty, not a big item. But we only have one per building. Kind: Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: That's enough? Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. Making the colors a little bit more of a contrast. Do you have an issue with that? Mark Eckloh: We have no issue with that but I think in reality in trying to be totally honest with both staff and with council I think there will be a difficulty in finding a lot of colors. As you look around our neighborhoods, unfortunately or fortunately, however you view it, most people seem to pick beige colored sidings so if you go to a vinyl manufacturer, which we can bring in 4 or 5 different manufacturers that make vinyl, you will find no dark colors. I don't want to lie to you and say that there's a dark green out there. They don't make it. There's no demand for it. You don't see it in any of your neighborhoods. Sacchet: I don't think it has to be said to be dark. Just a little more contrast I guess that's what. Mark Eckloh: We're certainly not opposed to that, provided it's one of the normal siding. We don't want to have to special order a product. We want to be able to use the normal vendors but there really isn't much of a selection and as you look at most of our new neighborhoods unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a broad selection of color in the vinyl's. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Kind: Sorry to interrupt you Uli. You hit on the point I forgot about. Would you consider using a different material? Mark Eckloh: Well stucco is a tremendous cost difference to us obviously than vinyl. We focus when we designed this building originally, we focused and were given direction both by some of the people at city staff and also with the architecture group to focus on brick, and we have put an extensive amount of brick and we do have a lot of areas and obviously this is in reference to the project across the street, where there is a lot of cut face block that's exposed. We have none. We've covered, we have a lot of garage area that shows on this because of the elevations of these buildings and we've.., brick. And the other thing about for us is that the siding aspect, and this may seem small but for senior housing the siding aspect is critical because we're trying to make it look residential and feel residential. We want these older people to feel like they're in a residential home, not some type of institutional home. And even though you see stucco homes, brick and stucco tends to look more institutional than siding so we try to keep a siding aspect to the home just because we like the aspect of trying to make it feel more residential. So I guess to be honest with you we would like to avoid going to stucco if at all possible. We don't see that as a benefit to this project and we would rather do other treatments in terms of awnings or windows or those kind of things than stucco. Kind: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. All these units are going to be rental units, correct? Alan Black: All the units are in a rental unit and the program here provides that residents aren't signing long term leases. They're a 30 day lease requirement so. Sacchet: Then just to really briefly touch on this, and the Milo Architecture Group letter there was recommendation to give it a little more of a modem twist. Make it a little more contemporary. Probably some of those would be accomplished by having a little more contrasting colors and the window accent elements introduced. Is that correct? Alan Black: I think through the staff recommendations we have here, there's some ideas to modernize it through the use of windows, awnings, some coloration and so I think we'll accomplish Milo's... I think so anyway. Sacchet: That's all my questions. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: I guess a question about your lighting plan. Could you explain that? You know light fixtures, exterior lighting. Mark Eckloh: You got us. In terms of interior lighting, we were told that there was a need for shoebox, you know the standard box lighting that just goes down in terms of the parking lot. In terms of the decorative lighting on the exterior of main street and Lake Drive, I assume that we would be matching whatever is going on throughout the balance of the project, but apart from that we don't have anything specific. If it worked with council, or Planning Commission I'm sorry, we would prefer the decorative lighting interior as well. Most of our projects, we like the old fashion lighting and we like that but I know there's objections to communities not to having. We think when you talk about all these buildings and 69 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 trying to put features in, to put those ugly shoebox lights is a problem but we realize that we have to respect other people's space as well in terms of that but we prefer the decorative lighting in terms of the interior space as well. If we could do that. Generous: Go for it. It's permitted under the design standards. Sidney: Yeah, I think that would really enhance the project. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: Just one question regarding the air conditioning, trying to think of the, the air conditioning and furnace but there's no exterior units or anything like that? There is? Well then I'm trying to see. Alan Black: The plan for the independent living building is a product type, you may refer to it as a magic pack or sky pack and there is some exterior grills and venting that comes out. However by the way they've designed it, that occurs, and I don't know if this plan would even show it. It actually occurs out on the balcony areas. Would you like to try to show, do we have that on our plans, on an elevation here? Mark Eckloh: Al's one plan behind. It's a 4 pipe system which means that it has all centralized heating and cooling so that there is a massive chiller unit, but it's built into a rooftop scenario so there is not a chiller unit sitting on the ground. There might be a scenario where there might be one or two small air conditioning units, and that heat that central core area, but that would be no bigger in terms than what the air conditioning unit you have sitting at your current home, but the chiller is designed to go on the roof area over on Building II there. Sidney: Not screened? Mark Eckloh: It's all screened, yes. You wouldn't see it. That's correct. There's a mansard roof, and then it creates a flat spot inside so visually you can't see the chiller unit. Blackowiak: I guess I don't have any questions right now. Do you have anybody else that's interested in presenting? Alan Black: Just one quick thought in terms of all your concerns about height. The 4 story building is actually 8 feet lower in elevation than the 3 story building. The way the topography works out, the 3 story building is 8 feet higher so even though we have a 4 story building, if you look closely here, and this is an actual scale model, the roofs are basically the same height. So because of the way the topography of the site works, the 4 story building won't appear to anyone looking across from the area over to the northeast, or coming in, the building won't appear any higher from the interior of the project than the 3 story building just because this building sits 8 feet lower on the site to begin with. So I think it helps alleviate those fears about the height scenario. Blackowiak: I have a question that just made me think of something, and I don't know if it's for you or for staff. St. Hubert's building. How high is that and how will this compare with St. Hubert's? Generous: I think they're 40. It depends which level you look at. It was 2 stories. Blackowiak: I'm just wondering if you, let's say you stood from the north and looked and St. Hubert's would be down to your left and then these buildings would be to your right. I'm just kind of curious how they would compare. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 Vernelle Clayton: ...tonight for that same reason. I drove over there specifically to try to figure that out. It's so far down... It's really hard to know. Aanenson: We could pull the plans and find that out. Blackowiak: Yeah, that'd just be interesting to find out how it's going to, you know how it's going to kind of set up in the entire. Aanenson: To see what St. Hubert's did, look at this. They were concerned about that... Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, they were requested to accommodate it. Aanenson: To make sure that they're not blocked completely. Blackowiak: Okay, so they're comfortable? Aanenson: Right. Mark Eckloh: In reference to 2 again, if you look at the model. What we've done, and this is the end that's closest to St. Hubert's and also the end that's across from Bookoo Bikes. What we've tried to do is we've actually lowered the end of the building there so it's not 4 stories on the end of the building. This is actually 3 stories, and we've got the same scenario on the Bookoo end of the building. That we're dropping the building down so that visually it gives the effect of being closer and not so imposing in terms of the buildings that are in proximity to it. So that we have tried to accommodate that by lowering the end of the building and giving a feel of being a floor down. I don't know where we are in relation to the actual pitch of the church roof. I think we're fairly close but I know we're substantially under the steeple to the point of the roof. We aren't even close to that. Blackowiak: Okay. Alan Black: Kate had mentioned also at one time in the project's planning we actually had this portion of the assisted living building as a 4 story structure and one of the comments we got back from the church was they were concerned about the elevation of that and so at the request, we cut that down to a 3 story structure so I think they're comfortable with that part of the elevation of that. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Well this item is open for a public hearing. So if anyone would like to come and comment on this, please do so. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, time for comments. Deb, would you like to start us out? Kind: Sure. I like the building. I think it's really attractive. I agree with staff though. I'd like to see it a little bolder, more closely to this rendering. This is always a danger with me to show me a rendering, and I like them the way they are so, I don't know. I'd like to see you get closer to that and I think EFIS would be an acceptable material because it is really an accent area. It's not a foot traffic area where that seems to be a problem material. A couple other points that were brought up. Let me double check here. I agree with the staff's recommendations for conditions. I'm not quite sure what to do with some of the requests of the applicant. The vines on the brick, I'm fine with the landscaping being used to screen so maybe change that language to landscaping plants shall be planted. That's kind of redundant. How about landscaping shall 71 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 be planted in the areas where the garage elevation of the building is, I think we can give them some flexibility. Blackowiak: Work with staff. Kind: Work with staff. The standard work with staff. The fire hydrant thing I think we could say additional fire hydrants may be required, and the applicant shall work with the Fire Marshal to determine where they're located. I'd be fine with softening that a little bit. The 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer, direct staff to check on that. I guess leave that condition there. Leave it the way it is and just get answers to that before it goes to council. And then number 35, that's the condition about window types and half bay windows. I don't really know how we can make that more clear tonight. I think we should do our standard work with staff condition there, because I do like the idea of getting, especially on the Phase I building of incorporating a little bit more interest in the windows on that building especially I think would be nice. I love the Building II, the European flavor there. It's very nice. And then I'd like to add a condition about screening utility boxes, air conditioning, any of that kind of stuff on ground level definitely needs to be screened. Nice project. Blackowiak: Alright. Uli. Sacchet: Ditto. Blackowiak: No way. Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Really an outstanding project by an outstanding company. This is, you know I think what the intent was for Villages on the Pond, we're seeing a good example of that and as a former commissioner would say, good four walls and it really flows throughout the whole buildings. So I really commend everyone for working on this. I agree with Deb's comments about, you know maybe a little bit more boldness in the colors may help give the European vernacular feeling to the buildings is what I wrote down. But really great. I made my comments and so I'll pass it along to Rich. Slagle: I think it's great. I mean I understand the comments of my fellow commissioners. I'm not as sold on the diversity of the difference of coloring. I think it looks great. Blackowiak: And I agree. I certainly like the project. I think I'm glad we stayed to see it this evening. It's late but it certainly was worth the wait tonight. I like it a lot. Recommendations. The conditions that were of concern to you, I mean basically work with staff. I know that they can be worked out and I have no worries about that. We have two number 52's and a number 53 we have to renumber at the end. A little housekeeping thing. Kind: Oh yeah, there's a couple typos too. Blackowiak: Yeah, but it's late and we're not going to worry about that so. All and all what's important is I think it's a great project. I think everybody agrees here so with that I'd like to have a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-13, plans prepared by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects dated September 14, 2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 54 with the following fixes in 4, sub- number 6. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping or vine type plants to be planted in areas and so forth. Number 7. Additional fire hydrants may be required. Number 25. Work with staff to 72 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 determine the required setback. Wetland setback for structures. Number 33 should say furniture, enough furniture. Number 35. Applicant shall work with staff to incorporate additional windows and so forth. Number 44, I'm going to leave. And then you recall that Deb, well you can do your own 55. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second and I have a couple friendly amendments. Uli, I'm shocked. Number 28. You need to add a sentence that says silt fences shall be removed upon project completion. Sacchet: Oh thanks so much. Kind: You're welcome. Number 34, I would like to add a sentence that says, since the siding areas are for accent only, EFIS or stucco would be an acceptable alternative in order to achieve bolder colors. Do you want to accept them one by one? Sacchet: Yep, no, no, no. I accept them all. Kind: Okay. And then number 50 needs your silt fence sentence as well. Silt fence shall be removed from project upon completion. And then the re-numbering that Alison talked about. And then number 55, I'd like to add a condition. Or wait, what are we up to? Yeah, 55. Ground air conditioning units, utility boxes, and meters shall be screened with landscaping and/or with the same building materials used on the main structures. Sacchet: Yes. Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay, a motion and second. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-13, plans prepared by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, dated September 14, 2001, 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. Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outlot F, Villages on the Ponds, to a block and lot designation. Pedestrian connections shall be provided from the interior parking lot to both Lake Drive and Main Street. 4. The applicant shall make the following corrections to the landscape plan: Add 9 grey dogwood. Plant 13 Redtwig dogwood instead of 6. Substitute 2 Green Mountain sugar maples for 2 Emerald Queen Norway maple. Plant 7 Black Hill spruce instead of 6. All changes pertain to the landscaping proposed along Highway 101. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Applicant shall work with staff to consider landscaping or vine type plants to be planted in areas where the garage elevation of the building is exposed, including the southern end of Building I and the southern end of Building II, on the west end of Building II, and adjacent to the retaining wall. Shredded bark mulch shall be placed under the line of Japanese tree lilacs proposed along the terrace facing Lake Drive. A strip of sod shall be laid along the sidewalk. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Additional fire hydrants may be required on the inner parking portion of the project. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire hydrants. A 10-foot clearance space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Fire lanes and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire land signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1, 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) is required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to 1999 NFPA 13 Section 5-14.1.1.8. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. Comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy concerning maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. Submit design specifications regarding vehicle access over the underground link connecting the two buildings. This tunnel design should support the imposed loads of Chanhassen's largest fire apparatus. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. The inner courtyard area should be designed for fire apparatus access drive-through. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The proposed ;building areas are over the allowable area permitted for Type V One-Hour construction, area separation walls will be required to bring the building areas in compliance with the code. Building # 1 is not permitted to be four stories high if constructed of Type V One-Hour construction. The proposed 13R fire sprinkler system cannot be used for area and/or number of story increases. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) must be installed on the domestic/fire suppression water service. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained or established around all wetland basins. Wetland buffer areas shall be 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 and shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the required wetland buffer setback for structures. The rate of discharge from the proposed development shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to ensure runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed development. Existing drainage and utility easements should be vacated and new drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Type III silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. Erosion control blankets should be installed on all areas with slopes 3:1 or greater. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. The monument sign located in the northwest comer of the site at the comer of Lake Drive and Market Boulevard must, at a minimum, identify the Villages on the Ponds development. The applicant/developer shall install site furniture throughout the project including benches, planter boxes, tables, chairs, etc. The applicant/developer shall work with staff to prepare a final color pallet with greater differentiation in siding colors. The number of vinyl siding colors is limited to four colors. Since the siding areas are for accent only, EFIS or stucco would be an acceptable alternative in order to achieve bolder colors. Applicant shall work with staff to incorporate additional window types such as bay, half-round, round, and Italianate as well as window accents such as plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, trellises, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Submit stormwater pond design calculations for the 10 and 100 year storm event. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos: 2202, 3102, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301, 5302, and 5313. The minimum drive aisle width is 26 feet. Revise the plans to comply. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regularity agency permits. Retaining walls must be designed by a registered engineer and require an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. The two proposed rock construction entrances are required to be a minimum of 75 feet in length. Public drainage and utility easements will be required over the public storm sewer line. The minimum easement width shall be 25 feet. Add a storm sewer schedule to the plans. On the utility plan revise CB 5, 6, 7, 8 and 14 to CBMH 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14. Plan and profile views are required for all of the public storm sewer. To guarantee the installation of the public improvements, the applicant must supply the City with a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. This easement shall cover the pond up to the 100 year high water elevation. The easement over the existing pond will have to be vacated as a condition of site plan approval. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2001 51. Type III, heavy duty silt fence shall be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). All silt fences shall be removed upon completion of the project. 52. Connection to the public utility lines will incur hook-up charges against the lot. The 2001 sanitary sewer hook-up charge is $1,322 per unit. The 2001 water hook-up charge is $1,723 per unit. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per unit. These charges will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. 53. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading. 54. Add a legend to the plans. 55. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls, access aisles and driveway widths. 56. Ground air conditioning units, utility boxes, and meters shall be screened with landscaping and/or with the same building materials used on the main structures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Goes to City Council on November 26th. Thank you so much again for waiting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: We do have a meeting on the 20th. We have a subdivision and a couple of code amendments so we will have a meeting. Blackowiak: Subdivision and what? Aanenson: Two code amendments. So we will have a meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 77